Why the vitrol?

In perusing Technorati.com, I found a blog entitled Brilliant at Breakfast. I read it with some interest and great sadness. The writer strikes me as intelligent and fairly well-informed, but in a style that I'm becoming all to familiar with, she writes from the assumption that anyone who disagrees with her is either corrupt or a moron (aka Republican) or both.

Why is it that political discussion has to be this way? Why can't we forcefully and powerfully (and God forbid intelligently) discuss issues that we disagree on without treating our opponents as sub-human idiots? An example from her blog, "The craven, small-minded weasels who still support George W. Bush may applaud this..." Why do supporters of the President (still 1 in 3 of those polled) have to be "craven, small-minded weasels"? She makes some interesting (and scary) points and I would encourage you to read her blog, but she couches it in such disgusting and inflammatory writing that it's hard to keep focussed on the content instead of delivery.

This is not just the perview of the liberal side either. There are plenty of blogs that rave about the idiots that call themselves liberals and/or Democrats (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh anyone?) . Part of the reason that I've started writing is to try and encourage some of these intelligent people to gather and discuss the issues without the vitrol. I hereby challenge any of these intellectuals, from either the left or right, to "bring it on" without the hate talk and demeaning posture.

Thoughts anyone?

Let them know

Saturday, I had the pleasure of having lunch with a Masonic brother whom I respect a great deal. Amid the jocularity and comraderie, we got to discussing customer service. It leads me to today's posting. He is being transferred to another store in our company and was lamenting (somewhat jokingly) that he was really annoyed because it had taken him 3 years to finally find a deli in the area that he liked. He recognized that most delis carry the same assortment of products except for a "specialty" sandwich or two. His main criteria was customer service. The only thing that he asked for was appreciation for his business. It didn't mean kissing his feet in order to show appreciation, it meant putting down the phone, stop watching the TV, and looking at him when he gave his order. Most importantly, it meant saying "Thank you" when the transaction was completed.

This conversation got me to thinking about customer service and our expectations. To some extent, we've allowed customer service to become what it is. We put up with being treated rudely or indifferently. We allow it because we continue to patronize poorly run, uncustomer oriented businesses. For example, I've complained bitterly about a local McDonalds here in Fair Lawn, NJ. Their team members at the counter are rude, loud, and disrespectful. Their night management staff is unprofessional, disinterested, and not very intelligent. I've sent an e-mail to their Corporate staff which responded immediately that they've forwarded the complaint to the franchise holder, and the franchise holder hasn't bothered to follow up. The reason is, they have no incentive to. I'm one customer and if they lose me, so what, they have plenty of others.

The problem is......they're right. There were four people in line behind me the night that the service prompted my complaint and they were all complaining. In fact, one of the people left without ordering. The manager saw this and simply turned around and went back to her office. I can assume that there were no other complaints so I'm just perceived as one malcontent. The thing that they are missing is, there should have been more than 4 people in the ONE open line at 6:30 pm on a weeknight at a highway store. That store should have been jammed with people coming home, stopping at McDonalds to pick up dinner and it wasn't. Why? Because enough people know of the service and have stopped coming (as have my wife and I).

As a former businessowner and current Assistant Store Manager, I know that it is often tempting to use alternate explanations for why business drops off. The economy, weather, busy lives, etc. The most helpful thing a business can get is honest feedback. Before we stop going to a certain business, it would help all of us if you would grab a manager/owner and say, "I've been coming here since.....and I must say that I've noticed.....[a lack of caring about the customer, too few registers open, a decline in the quality of the product, etc]." Don't complain, just notify. Don't ask for compensation, just educate. We've got to stand together to get better service. We've got to let businesses know why we stop patronizing them.

Conversely, we've got to start complimenting the businesses that "get it right." I frequently have customers come to me and say, "Just wanted to let you know that ...... really treated me well. I enjoyed my visit because of them." As a manager, I can assure you, that makes a difference. I always relay that to the associate and if it's a specific example of customer service that we want to duplicate, I'll call it out in front of the entire team. It makes that behavior more of a standard. It helps us make sure we are treating the customers in a way that makes them want to come back.

So my point today is, talk to the businesses that you do business with. Regardless of whether its McDonalds or Joe's Dry Cleaners. Let them know why you do business with them and why you won't. Sometimes it will make a difference, sometimes it won't, but if enough of us do it and stop settling for mediocre (or worse) service, perhaps we'll "raise the bar" all around.

Thoughts anyone?

Teaching

Once again I turn to the New York Times for inspiration for today's blog. In an editorial entitled, "Classroom Distinctions" by Tom Moore, the author, himself a 10th grade history teacher in the Bronx, goes on to discuss the portrayal of teachers in Hollywood. He decries the fact that Hollywood frequently tells us, "In order to be a good teacher, she has to be a hero." What is the implication here?

As one who is, even now, told that I should be a teacher, and who has 'been there, done that' I can tell you that our society seems to be torn as to what we expect of our education system. I can assure you that there are plenty of "heroes" out there who do give their heart and soul to teaching. My mother did it for her whole career, my sister-in-law taught in one of the poorest sections of NYC for years, and I went to school with dedicated men and women who did it because they believed in what they were doing. They are out there and work at it every day. Why then do we have to portray teachers as heroes? Why are Coach Carter, Erin Gruwell, and Jaime Escalante shown to be the exception? Why did I only teach in a middle-class suburban school for only one year before deciding that I wouldn't do that again even though I loved being in the classroom?

Two reasons, 1) Unions and 2) The Public. One of the worst things to happen to American education is the teachers' unions. They promote mediocrity, laziness, apathy, and protection of the lowest common denominator. In the school in which I taught, the union president was a man whose lesson plan consisted of, "What film will I show today?" Even the students laughed behind his back. They knew that every day they would waste 45 minutes of time that they would never get back. It was obvious to them that he didn't care so why should they? There was no education there and yet he would pontificate at union meetings and negotiation sessions about the vital need for planning time and trips for continuning education in order to facilitate the highest level of educational expertise. The worst part was that when he talked, many other teachers nodded in agreement and the adminstration cowered in fear. What a bunch of crap!! This is why Johnny can't read, write, or do 'rithmatic!

The second is the general public. There are two camps of people who are equally to blame. The one side believes that all teachers are to be revered like Jaime Escalante. They treat teachers as sacred keepers of truth and thus idiots like the one mentioned above are never questioned and their egos keep getting fed and they never have to improve.

The other camp consists of those who believe that all teachers are over-paid, underworked, morons. They subscribe to the philosophy that "Those that can't do, teach." This is reflected in their children's total lack of regard or respect for their teachers. They are allowed to pick and choose what they do and will dictate what the result should be. I had a student that received a "D" grade on a research paper which was assigned on the second day of school in September and collected the third week of April. The class worked through the process all year long and each step was explained. The report the student turned in was a collection of randomly associated footnoted quotes with no thought or independent analysis. In my opinion, he deserved a "D". I was called to the office to meet with his father (a member of the local school board) who informed me that I should let his son rewrite the paper because he "must have misunderstood the assignment"...for seven months!?! The principal reminded me that the father was on the school board, I was not tenured, and told me to do "what I thought was right."

The fact of the matter is, the majority of teachers are in the middle. They try to do what is right and they work hard at what they do. They want the support of their students, their administrators, and their parents to do the best for their students. It is up to society to do their part by questioning bad behavior and supporting good behavior by both students and teachers. Before you go storming in to ask your child's teacher, "What's wrong with you?", look in the mirror and ask, "What's my role in this?"

Thoughts anyone?

All work and no play.....

I'm concerned...I'm concerned about a guy that I know and respect (at least today) who is the epitome of a real life Ebenezer Scrooge. He is obsessed with work. He is attached to it by his Blackberry. He thinks about it when he is off, when he is on, when he is here, and when he is away. It is his all-consuming passion. That's great for "the company". It would explain why he is able to make great leaps in a short time in his career. So far, so good for him.

Here are the two things that I'm concerned about. First of all, his all-consuming passion is something that he expects of all of his associates. He extends their work hours to the longest in the company, he pooh-pooh's things like holiday parties and social gatherings, he doesn't see a great need for holidays (or days of lost business in his eyes). All of these things obviously have a direct effect on those who work for him.

Secondly, I'm concerned about him when he's 50. Right now, he's enjoying his prime as an up and coming thirty-something. He has people that he can kick back with, but his devotion to work doesn't appear to let him get close to anyone, because he or they may be on their way up or out and won't be around for too long. I'm concerned that he will begin to look back (I know I have) and wonder what it was all for. It's great to be a Vice President, but what does that buy you? Where are the memories of time with family and friends? Those vacations to places that you'll never forget? And do you really want your sole mark on this world to be measured by a financial ledger?

I highly doubt that the inspiration for these thoughts will ever read them, but I post them as a warning to any of you who may be so inclined. If you recognize even a portion of yourself in this, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate. It doesn't even have to be work that is your all-consuming passion.....mine was my volunteering for an ambulance corps. That became my life to the exclusion of all else. That was no more healthy than Scrooge's passion.

It's good to be passionate and to follow that passion. It's important, however, to remember that life is intended to be more like a smorgasbord. There are a variety of experiences to be savored. While you may have your favorite(s) that are heaped on your plate, they shouldn't be the only thing there. Who knows, if you try something different, it may complement your favorite very nicely. Give it a shot.

Thoughts anyone?

How does this work?

Ok, today's post comes from the Op-Ed page of the New York Times (a paragon of truth). In an editorial entitled, "Tax Cuts and Consequences", the author starts by saying,"The tax system in the United States is supposed to mitigate inequality." They then go on to do an analysis of the Bush-era tax cuts.

In a classic example of 'baffling them with bulls**t', the author states, "...the top 1 percent of households pocketed 14 percent of total after-tax income in the United States, up from 12.2 percent in 2003." Ok, we're on board with the fact that the top 1 percent now get to take home a little more of their paycheck in 2004 than they did in 2003. Keep in mind that we're operating under the supposition that the tax system is supposed to be fair according to the author. That means that the next statistic should show that the other 99 percent of us have taken home less than the 14 percent that the top 1 percent get right? That would be unequal, right?

Here it comes, "In contrast, the share of after-tax income going to households in the middle of the income distribution fell to 15 percent in 2004, down from 15.4 percent in 2003..." Wait a minute, am I reading this wrong? The rest of us went from taking home 1.4 percent more than the top 1 percent, to only 1 percent more. How does that fit with the initial premise that the tax system is supposed to reduce inequality? Doesn't that just prove that the system is skewed against the top wage-earners (a category I will NEVER fall into)?

The author (someone who probably makes way more than I do) cries about how the masses are suffering because of the tax cuts. They cry about the rich getting richer and make the equally stupid statement, "thanks to the tax cuts of 2003 — investments are now taxed at about the lowest rates in the code." like this is a bad thing. My wife and I have been investing $10 a week in the stock market (thank you Sharebuilder.com) and are, quite frankly, enjoying the fact that our tax on that retirement savings is lower. Stock ownership is no longer a thing only for the rich to enjoy. Why would not taxing that be a bad thing?

Quite frankly, I used to think the New York Times was the epitome of intellectual thought and a model of good journalism. This ridiculous editorial's writing just shows that the tone and character of their writing is used to skew your opinion. By using statistics that actually disprove their supposition, they are able to press their anti-Bush agenda. I will concede that this is an editorial and opinion is allowed, but come on guys, could we at least keep the facts and the tone consistent?

Check this out

As I become more aware of the whole blogging thing, I realize there's a whole big world out there with lots of interesting people doing interesting things. I came across this blog, Hungry for A Month and I encourage you all to click on this link and read his account of an experiment he tried last November.

Thoughts anyone?

Dell wants a green world

In a press event today, Michael Dell urged the entire computer industry to adopt free recycling of computers. I think this is a fabulous idea and not only should all computer companies adopt it, so should us computer users. It's a great way to keep all that plastic, metal, and silicon from being dumped in landfills around the world.

What would be even more interesting, would be to have computer sales become more like auto sales. By that, I mean that Dell should be encouraging his recycling program by offering a "trade-in" when buying a new computer. You know that he is using the pieces and parts of the computers that he can to offer lower priced, reconditioned machines and printers. If you need proof of this, click on Dell Outlet and search for refurbished printers, monitors, and even systems.

There is a whole market for good machines that aren't necessarily the cutting edge because really, most of us read e-mail and surf some websites. We don't need the fastest and the coolest, but we buy them because we didn't know that we could get good "old" machines. Now you can.

Now, naysayers will carp about the fact that Dell is doing this for the publicity and to lower his production costs by reusing product. I say to you.....who cares? If he can help the environment and make some money doing that, God Bless him. While the ends does not always justify the means, where is the downside on this one?

By the way, he also announced that buyers will have the option of planting a tree for every laptop and desktop purchased. What a great way to help offset the CO2 generated by the electric company which will power your new purchase. Go for it!

If we had more forward thinkers like Michael Dell than hand-wringers like Al Gore, we would be able to eliminate global warming a lot faster. Thoughts anyone?

Era of Entitlement or It's not MY fault

Now to my original idea for the day. In a bizarre article from the AP, it is noted that a woman is suing Harpo Productions (Oprah Winfrey's company) because she got pushed down the stairs going to her seat. Are you kidding me? This ranks right up there with the woman who won a settlement from McDonalds because they sell hot coffee.

How did we become a society that believes that everything bad that happens to us deserves retribution? When did we stop realizing that bad stuff happens and that's what life is? When did we stop taking responsibility for our own actions? If the coffee is hot, don't hold it between your legs while you are driving. If the crowd is unruly, don't try to get in front of it and then be surprised if it knocks you down.

There used to be a piece that circulated the Internet and was attributed to Bill Gates. My friends at Snopes.com tell me that is not true. It is actually from Charles J. Sykes, author of the book Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can't Read, Write, Or Add. Here it is in its entirety:

Rule No. 1: Life is not fair. Get used to it. The average teen-ager
uses the phrase "It's not fair" 8.6 times a day. You got it from your parents,
who said it so often you decided they must be the most idealistic generation
ever. When they started hearing it from their own kids, they realized Rule No.
1.

Rule No. 2: The real world won't care as much about your
self-esteem as much as your school does. It'll expect you to accomplish
something before you feel good about yourself. This may come as a shock.
Usually, when inflated self-esteem meets reality, kids complain that it's not
fair. (See Rule No. 1)

Rule No. 3: Sorry, you won't make $40,000 a year right out of
high school. And you won't be a vice president or have a car phone either. You
may even have to wear a uniform that doesn't have a Gap label.

Rule No. 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait 'til
you get a boss. He doesn't have tenure, so he tends to be a bit edgier. When you
screw up, he's not going to ask you how you feel about it.

Rule No. 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity.
Your grandparents had a different word for burger flipping. They called it
opportunity. They weren't embarrassed making minimum wage either. They would
have been embarrassed to sit around talking about Kurt Cobain all weekend.

Rule No. 6: It's not your parents' fault. If you screw up,
you are responsible. This is the flip side of "It's my life," and "You're not
the boss of me," and other eloquent proclamations of your generation. When you
turn 18, it's on your dime. Don't whine about it, or you'll sound like a baby
boomer.

Rule No. 7: Before you were born your parents weren't as boring
as they are now. They got that way paying your bills, cleaning up your room and
listening to you tell them how idealistic you are. And by the way, before you
save the rain forest from the blood-sucking parasites of your parents'
generation, try delousing the closet in your bedroom.

Rule No. 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers.
Life hasn't. In some schools, they'll give you as many times as you want to get
the right answer. Failing grades have been abolished and class valedictorians
scrapped, lest anyone's feelings be hurt. Effort is as important as results.
This, of course, bears not the slightest resemblance to anything in real life.
(See Rule No. 1, Rule No. 2 and Rule No. 4.)

Rule No. 9: Life is not divided into semesters, and you don't get
summers off. Not even Easter break. They expect you to show up every day. For
eight hours. And you don't get a new life every 10 weeks. It just goes on and
on. While we're at it, very few jobs are interested in fostering your
self-expression or helping you find yourself. Fewer still lead to
self-realization. (See Rule No. 1 and Rule No. 2.)

Rule No. 10: Television is not real life. Your life is not a sitcom.
Your problems will not all be solved in 30 minutes, minus time for commercials.
In real life, people actually have to leave the coffee shop to go to jobs. Your
friends will not be as perky or pliable as Jennifer Aniston.

Rule No. 11: Be nice to nerds. You may end up working for them. We
all could.

Rule No. 12: Smoking does not make you look cool. It makes you look
moronic. Next time you're out cruising, watch an 11-year-old with a butt in his
mouth. That's what you look like to anyone over 20. Ditto for "expressing
yourself" with purple hair and/or pierced body parts.

Rule No. 13: You are not immortal. (See Rule No. 12.) If you are
under the impression that living fast, dying young and leaving a beautiful
corpse is romantic, you obviously haven't seen one of your peers at room
temperature lately.

Rule No. 14: Enjoy this while you can. Sure parents are a pain,
school's a bother, and life is depressing. But someday you'll realize how
wonderful it was to be a kid. Maybe you should start now. You're welcome.

Rules 1, 2, and 5 are my personal favorites. I think it's time that school's go back to teaching those beliefs. Nothing makes me angrier that the local sports teams making everyone a "winner" in a contest. It robs the winner of the sense of accomplishment and makes the loser complacent.

While it may seem a small thing, giving a 6 year old a medal because he showed up in a race that he placed last out of 15 is wrong. It tells him that it's important just to show up, not to work to achieve, just to show up. How far a stretch is it to then evolve into a welfare dad (or mom) who feels entitled to government assistance merely because they breathe oxygen? They don't need to work because they've been taught it's enough to be here. That's all that's required for someone else to have to take care of them. That's crap and it's time we start teaching it in every home, church, school, job, and on every street corner!!!

We absolutely need to help those who for whatever reason (mental or physical defect for example) aren't able to achieve as much as their better able peers. That is the purpose of government to care for the common good. For the rest of you, get off your butt and get a job because I'm tired of going to mine every day so you can stay home and eat, drink, and be merry on my dime.

A word about the French

In my search for things to write about, I came across the following statement in an AP article on Iraq:

"French President Jacques Chirac, meanwhile, said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq destabilized the entire Middle East and caused terrorism to spread, adding that the problems in Iraq justified France's strong opposition to the war.
"As France foresaw and feared, the war in Iraq caused upheavals whose effects have not yet finished unraveling," Chirac said Friday in his New Year's message to French ambassadors."

The fact that France foresaw anything is unlikely. It is more that France feared, a common French trait. I hope they remember how much they have supported their loyal US ally the next time they need us. While I think that renaming toast and fries to be "freedom" is ridiculous, I understand that we should no longer consider the French government to be deserving of any more support (financial or political) or consideration than that of Namibia. In short, they are not worthy of our time.