Timing is everything, and the teen who shot up Red Lake High School in Redby, Minnesota, has lousy timing.
On almost any other day, a kid who left ten dead and fourteen wounded would have been the story. FOX and CNN would be offering wall-to-wall coverage. The C-SPAN helicopter would be flying over the reservation. Columbine students from yesteryear would be on every network in the role of expert advisors, letting us know what the students of Red Lake and the citizens of Redby are experiencing.
Instead, he picked a day to lose it when Terri Watch was the only show anyone cared about. Yeah, he got the lead a few times on the newscasts, but it was Terri Schiavo the networks wanted to rush back to. After all, ten dead people is kind of tragic but one not-dead woman is heart wrenching.
Word of advice to North Korea: hold off a while if you have any plans to toss around one of your nukes in the near future. It'll be another one to three weeks before the United States can be bothered to attend to such frippery.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Monday, March 21, 2005
Attention All Geeks: Ignore This One
It no doubt is a small thing to all you teens out there who wasted countless date-free nights in the basement teaching yourself HTML and how to code viruses while looking like you're coming from Romania, but through brute force and too much trial and error I finally managed to get the postings for this blog to start at the of the page rather than after the end of the sidebar.
Considering I was born before 1982 that's not all that bad. I grew up when really technologically advanced people could get their VCR (remember those?) to do something other than play movies and blink midnight. I've always enjoyed a love/hate relationship with computers in general and software in particular. I love the opportunity to hate when systems refuse to behave themselves. That affords the chance to apply logic, skill, patience, and whenever called for brute force until the program submits and chooses to see the world my way.
It always gives in. Eventually. And best of all, no system or piece of software has ever run to human resources whining about what an unreasonable ogre I am.
One can only hope that AI, bound to be developed within my lifetime, isn't granted full civil rights. What would the children do if their PS7 demanded weekends and holidays off?
Considering I was born before 1982 that's not all that bad. I grew up when really technologically advanced people could get their VCR (remember those?) to do something other than play movies and blink midnight. I've always enjoyed a love/hate relationship with computers in general and software in particular. I love the opportunity to hate when systems refuse to behave themselves. That affords the chance to apply logic, skill, patience, and whenever called for brute force until the program submits and chooses to see the world my way.
It always gives in. Eventually. And best of all, no system or piece of software has ever run to human resources whining about what an unreasonable ogre I am.
One can only hope that AI, bound to be developed within my lifetime, isn't granted full civil rights. What would the children do if their PS7 demanded weekends and holidays off?
Sunday, March 20, 2005
More Constitutional Questions From the Schiavo Case
The deeper we wade into this matter, the messier it gets.
The language of "Terri's Bill" orders that a Federal judge must review the Terri Schiavo case from the ground up. Must? When exactly did the separation of powers come to mean that the legislative branch of government could order the judicial branch to undertake any specific action or do so in a specific manner?
At the very least, congress, this is constitutional strike two.
Then we have the matter of allegations raised that Michael Schiavo might have abused his wife and that this is the reason he wants to kill her and clean up the evidence. Accept purely for the sake of argument that this allegation is fact. If Terri's Bill prevails, and if as a result her life is preserved/cessation of non-death functions is prevented, and if as a then further result evidence is obtained that is used to convict Michael Schiavo of abuse or any other criminal act, does he get a free pass because the evidence against him was obtained through a premeditated series of unconstitutional actions?
Regardless of what the presumed good intentions are, one, or many, must always beware the law of unintended consequences.
The language of "Terri's Bill" orders that a Federal judge must review the Terri Schiavo case from the ground up. Must? When exactly did the separation of powers come to mean that the legislative branch of government could order the judicial branch to undertake any specific action or do so in a specific manner?
At the very least, congress, this is constitutional strike two.
Then we have the matter of allegations raised that Michael Schiavo might have abused his wife and that this is the reason he wants to kill her and clean up the evidence. Accept purely for the sake of argument that this allegation is fact. If Terri's Bill prevails, and if as a result her life is preserved/cessation of non-death functions is prevented, and if as a then further result evidence is obtained that is used to convict Michael Schiavo of abuse or any other criminal act, does he get a free pass because the evidence against him was obtained through a premeditated series of unconstitutional actions?
Regardless of what the presumed good intentions are, one, or many, must always beware the law of unintended consequences.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
The Constitution of the United States: Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
The Senate of the United States, and tomorrow the House of Representatives, are rushing headlong to pass a bill of attainder in the Terri Schiavo case.
Make no mistake. Just because the purpose of the bill is not overtly punitive, by the public statements of Senators involved this bill is being passed exclusively for Terri Schiavo and pertains to no other human being on the planet. It is, de facto, a bill of attainder.
What is Congress' game here? Do they hope to pass an unconstitutional piece of legislation, buy the time to get the feel-good result on Terri's behalf and then when it is later struck down under judicial review say "Aw, shucks. We didn't realize that."? Oh, and since the legislation was invalid to begin with they aren't saddled with any of those pesky precedents that would require endless weekend sessions passing bills on behalf of every little constituent in similar straits.
That's a little disingenuous even for political pros playing at the level these guys are.
I want Terri to die, and to do so with all possible haste and comfort. Not that either of those are likely in the immediate future for her. Please don't misunderstand. I wish her no personal ill will. Until this matter is resolved by her death, Terri Schiavo will continue to be nothing more than a human yo-yo trapped in an emotionally charged struggle. Perhaps when she is gone, more reasoned debate can craft a policy that reflects our collective desires and accounts for the rights of the minority to be preserved as well. Which is the purpose of constitutional governance in the first place.
A cynic might also pause for a moment to wonder how much of Congress' concern is based on outrage that a redneck judge in Jerkwater, Florida, told them where to get off with their subpoena ploy and then had the Supreme Court tell them to take a hike when they complained their feelings had been hurt.
News flash to Congress, and many others in this case: You don't always get the answer you want in life. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it wrong, and certainly doesn't justify changing the rules in hopes of getting what you want.
Make no mistake. Just because the purpose of the bill is not overtly punitive, by the public statements of Senators involved this bill is being passed exclusively for Terri Schiavo and pertains to no other human being on the planet. It is, de facto, a bill of attainder.
What is Congress' game here? Do they hope to pass an unconstitutional piece of legislation, buy the time to get the feel-good result on Terri's behalf and then when it is later struck down under judicial review say "Aw, shucks. We didn't realize that."? Oh, and since the legislation was invalid to begin with they aren't saddled with any of those pesky precedents that would require endless weekend sessions passing bills on behalf of every little constituent in similar straits.
That's a little disingenuous even for political pros playing at the level these guys are.
I want Terri to die, and to do so with all possible haste and comfort. Not that either of those are likely in the immediate future for her. Please don't misunderstand. I wish her no personal ill will. Until this matter is resolved by her death, Terri Schiavo will continue to be nothing more than a human yo-yo trapped in an emotionally charged struggle. Perhaps when she is gone, more reasoned debate can craft a policy that reflects our collective desires and accounts for the rights of the minority to be preserved as well. Which is the purpose of constitutional governance in the first place.
A cynic might also pause for a moment to wonder how much of Congress' concern is based on outrage that a redneck judge in Jerkwater, Florida, told them where to get off with their subpoena ploy and then had the Supreme Court tell them to take a hike when they complained their feelings had been hurt.
News flash to Congress, and many others in this case: You don't always get the answer you want in life. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it wrong, and certainly doesn't justify changing the rules in hopes of getting what you want.
The Best of Times, and the Worst of Times
Terri Schiavo is the focus of a debate that is leaving not only this nation but even individuals torn between themselves. My wife, and no doubt many others, have expressed vehement outrage and indignation at what the "other side" has been saying. The problem is, she has felt just as strongly supportive and dismissive of both other sides in this matter.
Therein lies the struggle that most of us are ultimately dealing with on the deepest levels.
Almost every one of us quake in horror at the thought of being kept alive with no brighter future than the prospect of being prevented from dying.
Unless she really isn't a rutabaga.
Or unless aggressive treatment would truly offer some realistic hope of a meaningful recovery.
How can you possibly countenance starving and dehydrating a thinking, feeling human being to death?
Unless she really is a rutabaga.
Unless she really is little more than warmer than room temperature flesh too stupid to die.
The biggest problem here is that both sides of the debate are highly impassioned in their positions. Facts are copious, but offered by the presenter with such passion and slant that the average political campaign seems clear cut and uncontested by comparison. Information is available to all of us, but truth is only known to those intimately involved. And even for them, it is easy to believe that mutually exclusive truths exist.
Terri Schiavo is a witless pawn in a debate with ramifications for all of us that dwarf her puny individual life and death drama. Puny at least in the grand scheme of six billion other humans sharing her planet. Puny in the absence of 24x7 wall to wall media coverage and pontification.
Whether she is aware now, will soon be in a place where she can be aware, or if as some assert awareness after death is a bunch of pull the covers over your head feel good mumbo jumbo, perhaps she and we can all take some comfort that Terri's life, and more importantly the nature of her death, will have contributed to a better understanding for each of us what quality of life and the options and means of leaving life or clinging to it signify.
Perhaps too, it will encourage more of us to have the compassion for our loved ones to write a living will. To make our wishes clearly known in advance so that family, friends, and strangers with divergent agendas and world views needn't fight over our not quite lifeless bodies.
Anyone who doesn't care enough to take an explicit hand in charting the course of their own future lacks any legitimate standing to take part in determining how the existence of another adult human being should be continued or curtailed.
For a substantial portion of the population these truly are the best of times. And the worst of times. And perhaps that is the sort of contradiction that establishes the most productive of times for all of us.
Therein lies the struggle that most of us are ultimately dealing with on the deepest levels.
Almost every one of us quake in horror at the thought of being kept alive with no brighter future than the prospect of being prevented from dying.
Unless she really isn't a rutabaga.
Or unless aggressive treatment would truly offer some realistic hope of a meaningful recovery.
How can you possibly countenance starving and dehydrating a thinking, feeling human being to death?
Unless she really is a rutabaga.
Unless she really is little more than warmer than room temperature flesh too stupid to die.
The biggest problem here is that both sides of the debate are highly impassioned in their positions. Facts are copious, but offered by the presenter with such passion and slant that the average political campaign seems clear cut and uncontested by comparison. Information is available to all of us, but truth is only known to those intimately involved. And even for them, it is easy to believe that mutually exclusive truths exist.
Terri Schiavo is a witless pawn in a debate with ramifications for all of us that dwarf her puny individual life and death drama. Puny at least in the grand scheme of six billion other humans sharing her planet. Puny in the absence of 24x7 wall to wall media coverage and pontification.
Whether she is aware now, will soon be in a place where she can be aware, or if as some assert awareness after death is a bunch of pull the covers over your head feel good mumbo jumbo, perhaps she and we can all take some comfort that Terri's life, and more importantly the nature of her death, will have contributed to a better understanding for each of us what quality of life and the options and means of leaving life or clinging to it signify.
Perhaps too, it will encourage more of us to have the compassion for our loved ones to write a living will. To make our wishes clearly known in advance so that family, friends, and strangers with divergent agendas and world views needn't fight over our not quite lifeless bodies.
Anyone who doesn't care enough to take an explicit hand in charting the course of their own future lacks any legitimate standing to take part in determining how the existence of another adult human being should be continued or curtailed.
For a substantial portion of the population these truly are the best of times. And the worst of times. And perhaps that is the sort of contradiction that establishes the most productive of times for all of us.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Harry Reid - and Most Democrats - A Risky Legislator Scheme?
Limiting myself to Capitol Hill for the time being, I will grant that most if not all Democrats in Congress are sincere individuals who believe theirs is the better vision for America's future. I reserve the right to dispute their misguided notions, just as I dispute the notions held by the current majority that I find to be out of step with reality or common sense.
I would like to suggest however that employing the tactical equivalent of shouting across the playground "Yur stoopid!" is not the most mature or effective way of presenting your argument in a positive manner. The way to win the hearts and minds - and votes - of the electorate is to present ideas, not brickbats, and back them up with cogent arguments supporting the cause.
In 1994, a group of radical idealists came up with a strange notion: set forth a platform to run on, spell out exactly what actions would be taken within the guidelines of that platform, and then sign that agenda as a means of demanding accountability for actions in office. The result was the Contract With America. The Contract With America was not a laundry list of all the ills and evils perpetrated by the opposition, instead it was a list of all the proprieties they sought to implement. What was novel was that it was a document of ideas and not just attack.
While implementation of the ideals expressed in that document was less than might have been hoped for, many of the goals set forth were achieved. And, much to their chagrin in some cases, several elected representatives found themselves out of a job several years later as a direct result of the Contract With America.
Almost before the ink was dry on the Contract, Democrats were ridiculing this as the Contract On America, since it threatened to destroy the power base they had enjoyed for decades.
"Yur stoopid!"
As Democratic control of Congress and governmental institutions has waned, a new battle cry has emerged: "It's nothing but a risky (fill-in-the-blank) scheme!" Don't bother to argue facts or dispute details, offering reasoned counter proposals. Just hope the electorate notices the volume and hype and overlooks the lack of substance.
"Yur stoopid!"
I happen to support the values of the conservative agenda far more than those of the liberal. There is the risk however of moving too far to the right, and the Republican party is showing signs of catering too closely to it's own equivalent of MoveOn.org. The Democrats have seemed bent on destroying themselves as a viable political entity over the past decade, if not longer. For the good of the Republican Party a vibrant loyal opposition is necessary. That opposition must express itself through ideas, visions, and reasoned supporting arguments.
"Yur stoopid!" is just the frustrated cry of embittered children with nothing to offer.
I would like to suggest however that employing the tactical equivalent of shouting across the playground "Yur stoopid!" is not the most mature or effective way of presenting your argument in a positive manner. The way to win the hearts and minds - and votes - of the electorate is to present ideas, not brickbats, and back them up with cogent arguments supporting the cause.
In 1994, a group of radical idealists came up with a strange notion: set forth a platform to run on, spell out exactly what actions would be taken within the guidelines of that platform, and then sign that agenda as a means of demanding accountability for actions in office. The result was the Contract With America. The Contract With America was not a laundry list of all the ills and evils perpetrated by the opposition, instead it was a list of all the proprieties they sought to implement. What was novel was that it was a document of ideas and not just attack.
While implementation of the ideals expressed in that document was less than might have been hoped for, many of the goals set forth were achieved. And, much to their chagrin in some cases, several elected representatives found themselves out of a job several years later as a direct result of the Contract With America.
Almost before the ink was dry on the Contract, Democrats were ridiculing this as the Contract On America, since it threatened to destroy the power base they had enjoyed for decades.
"Yur stoopid!"
As Democratic control of Congress and governmental institutions has waned, a new battle cry has emerged: "It's nothing but a risky (fill-in-the-blank) scheme!" Don't bother to argue facts or dispute details, offering reasoned counter proposals. Just hope the electorate notices the volume and hype and overlooks the lack of substance.
"Yur stoopid!"
I happen to support the values of the conservative agenda far more than those of the liberal. There is the risk however of moving too far to the right, and the Republican party is showing signs of catering too closely to it's own equivalent of MoveOn.org. The Democrats have seemed bent on destroying themselves as a viable political entity over the past decade, if not longer. For the good of the Republican Party a vibrant loyal opposition is necessary. That opposition must express itself through ideas, visions, and reasoned supporting arguments.
"Yur stoopid!" is just the frustrated cry of embittered children with nothing to offer.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Umm -- What About "We're Sorry"?
Judge Joan Lefkow in Chicago lost her husband and her mother in a brutal murder last week. Instantly, white supremacist Matt Hale was indicted by the press as the master mind behind the act. Despite the fact everyone agreed it was impossible for him to have communicated with agents outside the prison, the consensus in the news stories was that he was personally guilty and if only enough effort were put into the investigation it would be discovered how he managed the feat.
To suggest that I feel the views of Mr. Hale and and his followers are somewhat extreme is a bit of an understatement. However, disliking or disagreeing with someone does not automatically make them guilty even if their history makes them very viable suspects. Guilty until proven guiltier is not how the game is played.
As unpalatable as it may be, Matt Hale is owed an apology for the way he was treated in this instance. Why do I doubt that any of the major media outlets who were so quick to judge will let so much as an "Oops, we goofed!" slip out?
To suggest that I feel the views of Mr. Hale and and his followers are somewhat extreme is a bit of an understatement. However, disliking or disagreeing with someone does not automatically make them guilty even if their history makes them very viable suspects. Guilty until proven guiltier is not how the game is played.
As unpalatable as it may be, Matt Hale is owed an apology for the way he was treated in this instance. Why do I doubt that any of the major media outlets who were so quick to judge will let so much as an "Oops, we goofed!" slip out?
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Dear Wal-Mart
Following is an email exchange between Wal-Mart Customer Service and me. While I hardly think it's time to liquidate your equity position in Wal-mart and snatch up all available shares of "Robert's Retail-O-Rama", the company's brightest days, if not their greatest profits, may well be behind it.
Wal-Mart began life as a good neighbor and champion of the little guy. They were proud of their "Made In America" philosophy, stocking their shelves with goods made here at home whenever possible and only looking to offshore suppliers when absolutely necessary. Today it is a challenge to find a "Made In The USA" label on their shelves, and their only concern for the little guy is eliminating him as efficiently and ruthlessly as possible.
Forgetting one's roots is one of the first faltering steps in this country for a public entity to be taught lessons in humility.
Since the reply came to me, I feel comfortable disregarding the dire warnings of confidentiality at the bottom of the Wal-Mart email. And it is also amusing that despite the fact I took them up on their offer to correspond further regarding this matter, they have allowed nearly 72 hours to elapse without feeling a need to respond.
----Your [My] Original Comments Were----
I am greatly disappointed to discover that unlike most brick and mortar competitors, Wal-Mart does not offer the option to pick up merchandise ordered on line at a local retail location.
I find this to be particularly frustrating at the moment since I want to purchase a computer from you. On line, with shipping, the total comes to approximately $333, while in the store it can be had for $349. Waiting two weeks to save $16.00 on a product I want and am willing to pay for now does not seem terribly advantageous to me.
I am not sure what my final decision regarding this purchase is going to be. However, the impression I got from the customer service rep I spoke with on the phone was, "We're Wal-Mart, we can do as we darn well please, and we don't particularly care whether you like it or not". That impression of your corporate concern for having me as a customer causes me to consider taking my business elsewhere on general principle, even if that costs me a few dollars.
Once upon a time, General Motors was also an unstoppable behemoth. They also believed they did not need to be responsive to the interests of their customers.
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 17:18:14 -0600,
CUSTOMER REPLIES: WM Stores & Sam'sClubs <cstreply@wal-mart.com> wrote:
Thank you for your message. The merchandise and prices available on our web site do not reflect the merchandise and prices available in our stores. Our stores will not match prices with our online store (or other online stores) because we do not consider them to be in competition with our retail stores. Currently, we do not have access to store inventory lists or price lists at this web site. Please contact your local Wal-Mart store manager for more information and availability.
Thanks,
Customer Relations
For further correspondence regarding this issue, please reply to this email.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. **********************************************************************
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Confidential **********************************************************************
Jay Vreeland to CUSTOMER,
You're welcome for my message.
Clearly you managed to provide a canned response, unfiltered by anything so mundane as rational thought. I, and the overwhelming majority of retailers who utilize the internet to offer their goods to the public, consider their e-tailing efforts to be an adjunct to their brick and mortar operations and not some strange form of auto-cannibalistic "competition". At least you can claim consistency. The attitude that "We're Wal-Mart, we can do as we darn well please, and we don't particularly care whether you like it or not" suggested by your phone rep now appears not have been merely a personal opinion or poorly phrased rendering of corporate philosophy. She managed to nail your view of the sheep filling your cash registers rather accurately.
I can only express relief for "Mr. Sam" that he didn't have to live long enough to see the monstrosity his vision has become.
Jay Vreeland
Bunker Hill, West Virginia
Wal-Mart began life as a good neighbor and champion of the little guy. They were proud of their "Made In America" philosophy, stocking their shelves with goods made here at home whenever possible and only looking to offshore suppliers when absolutely necessary. Today it is a challenge to find a "Made In The USA" label on their shelves, and their only concern for the little guy is eliminating him as efficiently and ruthlessly as possible.
Forgetting one's roots is one of the first faltering steps in this country for a public entity to be taught lessons in humility.
Since the reply came to me, I feel comfortable disregarding the dire warnings of confidentiality at the bottom of the Wal-Mart email. And it is also amusing that despite the fact I took them up on their offer to correspond further regarding this matter, they have allowed nearly 72 hours to elapse without feeling a need to respond.
----Your [My] Original Comments Were----
I am greatly disappointed to discover that unlike most brick and mortar competitors, Wal-Mart does not offer the option to pick up merchandise ordered on line at a local retail location.
I find this to be particularly frustrating at the moment since I want to purchase a computer from you. On line, with shipping, the total comes to approximately $333, while in the store it can be had for $349. Waiting two weeks to save $16.00 on a product I want and am willing to pay for now does not seem terribly advantageous to me.
I am not sure what my final decision regarding this purchase is going to be. However, the impression I got from the customer service rep I spoke with on the phone was, "We're Wal-Mart, we can do as we darn well please, and we don't particularly care whether you like it or not". That impression of your corporate concern for having me as a customer causes me to consider taking my business elsewhere on general principle, even if that costs me a few dollars.
Once upon a time, General Motors was also an unstoppable behemoth. They also believed they did not need to be responsive to the interests of their customers.
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 17:18:14 -0600,
CUSTOMER REPLIES: WM Stores & Sam'sClubs <cstreply@wal-mart.com> wrote:
Thank you for your message. The merchandise and prices available on our web site do not reflect the merchandise and prices available in our stores. Our stores will not match prices with our online store (or other online stores) because we do not consider them to be in competition with our retail stores. Currently, we do not have access to store inventory lists or price lists at this web site. Please contact your local Wal-Mart store manager for more information and availability.
Thanks,
Customer Relations
For further correspondence regarding this issue, please reply to this email.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. **********************************************************************
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Confidential **********************************************************************
Jay Vreeland to CUSTOMER,
You're welcome for my message.
Clearly you managed to provide a canned response, unfiltered by anything so mundane as rational thought. I, and the overwhelming majority of retailers who utilize the internet to offer their goods to the public, consider their e-tailing efforts to be an adjunct to their brick and mortar operations and not some strange form of auto-cannibalistic "competition". At least you can claim consistency. The attitude that "We're Wal-Mart, we can do as we darn well please, and we don't particularly care whether you like it or not" suggested by your phone rep now appears not have been merely a personal opinion or poorly phrased rendering of corporate philosophy. She managed to nail your view of the sheep filling your cash registers rather accurately.
I can only express relief for "Mr. Sam" that he didn't have to live long enough to see the monstrosity his vision has become.
Jay Vreeland
Bunker Hill, West Virginia
Monday, March 07, 2005
Advice to the Airlines - Worth Every Penny They Pay For It
United, this is directed at you specifically but the rest of you out there should take note as well.
Friday evening I was flying home from Norfolk, Virginia, to Dulles, Virginia. After deplaning the five stand-bys who had improperly been permitted to board and then seating the justifiably unhappy family of six, the flight attendant got on the PA system to begin her how to buckle your seat belt, press the call button, and save your own neck before worrying about whether the child next to you might also enjoy the flow of oxygen spiel.
As a matter of courtesy I usually pay at least partial attention and try to establish eye contact at least once, even though as a frequent flyer I can almost give the presentation myself at this point. Not paying full attention to either her or the book in my lap, my wandering thoughts were suddenly drawn in by the attendant's reference to our flight crew as being "Captain Don" and "First Officer Trevor". The sensation was so Romper Room-esque that I was almost surprised when she didn't identify herself as "Miss Sidney" or offer me milk and cookies before my nap.
The major airlines are in a world of hurt these days. None of them manage to clean the tray tables to a degree that would satisfy even the less than fastidious Oscar Madison, US Airways can't even manage to provide ticket jackets at a growing number of their check-in counters, and yet they all wish us to believe that they are competent to properly maintain and operate an aircraft. Talking to their passengers as though we are little better than a bunch of three-year-olds is not a great way to boosting confidence levels that for many are teetering on the knife edge towards doubting these guys really know - or care - about the business they are running.
SO: Act like adults. Treat your passengers like adults. Maintain the cosmetic appearance of your fleets in such a manner that my mind is not encouraged to wander into wondering if the mechanical aspects or your aircraft are equally ill cared for.
Friday evening I was flying home from Norfolk, Virginia, to Dulles, Virginia. After deplaning the five stand-bys who had improperly been permitted to board and then seating the justifiably unhappy family of six, the flight attendant got on the PA system to begin her how to buckle your seat belt, press the call button, and save your own neck before worrying about whether the child next to you might also enjoy the flow of oxygen spiel.
As a matter of courtesy I usually pay at least partial attention and try to establish eye contact at least once, even though as a frequent flyer I can almost give the presentation myself at this point. Not paying full attention to either her or the book in my lap, my wandering thoughts were suddenly drawn in by the attendant's reference to our flight crew as being "Captain Don" and "First Officer Trevor". The sensation was so Romper Room-esque that I was almost surprised when she didn't identify herself as "Miss Sidney" or offer me milk and cookies before my nap.
The major airlines are in a world of hurt these days. None of them manage to clean the tray tables to a degree that would satisfy even the less than fastidious Oscar Madison, US Airways can't even manage to provide ticket jackets at a growing number of their check-in counters, and yet they all wish us to believe that they are competent to properly maintain and operate an aircraft. Talking to their passengers as though we are little better than a bunch of three-year-olds is not a great way to boosting confidence levels that for many are teetering on the knife edge towards doubting these guys really know - or care - about the business they are running.
SO: Act like adults. Treat your passengers like adults. Maintain the cosmetic appearance of your fleets in such a manner that my mind is not encouraged to wander into wondering if the mechanical aspects or your aircraft are equally ill cared for.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Martha, Martha, Martha
When did we forsake greatness and instead embrace shallowness and self indulgence as a national ideal?
I cannot help but notice that yesterday, when Steve Fossett became the first human to fly the globe on a single tank of gas, the headline services had his feat ranked fourth or fifth. Events in Iraq and other more serious - or politically inflammatory? - news were given top billing. We should all feel a bit of national pride that it was an American who pulled off this feat, but the story was reported with a healthy perspective on its general relevance to the grand scheme of things.
So why is that this morning a fat (she did lose twenty pounds!), old(er), near-billionaire cow getting out of prison and heading home for five more months of palatial estate arrest leads every broadcast news show and tops such stories in the print media as the possibility of Syria pulling out of Lebanon, al Qaeda threats, and better than expected job growth?
Somehow, the standard press response that they report the news that is most important to the herd they serve, and only present it in the order of greatest relevance to the general consumer's daily life comes off sounding just a trifle lame.
At least, that is one author's rarely humble opinion.
I cannot help but notice that yesterday, when Steve Fossett became the first human to fly the globe on a single tank of gas, the headline services had his feat ranked fourth or fifth. Events in Iraq and other more serious - or politically inflammatory? - news were given top billing. We should all feel a bit of national pride that it was an American who pulled off this feat, but the story was reported with a healthy perspective on its general relevance to the grand scheme of things.
So why is that this morning a fat (she did lose twenty pounds!), old(er), near-billionaire cow getting out of prison and heading home for five more months of palatial estate arrest leads every broadcast news show and tops such stories in the print media as the possibility of Syria pulling out of Lebanon, al Qaeda threats, and better than expected job growth?
Somehow, the standard press response that they report the news that is most important to the herd they serve, and only present it in the order of greatest relevance to the general consumer's daily life comes off sounding just a trifle lame.
At least, that is one author's rarely humble opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)