In which our resident grouch shares entries from his journal of gripes.
(Newest at the top - oldest at the bottom.)
I was just thinking...there's really not much to complain about that hasn't already been covered by someone else. There are a lot of people doing a lot of grumbling, and it's a little tough for a cranky curmudgeon to find some new ground to cover, but sometimes if you're diligent you can find a new angle to an old complaint, and that's my mission.
Let's talk about Customer Service, a subject I know a little about since I spent much of my career as...a Customer Service Manager. (Which explains why I keep unnecessarily capitalizing the words.) There have been plenty of examples of poor customer service related, and countless horror stories told, and of course everyone knows that a lot of the Customer Service staffing has been farmed out to the third - or maybe the fourth - world, so we can't go down that road either. Let me drill down to something a little more fundamental. What catches in my craw is the almost universal lack of attention to detail and concern exhibited by practitioners of the art of Customer Service. To get even more specific, it drives me bananas when a CSR (Customer Service Rep) doesn't even take the time to listen to what you're saying, or read what you've written, but instead jumps immediately to a generic, rote answer to your problem.
You run into the same attitude all the time, whether it's by email or phone call. You're trying to explain your problem and they're leaping to the conclusion that you're yet another stupid know-nothing who has to be led through all the basics. Are you sure you have it plugged in? Is the little red light lit up?
As a former professional, I do understand that most of the calls the CSR receives are indeed from people who don't know beans about the subject...but I also understand that a good CSR will do something very basic...they'll listen, and then make a decision on the level of knowledge of the customer and tailor their advice accordingly.
Of course, some CSRs aren't very knowledgeable themselves about their subject, and are only reading from prepared notebooks of standard answers - but let's don't go there...
"The fox is guarding the hen-house." You don't have to be a geezer to recognize and understand that old phrase, but have you ever thought about how often it can be used to describe everyday situations? It popped into my mind recently when I was fuming (again) about politicians.
You hear a lot of discussion, both pro and con, about the Medicare Drug Program, but you seldom hear a word about the root cause of that and any other Washington boondoggles. The real problem, my friends, is the entrenched political establishment, which consists of greedy politicians of both parties, scratching either other's backs and catering to special interests to the extent that it's almost been raised to an art form.
Which brings us to the proverbial fox...at the base of the whole sorry mess is the simple fact that the politicians themselves are the ones in charge of "watching the hen-house". But their thoughts are focused on gaining rewards - and even more important, getting re-elected. Politicians are convinced that keeping their gravy train job is always their number one priority, and that's so wrong that I hardly know where to begin. The founders of this country never intended for congress to be a full-time job, only a periodic meeting of influential citizens who would (ideally) gather to pass necessary laws, and then return to their normal profession. However, it has evolved into a full-time, lucrative career that current office-holders will fight for to their last breath.
Our only chance -and it's probably a slim one - is to support and vote for those candidates who speak up for campaign reform, and even more important, term limits. Until professional politicians are forced to limit the amount of time they can spend at the feeding trough, we'll never see any improvement in how things are done in Washington...and we'll continue on the same old precarious path.
It's the beginning of a new year and that always seems to bring out a plethora (love that word) of resolutions. You see them in newspapers and magazines, on TV, and of course in all kinds of writings on websites. As near as I can tell, the philosophy behind this concept is that you spend the entire year picking up all kinds of bad habits...and then start the new year by promising to turn over a new leaf and suddenly become a better person.
I suppose the practice is harmless enough, but I only hope that people don't take it too seriously. I can easily imagine how someone who is already leaning toward bouts of depression could easily feel disappointment and a lessening of self-esteem if they find themselves breaking the resolutions they so hopefully made. Maybe it's better to understand that the whole process is just a light-hearted way to try to improve yourself...failing that, you're better off if you don't make resolutions at all.
I made one big resolution years ago, and have kept it every since. I resolved to not make any more resolutions...so far, so good.
"Tis the season"..."tra la la"...and all that stuff. Not to sound like Scrooge - which is probably unavoidable as I pursue this line of reasoning so let's just say "bah, humbug" too while we're at it - but have you noticed that the holiday season isn't as much fun as it used to be? I'm not talking about the same old discussion that's been around for years...you know the one, about how it's all become so commercialized, etc. We all know that, and it's an old story. No, I'm talking about how geezer-hood seems to sort of slow down our appreciation of the holidays.
When I was younger - an overused geezer-speak phrase, but it fits here - I always wondered why older folks seemed to be a little less "with it" during the holidays. My parents, my in-laws, great-aunts and uncles, whomever, all seemed to sort of just be waiting out the holiday season. They didn't get excited, they didn't talk about it all the time, they didn't constantly worry about Christmas shopping. Sometimes they had to be coaxed into putting up decorations. Sheesh! I could never figure it out. Didn't they know it was the best time of the year? A time for family things, giving (and getting) presents, enjoying great food...and oh yeah, a time of religious significance too?
Well, now I know and understand why the geezers acted that way. Yeah, all those holiday things are nice and there are parts of it that I still enjoy - for example, seeing family - but let's look at it from the average geezer's standpoint. Christmas presents? There's nothing we really need ourselves, and to give them to others means we have to work them into our budget...and we're on a fixed income. Holiday food? Most of us are on restricted diets or just have digestive systems that no longer agree with rich food. Put up decorations? A lot of work and then later we've gotta take 'em down. Religious feelings? Well, if you're really a spiritual person then you don't need a special season to feel it.
I guess I do sound sort of like Scrooge but...I'll be happy to see January 2nd.
Recently I read one those short first-person articles in a news magazine - you know, the kind where some Average Joe gives us his take on something - and it sort of stuck with me because the guy is a geezer. It seems that he's eighty-something and very proud of the fact that he's in great health, never needs to go to the doctor, doesn't take any pills, etc, etc, and he owes it all to clean living, eating right, exercise, and...well, you get the idea. Forgetting for a moment the feeling that I'd like to smack him around a little because of his smugness, and also ignoring the fact that he probably owes more to his genes than he does to his lifestyle, it occurred to me that taking pills is something that almost all geezers have in common, but WOW is it confusing these days.
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that drugs do help a lot of people to live longer and live better, but the confusion occurs because people just can't accept that there will always be side effects to even the best drugs. Sometimes those side effects can be pretty bad, but does that mean we should ban the drug while lawyers get rich by pursuing multi-million dollar class-action proceedings against the drug companies? Let's keep some common sense about this. If a thousand people take a drug and one of those people dies from it, but the other nine-hundred and ninety-nine people are saved from a fatal disease, then isn't that a pretty good thing? Now of course I wouldn't want to be the one guy who doesn't make it, but the point is that an awful lot of people are helped by the drug, so does it make sense to take it off the market and at the same time penalize the drug company?
I'm not necessarily defending the drug companies, but they're just doing what all companies do - attempt to be successful by putting out a product and making a profit from it. In the case of the drug companies, if they have a good product it will not only make money but it can also help a lot of people...as long as we let it. I'm not asking for any lessening of safeguards or testing, but just the application of some common sense when it comes to expectations.
Nostalgia is something that is - or at least should be - near and dear to the hearts of all geezers. After all, it's part of what defines us. And this website certainly has a lot of examples of nostalgia and links to other websites that specialize in old music, etc. However, sometimes there are things that are done in the name of nostalgia that puzzle me.
There is an county near here that puts on a big annual festival that not only features beautiful Autumn scenery but is also built around - and named for - a number of old covered bridges. This festival is tremendously successful and draws huge crowds, all of which adds up to a lot of $$ for locals and approved vendors. A while back, one of the bridges was destroyed by arson, and not surprisingly it was a bridge located smack in the middle of one of the most-visited areas. (I guess the vandals wouldn't have enjoyed burning it as much if it had been one of the bridges located way out in the middle of nowhere.)
OK, that's kind of sad...but what's really sad is that a group of locals immediately formed a committee to rebuild the bridge. They're estimating a cost of $1.5 million, which they of course want to furnish via contributions. Now let me get this straight...a festival based mostly on nostalgia in the form of old, authentic covered bridges, is going to build a modern replica? Isn't that kind of...backwards?
Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the bridge is located right in the middle of one of the highest traffic, most profitable shopping areas?
Amid the tragedy and devastation from hurricane Katrina comes news that - surprise - the greedy oil industry has once again used an unfortunate event as an excuse to raise prices. Don't you get a little tired of that? It seems as though every tragedy, every occurrence that makes the news in any way, becomes an opportunity for someone to profit. You can almost hear them thinking - the hurricane caused disruption of oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico, so hey...let's jump up the oil prices!
The current price hikes might be at least somewhat warranted, but I think it's obvious that the oil industry has lots of people who are devoted to thinking up and putting out all kinds of disinformation that they can use to drive the oil market ever upward. Some of their manipulations are pretty obvious. For example, have you noticed how no matter what the season, the oil "experts" are always predicting increased usage? If it's approaching Summer, then it's "usage will increase due to vacation travel" and if it's Winter approaching, then it's "cold weather predicted, which will cause rises in heating oil consumption". It's always something...and the news media plays along, reporting every opinion from every so-called knowledgeable source, and therefore helping it become a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, if TV news keeps reporting how oil prices are going to go up...they certainly will. What's next? Will we hear something like..."A little girl was observed picking a flower today, and oil industry sources predict a ripple effect that will cause massive shortages..." That's only a slight exaggeration but you get the idea.
The other interesting thing about all this is that apparently it's nobody's fault, or at least that's what they'd have us believe. There are no villains. The oil companies are so huge that they're impersonal, and have millions of stockholders. The "middle-men" - the distributors - are sort of hidden from view and are seldom mentioned, and of course the poor gas station owners are operating with razor-thin margins, or so we're told. Never mind that some of them are the same guys who raised prices excessively right after 9/11 and had to back off after the authorities stepped in.
So who's to blame? According to the experts, WE are...because we drive big cars, don't conserve fuel, blah, blah, blah. Of course, there are a lot of people getting rich off of us, so I kind of think they don't mind.
I know that this subject is an old one, and that it has been talked about for years by a lot of different people, but I was reminded of it again by a recent news story. It seems that a thirsty thief drank a work of art. Yes, that's right...apparently a parched villain picked up a two-liter bottle of water and drank it, but didn't realize (or did he?) that it was a "work of art" on display. The bottle contained melted Antarctic ice, and was the "artist's" statement about global warming. The asking price for this masterpiece was £42,500 (about $75,000).
Call me old-fashioned (duh) but even aside from the water story I'm still annoyed by phony stuff that has been considered legitimate for years in the art world, like painters who stand back and splatter paint on a canvas and then sell it for a million bucks. I mean, why is a realistic painting considered somehow beneath the dignity of art "experts" and therefore of no interest to trendy collectors, but something that looks like nothing is considered wonderful? It makes my head spin.
Believe it or not, I am capable of standing back and seeing the bigger picture, and I do understand that there should be a place - I guess - in the art world for all kinds of expression, but come on...a bottle of water? A randomly spattered canvas?
And then there's another type of "art" that is getting a lot of attention - performance art. This runs the gamut from the guy who draped acres of cloth around Central Park in New York to live performances by individuals who do something like painting themselves with pig's blood while the suitably impressed audience oohs and aahs. Another "artist" has video-taped herself with raw meat all over her face. And back to the water theme, a guy in London is letting the faucet in his apartment run nonstop as his statement about how our society doesn't practice water conservation. So...he's protesting the waste of water by...wasting water. No word about how he can sell that particular work of art, though.
Norman Rockwell had more talent in his little finger than any of these "artists" have in their whole body.
I'm not an Apple fanatic...well, actually I do like a crisp Golden Delicious, but in this case I'm referring to the electronics company. I don't dislike them, and I do give them credit for promoting new and exciting technologies, but I think that a lot of their success has more to do with people wanting to be trendy than actual innovation. However, I can't deny that Apple has almost single-handedly created the boom in portable audio with the development and marketing of the iPod. When they began advertising the iPod there were of course other portable MP3 players out there, but it took Apple to make the whole process cool, and that's what starts and drives a craze.
I have a MP3 player that I use every day and I love it, but it's not an iPod. At the time I cracked my piggy bank and bought it, the price was much lower than an iPod and although it didn't hold nearly as many tunes it still had room for 6 to 8 hours of music, which was plenty for me. On top of that, it's battery life was over twice that of the iPod. It also integrated smoothly with my Windows operating system and that's what most of us use, even though Apple does have a lot of fans.
I did, however, replace the headphones that came with the player, and I'd recommend that anyone purchasing a music player do the same...and yes, that advice even applies to the iPod, which brings us to this month's grumble. (By now, you probably thought that my complaint was with the iPod but you were wrong.) The tiny ear-bud headphones that are furnished with all MP3 players - and in fact with any portable audio device - are pretty cheap and do not do justice to the music. (And this is still not what this month's grumble is about - be patient, I'll get there.) You don't have to spend a fortune on replacement headphones, though. I'm using the Koss Sparkplug phones, which are very reasonably priced and have specs far superior to most others, even the expensive models. They are also the type that fit deeply into the ear and give you the full sound that you can't get from others...and folks, when I say full sound I'm talking bass-notes, which is the real subject of this rant.
When did deep bass-notes become something to sneer at? You hear it again and again, so-called experts deriding someone's desire for "juke-box bass", almost as if anyone who likes the sound of the low notes is at the caveman level. Hey, excuse me, but if we're listening to music with the intent of experiencing the full spectrum of sound, then why wouldn't we want bass? If you listen to live music you don't tune out the deep notes, do you? Take it from me, if you're not hearing the full, rich boom of the lower frequencies then you're only hearing part of the music. And yet, most people are not even aware of what they are missing because their current headphones almost completely ignore the bass notes. Hey, wake up and really listen to the music!
Being a Curmudgeon is easy, but writing a regular column relating to it is a little tougher. However, it seems as if I always manage to find something that honks me off enough to do the trick.
Recently I found myself in possession of a boxful of old 35MM color slides, along with some even older black and white pictures. I decided - being the "computer whiz" that I am - that I wanted to scan them into digital form, which would allow me to post them on a web page if I so desired, or just look at them in an easier form. That was especially important, since I don't have a slide projector or viewer...and holding slides up to the light to try to view them is not very satisfactory. As a secondary benefit, it would also make it easier to get prints of some of the old slides.
I knew that I could scan the old black and white pictures on my ancient flat-bed scanner, but the slides were another story. I did some research on the web (of course) and as is often the case, found all kinds of conflicting info. This is one of the little "catches" of using the vast resources on the internet. Everything you could possibly want to know about almost anything is available, but an awful lot of it is garbage...and the trick is in knowing how to tell it from the good stuff. In my case, I found lots of info about scanners that would do a good job on slides...and also loads of comments from people stating that you couldn't do it, so don't even try.
Grrrr...I kept looking and reading, and eventually began to see a clear path through jungle. Some of the best info was on the websites of the big online sellers - Amazon, and a few others - where they list customer comments on many of the items they sell, and I began to see a pattern in what people were saying about some of the flat-bed scanners that supposedly handled slides. A lot of people were having success doing it, and those who weren't often sounded like they were the kind of people who probably couldn't find the "on" button. Once I got to that point, it was relatively simple to find a specific scanner with the best rating and a reasonable price, and where I could buy it. I got it, used it, and everything went fine. So...I guess the bottom line is that I have nothing to be curmudgeonly about. Darn.
Just before I sat down to write this, I was watching TV and was again reminded about an annoyance that's so familiar to me that I thought I'd already written about it here. Imagine my surprise when I checked and realized I hadn't - proving once again that my memory is about as reliable as a politician's promise.
My complaint is TV related of course - and I hope my regular readers (if there are any) don't assume that all I do is watch TV - but it's just this: when did the weather report become such a big deal to all the TV stations? I'm old enough to remember when TV weathermen - er, weather persons - just gave us a brief report of current conditions and then a forecast for tomorrow and maybe the next day. Now they are featured at the front of the newscast with a little teaser, then at least one long segment of their own, and finally again at the close of the newscast...and that's when the weather is good! If there's a thunderstorm within a hundred miles, they're likely to take over the whole newscast. On top of that, they do their best to exaggerate every drizzle into a storm and a storm into a tornado. In the Winter, they simply cannot do a forecast without mentioning at least a possibility of SNOW. (Their emphasis, not mine.)
As if that wasn't enough, they also add their unique flavor to all other programming by having frequent interruptions to "keep us posted" on weather conditions, moving weather fronts, and every freakin' thing they can think of to get a little more air time. And this really honks me off - and relates to an earlier rant of mine - they cover big areas of the TV screen with all kinds of alerts, warnings, etc, etc, etc. (And one disclaimer here - I understand that there is a legitimate use for warnings, and am not advocating their elimination. I just want them toned down a little and only used when really necessary.)
Of course, I understand that you can't necessarily lay all the blame at the doorstep of the on-air personality. It's actually a very carefully thought out and well-crafted strategy that all TV stations use now, and it's probably a chapter in the book "Running a TV Station for Dummies". It's a way to get one up on the competition and make your station the one that everyone thinks of first. Never mind that while doing that they've also got us all thinking that the weather is a much bigger deal than it really is...or maybe - because of the "crying wolf" aspects of it - not taking them seriously when something happens that IS important for us to know about.
My latest annoyance is not exactly a new subject, but I thought it was important enough to discuss one more time because I know that there are still some people who are confused about it, especially seniors. It's internet fraud, and twice recently I've been the subject of prime examples. The first instance (which was mentioned earlier in the News Blog) was when my credit card was hit by a charge from a bunch of weasels with a phony website. I don't know how they got my credit card number, but it is out there at various websites where I occasionally buy stuff, and even though you always hope those places are honest and careful you can never be sure. Anyhow, I protested the charge, VISA removed it, and that's it. (Although I hope VISA goes after them in court.)
The second occurrence of fraud to hit me recently was when I got one of those bogus emails about my credit card. You know the kind I mean - they act like a legitimate email from VISA, and say that they need me to click on a link that will take me to a website where I can "register" my credit card. It's called "phishing" and we all get them once in a while. Sometimes they're obviously fake but others look pretty good, as this one did. In the spirit of convincing me to click on the link, they helpfully told me that if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to keep using my credit card. Yeah, right.
Even though some of these devious emails are very real looking, you can usually find clues to their illegitimacy if you carefully look them over. For example, they use lots of real VISA logos (that they've copied somewhere) and they also disguise their return address, but if you keep looking you'll find clues. Once I dug into this one a little, I found a return address that looked pretty good at first glance...but then I noticed that it had VISA spelled with two I's. Of course, it's not always that easy to spot these, so the safest thing is to just delete these types of emails and DO NOT click on the links. Your real credit card company will never send you an email like that.
Oh, and one more thing...don't let those idiots keep you from enjoying all the advantages of the internet. Just remember to be a little careful and you won't have to be a lot sorry.
Spin. A word that used to mean something else - and still does I guess - but the way you see it used more often these days is to describe what happens when someone with a certain viewpoint tries to influence our understanding of something. It seems to happen most often with political viewpoints in the news, to the extent where you suspect that it's almost impossible to get a real, informed, and factual account of a news story. It's kind of annoying, because traditionally the news has always been (supposedly) divided into two types - factual news stories, and editorials, which include columnists who clearly are putting forth a viewpoint. I don't have a problem with those because they are upfront about their bias. The problem occurs when the "factual" news stories become colored by the writer's personal feelings on the subject. It has gotten to the point where you don't know what to believe and who to trust, and it's not limited to any one group either...both conservatives and liberals are equally skilled at it.
It extends beyond politics too. If you really think about it, practically everything we see or hear is getting the benefit of some sort of spin, whether it's someone trying to make us think that one product is cooler than another, or that the latest TV show or movie is a "must-see". And when did all the second-rate actors and actresses become "stars"? To answer my own question, I guess so that we'd be able to tell them from "super-stars" or "mega-stars". What's next, "superduper-stars"?
I've been doing this internet stuff since the early days - something like 15 years now - so you'd think that I'd be pretty mellow about it, but there is one thing that kind of worries me. We all hate the proliferation of spam - and with good reason, because the messages clog our email and many of them are malicious spoofs - but what you don't hear a lot about is a secondary effect of all that spam, and that's the one that bugs me.
It starts when a spammer signs up with a new ISP (Internet Service Provider), which happens a lot because spammers have to move often. He then begins sending his garbage, whatever it is. Most of the ISPs who are receiving his automated emails have incoming spam controls, so they begin intercepting and rejecting his junk. OK, that's fine...but the real problem arises when they then contact one of the anti-spam clearing houses and blacklist the spammer's ISP. This means that ALL emails coming from the spammer's ISP are rejected by ALL ISPs that subscribe to the anti-spam service. This might affect tens of thousands of people, and remember - they're not just blacklisting the spammer's emails, but everyone who uses that ISP. Yours, mine, all kinds of innocent users.
Eventually the blacklisting gets lifted, but in the meantime there are countless emails not being delivered, and sometimes we're not even aware of it until much later if at all. Some of us really depend on email being reliable and timely (even though we probably shouldn't) and this type of pitfall is a real problem. I hope someone can come up with a good workable solution and soon. I'm thinking that we might have to consider capital punishment for the spammers.
The new year promises to offer a lot of opportunities for me to expand my curmudgeon muscles, but my first tirade of the year is actually a pretty mild one. In fact, if you don't watch the Food Network on TV then you might not even know what I'm talking about. (And no cracks about me having lots of time to watch it.)
Here it is... why do so many chefs seem to think that it's OK to get their fingers all over the food they're going to serve to their patrons? I'm not talking about the normal handling they do when they're preparing the raw ingredients, although that gets a little tiresome too when they prod and squeeze and stick their fingers in everything, sometimes after they've just rubbed their nose or wiped off sweat. (Not a pretty picture but hey, it happens.)
No, I'm talking about the things they do when they "plate" the food before sending it to the customer...like grabbing a handful of salad stuff and putting it on the plate, and then massaging it to make room for the meat course, which also arrives by the five-finger express. They then continue piling up and arranging things strictly by finger power - almost as if they don't have any freakin' utensils at their disposal.
And don't get me started on the trendy, pretentious practice of building silly stacks of food in the middle of the plate, topped by swirls of sauce. You know the kind I mean, where they start with a base of some kind of goopy mess, put a piece of meat on top of it, then something else on top of that, and finally some kind of ridiculous garnish jammed in at the summit, standing straight up. The whole idea seems to be to see how high they can build it (requiring even more fingering, of course) and I pity the poor waiter who has to try to serve it without the whole leaning tower falling over into the patron's lap.
But the final irony is that this type of cuisine is so IN right now that the price the patron pays is probably double what they'd pay for the same meal prepared the normal way. Sheesh!
Is anybody but me annoyed about how often the TV networks take over large parts of our TV screens? You know what I mean - the little information and/or advertising logos and gimmicks they show at the bottom right corner most often, but sometimes all over the blasted screen.
It all started with the logos - first used by the cable networks, but then copied by the regular networks - and it wasn't too bad, having a little harmless semi-transparent thingy there all the time. And then we sometimes found value in the informative crawls that sometimes moved across the bottom of screen - weather updates, sports scores, valuable stuff like that. (Depending on your point of view, of course.)
But like all annoyances discovered by the media, it soon began to grow in ways that weren't so pleasant. Now we're constantly bombarded by every type of promo, advertising, and useless information. Not only is it very distracting, but the ads are taking more and more of the screen space. Some of them are now animated, which means we get to see Homer Simpson jumping around on the screen while we're trying to watch the regular show. The latest twist is that the ads have sound too - you're trying to follow the plot in whatever you're watching, and the voices of the actors are drowned out by the noise of the promo that's flashing around the screen!
The really sad part about all this is that it will only get worse. There will come a day where we have to watch a TV show in a small space in the middle of the screen, because all four sides will have promos, logos, ads, animations, scrolls - on the other hand, maybe we won't even bother to watch...