Tribalism. It's what happens when people turn their brains off. That's my opinion, anyway.
I find that I baffle people from time to time when I don't fit myself into a pigeonhole. Several months ago somebody turned up on the Volokh Conspiracy and left a comment that included the word "Oduma". I remarked that when I ran across that word I put everything else that person said on automatic scroll-by, and he subsequently referred to me as a liberal. Whereupon one of the regulars with whom I'd butted heads a few times said, "if Laura is a liberal, then, geez, I must be somewhere to the left of a hippie in a Che t-shirt playing hacky sack at a 'save the whales' rally."
But I can't find a pigeonhole I'm comfortable with. I'd be a libertarian, except that the way that plays out, it seems that the strong and powerful people are able to bully everybody else, and they reject thought-experiments in which government intervention is ever needed to keep other people from being run right over. Privilege is one thing, I guess, and total disregard for the fact that one is privileged in ways that others aren't is something else again. It's either a lack of respect for people not like them, or a lack of imagination -> lack of empathy, or both.
OTOH, I don't trust the government to do any more micro-managing than absolutely necessary. I think we need regulating bodies like OSHA and FDA and EPA. We don't need paternalistic meddling that leads to learned helplessness. One problem I see with the point of view I'll call left-wing, for lack of a better word, is that as long as one's motives are pure, the outcome must be good. It's a heart-over-head approach and it can lead to tragedy. See, for instance, this awful story; or closer to home, the war on poverty's no-man-in-the-home rule that probably contributed substantially to the breakdown of the family. There is most definitely something to be said for "first do no harm".
Anyway, one of the problems with tribalism is that it causes people to excuse things on their own side that they'd never tolerate in the other. And that interferes with those people being held accountable. It also causes people to be overly optimistic about politicians on their side. I read about people expressing frustration about President Obama not ending DADT, and I understand their distress. But there are those who are disappointed that he hasn't done anything about same-sex marriage, totally ignoring the fact that he specifically said he favored a one-man-one-woman definition of marriage; or stating that they assumed, when he said that, he was only placating the troglodytes. It's the same kind of confirmation bias that has led the climate "scientists" into the sloppy habits and wrong conclusions that are now coming to light.
Another problem with tribalism is that people are hypercritical of those they perceive as being on the other side. I think it's counterproductive to be so polarized that we reject allies on issue A b/c we differ with those same people on issues P and Q. It doesn't promote the kind of unity I think most of us would like to have - where we have diversity of thought and ideology (so that we don't go over a cliff on left or right) but we also have common goals and can work toward them together, generally wish each other well, and have an atmosphere of civility and respect.
I wrote here about different kinds of political moderation, and here about a deliberate attempt I made to set aside my bias when I read the text of one of President Obama's speeches. I think it's also important to be aware of the bias of people who report that public figure X said this or that. To look for transcripts of speeches instead of relying on second-hand reports, summaries, or characterizations, especially when the speaker is a person we are predisposed to disapprove of. I actually avoid reading some news sites that I think are biased the way I already think because I don't want to be confirmed in my own biases.
And bias shouldn't be another word for conviction. I've written before, a few times, about how I came to be pro-life. That is a conviction I came to after thinking about the issue of abortion, and that I've confirmed for myself by revisiting my thought processes a few times over the years and finding them still valid. There are pro-lifers among the Democrats, of course, and pro-choicers among the Republicans, and I assume that these are people who also thought through the issue and came to their own conclusion. But I fear that there are people who pick their opinions like the old-fashioned voting booths set up for illiterate people, where you could just select the donkey or the elephant at the top of the list of candidates, and go on. Brain turned off.
Showing posts with label shallow thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shallow thoughts. Show all posts
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Monday, March 02, 2009
So among other things, my blog is a spot for me to park my internal monologue. Here are further thoughts on the supervisor/supervisee relationship.
A smart boss takes into account the personalities of the people who report to her. Why? Everybody is different. People have different motivations and priorities. They also have their individual sets of ethical standards. Bosses get into trouble when they tell an employee to do X, and the employee does it, neglecting Y in the process: "I never told you to neglect Y!" Well, some employees will always take care of the more important consideration, whether explicitly told to or not, and some will do whatever it takes to get the noise to stop. And since you can't design the perfect employee from the ground up, and then use the mold to make an army of clones, you have to work with what you get, and you have to know what you're working with and think about what kind of noise you're making.
So you have a lab employee who is compulsive about doing every single detail of a method exactly as written, but gets caught up in loops of minutiae and spends three hours on a twenty-minute task. And you have another who is very conscious of what has to be done by when, and takes little shortcuts to make sure she gets there. Both of these have weaknesses, but both have strengths. Managing adults is a lot like parenting - you get a lot further if you work from and expand on strengths rather than run head-on into weaknesses all the time.
One strategy is frequent, specific, and immediate feedback. This task can't take all day. You need to tighten up these duplicates - when you see a percent difference like this, you need to rerun. Look at your controls on this chart - they're the pink ones - see how much tighter they've gotten over the last month. Thanks for getting this stuff ready for my meeting; I appreciate you.
Another is to think about what's going on with the person and help her figure out what to do. When you start a task, estimate how long it should take. Look at the clock. Then look at it periodically while you're working, and challenge yourself to get through when you thought you would. Or: Let's pinpoint exactly where you're falling in a hole. Find that spot and then ssssslllooooowwww down.
Another is to teach beyond the task. This is really useful in the laboratory. I draw molecular structures and explain reactions so that the techs can see that, for example, heating the material with sodium hydroxide forms soaps, which are sodium salts of fatty acids. We're titrating the unused sodium hydroxide to calculate the amount of fatty acid we started with. So the volume of sodium hydroxide solution you use is a critical volume and you must use a volumetric pipet. And then as you get close - you see the pH changing. It's getting close to the inflection point, and it's not just the electrode not keeping up, the reaction is happening now. So this is where you stop and let it happen; don't try to rush it or you'll run past your endpoint.
These are all easy when the boss knows exactly what the employees are supposed to do. It's harder when the boss doesn't know. I've had bosses who clearly made a conscious effort to keep their priorities front and center: safety, of course, and then accurate, defensible results. If you're going to push people you have to know that they're not going to yield on the things that you tacitly expect them not to yield on, and those bosses aren't tacit about it. I wrote a little more about that here.
A smart boss takes into account the personalities of the people who report to her. Why? Everybody is different. People have different motivations and priorities. They also have their individual sets of ethical standards. Bosses get into trouble when they tell an employee to do X, and the employee does it, neglecting Y in the process: "I never told you to neglect Y!" Well, some employees will always take care of the more important consideration, whether explicitly told to or not, and some will do whatever it takes to get the noise to stop. And since you can't design the perfect employee from the ground up, and then use the mold to make an army of clones, you have to work with what you get, and you have to know what you're working with and think about what kind of noise you're making.
So you have a lab employee who is compulsive about doing every single detail of a method exactly as written, but gets caught up in loops of minutiae and spends three hours on a twenty-minute task. And you have another who is very conscious of what has to be done by when, and takes little shortcuts to make sure she gets there. Both of these have weaknesses, but both have strengths. Managing adults is a lot like parenting - you get a lot further if you work from and expand on strengths rather than run head-on into weaknesses all the time.
One strategy is frequent, specific, and immediate feedback. This task can't take all day. You need to tighten up these duplicates - when you see a percent difference like this, you need to rerun. Look at your controls on this chart - they're the pink ones - see how much tighter they've gotten over the last month. Thanks for getting this stuff ready for my meeting; I appreciate you.
Another is to think about what's going on with the person and help her figure out what to do. When you start a task, estimate how long it should take. Look at the clock. Then look at it periodically while you're working, and challenge yourself to get through when you thought you would. Or: Let's pinpoint exactly where you're falling in a hole. Find that spot and then ssssslllooooowwww down.
Another is to teach beyond the task. This is really useful in the laboratory. I draw molecular structures and explain reactions so that the techs can see that, for example, heating the material with sodium hydroxide forms soaps, which are sodium salts of fatty acids. We're titrating the unused sodium hydroxide to calculate the amount of fatty acid we started with. So the volume of sodium hydroxide solution you use is a critical volume and you must use a volumetric pipet. And then as you get close - you see the pH changing. It's getting close to the inflection point, and it's not just the electrode not keeping up, the reaction is happening now. So this is where you stop and let it happen; don't try to rush it or you'll run past your endpoint.
These are all easy when the boss knows exactly what the employees are supposed to do. It's harder when the boss doesn't know. I've had bosses who clearly made a conscious effort to keep their priorities front and center: safety, of course, and then accurate, defensible results. If you're going to push people you have to know that they're not going to yield on the things that you tacitly expect them not to yield on, and those bosses aren't tacit about it. I wrote a little more about that here.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
The founders understood the primary political dynamic was never faction versus faction but rather the people versus the state. I think the left has completely lost that concept. They think that bad people in the police or military could hurt people but it never occurs to them that any other form of state power or the people who control it could be dangerous.
Comment on chicagoboyz.net
I remember discussions in civics class in high school (yes, I remember that long ago; I had an excellent teacher. Thank you, Mr. Horton.) in which we talked about right v. left, and compared socialism with fascism. You can draw a chart with
left<--------->middle<--------->right
and list the characteristics of the "left" and "right" schools of political thought. Welfare v. personal responsibility (or sink-or-swim, depending on your own views) and so forth. I see liberalism being called "left-wing" and conservatism "right-wing". Perhaps it's really "socialism" and "capitalism" on the left and right? But when you look at fascism under Hitler and Mussolini, and communism under Stalin, you should use a u-shaped chart.
anarchy<-----limited gov't---->totalitarianism
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __communism
|
|__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __fascism
Now "left-wing" and "right-wing" don't mean anything.
Under socialism, of course, the state was supposed to wither away, which makes socialism (in its pure form) and communism opposites, on this chart. Not that we've ever, ever seen that happen, of course, and given human nature, we never will.
Then conservatism, which in ITS pure form limits the power of government (which we learned in civics class was the underlying purpose of the writers of the Constitution) distances itself from both fascism and communism, and is a middle ground between these and socialism.
Actual free-market capitalism falls between conservatism and socialism on this chart, because any restrictions on the free market (truth-in-advertising laws, anti-trust laws), while not necessarily inconsistent with conservatism, are inconsistent with a free market.
Of course, the "Nazi" party, which we think of as the quintessential fascists, were the party of National Socialism. So maybe the chart should be a circle.
Comment on chicagoboyz.net
I remember discussions in civics class in high school (yes, I remember that long ago; I had an excellent teacher. Thank you, Mr. Horton.) in which we talked about right v. left, and compared socialism with fascism. You can draw a chart with
left<--------->middle<--------->right
and list the characteristics of the "left" and "right" schools of political thought. Welfare v. personal responsibility (or sink-or-swim, depending on your own views) and so forth. I see liberalism being called "left-wing" and conservatism "right-wing". Perhaps it's really "socialism" and "capitalism" on the left and right? But when you look at fascism under Hitler and Mussolini, and communism under Stalin, you should use a u-shaped chart.
anarchy<-----limited gov't---->totalitarianism
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __communism
|
|__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __fascism
Now "left-wing" and "right-wing" don't mean anything.
Under socialism, of course, the state was supposed to wither away, which makes socialism (in its pure form) and communism opposites, on this chart. Not that we've ever, ever seen that happen, of course, and given human nature, we never will.
Then conservatism, which in ITS pure form limits the power of government (which we learned in civics class was the underlying purpose of the writers of the Constitution) distances itself from both fascism and communism, and is a middle ground between these and socialism.
Actual free-market capitalism falls between conservatism and socialism on this chart, because any restrictions on the free market (truth-in-advertising laws, anti-trust laws), while not necessarily inconsistent with conservatism, are inconsistent with a free market.
Of course, the "Nazi" party, which we think of as the quintessential fascists, were the party of National Socialism. So maybe the chart should be a circle.
Monday, January 19, 2009
MLK Day 2009
I was thinking today about complaints that King "had" to be given his own holiday, or rather that "they" had to get "their" own holiday, and scrunch our precious founding fathers together into President's day, and somehow this little passage came to mind.
[T]he body does not consist of only one part, but of many. If the foot says, “Since I'm not a hand, I'm not part of the body,” that does not make it any less a part of the body, does it? And if the ear says, “Since I'm not an eye, I'm not part of the body,” that does not make it any less a part of the body, does it? If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has arranged the parts, every one of them, in the body according to his plan. Now if all of it were one part, there wouldn’t be a body, would there? So there are many parts, but one body.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don't need you,” or the head to the feet, “I don't need you.” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are in fact indispensable, and the parts of the body that we think are less honorable are treated with special honor, and we make our less attractive parts more attractive. However, our attractive parts don't need this. But God has put the body together and has given special honor to the parts that lack it, so that there might be no disharmony in the body, but that its parts should have the same concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it. If one part is praised, every part rejoices with it.
I Cor. 12 14-26
There isn't any "they". There can't be if we're to survive and flourish. There can only be "us" and we have to make sure that no one is excluded.
I was thinking today about complaints that King "had" to be given his own holiday, or rather that "they" had to get "their" own holiday, and scrunch our precious founding fathers together into President's day, and somehow this little passage came to mind.
[T]he body does not consist of only one part, but of many. If the foot says, “Since I'm not a hand, I'm not part of the body,” that does not make it any less a part of the body, does it? And if the ear says, “Since I'm not an eye, I'm not part of the body,” that does not make it any less a part of the body, does it? If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has arranged the parts, every one of them, in the body according to his plan. Now if all of it were one part, there wouldn’t be a body, would there? So there are many parts, but one body.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don't need you,” or the head to the feet, “I don't need you.” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are in fact indispensable, and the parts of the body that we think are less honorable are treated with special honor, and we make our less attractive parts more attractive. However, our attractive parts don't need this. But God has put the body together and has given special honor to the parts that lack it, so that there might be no disharmony in the body, but that its parts should have the same concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it. If one part is praised, every part rejoices with it.
I Cor. 12 14-26
There isn't any "they". There can't be if we're to survive and flourish. There can only be "us" and we have to make sure that no one is excluded.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Joanne Jacobs has a post about lawsuits, or the threat thereof, changing the way public schools do recess.
Lawyered to Death
She quotes George Will:
Someone hurt while running at recess might sue the school district for inadequate supervision of the runner, as Broward Country knows: It settled 189 playground lawsuits in five years. In Indiana, a boy did what boys do: He went down a slide head first — and broke his femur. The school district was sued for inadequate supervision. Because of fears of such liabilities, all over America playgrounds have been stripped of the equipment that made them fun.
Some interesting comments:
I thought the Constitution guaranteed every citizen due process rights and right of redress to the courts. Have we suspended or revoked the citizenship rights of children?
and
If Broward County settled 189 lawsuits in five years stemming from playground incidents, the problem is likely not with the parents or the lawyers, but with the way the school runs its playgrounds.
and
Anyone who claims that: “if you do everything the proper way, you will not be sued” is a fool. Lawyers can pick apart anything and can always find blame.
Many years ago I had a coworker who was badly injured on the job. She had made a 50% sulfuric acid solution in water, 1 Liter total. I had trained her on some things but not on that analysis. Had I trained her, I would have had her put an Erlenmeyer flask in a plastic bucket of ice water on a stir plate, pour her water in and add a stir bar, start it stirring, then slowly add her acid. By the time it was all added and mixed it would have been at room temp - I've done it that way many times. Instead, the person who trained her had her add the water to a volumetric flask and then add the acid, and set it down in the hood and allow it to cool before completely mixing it. That still would have been OK, because the hood had a toe board so that if the flask had broken it would have made a dreadful mess but not hurt her, except that ...
... she didn't set it down right away, she carried it away in her gloved hand. The flask quickly became too hot to hold, of course, so she went to put it on the benchtop, but she didn't raise it high enough. The flask hit the edge of the bench and shattered, and boiling-hot acid spilled over her hand and wrist, and all down her leg.
Another coworker and I heard her screaming and ran to her aid. The person in the lab with her had kind of freaked. The first thing you have to do is get the clothes off, and then get to a shower. The person with her wet her with a hose from the sink, which washed the acid through her clothes onto her skin, and through the top of her canvas shoes, burning her even more thoroughly. Her laces were soaked, and I struggled to get them untied even as she screamed. (I have ALWAYS worn loafers in the lab, ever since.) Safety shower, paramedics, and ultimately, skin grafts and physical therapy for her foot. I don't know what they did about the scarring on her leg, which we saw when she came to see us some time after. She could never bring herself to enter the lab again, and quit to become a teacher.
The insurance adjuster had come to see us, and the boss had me talk to him even though I wasn't her supervisor. Did she have safety training? Oh, yes, I showed her the shower and eyewash station, and even warned her a few times to be careful with the sulfuric - that stuff will eat you up. Did she act like she was paying attention? Yes, she's a smart girl and a quick study. The adjuster nodded; apparently she struck him as pretty sharp too. Then what happened?
It's kind of like when you start driving a car. You think you're being careful. Then you have your first fender-bender, and it is brought home to you what "being careful" really means. We've all had a run-in with acid and had some fairly uncomfortable burns (kind of like picking up a hot skillet from the stove, for instance) and we learned to be respectful of it that way. (I won't lie, acid scares me even though I use it almost every day.) It's unfortunate, I told the adjuster, that this person's first experience was so extreme, but it's just one of those things. That told him what he needed to hear.
Subsequently one of my coworkers told me that that lab person should have sued our boss. What for? I asked. She wasn't hurt because of the boss's negligence. She didn't mix the acid the way she was trained - if she had, she'd have been all right. Because of her burns, the coworker said. They were so bad.
Well the thing is, she would have put in a claim for her medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and the insurance company would have paid it. What was to sue for? Would suing make it not have happened?
There's a time and a place for lawsuits, don't get me wrong. But every time something bad happens, it isn't someone's fault, and the courts can't and shouldn't try to make it right. Lashing out at anyone available because you're hurt is foolish and immature. Suing the "deep pockets" when there are any, just because you can, is actually kind of immoral.
Lawyered to Death
She quotes George Will:
Someone hurt while running at recess might sue the school district for inadequate supervision of the runner, as Broward Country knows: It settled 189 playground lawsuits in five years. In Indiana, a boy did what boys do: He went down a slide head first — and broke his femur. The school district was sued for inadequate supervision. Because of fears of such liabilities, all over America playgrounds have been stripped of the equipment that made them fun.
Some interesting comments:
I thought the Constitution guaranteed every citizen due process rights and right of redress to the courts. Have we suspended or revoked the citizenship rights of children?
and
If Broward County settled 189 lawsuits in five years stemming from playground incidents, the problem is likely not with the parents or the lawyers, but with the way the school runs its playgrounds.
and
Anyone who claims that: “if you do everything the proper way, you will not be sued” is a fool. Lawyers can pick apart anything and can always find blame.
Many years ago I had a coworker who was badly injured on the job. She had made a 50% sulfuric acid solution in water, 1 Liter total. I had trained her on some things but not on that analysis. Had I trained her, I would have had her put an Erlenmeyer flask in a plastic bucket of ice water on a stir plate, pour her water in and add a stir bar, start it stirring, then slowly add her acid. By the time it was all added and mixed it would have been at room temp - I've done it that way many times. Instead, the person who trained her had her add the water to a volumetric flask and then add the acid, and set it down in the hood and allow it to cool before completely mixing it. That still would have been OK, because the hood had a toe board so that if the flask had broken it would have made a dreadful mess but not hurt her, except that ...
... she didn't set it down right away, she carried it away in her gloved hand. The flask quickly became too hot to hold, of course, so she went to put it on the benchtop, but she didn't raise it high enough. The flask hit the edge of the bench and shattered, and boiling-hot acid spilled over her hand and wrist, and all down her leg.
Another coworker and I heard her screaming and ran to her aid. The person in the lab with her had kind of freaked. The first thing you have to do is get the clothes off, and then get to a shower. The person with her wet her with a hose from the sink, which washed the acid through her clothes onto her skin, and through the top of her canvas shoes, burning her even more thoroughly. Her laces were soaked, and I struggled to get them untied even as she screamed. (I have ALWAYS worn loafers in the lab, ever since.) Safety shower, paramedics, and ultimately, skin grafts and physical therapy for her foot. I don't know what they did about the scarring on her leg, which we saw when she came to see us some time after. She could never bring herself to enter the lab again, and quit to become a teacher.
The insurance adjuster had come to see us, and the boss had me talk to him even though I wasn't her supervisor. Did she have safety training? Oh, yes, I showed her the shower and eyewash station, and even warned her a few times to be careful with the sulfuric - that stuff will eat you up. Did she act like she was paying attention? Yes, she's a smart girl and a quick study. The adjuster nodded; apparently she struck him as pretty sharp too. Then what happened?
It's kind of like when you start driving a car. You think you're being careful. Then you have your first fender-bender, and it is brought home to you what "being careful" really means. We've all had a run-in with acid and had some fairly uncomfortable burns (kind of like picking up a hot skillet from the stove, for instance) and we learned to be respectful of it that way. (I won't lie, acid scares me even though I use it almost every day.) It's unfortunate, I told the adjuster, that this person's first experience was so extreme, but it's just one of those things. That told him what he needed to hear.
Subsequently one of my coworkers told me that that lab person should have sued our boss. What for? I asked. She wasn't hurt because of the boss's negligence. She didn't mix the acid the way she was trained - if she had, she'd have been all right. Because of her burns, the coworker said. They were so bad.
Well the thing is, she would have put in a claim for her medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and the insurance company would have paid it. What was to sue for? Would suing make it not have happened?
There's a time and a place for lawsuits, don't get me wrong. But every time something bad happens, it isn't someone's fault, and the courts can't and shouldn't try to make it right. Lashing out at anyone available because you're hurt is foolish and immature. Suing the "deep pockets" when there are any, just because you can, is actually kind of immoral.
Monday, January 12, 2009
At some point a couple of years ago I listed some literature I remembered reading in high school. Apparently they are still torturing high schoolers with some of these things, because people stumble across my blog looking for information about these stories. The most frequently looked-for story is A.B. Guthrie's "Bargain". It's not available on the internet, probably because it's not in the public domain, but the book it was published in is out of print. Here it is: The Big It and other stories. I found it at the library.
A real quick synopsis - Mr. Baumer, a grocer on the American frontier, is fed up with having his whiskey stolen and being generally treated with disrespect by Slade, a freighter - that's the guy who drives a horsedrawn wagon to transport goods, including the supplies Baumer orders to stock in his store. The other freighters steal whiskey too but for some reason Slade - large, rough, violent, illiterate - is the focus of Baumer's anger. There are some confrontations, things escalate, and Slade assaults Baumer and breaks his hand. To the surprise of the narrator, a schoolboy employed by Baumer, Slade is subsequently engaged again to pick up supplies. He doesn't return, and is found dead on the roadway with the supplies still in the wagon. Upon unloading the supplies, the narrator finds that instead of whiskey, Baumer has ordered wood alcohol. Slade stole his drink as usual and it killed him. He couldn't read "Deadly Poison" on the barrel.
I remember the debate we had in our class as to whether Mr. Baumer committed murder. I contended that he did, because the action he took had the sole motive of bringing about Slade's death. He knew Slade would drink the "whiskey" and he knew it would kill him. Others said that Slade wasn't murdered because he knew the whiskey wasn't his and he'd been told not to steal it. No court could touch him, my classmates said. I'm not too sure about that, actually, but even if true, there's a difference between whether a person is guilty of a thing and whether that thing is demonstrably against the law. So this is one of those things where there's no one right answer (although your teacher may have strong feelings and may try to insist that there is) and it's a useful exercise in working out your moral compass.
Some elements of the story that I notice upon rereading:
The first thing we see Baumer saying to the narrator is this. "Better study, Al. Is good to know to read and write and figure." This possibly explains some of the contempt he has for Slade, a grown man who can't read, and foreshadows what happens to him. The very end of the story:
"Hurry now," Mr. Baumer said. "Is late." For a flash and no longer I saw through the mist in his eyes, saw, you might say, that hilly chin repeated there. "Then ve go home, Al. Is good to know how to read."
The description of Baumer contrasts mightily with that of Slade.
Here's Baumer:
I stood and studied him for a minute, seeing a small, stooped man with a little paunch bulging through his unbuttoned vest.... There was nothing in his looks to set itself in your mind unless maybe it was his chin, which was a small, pink hill in the gentle plain of his face. [Chin = stubbornness? Defiance?]
Slade:
Then I recognized the lean, raw shape of him and the muscles flowing down into the sloped shoulders, and in the settling darkness I filled the picture in - the dark skin and the flat cheeks and the peevish eyes and the mustache growing rank.
Also:
I had heard it said that Slade could make a horse scream with that whip.
Baumer thinks Slade hates him for being an immigrant, and indeed, Slade calls him "Dutchie" (a nickname for Germans). He despises Slade for betraying his trust in stealing from him, but as our narrator points out, the other freighters steal too. "A man makes mistakes," Baumer says twice about his poor judgment in trusting Slade. Maybe he's angry at Slade because he feels stupid about having trusted him? Baumer doesn't see his continuing provocation of Slade's wrath as a mistake, not at all, even though he points out a time or two that Slade is bigger than he is, and that physically he couldn't hope to best him.
After the confrontation:
He spent most of his time at the high desk, sending me or Ed out on the errands he used to run, like posting and getting the mail. Sometimes I wondered if that was because he was afraid of meeting Slade. He could just as well have gone himself. He wasted a lot of hours just looking at nothing, though I will have to say he worked hard at learning to write left-handed.
It's not clear what's happening here. Is Baumer afraid of Slade, as Al thinks? I'm not really feeling that. Is he nursing his grievance until he's angry enough to do something about it? Is he trying to think what to do? Does he already know what he's going to do, and is only waiting for the cold weather so that hypothermia will make Slade's death from methanol poisoning more certain? Is he wrestling with his conscience? I don't see any indication from Al's observation and reporting that Baumer's conscience bothers him at all about what he's doing.
So was he justified in taking Slade out that way? His right hand is permanently damaged, remember, and the law won't do anything about that. Should he have chalked up the whiskey loss to the cost of doing business, as he did with the other freighters, and stayed out of Slade's path? Could he have kept his self-respect if he had? Would he have done what he did if there was any real chance the law would have come down on him?
Readers, feel free to leave comments or questions, or just lurk if you want to.
A real quick synopsis - Mr. Baumer, a grocer on the American frontier, is fed up with having his whiskey stolen and being generally treated with disrespect by Slade, a freighter - that's the guy who drives a horsedrawn wagon to transport goods, including the supplies Baumer orders to stock in his store. The other freighters steal whiskey too but for some reason Slade - large, rough, violent, illiterate - is the focus of Baumer's anger. There are some confrontations, things escalate, and Slade assaults Baumer and breaks his hand. To the surprise of the narrator, a schoolboy employed by Baumer, Slade is subsequently engaged again to pick up supplies. He doesn't return, and is found dead on the roadway with the supplies still in the wagon. Upon unloading the supplies, the narrator finds that instead of whiskey, Baumer has ordered wood alcohol. Slade stole his drink as usual and it killed him. He couldn't read "Deadly Poison" on the barrel.
I remember the debate we had in our class as to whether Mr. Baumer committed murder. I contended that he did, because the action he took had the sole motive of bringing about Slade's death. He knew Slade would drink the "whiskey" and he knew it would kill him. Others said that Slade wasn't murdered because he knew the whiskey wasn't his and he'd been told not to steal it. No court could touch him, my classmates said. I'm not too sure about that, actually, but even if true, there's a difference between whether a person is guilty of a thing and whether that thing is demonstrably against the law. So this is one of those things where there's no one right answer (although your teacher may have strong feelings and may try to insist that there is) and it's a useful exercise in working out your moral compass.
Some elements of the story that I notice upon rereading:
The first thing we see Baumer saying to the narrator is this. "Better study, Al. Is good to know to read and write and figure." This possibly explains some of the contempt he has for Slade, a grown man who can't read, and foreshadows what happens to him. The very end of the story:
"Hurry now," Mr. Baumer said. "Is late." For a flash and no longer I saw through the mist in his eyes, saw, you might say, that hilly chin repeated there. "Then ve go home, Al. Is good to know how to read."
The description of Baumer contrasts mightily with that of Slade.
Here's Baumer:
I stood and studied him for a minute, seeing a small, stooped man with a little paunch bulging through his unbuttoned vest.... There was nothing in his looks to set itself in your mind unless maybe it was his chin, which was a small, pink hill in the gentle plain of his face. [Chin = stubbornness? Defiance?]
Slade:
Then I recognized the lean, raw shape of him and the muscles flowing down into the sloped shoulders, and in the settling darkness I filled the picture in - the dark skin and the flat cheeks and the peevish eyes and the mustache growing rank.
Also:
I had heard it said that Slade could make a horse scream with that whip.
Baumer thinks Slade hates him for being an immigrant, and indeed, Slade calls him "Dutchie" (a nickname for Germans). He despises Slade for betraying his trust in stealing from him, but as our narrator points out, the other freighters steal too. "A man makes mistakes," Baumer says twice about his poor judgment in trusting Slade. Maybe he's angry at Slade because he feels stupid about having trusted him? Baumer doesn't see his continuing provocation of Slade's wrath as a mistake, not at all, even though he points out a time or two that Slade is bigger than he is, and that physically he couldn't hope to best him.
After the confrontation:
He spent most of his time at the high desk, sending me or Ed out on the errands he used to run, like posting and getting the mail. Sometimes I wondered if that was because he was afraid of meeting Slade. He could just as well have gone himself. He wasted a lot of hours just looking at nothing, though I will have to say he worked hard at learning to write left-handed.
It's not clear what's happening here. Is Baumer afraid of Slade, as Al thinks? I'm not really feeling that. Is he nursing his grievance until he's angry enough to do something about it? Is he trying to think what to do? Does he already know what he's going to do, and is only waiting for the cold weather so that hypothermia will make Slade's death from methanol poisoning more certain? Is he wrestling with his conscience? I don't see any indication from Al's observation and reporting that Baumer's conscience bothers him at all about what he's doing.
So was he justified in taking Slade out that way? His right hand is permanently damaged, remember, and the law won't do anything about that. Should he have chalked up the whiskey loss to the cost of doing business, as he did with the other freighters, and stayed out of Slade's path? Could he have kept his self-respect if he had? Would he have done what he did if there was any real chance the law would have come down on him?
Readers, feel free to leave comments or questions, or just lurk if you want to.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Australia denies residency for dad of boy with Down syndrome
SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Thirteen-year-old Lukas Moeller has Down syndrome. His father is a doctor who came to Australia from Germany to help fill a shortage of physicians in rural communities.
But now Australia has rejected Dr. Bernhard Moeller's application for residency, saying Lukas does not meet the "health requirement" and would pose a burden on taxpayers for his medical care, education and other services.
The case has provoked an outcry in the rural region of southeastern Victoria state, where Moeller is the only internal medicine specialist for a community of 54,000 people.
Here's the chronology.
1 - People have special needs. Their families take care of them. It's rough sometimes. Usually extended family, neighbors, church members, etc., pitch in. This was before "family values" were talked about - they weren't talked about b/c it was taken for granted that families took care of their own.
2 - The government sees that it is a burden sometimes, so it steps in to help. Inevitably, over the years, as more and more people draw a paycheck for helping, the care from the government becomes more and more encompassing, and the families lose some measure of control.
3 - The government completely takes over responsibility for caring for special-needs people, or sick people, or whomever, and immediately begins rationing way beyond anything the original family/community help network would have needed to ration.
The community in this story isn't rejecting this kid b/c his care is too onerous. His parents certainly aren't. If the government had not presumed to take all that on, it wouldn't have to worry about it.
Think this couldn't happen here?
Health plan covers assisted suicide but not new cancer treatment
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.
Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.
Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon. It's voluntary ... for now. For those whose healthcare is provided by the state (and for which they paid taxes during their working years) you see what the state's preference is.
Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
Eternal vigilance, folks.
SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Thirteen-year-old Lukas Moeller has Down syndrome. His father is a doctor who came to Australia from Germany to help fill a shortage of physicians in rural communities.
But now Australia has rejected Dr. Bernhard Moeller's application for residency, saying Lukas does not meet the "health requirement" and would pose a burden on taxpayers for his medical care, education and other services.
The case has provoked an outcry in the rural region of southeastern Victoria state, where Moeller is the only internal medicine specialist for a community of 54,000 people.
Here's the chronology.
1 - People have special needs. Their families take care of them. It's rough sometimes. Usually extended family, neighbors, church members, etc., pitch in. This was before "family values" were talked about - they weren't talked about b/c it was taken for granted that families took care of their own.
2 - The government sees that it is a burden sometimes, so it steps in to help. Inevitably, over the years, as more and more people draw a paycheck for helping, the care from the government becomes more and more encompassing, and the families lose some measure of control.
3 - The government completely takes over responsibility for caring for special-needs people, or sick people, or whomever, and immediately begins rationing way beyond anything the original family/community help network would have needed to ration.
The community in this story isn't rejecting this kid b/c his care is too onerous. His parents certainly aren't. If the government had not presumed to take all that on, it wouldn't have to worry about it.
Think this couldn't happen here?
Health plan covers assisted suicide but not new cancer treatment
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.
Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.
Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon. It's voluntary ... for now. For those whose healthcare is provided by the state (and for which they paid taxes during their working years) you see what the state's preference is.
Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
Eternal vigilance, folks.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Here is an article inviting Memphians to remember where they were and what happened 40 years ago when MLK was assassinated. There are more than 90 comments. It's fascinating to read how people's observations agree and disagree.
I have two rules about discussing racial matters. One is that no one is allowed to read someone else's mind, i.e., assume wrong attitudes and opinions in people he or she doesn't like. The other is that no one is allowed to tell anyone that he didn't see what he saw, hear what he heard, experience what he experienced, etc. Usually the second rule applies to white people who try to tell black people that they are imagining the effects of racism and discrimination - NOT that they are imagining other people's attitudes, because they very well may be, but actual experiences that they have had. But both of those rules cut both ways, really. So in this comment thread you see people saying "I saw X" and other people saying "I doubt X really happened". Did X happen or not? I wonder if it's possible to know, now.
The stories of police brutality are upsetting. I offer this story from Saturday about a black woman and a white policeman as a very uplifting antidote. Some people say nothing has changed in 40 years. Not true.
I have two rules about discussing racial matters. One is that no one is allowed to read someone else's mind, i.e., assume wrong attitudes and opinions in people he or she doesn't like. The other is that no one is allowed to tell anyone that he didn't see what he saw, hear what he heard, experience what he experienced, etc. Usually the second rule applies to white people who try to tell black people that they are imagining the effects of racism and discrimination - NOT that they are imagining other people's attitudes, because they very well may be, but actual experiences that they have had. But both of those rules cut both ways, really. So in this comment thread you see people saying "I saw X" and other people saying "I doubt X really happened". Did X happen or not? I wonder if it's possible to know, now.
The stories of police brutality are upsetting. I offer this story from Saturday about a black woman and a white policeman as a very uplifting antidote. Some people say nothing has changed in 40 years. Not true.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Here is an article about Professor Donald Hindley of Brandeis, who is being punished for something he said in the classroom: Shhh! Free speech crackdown on campus.
Brandeis University, named after Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (a famous champion of free speech), just insisted on sensitivity training and threatened to fire a professor after one student - maybe two or three - complained about the professor’s speech. In a Latin American politics class, professor Donald Hindley, 74, who’s taught at Brandeis for nearly 50 years, used a word he’s used many times - “wetback” - to explain the nastiness aimed at Mexican immigrants who entered the United States over the Rio Grande.
The student(s) complained. Anonymously.
The administration launched an investigation into his “discriminatory” remarks, never telling Hindley what those remarks were. In one statement provost Mary Kraus praised the “courage” of the anonymous student(s) “to speak up against discrimination.” She also said three students suffered “significant emotional trauma” as a result of hearing the remarks.
FIRE took up his case, which may be why he wasn't terminated outright.
But here's a bit more about what he actually said:
At least one complaint appears to have stemmed from Hindley's reference to the term "wetbacks," a derogatory expression used to describe illegal immigrants who have crossed the Mexican border. Hindley defended his discussion of the term, saying he had used it to describe racism of a certain historical period."Throughout American history, he said, 'When Mexicans come north as illegal immigrants, we call them wetbacks.'"
Prof penalized for alleged racist remarks
Now, I don't think any reasonable person would think that HE was calling illegal immigrants "wetbacks" in that sentence. But may I point out two things: In his scolding disapproval of American racism he did say "we", which means he is taking on corporate guilt in the use of that term; and he played into the victimization politics that is the source of complaints like the one made against him. So perhaps it's not surprising that those complaints were made.
I remember that when I was a little girl I heard the word "wetback" and I asked my dad about it. He responded that it's a rude term used about Mexicans, assuming that they came into the country illegally by swimming the Rio Grande. I learned (a) who the word is used to refer to, (b) the etymology of it, and (c) not to use it. Had Prof. Hindley responded to questions about the term in this straightforward and objective manner, I doubt anybody would have batted an eyelash.
Brandeis University, named after Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (a famous champion of free speech), just insisted on sensitivity training and threatened to fire a professor after one student - maybe two or three - complained about the professor’s speech. In a Latin American politics class, professor Donald Hindley, 74, who’s taught at Brandeis for nearly 50 years, used a word he’s used many times - “wetback” - to explain the nastiness aimed at Mexican immigrants who entered the United States over the Rio Grande.
The student(s) complained. Anonymously.
The administration launched an investigation into his “discriminatory” remarks, never telling Hindley what those remarks were. In one statement provost Mary Kraus praised the “courage” of the anonymous student(s) “to speak up against discrimination.” She also said three students suffered “significant emotional trauma” as a result of hearing the remarks.
FIRE took up his case, which may be why he wasn't terminated outright.
But here's a bit more about what he actually said:
At least one complaint appears to have stemmed from Hindley's reference to the term "wetbacks," a derogatory expression used to describe illegal immigrants who have crossed the Mexican border. Hindley defended his discussion of the term, saying he had used it to describe racism of a certain historical period."Throughout American history, he said, 'When Mexicans come north as illegal immigrants, we call them wetbacks.'"
Prof penalized for alleged racist remarks
Now, I don't think any reasonable person would think that HE was calling illegal immigrants "wetbacks" in that sentence. But may I point out two things: In his scolding disapproval of American racism he did say "we", which means he is taking on corporate guilt in the use of that term; and he played into the victimization politics that is the source of complaints like the one made against him. So perhaps it's not surprising that those complaints were made.
I remember that when I was a little girl I heard the word "wetback" and I asked my dad about it. He responded that it's a rude term used about Mexicans, assuming that they came into the country illegally by swimming the Rio Grande. I learned (a) who the word is used to refer to, (b) the etymology of it, and (c) not to use it. Had Prof. Hindley responded to questions about the term in this straightforward and objective manner, I doubt anybody would have batted an eyelash.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
I don't understand the complaints from presidential candidates and their campaigners, about press and other candidates being ugly to them.
Have they not noticed how Pres. Bush has spent the last 7 years being called everything but a child of God? Do they truly think he called all that down on himself? I'm not talking about criticism of specific policies - I'm talking about people blaming him for Hurricane Katrina and wishing he'd choked to death on that pretzel, which I'd forgotten about till I saw that lovely sentiment expressed just recently.
News flash - whoever's in the WH is going to get it. Don't know why that is, and I wish it weren't that way.
But since it is, I think the candidates ought to view this time as a kind of boot camp. See what you're made of. See if it's more than you want to deal with - unlike the military, you can drop it now if you don't like it. If unfair criticism is keeping you up at night, do yourself and us a big favor and just stay on the porch. If you stay in, for pete's sake, pull your socks up and quit complaining about "he said X about me" and so forth. If you win the presidency - you ain't seen nothing yet. To act like you think what's going on now is egregious or unexpected makes you look like a naive fool.
Have they not noticed how Pres. Bush has spent the last 7 years being called everything but a child of God? Do they truly think he called all that down on himself? I'm not talking about criticism of specific policies - I'm talking about people blaming him for Hurricane Katrina and wishing he'd choked to death on that pretzel, which I'd forgotten about till I saw that lovely sentiment expressed just recently.
News flash - whoever's in the WH is going to get it. Don't know why that is, and I wish it weren't that way.
But since it is, I think the candidates ought to view this time as a kind of boot camp. See what you're made of. See if it's more than you want to deal with - unlike the military, you can drop it now if you don't like it. If unfair criticism is keeping you up at night, do yourself and us a big favor and just stay on the porch. If you stay in, for pete's sake, pull your socks up and quit complaining about "he said X about me" and so forth. If you win the presidency - you ain't seen nothing yet. To act like you think what's going on now is egregious or unexpected makes you look like a naive fool.
Friday, December 28, 2007
The articles that have been appearing about the tiger at the zoo getting out and killing a person are upsetting to me.
Primarily, of course, because of what happened.
But then because there was unwarranted speculation that the victims somehow caused this to happen. If they were strolling around the zoo minding their own business, this truly is insult to injury. Can't we wait a day or two to find out before we slam dead and unconscious people?
Then there's this: "Their names were provided by hospital and law enforcement sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the family had not yet given permission to release their names." Said names reported in the article, of course. First, the people who spoke on condition of anonymity need to be identified and then fired, at the very least. Second, every venue that reported those names needs to do some soul-searching. You knew you were not supposed to have this information. Why did you report it? What news value did this have? Are you just automatically forced to blurt out every speck of information you get?
On a completely trivial note, the initial articles said that after a zookeeper was mauled by this tiger before, a feeding "shoot" was installed. Later articles had the word corrected to "chute". Perhaps when the reporters and editors have finished searching their consciences over the necessity of printing information they are not supposed to have and that informs no one of anything they need to know, they can review the concept of homonyms.
Primarily, of course, because of what happened.
But then because there was unwarranted speculation that the victims somehow caused this to happen. If they were strolling around the zoo minding their own business, this truly is insult to injury. Can't we wait a day or two to find out before we slam dead and unconscious people?
Then there's this: "Their names were provided by hospital and law enforcement sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the family had not yet given permission to release their names." Said names reported in the article, of course. First, the people who spoke on condition of anonymity need to be identified and then fired, at the very least. Second, every venue that reported those names needs to do some soul-searching. You knew you were not supposed to have this information. Why did you report it? What news value did this have? Are you just automatically forced to blurt out every speck of information you get?
On a completely trivial note, the initial articles said that after a zookeeper was mauled by this tiger before, a feeding "shoot" was installed. Later articles had the word corrected to "chute". Perhaps when the reporters and editors have finished searching their consciences over the necessity of printing information they are not supposed to have and that informs no one of anything they need to know, they can review the concept of homonyms.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Feel like I ought to refer to another post from the blogger I just mentioned, since I read his entire blog and only had a negative thing to say. This rings true to me. I hate that whole can't-inconvenience-a-total-stranger thing. Sometimes other people need to just freaking wait a minute. Now it's true that people who hold up the line b/c of their inattention irritate me, but that's totally different.
And I say this although I've found myself at the grocery store on what seemed to be International Old Folks Go to the Grocery Store Day (actually stepped outside once and saw the Wesley Senior Services van, so yes, it was.) I go to my Zen place as they snap and snarl at each other - "It's rice! It's just rice! They're all alike! If you want it put it in the basket and go on!" and "She wants you to pay now! Get your checkbook!" "What?" and have endless, endless patience. But once I MANAGED to get my shopping done and my stuff paid for, and was actually headed out the door, when somebody shoved her cart right across in front of me - God knows why - while she paid for her stuff. There I stood until a store employee saw me and shoved it back. It was all I could do not to say, "THAT'S ALL RIGHT, TAKE YOUR TIME. I'M GOING TO BE OLD SOME DAY AND I'LL BE TEDIOUS AS HELL - IT'LL BE MY TURN." But I didn't say it. Because it's probably true.
And I say this although I've found myself at the grocery store on what seemed to be International Old Folks Go to the Grocery Store Day (actually stepped outside once and saw the Wesley Senior Services van, so yes, it was.) I go to my Zen place as they snap and snarl at each other - "It's rice! It's just rice! They're all alike! If you want it put it in the basket and go on!" and "She wants you to pay now! Get your checkbook!" "What?" and have endless, endless patience. But once I MANAGED to get my shopping done and my stuff paid for, and was actually headed out the door, when somebody shoved her cart right across in front of me - God knows why - while she paid for her stuff. There I stood until a store employee saw me and shoved it back. It was all I could do not to say, "THAT'S ALL RIGHT, TAKE YOUR TIME. I'M GOING TO BE OLD SOME DAY AND I'LL BE TEDIOUS AS HELL - IT'LL BE MY TURN." But I didn't say it. Because it's probably true.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Interesting blog post here.
The blog author works with and for disabled people. He and his partner were making fun of the way people in the mall were dressed, until he started making fun of one person and his partner told him to stop, because that person was disabled. Then the blog author wondered if he was right to stop, because the disabled person deserved to be made fun of too. I am probably not telling this right.
Because it seems to me that it's wrong to make fun of other people's appearance, period. I assume that everyone is doing the best he or she can. God knows that if the blog author ran across me when I had to go somewhere right after work he would have some things to say. As I've said before, you don't dress like a beauty queen to work in a laboratory, and sometimes it's just too hot to wear that lab coat. And my hair is floppy by the end of the day, no matter what I do, and it seems that the makeup slides right off my face. So go for it.
But it reminded me of something kind of funny. I irritate R and others when I answer their questions before they finish asking them. Some people repeat themselves and others keep adding qualifiers, and I KNOW what I'm going to answer, and I sometimes don't want to take the time for them to wind down before I do. Sometimes I answer the question three or four times before the questioner hears me b/c I think they're done, and while I am answering they are tacking more words onto the question and not actually changing the answer at all. I will say that under many circumstances I am an extremely patient person. Usually I am less patient with smart people b/c I think they ought to be able to express themselves clearly and succinctly.
Anyway, I used to work with a man who had a profound stutter. I know that you do not jump in and finish sentences for people who have stutters. (Of course, it's always rude to do that anyway, she said guiltily.) So this guy would call me at my desk to ask a question. I'd answer the phone, he would start the complicated process of greeting me and telling me who he was, and I would wait for him to manage to get his name out before I'd say, "Oh, hi, Bob," like I didn't know who he was. All of our conversations continued to go that way. I tend to think while it's right to be patient with a person who has a speech problem, I should actually be patient with everyone. But now it appears that my stuttering coworker deserved for me to be rude to him like I (sadly) am to others. Is that right?
The blog author works with and for disabled people. He and his partner were making fun of the way people in the mall were dressed, until he started making fun of one person and his partner told him to stop, because that person was disabled. Then the blog author wondered if he was right to stop, because the disabled person deserved to be made fun of too. I am probably not telling this right.
Because it seems to me that it's wrong to make fun of other people's appearance, period. I assume that everyone is doing the best he or she can. God knows that if the blog author ran across me when I had to go somewhere right after work he would have some things to say. As I've said before, you don't dress like a beauty queen to work in a laboratory, and sometimes it's just too hot to wear that lab coat. And my hair is floppy by the end of the day, no matter what I do, and it seems that the makeup slides right off my face. So go for it.
But it reminded me of something kind of funny. I irritate R and others when I answer their questions before they finish asking them. Some people repeat themselves and others keep adding qualifiers, and I KNOW what I'm going to answer, and I sometimes don't want to take the time for them to wind down before I do. Sometimes I answer the question three or four times before the questioner hears me b/c I think they're done, and while I am answering they are tacking more words onto the question and not actually changing the answer at all. I will say that under many circumstances I am an extremely patient person. Usually I am less patient with smart people b/c I think they ought to be able to express themselves clearly and succinctly.
Anyway, I used to work with a man who had a profound stutter. I know that you do not jump in and finish sentences for people who have stutters. (Of course, it's always rude to do that anyway, she said guiltily.) So this guy would call me at my desk to ask a question. I'd answer the phone, he would start the complicated process of greeting me and telling me who he was, and I would wait for him to manage to get his name out before I'd say, "Oh, hi, Bob," like I didn't know who he was. All of our conversations continued to go that way. I tend to think while it's right to be patient with a person who has a speech problem, I should actually be patient with everyone. But now it appears that my stuttering coworker deserved for me to be rude to him like I (sadly) am to others. Is that right?
Monday, July 09, 2007
Okay, so Thursday my group had a little cake and ice cream for me, and a $25 gift certificate, which I thought was really nice. I told them I'd buy a nice blouse with it and think of them when I wore it. (And for those who wonder how you can buy a "nice" blouse with $25, in the context of what you would wear to work in a laboratory, you wouldn't spend more than that, and most of the time a lot less.) Some of the plant people partook of the cake and ice cream, of course, and my boss, and the owners. I will say that I've been very disappointed in the way the owners have acted about me leaving. People always have the right to better their circumstances if they can. It's up to the employer who realizes he has a valuable employee, to see to it that she will want to stay. And that's all I'm going to say about that.
But they did tell me that I can still change my mind, and even come back if I don't like Florida.
So I'm unemployed for the next couple of weeks. Weird feeling. I have a LOT to do during this time. Finish getting the house sorted out, find a place to live in Florida - F and I are going there later this week to do that - and work out the logistics of me moving now and R following after he gets F off to college and the house sold.
We took a walk in our pretty historic-district neighborhood after dinner the other day. We've lived here 17 years and have a lot of memories of those walks after dinner, F on her tricycle and then her skates, and so forth. But on one of the gaslight-inspired lamposts we found, for the first time, gang graffiti. If I'd had any lingering doubt about the rightness of moving away, it's gone.
But they did tell me that I can still change my mind, and even come back if I don't like Florida.
So I'm unemployed for the next couple of weeks. Weird feeling. I have a LOT to do during this time. Finish getting the house sorted out, find a place to live in Florida - F and I are going there later this week to do that - and work out the logistics of me moving now and R following after he gets F off to college and the house sold.
We took a walk in our pretty historic-district neighborhood after dinner the other day. We've lived here 17 years and have a lot of memories of those walks after dinner, F on her tricycle and then her skates, and so forth. But on one of the gaslight-inspired lamposts we found, for the first time, gang graffiti. If I'd had any lingering doubt about the rightness of moving away, it's gone.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Trying to wrap things up at work and home. I had to ask the CEO to quit calling me a traitor. "Are you going to be mean to me for the next two weeks?" I asked. No, was the answer. But he's kind of mad. I'm having to talk to him to get things properly buttoned up, and he doesn't want to look at me. It's the mindset of the owner of a mom-and-pop, which I swore I'd never work for again, that employees are to be viewed and to view themselves as faithful family retainers. Forget that crap.
My boss and I had lunch out today. There was a woman in the restaurant with a stethoscope around her neck (either pretentious, or she forgot she had it) and her white coat with name tag, etc. OK, I kind of draw the line there. If she's a doctor, then the stethoscope indicates she's been with patients, most likely sick folks. Perhaps they have coughed on her. She had to wear the coat into a restaurant where people were eating? Isn't the purpose of the coat to keep germs and bodily fluids off the doctor's person so they can be left behind at the workplace?
My boss and I had lunch out today. There was a woman in the restaurant with a stethoscope around her neck (either pretentious, or she forgot she had it) and her white coat with name tag, etc. OK, I kind of draw the line there. If she's a doctor, then the stethoscope indicates she's been with patients, most likely sick folks. Perhaps they have coughed on her. She had to wear the coat into a restaurant where people were eating? Isn't the purpose of the coat to keep germs and bodily fluids off the doctor's person so they can be left behind at the workplace?
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Because I am an analytical person, things that defy analysis irritate me.
We laugh at home about feng shui, and talk about it seriously too, even though neither of us really knows what it is. And we'd probably scoff if anyone tried to explain it. For example: Last year we needed to replace the hood over the stove. Also, I'd been concerned about the safety of our 24-year-old microwave. (Yes, really. They don't make them like they used to.) So we ended up buying a combination hood and microwave that goes over the stove, freeing up space and so on. The new microwave is white, the old hood was that weird yellow color they used to use (goldenrod?) and the old microwave was black and chrome. Somehow the end of the kitchen is dark to me now and it's off-putting to walk up to the counter. We'll do something about it ... as soon as we can figure out what to do.
In the course of the housework/nesting things I've been doing this morning, I've gone through and identified a bunch of clothes that need to go to Goodwill or somewhere. This is also irritating because I find things that I bought because I liked them, but somehow they never get worn. When I've put them on, I've taken them off again for some reason. I still approve of them in theory, which is why it's irritating to let them go.
Sometimes my offbeat purchases work, though. I bought a skirt a couple of years ago at the MIFA shop. It's a very nice skirt and probably ended up there because it got separated from its jacket. Kind of a spring green, longish, with a slit/kick pleat over the left shin. I tried pairing it with a couple of blouses - yuck. Couldn't wear it. Then I bought a blouse for a totally different skirt, wore them together once and saw right away that that wouldn't do. So then I put the blouse with the spring green skirt - voila! Very cute outfit. I've worn it many times and gotten compliments every single time. I'll have to take a picture of it and post it. So I'm not totally unable to shop.
But the can't-analyze-it thing also extends to clothes that I have, that I look at and am not thrilled with, but that I wear over and over. Because they fit just so, or they feel just so, or they are just right in a certain temperature. I ran across a top like this, while I was going through things, that I had been looking for because I wanted it last winter. This is the antithesis of "why are you keeping things that you don't ever wear." This is "why do you wear this so much when you don't necessarily really even like it." Ha ha.
We laugh at home about feng shui, and talk about it seriously too, even though neither of us really knows what it is. And we'd probably scoff if anyone tried to explain it. For example: Last year we needed to replace the hood over the stove. Also, I'd been concerned about the safety of our 24-year-old microwave. (Yes, really. They don't make them like they used to.) So we ended up buying a combination hood and microwave that goes over the stove, freeing up space and so on. The new microwave is white, the old hood was that weird yellow color they used to use (goldenrod?) and the old microwave was black and chrome. Somehow the end of the kitchen is dark to me now and it's off-putting to walk up to the counter. We'll do something about it ... as soon as we can figure out what to do.
In the course of the housework/nesting things I've been doing this morning, I've gone through and identified a bunch of clothes that need to go to Goodwill or somewhere. This is also irritating because I find things that I bought because I liked them, but somehow they never get worn. When I've put them on, I've taken them off again for some reason. I still approve of them in theory, which is why it's irritating to let them go.
Sometimes my offbeat purchases work, though. I bought a skirt a couple of years ago at the MIFA shop. It's a very nice skirt and probably ended up there because it got separated from its jacket. Kind of a spring green, longish, with a slit/kick pleat over the left shin. I tried pairing it with a couple of blouses - yuck. Couldn't wear it. Then I bought a blouse for a totally different skirt, wore them together once and saw right away that that wouldn't do. So then I put the blouse with the spring green skirt - voila! Very cute outfit. I've worn it many times and gotten compliments every single time. I'll have to take a picture of it and post it. So I'm not totally unable to shop.
But the can't-analyze-it thing also extends to clothes that I have, that I look at and am not thrilled with, but that I wear over and over. Because they fit just so, or they feel just so, or they are just right in a certain temperature. I ran across a top like this, while I was going through things, that I had been looking for because I wanted it last winter. This is the antithesis of "why are you keeping things that you don't ever wear." This is "why do you wear this so much when you don't necessarily really even like it." Ha ha.
Friday, April 13, 2007
I want to talk about the word "mistake".
I'm very tired of hearing a person's bad behavior referred to as a "mistake".
A mistake is when you go to the store to get some canned peaches and you walk over to the canned fruit, find the peaches, reach out and get a can, buy it and take it home, and then find that you managed to pick up a can of pears instead.
Knowingly and willfully breaking the law is not a mistake. Repeatedly going against your doctor's orders to wear a mask so that you don't give people your multiple-drug-resistant and therefore virtually untreatable TB because you actually don't feel bad and think your doctor is overreacting, and therefore they have to lock you up to keep the populace safe, isn't a mistake. I know the people at that blog are tired of me running my mouth because I disagree with them about virtually everything but I just had to get that out of my system.
I'm very tired of hearing a person's bad behavior referred to as a "mistake".
A mistake is when you go to the store to get some canned peaches and you walk over to the canned fruit, find the peaches, reach out and get a can, buy it and take it home, and then find that you managed to pick up a can of pears instead.
Knowingly and willfully breaking the law is not a mistake. Repeatedly going against your doctor's orders to wear a mask so that you don't give people your multiple-drug-resistant and therefore virtually untreatable TB because you actually don't feel bad and think your doctor is overreacting, and therefore they have to lock you up to keep the populace safe, isn't a mistake. I know the people at that blog are tired of me running my mouth because I disagree with them about virtually everything but I just had to get that out of my system.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
I had A Thought today.
I think we can teach the cats to read. No, I'm serious. F needs to do this for her senior project.
Here's the plan. We'll make two posters, maybe about the size of a piece of copy paper. Each will have a single symbol on it, something large and simple like an X or an O. Maybe an X and an I. Something like that. We'll show one or the other poster to the cats at various random times, but one poster will be followed by treats and the other one will not. The cats will learn to interpret these symbols as meaning "I will get a treat" or "nothing will happen." To verify this, the treats will have to be given in a certain spot. We'll know the cats can read when they see the treat poster and run to that spot.
What do you think?
I think we can teach the cats to read. No, I'm serious. F needs to do this for her senior project.
Here's the plan. We'll make two posters, maybe about the size of a piece of copy paper. Each will have a single symbol on it, something large and simple like an X or an O. Maybe an X and an I. Something like that. We'll show one or the other poster to the cats at various random times, but one poster will be followed by treats and the other one will not. The cats will learn to interpret these symbols as meaning "I will get a treat" or "nothing will happen." To verify this, the treats will have to be given in a certain spot. We'll know the cats can read when they see the treat poster and run to that spot.
What do you think?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Sometimes people try to tell me that I am mistaken in thinking that X is stupid and wrong. If I only had enough information, I would see X their way. I listen more or less politely to the other side, but frequently I end up even more convinced.
Example 1: I used to work for a lab that was owned by a chemical plant. For about 18 months the lab was actually located at the plant, and we had to undergo special safety training. I watched the videos about chlorine gas (!!!!) and learned that if there was a release, I should look at the windsock and go cross-ways from it. OK, made sense. Then they decided to have a drill, and told those of us that were in the lab building (outside the actual plant) that we should walk to the gate to be counted. Because if the chlorine gas release were bad enough, the phone lines would be down. I argued against this. The windsock was clearly visible to us from the lab building. We had just sat through scary videos that they showed us, telling us to flee in a direction cross-ways from the windsock. Walking toward the gate pretty much meant walking toward the plant, which I couldn't see as an advisable strategy, no matter which way the wind was blowing. Well, we need to be able to count you, I was told. There was no radio in the lab building. There was one in the administration building next to the lab building, but they would be sealing the doors and windows so we would not be able to get in.
So I thought that for their drill I would walk to the gate, but if there was an actual release I would go cross-ways from the windsock. Then we had the actual drill, and we lab folks walked like a bunch of sheep over to the gate; from which the guard came out and said, "Y'all are dead." OK, I said, this is stupid and I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT, not even for a drill. No. No sir. The entire group let me take point on this and I was willing to do it. The guard should not have said that, I was told. Why not, he was RIGHT, I said. It was again argued that the administration building would be locked down. Can we not knock on the door? I asked. It finally became too much to continue to suggest that we should be left outside for the chlorine cloud to strip our flesh from our bones, and it was agreed that the administration people would open to our knock.
But I still thought that I would go to the administration building for any drills, but if there were an actual chlorine release I would go cross-ways from the windsock.
Example 2: Wrenches and hex keys. WHY do they have to be made in 1/32" increments, and why do there have to be both English and metric versions? I have to change a fan in a GC. The set screw needs a hex key. I have most of a set at work, which I was able to line up from small to large; this was convenient for figuring out which two the set screw is between. Naturally there is no way for me to determine the sizes of these two because they're not marked - they can't be, they're too small; and the pouches they go in aren't marked either.
This kind of thing has bugged me all my professional life. Tekmar purge-and-trap valves have tiny little handles that fit onto D-shaped shafts. Are the holes in the handles D-shaped? No, they are round, with extremely small set screws. You have to identify the exact hex key that fits that screw, line the screw up with the flat side of the shaft, and then turn it enough to grip the shaft, but not so much that you strip the screw (depressingly easy to do.) Why, why do these things have set screws instead of D-shaped holes? I asked their instrument tech once. Probably because somebody's brother-in-law owns the set screw factory, I was told.
Wrenches are just as bad. They and hex keys ought to come in three sizes: small, medium, and large. I see no reason for anything else. R tries to tell me that if I were an engineer I would understand the need for there to be these tiny increments in size, having to do with the amount of torque needed to do the job, efficient use of materials, etc. Just this evening he explained all of this to me. When he was through, I told him, "I understand what you are saying. I reject it." Fortunately he does not feel the need to police my opinions.
Example 1: I used to work for a lab that was owned by a chemical plant. For about 18 months the lab was actually located at the plant, and we had to undergo special safety training. I watched the videos about chlorine gas (!!!!) and learned that if there was a release, I should look at the windsock and go cross-ways from it. OK, made sense. Then they decided to have a drill, and told those of us that were in the lab building (outside the actual plant) that we should walk to the gate to be counted. Because if the chlorine gas release were bad enough, the phone lines would be down. I argued against this. The windsock was clearly visible to us from the lab building. We had just sat through scary videos that they showed us, telling us to flee in a direction cross-ways from the windsock. Walking toward the gate pretty much meant walking toward the plant, which I couldn't see as an advisable strategy, no matter which way the wind was blowing. Well, we need to be able to count you, I was told. There was no radio in the lab building. There was one in the administration building next to the lab building, but they would be sealing the doors and windows so we would not be able to get in.
So I thought that for their drill I would walk to the gate, but if there was an actual release I would go cross-ways from the windsock. Then we had the actual drill, and we lab folks walked like a bunch of sheep over to the gate; from which the guard came out and said, "Y'all are dead." OK, I said, this is stupid and I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT, not even for a drill. No. No sir. The entire group let me take point on this and I was willing to do it. The guard should not have said that, I was told. Why not, he was RIGHT, I said. It was again argued that the administration building would be locked down. Can we not knock on the door? I asked. It finally became too much to continue to suggest that we should be left outside for the chlorine cloud to strip our flesh from our bones, and it was agreed that the administration people would open to our knock.
But I still thought that I would go to the administration building for any drills, but if there were an actual chlorine release I would go cross-ways from the windsock.
Example 2: Wrenches and hex keys. WHY do they have to be made in 1/32" increments, and why do there have to be both English and metric versions? I have to change a fan in a GC. The set screw needs a hex key. I have most of a set at work, which I was able to line up from small to large; this was convenient for figuring out which two the set screw is between. Naturally there is no way for me to determine the sizes of these two because they're not marked - they can't be, they're too small; and the pouches they go in aren't marked either.
This kind of thing has bugged me all my professional life. Tekmar purge-and-trap valves have tiny little handles that fit onto D-shaped shafts. Are the holes in the handles D-shaped? No, they are round, with extremely small set screws. You have to identify the exact hex key that fits that screw, line the screw up with the flat side of the shaft, and then turn it enough to grip the shaft, but not so much that you strip the screw (depressingly easy to do.) Why, why do these things have set screws instead of D-shaped holes? I asked their instrument tech once. Probably because somebody's brother-in-law owns the set screw factory, I was told.
Wrenches are just as bad. They and hex keys ought to come in three sizes: small, medium, and large. I see no reason for anything else. R tries to tell me that if I were an engineer I would understand the need for there to be these tiny increments in size, having to do with the amount of torque needed to do the job, efficient use of materials, etc. Just this evening he explained all of this to me. When he was through, I told him, "I understand what you are saying. I reject it." Fortunately he does not feel the need to police my opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)