Everybody loves Ikea, right.
I can't say I do right now. A month ago, we went to Ikea to get some bookshelves for the den. Almost everything we needed was in stock, but we didn't have room for everything in one trip anyway, so we got what they had on the assurance that the most critically needed piece would be in the following week. I was on vacation for the following week, so it would have been nice to have gotten it right away, but you take what you can get.
We waited.
We called. A week later, they still didn't have the bookcase. They told us that they didn't know when it would be in stock but that they hoped to have more information soon. We called the next day and were told that the bookcase would be in stock in one and a half to two weeks. The next day, we called back and learned that there was no information on when this particular bookcase, but that it should be expected in two to three days. We were also reminded that Ikea's online virtual assistant, Anna, could help with all our needs.
Anna's useless.
We get a different answer every day.
We have $400 worth of unassembled bookshelves in the living room.
I'm irritated.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Change of programming
When your favorite radio station stops playing good music and starts playing stuff you hate to get new advertisers to replace the ones they pissed off, it is referred to as "a programming change."
I realized a moment ago that my profile claims that I will write about what's going on in the classes I teach. I actually don't do that - mainly because I don't believe that anybody who reads my blog actually cares which worksheets my students did together in class today. Frankly, most of my clientèle is a) either not net-savvy enough to enter into the blogosphere, or b)they don't give a rip what their kids or classmates are doing. I have, in the past, refrained from posting honest opinions or using appropriately coarse language because I wanted this blog to be student- and parent-friendly.
That is a moot point and I will now write what I please as I please and stop claiming that I think that my students or their parents visit here to get information they couldn't get in class or by emailing me.
If and when the clientèle I teach changes, I may invite them here again, but as it stands now, these Feckless Ramblings are for me. If my students or their parents visit, that is incidental.
I realized a moment ago that my profile claims that I will write about what's going on in the classes I teach. I actually don't do that - mainly because I don't believe that anybody who reads my blog actually cares which worksheets my students did together in class today. Frankly, most of my clientèle is a) either not net-savvy enough to enter into the blogosphere, or b)they don't give a rip what their kids or classmates are doing. I have, in the past, refrained from posting honest opinions or using appropriately coarse language because I wanted this blog to be student- and parent-friendly.
That is a moot point and I will now write what I please as I please and stop claiming that I think that my students or their parents visit here to get information they couldn't get in class or by emailing me.
If and when the clientèle I teach changes, I may invite them here again, but as it stands now, these Feckless Ramblings are for me. If my students or their parents visit, that is incidental.
Appetites
I was just responding to a comment on a previous post when I hit upon something. We, as a society of consumers, specifically consumers of "news," don't want relevant information on which we can take informed action - that requires action.
We're too lazy to take action. We want to watch passively as bad things happen to unknown people. The late Kurt Vonnegut Jr. said of writing that "[The writer should] be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them — in order that the reader may see what they are made of."
The problem is that the people in news reports are not fictional characters, no matter how far-fetched some of them may seem to be. They are real people, and as fellow human beings, we owe it to ourselves to remember that and to do what good we can for those people we can and not simply wallow in the misfortune of strangers.
We're too lazy to take action. We want to watch passively as bad things happen to unknown people. The late Kurt Vonnegut Jr. said of writing that "[The writer should] be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them — in order that the reader may see what they are made of."
The problem is that the people in news reports are not fictional characters, no matter how far-fetched some of them may seem to be. They are real people, and as fellow human beings, we owe it to ourselves to remember that and to do what good we can for those people we can and not simply wallow in the misfortune of strangers.
And Yet. . .
Events like the shooting at Virginia Tech and the hunt for Jeffery Carney, when reflected upon, lead us to think about what we might do better if we found ourselves in a similar situation.
When I talked to a counselor from the local Victim/Witness, I came to understand that a big part of my distress at being on lockdown yesterday was a feeling of powerlessness. Had the problem actually at my school, I might have been able to be proactive. I desperately wanted to do something - to do more than just minimize the concerns of a variety of adolescents with a whole range of reactions to an unfamiliar situation.
One of the coping mechanisms that the therapist and I came up with was to prepare a plan for the possibility of a "next time." I'll be sure to keep games, movies, and other "sponge activities" on hand from now on, probably some snacks, and most importantly, I'll prepare myself mentally for the idea that no matter how many times I face a scenario like this, each one will be different, and I will never get a "do-over" of the Lindhurst incident, nor do I need one. I did fine the first time, and I did fine yesterday.
The present is always more important than the past. All the same, reflection is better than mindless ogling.
When I talked to a counselor from the local Victim/Witness, I came to understand that a big part of my distress at being on lockdown yesterday was a feeling of powerlessness. Had the problem actually at my school, I might have been able to be proactive. I desperately wanted to do something - to do more than just minimize the concerns of a variety of adolescents with a whole range of reactions to an unfamiliar situation.
One of the coping mechanisms that the therapist and I came up with was to prepare a plan for the possibility of a "next time." I'll be sure to keep games, movies, and other "sponge activities" on hand from now on, probably some snacks, and most importantly, I'll prepare myself mentally for the idea that no matter how many times I face a scenario like this, each one will be different, and I will never get a "do-over" of the Lindhurst incident, nor do I need one. I did fine the first time, and I did fine yesterday.
The present is always more important than the past. All the same, reflection is better than mindless ogling.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Pointing the finger
So, I've been thinking about the news coverage on this nutter who murdered so many at Virginia Tech and the well-thought-out criticism of those news agencies that feed the most prurient tastes of viewers, and my own and others' reactions to these reactions, and the more I consider it, the more certain I am that the fault lies not with those who cover the news, but with those who consume it - us.
NBC has done what they are supposed to have done: they sold ad time. They did this by giving a forum to a deeply disturbed murderer.
What if they hadn't? What would we say when we learned from some other news agency that NBC had suppressed the tape? Wouldn't we be outraged that journalists had failed in their essential duty to give us the whole truth - all the facts?
Now, a local news channel tonight reported on a pair of men who shoved a woman out of her motorized wheelchair and raped her at gunpoint in broad daylight. This is different - these men are still at large, and by reporting their crime and a physical description, we can hope that someone will recognize and report them, leading to their arrest and prosecution, and maybe some increased measure of safety for other would-be victims.
To avidly consume the rantings of a dead murderer is no doubt train-wreck fascinating, but it also encourages the behavior.
There's an old fable that goes like this:
A frog encounters a scorpion drowning at the river's edge, and offers to carry the scorpion safely to the other side. When they reach the other side and the scorpion stings the frog to death, the frog asks why, to which the scorpion's only response is "You knew what I was when you picked me up." There are other versions of this fable: one has a snake. In another, the scorpion kills his savior before they reach safety, killing them both. That's not important.
What's important is that we know what the news is for. To decide for ourselves what we expect of it. When the local paper made a habit of running photos of gory car crashes - people at their worst desperate for help, or bloody remains, my sister canceled her subscription until they mended their ways. We all know that automobile travel is preposterously dangerous, or we should, but seeing our neighbors in their hour of crisis is not informative - it is pornographic. It is prurient. It should be discouraged.
I don't treat my dog when she jumps up unbidden and I don't watch salacious reporting. To behave otherwise would be to compromise myself.
NBC has done what they are supposed to have done: they sold ad time. They did this by giving a forum to a deeply disturbed murderer.
What if they hadn't? What would we say when we learned from some other news agency that NBC had suppressed the tape? Wouldn't we be outraged that journalists had failed in their essential duty to give us the whole truth - all the facts?
Now, a local news channel tonight reported on a pair of men who shoved a woman out of her motorized wheelchair and raped her at gunpoint in broad daylight. This is different - these men are still at large, and by reporting their crime and a physical description, we can hope that someone will recognize and report them, leading to their arrest and prosecution, and maybe some increased measure of safety for other would-be victims.
To avidly consume the rantings of a dead murderer is no doubt train-wreck fascinating, but it also encourages the behavior.
There's an old fable that goes like this:
A frog encounters a scorpion drowning at the river's edge, and offers to carry the scorpion safely to the other side. When they reach the other side and the scorpion stings the frog to death, the frog asks why, to which the scorpion's only response is "You knew what I was when you picked me up." There are other versions of this fable: one has a snake. In another, the scorpion kills his savior before they reach safety, killing them both. That's not important.
What's important is that we know what the news is for. To decide for ourselves what we expect of it. When the local paper made a habit of running photos of gory car crashes - people at their worst desperate for help, or bloody remains, my sister canceled her subscription until they mended their ways. We all know that automobile travel is preposterously dangerous, or we should, but seeing our neighbors in their hour of crisis is not informative - it is pornographic. It is prurient. It should be discouraged.
I don't treat my dog when she jumps up unbidden and I don't watch salacious reporting. To behave otherwise would be to compromise myself.
Sensational News
This is my feeling exactly. And, yet, I feel conflicted.
Now, I may have less room to talk than some, having, in fact, been part of the making of a made-for-t.v. movie, but I believe that sensationalizing the acts of a violent person and giving them a platform for their deranged agenda is destructive, rather than informative.
On the other hand, perhaps if we gave these people's angst-ridden ramblings an ear to begin with, we could avoid the violence, the national attention and the pain that ensues.
I think of Eric Houston and it occurs to me that "there, but for the grace of God, goes almost every one of my students." I want to spend the time with them that they need - the time too many of their parents don't - and to avoid letting them feel like they've been painted into a corner.
The problem is not that the media covers these stories, but that they take the perspective that they do and that they wait until after the violence to address these people's needs.
Then again, maybe the problem is that we let the media command so much of our attention.
I don't stay tuned to the news like my sisters do. This is not out of laziness, but out of a very real sense that the news is all reruns and ratings grabs. I don't learn anything watching the news except that I don't like watching the news. I get word somehow that various ballot initiatives might affect me and I do research online to determine how I want to vote. I forecast the weather by looking at the calendar and whether or not the newspaper comes in a plastic bag. I read the editorials occasionally and John Stossel and Thomas Sowell whenever I remember to, but I don't go for the sensational news that seems to sell.
Now, I may have less room to talk than some, having, in fact, been part of the making of a made-for-t.v. movie, but I believe that sensationalizing the acts of a violent person and giving them a platform for their deranged agenda is destructive, rather than informative.
On the other hand, perhaps if we gave these people's angst-ridden ramblings an ear to begin with, we could avoid the violence, the national attention and the pain that ensues.
I think of Eric Houston and it occurs to me that "there, but for the grace of God, goes almost every one of my students." I want to spend the time with them that they need - the time too many of their parents don't - and to avoid letting them feel like they've been painted into a corner.
The problem is not that the media covers these stories, but that they take the perspective that they do and that they wait until after the violence to address these people's needs.
Then again, maybe the problem is that we let the media command so much of our attention.
I don't stay tuned to the news like my sisters do. This is not out of laziness, but out of a very real sense that the news is all reruns and ratings grabs. I don't learn anything watching the news except that I don't like watching the news. I get word somehow that various ballot initiatives might affect me and I do research online to determine how I want to vote. I forecast the weather by looking at the calendar and whether or not the newspaper comes in a plastic bag. I read the editorials occasionally and John Stossel and Thomas Sowell whenever I remember to, but I don't go for the sensational news that seems to sell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
