Keep them waiting

Of late I have been accompanying an older aunt to many doctor’s visits. At each of these offices we wait rather incredibly long times. I have been to one office with her three times and the earliest she has seen her doctor is ninety minutes late, once two and a half hours late and never an apology. Sitting in the waiting room, it is obvious that the vast majority of the patients are elderly. Surely, it cannot be a coincidence that it is an elderly client that is being kept waiting. Is it assumed that they have nothing else better to do than read out of date magazines? I see a variety of doctors and have never been kept waiting that long. Doctors are often late, but rarely by more that fifteen minutes or so and never without an apology. Is it because the medical staffs know that the elderly loathe to change doctors? Is it because Medicare pays too little? I assume that they do not mean to be insulting, but they are.

Reality Show Opportunity

I sat the other night to watch an evening of television when I was assaulted by a chain of political attack ads. Thank god for the mute button on the remote. But it got me thinking that we have the Nobel awards for important contributions to society from the arts to science and those that are unclassifiable, i.e., economics. We have the ig-Nobels for the science of the curious and often comical. But what award do we have for the inventions, such as the mute button, that make everyday life bearable?

If billionaires are donating significant portions of their estates to fight to extend life, perhaps they should set aside some for a prize that makes that life tolerable, maybe the Gates-way or Icahrn’s icons. Or perhaps they can fund think tanks for the politicians who have no thoughts of their own and hire consultants who have but one idiot thought.

This may also be an opportunity for yet another reality show. Submit inventions for viewer’s judgment. The winner gets cash and a free few hours with a patent attorney. Just a thought.

Illuminating limn

I found out of recently that there is some minor controversy over the word limn. It seems that the Baltimore Sun used the word in a headline and someone wrote to the paper complaining about the use of the word. That person, describing herself as the holder of a Phi Beta Kappa from University of Maryland, as well as graduating magna cum laude, thought if she didn't immediately understand the word, most people could not. I have interest for obvious reason and find this reaction strange on at least two levels.

Firstly, it must be nice to have an ego that allows you to perceive yourself as the standard against which all else is measured. As irritating as it is, you have to have some admiration for her self-perception. I have used the word limn somewhat often throughout my adult life (unfortunately many decades) without ever being challenged. But give the person her due. Apparently the Living World Vocabulary study (1981) estimated that less than a third of college graduates understood the word. However, there is no indication of the makeup on the survey sample. They could all have been Phi Beta Kappa's or University of Maryland graduates.

Secondly, why is it that someone, rightly proud of such academic credits, complains about an apparently obscure word? Where is this person's intellectual curiosity? I would think that they would be grateful for the opportunity to learn something new and perhaps incorporate into her every day vocabulary. Was her purpose in life the achievement the Phi Beta Kappa and/or a magna cum laude degree and there is naught left other than the role of (un)common scold?

Does charity begin at home?

Last week, Tom Brady,quarterback of the New England Patriots, was involved in an auto accident. Brady himself was unhurt. However, his car looked to be totaled. The accident was way overplayed by the press. But in all of the verbiage, there seemed to be little to no comment on the fact that the car, worth in excess of $90,000, was loaned to Brady either by a charity or be auto manufacturer that sponsors the charity.

Now certainly Tom Brady and his wife, who together make multiple millions of dollars a year, can afford to buy their own car. I think the world of Tom Brady as a quarterback, but does he need this too? Would it not have been better for the auto manufacturer to donate the car to the charity rather than to Tom Brady? Is this common practice? How many cars as Audi loaned it to how many people? Do they get a tax deduction for this? Is it larger than the tax deduction to the charity? Through all the other silly hoopla surrounding the accident, why have none of the media questioned this aspect? Is it or should it be acceptable? Isn't this charity for the wealthy?

Head for the middle! Where is it?

I went to a big box hardware store the other day. I needed something in the back corner. As I traveled through the store, I was greeted personally by no less than seven employees, one of which interrupted his sales pitch to a pair of customers. Had I been one of the customers, I would have thought it rude. Being greeted once is pleasant. I enjoy going into Wal-Mart and being welcomed by the greeter and asked if I need help. No one else in the store deems it necessary to run up to me to say hello. Yet Wal-Mart is successful.

When does a corporate desire to be friendly with customers turn from pleasant into assault or stalking? Is it three times or more? It reminded me in reverse of airline flight crews wishing everyone, “Bye. Bye-bye. Bye,” with a bored, endlessly mechanical tone of voice, but with a smile. Doesn’t it just make you want to buy another ticket?

It would be nice if service industries could strike a happy medium. In high school math we learned about distributions and how most events cluster in the middle. Is this still true? Of late politicians seem more and more polarized occupying the extremes. I hope (for many reasons) that they do not represent us by reflecting polarization. Company executives apparently came to the conclusion that instead of one or two employees, perhaps those with whom you interact, everyone should rush up to greet you. If one is good, seven must be better. Can we, please, get back to the middle. If we are closer together we would not have to shout.

The importance of local business

In my home state for the last few years pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to buy dinners or give other gifts to doctors. Currently there is a move afoot to repeal this law. Why? Local restaurants have lost business as a result. Amazing isn't it, lack of business trumps bribery.

Taken to the extreme you have to wonder if the Commonwealth should repeal murder laws because it will crimp sales at the local gun shop. Is this too absurd? May be not. There is also legislation pending to limit gun purchase to one a month. Gun owners will just have to suffer with a mere dozen a year. Will such legislation end gun violence? Not hardly, but it is a tool that will help certainly.

So, how's the legislation doing? It's held up. Why? Sales at local gun shops will be hurt, if it is passed. Lets keep priorities clear, gun shop owners and gun lobbies contribute to campaigns; dead people don't.

Isolated Social Networks

Today a large group of people try to stay connected by subscribing to social network sites. They do this while they are alone. I am not a psychologist, but that does not seem to be connected. The more socializing that is done, the more isolated people become. I am an introvert who values his privacy, so I do not have a face book page. I have never visited face book nor have any desire to. I am fairly close to being asocial. Yet, even I worry that there is a generation that lives in an imploding egocentric universe, however unintended. I wonder if it is any coincident that Apple, the ultimate electronic marketing machine, starts all its product names with “i”? Do they recognize the shape of the future as being both egocentric and a small universe?

Re Apple as a marketing machine, I noticed on the news today all the folks who lined up today in order to get one of the limited supply of iPhone 4s. At least locally, unlike those who line up for tickets to sports events or concerts, this group were all ignoring one another.

Most will only be able to order one. Apple did not have enough available. Didn’t the same thing happen with the iPad? Is Apple just poor at planning? Or is there some rationale behind this?

The worms that follow Apple I am sure do not care. I swear if Jobs put a battery pack behind a pile of dung; an Apple logo on the front and dubbed it iPoop, there would be a line of folks queued up the night before to buy that as well. Would there be enough to go around?

Addendum: There is an old joke, likely last told by Henny Youngman, about a man, Harry, who picks his new suit up at the tailors. The fit is awful, but the tailor tells him to hold this sleeve, hunch his shoulder just so and stand slightly tilting to the left. After leaving the tailor with his new suit, Harry meets some friends and stops to chat. After Harry leaves, one friend turns to the other and says, "God, Harry looks awful, nice suit though." Today Apple announced in order to get proper reception with the new iPhone4 it is necessary to hold it just so. Nice suit though.

Why blog?

I read an article yesterday in the Boston Sunday Globe, Idea section, by James Parker, in praise of not blogging. I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about it. Certainly I am like the vast majority of citizens in that I read about problems, get irked and then let inertia take over and do nothing. I am not sure what I would do. My Congressional representative and one senator seem to be on my side of the issues. The other senator has spent the majority of his limited time in office surrounding issues. If I call or write, he will be sympathetic and sort of be with me and against me.
But the real issue for me is, why do I blog? Certainly I do not write very often. Initially, I felt obligated to scribble something at least twice a week. As is obvious, it has steadily waned since then. Unless this is the guilt I ought to feel, it does not bother me that I do not often note down anything. I would be surprised if anyone is reading it and I do not particularly care if there is.
I do not do any of the social network stuff, like Face Book. I value my privacy too much. What would I care to share? Not much that I believe is anyone’s business. Not to mention, if I had thousands of friends on these sites, imagine the chore of Xmas cards.
So why do I care to share this? I have come to the conclusion that it is like a song that gets stuck in your head and you cannot stop it. If I blog about a thought that keeps recurring, writing even a trivial bit about it seems to stop it. So, like many things in life, it likely is for my own amusement. Now I can stop worrying about the when and why I am blogging and start worrying about why I am inflicting it on others.

Bless the independent contractor

The Vatican is currently claiming that its bishops are not employees. Does this mean that they are independent contractors; free to ordain female priests; free to endorse the pill; free to endorse the use of condoms to prevent the spread of aids? I rather doubt it.
It is silly to think of the bishops as independent contractors. They are appointed by the Vatican. I am sure they are carefully vetted as to their positions to be sure they are quite simpatico with the Vatican. Further, they are the group from which cardinals are selected; likely in no small part because of their now tested conformity to the Vatican policy line. The Vatican does not pay their salary, it is true. But if the bishop thought he was worth at least twice as much as any other bishop, true or not, could he adjust his pay? The Vatican certainly would not let it happen.
How does the Vatican divorce, oops, separate itself from its bishops? Are we to believe that there is a moral difference, if the bishop’s actions or non-actions are based on their employment status? What does it mean that the Vatican is seeking to shield itself from any effects from the pedophile priest problem, while publicly trying to give the image of acknowledging and atoning for its responsibility in the matter? Is this what they teach in the confessional, that responsibility is conditional?

I Got Questions

The mayor of New York City just visited London’s ring of steel, a system of thousands of cameras, which photograph London’s citizens and visitors, usually tens of times a day. The mayor is working up to installing such a system in New York. I understand the security that is intended. I just don’t understand the loss of privacy that will result. Privacy is a right that the citizens of the United States value highly.

I also have questions. Does such a system really prevent terrorists’ attacks? Are the terrorists, many of whom are prepared to go with their bomb, afraid of being seen on camera before demonstrating their imbecility? Certainly it is an aid after the fact, assuming the terrorists did not die as a result. Is the city able to organize its security resources in time to stop the attack? Who is watching the camera output? How many observers are required? Are they trained police officers who are now not available on the street to respond? Which is the better deterrent, a camera or the presence of the police? How are terrorists recognized? Is it a facial recognitions software program? How good are these programs? Is there racial profiling? How many false positives? Will innocent people be erroneously stopped? Will this change the way democracy is practiced in this country? Will we lose that which we seek to protect by protecting it?

Consequences

There was a time that Senator John McCain projected himself as the “maverick” of the Republican Party, an independent thinker ready to let go of expediency and the party line to address issues in a pragmatic way, such as immigration. Then the senator ran for President of the United States and it all changed. I was thinking about Senator McCain and the immigration bill that he co-sponsored and then he disavowed so he could stay far enough to the right to get the Republican Presidential nomination. Would the current troglodytic immigration law passed in his home state of Arizona have happened, had the immigration reform bill passed? I assume that the good people of Arizona wish to respect the fundamental principles of community that this country was founded on, but were pushed into some action, however reactionary, to address the problems that the state faced as a result of illegal immigration. Is this an unintended consequence of pandering to achieve what became an impossible dream? Would it have been less impossible, had he been able to maintain his principles? But why is he supporting the Arizona legislation now? If he is trying to get even further to the right to fight off the threat from his right, he‘s in danger of falling off the spectrum altogether and becoming a symbol of all that is wrong in what ought to be a noble profession.

Perhaps McCain needs to go back to being a “maverick;” take up the problem of immigration reform again and bring some sanity back to his home state, if not the country. Maybe it is his best chance at re-election.

To form a more perfect Union

I recently paid my taxes. It wasn’t much, but I’m always proud to. For me it is an act of community. Perhaps, other than voting, it is my only act of community. I do grumble a bit and wish they were a wee bit fairer, but I do not resent it. During the same week the Tea Party was in town. They are a mish mash of positions. They do not want to be thought of as racist or advocating violence, in spite of what is said by their more vocal members. The clearest positions are the sanctity of the Constitution and being tired of paying taxes that does not directly benefit them. I find that odd. You do not have to get too far into the Constitution, first paragraph of the preamble, before your read to “promote the general Welfare.” Notice it did not say the individual welfare. How do you believe two opposites at the same time and expect folks to take you seriously?

Taxes are covered fairly quickly too in Article I, section 3, “…direct Taxes shall be apportioned….” It is specified more fully in Amendment XVI. I wonder if these people have read the Constitution. Perhaps they just have diminished reading comprehension skills. Taxes for education may be to their benefit.

However, back to the racism, which they say we should sort of ignore, the same Article I, section 3 speaks of “three fifths of all other Persons.” Who might they be? Do they get to only pay three fifths of their taxes?