cellio: (fire)
I'd heard that collection agencies were annoying, but I didn't realize they were also clueless.

Today was the fourth day in a row that we received a computer-generated content-free message (no name, no business ID, no purpose -- just a phone number) on the answering machine. As demonstrated by the first three days of this, I usually ignore these on the theory that they're voice-spam. But after four in a row I figured the only way to make it stop was to find out who they were.

When someone picked up the phone I said "I'm returning a call but I don't know who you are or why you called". He gave the business name (something-or-other collections) and then asked to talk with "Claudia [butchered last name]". If you take two or three twists you can get from Dani's last name to what he said, but it wasn't even one of the common, direct mispronunciations. I had to work to recognize it.

I said "I've never heard of such a person" and he said "ok, we'll take this phone number off our list" and hung up.

This is not a relative of Dani's. This was, near as I can tell, someone randomly trying a matching last name (probably every one in the book), without even attempting to determine if they have the right number. A scrupulous business would have given either the name of the person they were calling for or the name of their business in the phone messages. They might have also, maybe, had an actual human being make at least one of the calls; even when I'm home I hang up on machines that call me unless I'm specifically expecting the call.

This did me no harm, but I feel mildly harrassed.
cellio: (fist-of-death)
I could grow to really dislike Yahoo for mailing lists. I went to their site tonight to investigate a problem someone reported with a list I'm on, and I eventually noticed some text that said, approximately, "by the way, we've suspended your mail because you're bouncing". Interesting -- I've seen no evidence of bouncing, like an absence of general mail (and I even checked my mirror!), but now that you mention it, it has been a couple days since I received mail from a Yahoo mailing list. How odd.

So I clicked on the "fix the problem and then click here" link, received the message they sent, and entered the magic code to get reinstated. But I shouldn't have been suspended in the first place. And this is the second time this has happened to me (the first a year or so ago).

Yahoo seems to have this model that you do everything though their web site so of course you'll notice a problem like this right away. Um, actually, I do as little as possible through their web site; I find it annoying in many ways. And a mailing list should not require web access anyway.

They claimed they had received some bounces during the time when I was definitely receiving mail from them. If they'd, y'know, tried sending me mail saying "hey, sometimes you're bouncing", I would have looked into this sooner. (Yes, it's possible that such mail would bounce, but obviously some of their mail was getting through.) I run mailing lists; I do glance at bounce messages I receive.

I used to be indifferent to Yahoo. Can't say that any more. :-)

Meanwhile, if anyone reading this has received bounce messages when trying to email me, I'd sure like to know the details.
cellio: (lightning)
[livejournal.com profile] rectangularcat asked for a rant about "new car buying" (before ducking and running :-) ). Ok, here goes.

Read more... )

cellio: (fist-of-death)
It's only the first week of January, and already we have a strong contender for most reprehensible legislation of the year. If this passes, then in the state of Virginia a woman who has a miscarriage will be required to notify government authorities within 12 hours or face a year in jail. Yes, you read that right. (Info from [livejournal.com profile] celebrin.)

I am rarely speechless, but I'm having trouble putting my outrage into words right now.

Update Sat 9:30pm: According to the person who posted the news initially, there has been some progress based on the huge outcry (thanks to [livejournal.com profile] paquerette for the update). There's still more that needs to be done, but the response from the blogosphere seems to have made a difference. Stay tuned.
cellio: (fist-of-death)
A nine-month-old car with fewer than 3000 miles should not fail inspection.

A dealership should not have a two-week delay before they can even look at the problem, either. Or if they have that kind of delay, then VW should just pay for someone else to fix it. Nope; doesn't work that way.

The problem with VW goes beyond poor workmanship and annoying dealers. The folks at their national office may claim to care, but they don't. They never responded to my letter of complaint about the dealer that allowed my car to be spray-painted in their care, tried to claim it came in that way, and then refused to warrant the paint job against long-term damage from their ineptitude. (Psst. That would be Rohrich VW on West Liberty Avenue in Pittsburgh. Do not deal with them unless your quality standards are very, very low.)

I've got three months to go under Pennsylvania's lemon law. Go on, VW, make my day. (Sadly, they probably won't -- there have to be multiple failures in the same system; September's fuel pump and December's wiring problem don't both count.)

I wonder what I could get for trade-in on a nine-month-old car. How much value does it lose when I drive it off the lot? (Obviously I'd be SOL for sales tax, which is not insignificant.)
cellio: (caffeine)
Shabbat was pleasant and fairly normal for me. Dani, on the other hand, worked all day and well into the night, as the start-up he's working for reinterpreted its Friday deadline as a Monday deadline. (They also reinterpreted their party Saturday night as a January party, rather than encouraging employees to bring laptops, including for their spouses, to the party. :-) ) So he worked in the morning, had Shabbat lunch with me, headed into the office... and returned sometime after 2AM.

Meanwhile, I headed out to [livejournal.com profile] ralphmelton and [livejournal.com profile] lorimelton's traditional holiday party last night, where much fun was had. I had thought they were going to go light on the baking, what with job stress and stuff, but they went into overdrive again. Anyone who went home from that party hungry did it to himself; there was a great variety of very tasty food. I spent time chatting with a bunch of past coworkers from Claritech, met some of Lori's coworkers, and saw some other folks I know. A few of the usual suspects weren't there this year, but there were other people who were new to me so it all worked out.

However, that was clearly too much fun and could not be permitted without a balancing force. Read more... )

cellio: (demons-of-stupidity)
An open letter to Governor Rendell:

As you know, the Teamsters union organized a strike of the Turnpike toll collectors and maintenance crews to begin on the busiest travel day of the year. The state was forced to let travellers use the road for free on Wednesday, and has been collecting reduced tolls since then.

While many drivers are happy with this turn of events, as a taxpayer I am outraged. In most lines of work, sabotage that costs an employer money would be punished. I have heard nothing of reimbursement from the Teamsters, nor do I expect to.

I read in today's newspaper that the state has hired temporary workers to begin collecting the regular tolls, and that when the strike ends these workers will be laid off. I have a better idea: hire them permanently and fire the strikers. Quickly.

The striking workers are not being taken advantage of, as should be clear from the ease with which you hired their replacements. They make an average of $18.50 per hour, not counting overtime, which is a lot more than other cashiers make. (80% of those on strike make more than $50,000 per year.) Each year they also receive 15 paid holidays and four weeks' vacation. The deal they rejected included fully-paid health care, protection from layoffs for three years, and annual raises.

Their greed is ridiculous, and I urge you to fire these spoiled brats and replace them with people who want to work for the more-than-fair compensation the state has offered. Please restore the Turnpike to normal business as quickly as possible, before even more of our tax dollars have to be diverted to paying for this loss.

Thank you.


I haven't actually sent it yet, so feedback is very welcome. What's the correct way to address the governor, anyway? I don't think it's Dear Governor".

"Open letter" means I'll be sending copies to the newspaper and my representatives, not just whining here. :-)

Update: I may be making some unwarranted assumptions about the terms of their employment; need to check.

cellio: (crayons)
I can't make this stuff up. Really.

I've been trying for a long time to get the newspaper carrier to fling the paper onto the porch, rather than into the bushes, into the street (that's not even trying), into incipient or actual puddles, etc. Recently he's been mostly hitting the sidewalk or steps, but when it rains the paper still gets soggy, 'cause those little plastic bags can only do so much. And in the winter finding it under the snow can be a challenge.

Wednesday it rained and I called for a replacement paper, explaining (again) that a paper on the porch would have been non-soggy, and is what I requested. Thursday my paper came with an annotation:

image and catty comments behind the cut tag )

car again

Sep. 7th, 2004 01:13 pm
cellio: (demons-of-stupidity)
Them: (10:30, phone) Your car is ready.
Me: (11:15, in person): You were so wrong.

I shouldn't have been at the dealer more than ten minutes. It should have been: show up, get some paperwork, give them the key for the rental car, get my car, leave. Things were on track until we actually walked out to my car about ten minutes after I arrived.

It was covered with... something. Small specks, which I initially thought were something weird like tree pollen or dust. On closer inspection, though, those specks were (1) stuck to the car in a way that dust doesn't, and (2) evenly distributed. Very evenly distributed. Like, say, what you would get from a paint sprayer at some range.

Yes, that's right: the lot where they keep cars waiting for service is surrounded by a fence, which someone painted this weekend. Without moving the cars. Watching the light dawn on the face of the guy who thought he only had to clean my car was fascinating.

At first they tried to make this my problem -- we washed your car, they said, so this must have been on it when it came in. I firmly and politely explained that this was not the case, and that I would not accept this damage to my car. They took it back to clean it again and asked me to wait in the waiting room. (Later they told me about the painted fence.)

After ten minutes in the waiting room I concluded that people in the waiting room are too-easily forgotten, so I went up front to wait. I decided to stand in the shared entrance to the service area and showroom. I explained to the three people who asked (at various times) why I was there that I was waiting for the car that was supposed to have been ready an hour ago. I didn't go out of my way to be invasive, but I also didn't worry about being overheard.

The service guy told me they were working on the car now and it should be ready in a couple minutes. Five minutes later (no progress) I decided that this would be a fine time to have a conversation with their general manager, but I was thwarted. He failed to answer three different pages, and when I walked over to the sales department to ask for him they were also unable to locate him.

Meanwhile, they brought the car up and "just needed to dry it off". This turned into about 15 minutes of hand-scrubbing, becuase they still hadn't gotten all the paint off. (I wonder how dilligent they would have been had I not been standing there.) To their credit, they at one point had four guys there with cleaning solution and rags, and when another person came by and said "hey, why are there four of you doing that when we have work to do?" the one who seemed to be in charge said "the customer is waiting and I don't care if it takes five guys" -- at which point the objector made a hasty exit. Definite points for the guy in charge of the cleaning crew.

So around 12:10 I finally got my car -- paint-free this time -- and I was on my way. When I got in I found the AC at full blast and the gas tank (which only had 9 miles on it when the fuel pump died) was at 3/4. I don't know how much was fuel-pump lossage and how much was them running the AC recklessly, but they really ought to have filled the tank back up. I wasn't going to wait even longer to get them to do that, though; I'll just mention it in the letter of complaint I send.
cellio: (demons-of-stupidity)
the best part is where they needlessly challenge my religion )

Thanks to everyone for the comments on my earlier entry. People Who Ought To Matter in VW are certainly going to get a letter from me when this is all over. My inclination to buy a VW in the future has been affected by this experience; I am also now a little more likely to trade this car -- for some other manufacturer's vehicle -- when the warranty runs out, rather than driving it into the ground as I did with my previous car.

cellio: (fist-of-death)
I bought this car, new, in March. It only has about 2000 miles on it.

dead )

sure, we'll be right there, with the deed to some prime Florida real estate )

HOW long?! )

So I get to deal with this bright and early tomorrow, on the Friday before a holiday weekend, when (I'm betting) they won't be able to actually fix the power train (or whatever has failed) the same day, so they'll have to give me a loaner until Tuesday. But I might have to do lots of extra running around if they still have no loaners, on a day already constrained somewhat by Shabbat.

Grumble. I can't shake the feeling that -- game or no -- I should have gotten much better service. Everyone I talked with was very friendly (as was I in dealing with them), but their ability to actually deliver was lacking.

By the way, AAA implements VW's roadside assistance, so no, there was no point in calling them for a tow. It's the same pool of drivers.

footnotes )

Thursday

Jul. 16th, 2004 12:25 pm
cellio: (shira)
Today has been a long day, so this entry will be briefer than the last few. I'll try to pick up some of the omissions later (after Shabbat). I'll give priority to things people ask about in comments.

The schedule is catching up with all of us. Some people are getting tense, to the point where after tonight's final class, when things had been somewhat rowdier than usual, we got a lecture on remaining respectful of the teachers. I think they really, really need to rethink some of their decisions for next year. Specifically: Read more... )

our service )

classes )

Today's services were both done well. The morning service was pretty traditional (as these things go) and was more formal than we've been tending toward, which is fitting for a day with a torah reading. The music in that service was very, very effective -- what was supposed to be majestic was very majestic, what was supposed to be meditative was very meditative, and so on. The kedusha was stunning, and that point was the closest I've felt to God all week.

Tonight's service was more mellow, which fits the end of a long day. (They couldn't have planned in advance for today's higher stress all around, but what timing!) They did a nice treatment of Hashkiveinu -- sang a melody that I need to learn (but have failed to retain) that covers the first sentence, then played quiet music while someone read the English translation of the prayer, and then finished with that melody again. Very nice treatment for a lullaby prayer.

Tomorrow: talmud, outreach (two sessions), Shabbat. I'm looking forward to Shabbat; I hope we're all able to relax. (There are classes on Saturday afternoon, but not all day.)

Oh, small-world moment: the sister of one of my classmates is someone I went to CMU with. ("With" as in actually knowing her, not just being in the same 1000-person class.)

cellio: (sleepy-cat ((C) Debbie Ohi))
I didn't know that UPSs had overload warnings. Perhaps my office-mate and I should not be trying to share a single one for both computers. (The office was recently reconfigured for three people rather than two, but the infrastructure hasn't caught up. "You are in a maze of twisty windy extension cords, all different.")

I recently saw an ad for "all meat" hotdogs. Um. I'm not sure I want to carefully consider the alternatives.

Hint to grocery-store managers: When your cashier tells me that she cannot simply cancel the item that rang up for the wrong price, and that I must stand in a customer-service line that's at least 15 minutes long to get my money back, you do not motivate me to pick up anything extra on future trips.

The Bush campaign is rallying church volunteers to work their congregations -- which is fine at the level of "chat up your friends", but now we have this: "A copy of the guide obtained by Reuters directs religious volunteers to send church directories to state campaign committees [...]". In at least some organizations, distributing the membership list to outsiders is a violation of the membership agreement, to say nothing of the ethical implications. Anyone who does this deserves to get smacked down by other members of his congregation -- and probably shouldn't be surprised by some of the mailing lists he ends up on as a result. And I'd have the same objection if the other side did it; it's just that either they aren't or they're being more subtle and I haven't noticed.

cellio: (mars)
Friday night the sisterhood led Shabbat services. (They do this once a year. Brotherhood did theirs last month.) While they mostly did a good job with the individual parts, the whole was extremely disappointing. rant )


Friday's email brought a short reading list for the sh'liach k'hilah program. I am pleased that the list consists entirely of books I do not already own. This makes me even more optimistic about the program teaching me lots of things I don't already know. I expected that to be the case, but now I have some evidence to support that belief. (They haven't yet sent a detailed curriculum description.)

Saturday evening we went to an SCA dinner on the theme of "travelling food". There were more desserts than non-desserts, which in retrospect makes sense. Cookies are an obvious thing to make. I should have made something main-dish-y instead of individual strawberry tarts. It was a fun dinner, and I got to meet some new cats. :-) From there we went to an impromptu party that [livejournal.com profile] lefkowitzga threw together around some last-minute guests from out of town. She's a great party host, and I had fun talking with some people I don't see as often as I'd like.

Sunday dinner was especially tasty this week. [livejournal.com profile] ralphmelton grilled steaks that were very good; we concluded that the spice rub called "Chicago style" that he got at Penzey's was especially good. (I don't know what's in it. Eventually I will send agents to Penzey's to do some shopping for me, as the local instance has no hours that are compatable with working normal hours and keeping Shabbat.)

Random food note: sponge cake grilled for about 30 seconds per side and then topped with fruit is really good.

cellio: (demons-of-stupidity)
This story is just silly. I hope the judge slaps the mother with fines for a frivilous suit.

A 2-year-old cut his head at a playground; mom is suing for lost wages because the kid can't audition for modelling/acting jobs and the like. Even if that's true (and I'm not sure it is), c'mon. She blames the park because a railing was green rather than some bright color, ignoring the role of parental responsibility. And y'know, sometimes kids get banged up a bit while playing; it's part of being a kid. If she's that concerned, she shouldn't have let him play in the dangerous outdoors to begin with. Sheesh.

Since the parent has invoked a labor-based argument, I do hope that the full scrutiny of labor law is brought to this case... 2-year-olds should be allowed to have normal childhoods.
cellio: (demons-of-stupidity)
I don't really think of myself as a Phillistine (culturally speaking), but I think my views on art and function are more conservative than those of some of the people around me.

When they redesigned US paper money a few years back, a lot of people thought the results were much prettier than before. But usability for me went way down, because I found the font they used for the numbers on the front to be illegible, and I could no longer tell whether I was holding a 10 or a 20 without looking at the back. This is a nuisance when digging through a wallet. And I can't believe that it wasn't at least a little harder even for people with good vision. So to me the new peach 20s are a major improvement, at least for now. We'll see what happens when they do the 10s.

I've heard some people critique the new peach bills in various ways, liking the treatment of the background or disliking some aspect of the portrait or the like. And I'm sure the government spent an amount several times my annual income on the artistic aspects of the bill (as opposed to the anti-counterfeiting aspects). But c'mon, it's just money! I'd rather have pretty money than ugly money all other things being equal, but I really don't care. Its job is to live in my wallet until I want to exchange it for goods or services. And as soon as the art gets in the way of that function, I get annoyed.

Take, for example, the new quarters. There are now 51 different versions of the quarter. If I pull a quarter out of my pocket and I'm looking at the back, I can't tell what coin I'm holding. It's probably a US quarter, but for all I know it's an SBA or a Canadian coin or something else wonky that showed up in the change from the store. I have to flip it over and look at the front to know -- all in the name of art, because having one design instead of 51 was boring or something. I want the old quarters back because the new ones introduced a bug without a corresponding feature. Some think the new art is a feature, of course, but my vision isn't good enough to appreciate that -- and even if it were, it still interferes with function.

So now they're redesinging the nickel. Fortunately there will only be two or three versions in circulation, rather than 51, but I still have to ask why. Was the old one broken? I haven't heard anyone make that argument. The old one wasn't even ugly! (At least the nickel starts out less ambiguous than the quarter does.)

Lots of software chooses art over usability, whether it's graphics, fonts, weird command sequences, inconsistent behavior, or the like. (You also see this in a lot of web sites, of course.) I've pretty much given up there; the software world seems to prefer the notion that art is allowed to prevent function. But I'm frustrated when I see that approach migrate into my world at large.

Again, I'm all for art -- in appropriate venues. But basic functionality has to come first. If I'm standing at the parking meter and can't tell effortlessly what coin I'm holding, I don't give a damn if it's pretty.

cellio: (mandelbrot)
It's old news that some of the more evangelical Christian denominations are major sponsors of "messianic Judaism" [sic], or dressing up churches and Christianity with the symbols of Judaism in an effort to convert uneducated Jews to Christianity. I'm used to that from the Southern Baptists, but was surprised to hear that the Presbyterian church is now doing this. I don't know all that much about Presbyterians, but I've always perceived them as among the more liberal "live and let live" folks. Is the Philadelphia Inquirer on crack, or is this real?

It's well within the rights of any belief system to try to openly convert others to their point of view. I have no problems with that. If missionaries want to come to my door, that's fine -- so long as they take a polite "not interested" as the end of the conversation. (Or, alternatively, if they want to compare beliefs with the understanding that conversion is not on the table, I'll sometimes talk with them.) All of my encounters with Jehovah's Witnesses, and my recent encounter with Mormons, have been polite.

But pretending to be a Jewish congregation and then slipping communion, salvation through Jesus, and so on into the service is fraudulent, and the perpretrators ought to be ashamed of themselves. If I were a Christian, I would be outraged that they think the argument for Christianity is so weak that they have to disguise it in an effort to dupe people. Any belief that cannot stand up to scrutiny out in the light is not a belief worth holding. And I know that's not true for many of the Christians I know -- they have thought about this, studied it, and come to solid positions, which they can articulate, about why they are Christians. There is obviously something there for them that does not require cheap marketing stunts, and I respect them (while not following the same path). Fake synagogues, along with being offensive to Jews, are a major insult to serious Christians.

cellio: (star)
Friday night's sermon was very good. This isn't a summary; this is a ramble inspired by it. Read more... )
cellio: (lightning)
Attention appliance manufacturers: there are correct and incorrect ways to fail. Correct is to unambiguously modify output upon failure, so the user knows there's a problem. Incorrect is to blithely go along reporting bogus information while your sensors fail, such as an oven reporting the wrong temperature, a radar detector failing to see the bogeys and reporting that all's clear, or a bathroom scale reporting the wrong weight. Maybe the last isn't as important as the others, but it's still annoying. Stop that. I didn't gain 10+ pounds by changing a battery; honest. You could have beeped or flashed at me to say "battery is low", you know. Sheesh.

An SCA officer posted a badly-worded announcement to the kingdom mailing list, prompting the vast quantities of speculation and challenges that she had hoped to avoid. (There had been none previously on this list.) There are better and worse ways to announce that something bad happened but you're not allowed to release any information yet. A good one is to say, e.g., "It is my sad duty to report that an SCA participant died at a fighting practice this weekend. We do not yet have permission from the family to release more details. Stay tuned.". A bad way is to say "something bad happened, please don't spread rumors, you'll be told what you need to know later, the presence of the word 'sad' in the subject line should give you a hint (nudge nudge, wink wink), no we really won't tell you anything, don't worry about it, don't bug us, and don't gossip". That trick never works. (As the moderator of a related mailing list, I now get to decide how much of the resulting traffic should get through.)

I would like for Java to provide one more publicity level than it does: "internal-public" (or, conversely, "api"). Not all public classes are meant to be used by applications; some are public only because they have to be visible to other classes in your code base. I'd like to be able to label which are which. I'm using a customized javadoc tool to produce the subset of documentation we want, but I get no compiler support this way, so I have to rely on home-grown tools and visual inspection to determine whether I have a self-consistent subset tagged for the API. This could have been easier, given perfect foresight. I'd be delighted if it were easier in the future. (I understand that .NET has a similar concept.)

cellio: (lilac)
I've been noticing more cases lately of what I consider rude demands for entitlements, and I really wonder what makes these people tick.

This morning's paper contained a column by a mother bemoaning the "fact" that society is child- and family-hostile. She complained that the post office and grocery store don't have drive-through services (because dealing with car-seat hassles when all you want is a quart of milk is a pain), that restaurants don't have child-sized urinals and low sinks, and much more. In a lot of ways it reminded me of a couple local SCA folks who claim that the group is family-hostile because we hold business meetings at 8pm on school nights and don't provide a full complement of toys and games. But it's not just parents doing this; I've encountered the same attitude from some people who are handicapped or disadvantaged in various ways.

Note: I'm not saying that all or even most members of any particular group behave this way. Just some.

This makes me wonder, though. Do these people honestly believe that the people around them will respond favorably to whining and (sometimes) bullying? The author of that article could have done something positive -- by, say, telling us about how she worked with her local grocery store to arrange for a delivery service, or how she helped a local restaurant improve its restrooms, or the like. The parents complaining about the SCA business meetings could bring some toys and games instead of complaining that non-parents don't. The congregant with limited hearing could work with the ushers to arrange for reserved seats near the front of the room. These are all things that not only address the direct problem but also help others and send a positive message. They say "I would like help with this problem and I'm willing to do some work myself". They involve honey, not vinegar.

Why don't more people try this? Why do so many jump immediately to the conclusion that society is out to get them and they have to fight back? This hostility can't be benefitting the people who exude it, so why does it not seem to occur to people to try the friendly solution first? Why assume that people are against you, rather than that they never thought about your special needs because they don't share them and no one ever asked?

And, y'know, sometimes you just have to take some defensive or precautionary measures anyway. I have a vision problem. I am almost never without a pocket magnifying glass, which I use several times per week. When I go to a fast-food restaurant with the menu posted behind the serving area (fortunately, this rarely happens any more), I know going in that I'm not going to be able to read the menu, so either I ask a companion to help me out or I try "generic ordering" ("do you have a fish sandwich?" etc). When taking trips I try to arrange to not be the driver, especially at night, even if this inconveniences me in other ways (e.g. leaving earlier than I would have). When these coping mechanisms aren't enough I'm not afraid to ask for help, but I don't conclude that society is hostile to those without perfect vision.

(Well, that sounded kind of holier-than-thou, didn't it? It wasn't meant to.)

I know lots of people who take positive approaches to their limitations -- whether "personal", like I do, or more "active", like those who strive to educate the public about special needs. (Locally, for example, I know that a lot of restaurants had functional non-smoking sections way before we had laws about that, and a decent number of public buildings were wheelchair-accessible pre-ADA.) I think most of us want to do the right thing, whether it's designing a bathroom or arranging seating at a meeting or whatever, but we don't always know, or stop to think, about all of the issues. That's natural, and rather than whining or declaring hostility where none exists, it would seem more productive to try to raise awareness gently. Even if you're not willing to actually do any work, there are better and worse ways to make people aware of the issues, and people like Miss You-Owe-Me-Drive-Through-Groceries are not using the better ways.

cellio: (mandelbrot)
In some organizations I frequently hear the phrase "children are our future", usually right after a demand for other people to provide child-support services. I generally perceive this as arrogance on the part of the parent (it's almost always a parent) making the statement, and withdraw whatever help I might have provided. (Sometimes it's just misguided and can be gently corrected.)

In the SCA, for example, where I hear this phrase a lot, children aren't our future: recruitment is. College kids are the best candidates for "our future", if we have to choose a demographic target. Kids who are dragged along to SCA events by their parents won't necessarily stick around when they're old enough to stay home on their own. On the other hand, lots of people who see us in parks and the like get curious and turn into active, contributing members of the organization.

Any social organization will ultimately stand or fall based on how interesting it is to adults. Because there's no obligation to participate, and kids turn into adults. So while you certainly don't want to drive away families, no social organization is ultimately well-served by the "children over adults" mentality. Don't place roadblocks, of course, but don't revolve around children either.

(Aside: In the case of the SCA, the best thing we could do would be to find ways to integrate children into regular activities. Special children's activities, off in a separate room somewhere, are exactly the wrong approach. The kids are isolated from the organization instead of becoming part of it. I'd bet those kids are more likely to bolt when they can, too. Of course, there's nothing wrong with parents forming a babysitting cooperative for the younger kids, but that should really be up to the parents, not the officers of the organization. And, of course, children who participate in the general activities will be expected to behave, and some parents have trouble making that happen but refuse to remove the kids. So I'm talking about an ideal here.)

People sometimes say "children are our future" in religious contexts, and while it's more justified there (there is generally more of an obligation to participate, at least), I still don't think children's interests automatically trump everyone else's. Balance is important, both on its own merit and for enlightened self-interest: if you drive away the single people and young couples before they have kids, those kids won't become part of your congregation later. So if children are our future, then more care of the potential producers of said children is called for.

On a broader societal level... well of course in one sense children are "our future", in that if no more kids were born the race would die out in 100 years. But mere children aren't enough; educated, functioning children are our future. Kids that aren't cared for appropriately are a net loss, not a net gain. And there are an awful lot of such kids around already. One of the best things we as a society could do would be to make birth control freely available to all who seek it, worldwide. It's a pity the far right doesn't see it that way; they seem to have enough power to stomp on aid toward that end.

Within my lifetime I have seen a sharp increase in what I call the "cult of the child". This is the attitude that children can do no wrong, that children should be allowed to behave badly because it's part of their "actualization" or some such, and that society owes parents. Parents with this attitude do a major disservice to all parents, and if I were a well-behaved parent I'd want to slap these folks upside the head. One otherwise-intelligent friend even told me that because he has kids and I don't, he's contributing to society and I'm not. After all, he says, when I'm old and in a nursing home I'm going to need nurses and cooks and whatnot to take care of me, and he's producing that. Hmpf. In addition to all the logical flaws in that statement, the whole thing is downright arrogant. Having kids isn't the only way to provide for one's future. And if you aren't going to regulate their behavior, having kids does harm to the rest of us.

I think people who want kids (and can care for them) should have them. While I could wish for more of a decline in the rate of growth of world population -- I'm not excited to see another doubling in my lifetime -- I don't agree with the folks who apparently want everyone to stop having kids at all. That's just silly.

But I also think that people who don't want kids should be left in peace, not demeaned or pressed into service or ostracized because "family-friendly" has turned into "childless-hostile".

cellio: (lightning)
The Republicans in Congress are trying to pass a bill (which Bush has said he will sign into law) giving "person" status to a fetus independent of its mother. They're using the Peterson case as justification. This is so wrong. Read more... )
cellio: (lightning)
A quiz: You are approaching a ramp for a turn -- that is, traffic only enters that ramp from the direction from which you are coming, and there's a gentle turn with plenty of exposure. A police car is parked on the far side of the ramp (where the road you're on continues). There is plenty of room to enter the ramp behind the police car. Someone is sitting in the car. There are no cones, flares, blockades, or the like behind the car.

Is the ramp closed?

I couldn't tell, so I pulled up to the beginning of the ramp (to get out of traffic), put on my blinkers, and started to get out of the car to go ask. Before I got that far, a police officer jumped out of the car and started yelling at me, saying things like "don't you know that when a police car blocks a road that means it's closed?". I said "I couldn't tell if you were trying to block this road, and was coming to ask". (Note: I did not say "So why didn't you park on the part of the ramp that oncoming traffic would actually drive on?" or anything of the sort, though it's a fair question.) The officer continued to be rather rude, and it took me a little while to learn that the entire bridge, not just this ramp to it, was closed. Good thing I asked.

Now to the best of my knowledge, I have never in my life been anything but exceedingly polite and deferential when it comes to dealing with police officers. For that matter, I strive for quite a bit of courtesy when dealing with people in the service industry in general -- mostly because they deserve it until proven otherwise, and partly because of enlightened self-interest. Most of the time, people in the service industry are at least civil, if not polite, to their customers, until circumstances dictate that some other approach is called for. But somehow, in my limited experience, the local police officers seem to be an exception; this isn't the first time that one has started out rude without provocation. It bugs me, because they wield additional power that, say, the clerk at Giant Eagle doesn't wield, and they have a corresponding obligation to use that power wisely. Instead, people like today's specimen use it as license to act like jerks. (And, for those who are wondering, this is anecdotal evidence that this happens to people who aren't members of the commonly-profiled groups, too.)

And a second-order gripe: as I learned later, the Birmingham Bridge was closed at 9:00 this morning because it was icy. (So that police car had been there for a couple hours, at least.) Roads began to get icy at 10:00 last night; where the hell were the salt trucks and snow plows during those 11 hours? There was no snow falling this morning; that bridge should have been ice-free before the morning rush hour ever started.

My tax dollars at rest, I guess. They're sure not at work today.

cellio: (star)
Today was the last morning of the siddur pilot. They handed out evaluation forms and asked us to bring them back next week. The questions that the CCAR did, and didn't, ask gave me a little insight into their goals. More about the evaluation in a separate entry, later.

At Torah study we talked about the question: why do we need a rabbi to lead services? We don't, of course; any somewhat-educated person who meets the (straightforward) halachic requirements can lead. In most Orthodox and some Conservative congregations, in fact, the rabbi doesn't lead services -- other congregants do. But in the Reform movement, by and large, the rabbi leads, unless you're such a small congregation that you don't have a rabbi.

Aside: what do rabbis do? )

My theory (which I wasn't fast enough to articulate this morning) is that this is a product of our culture. People (Americans specifically? people in general?) tend to want access to the expert. We don't want to settle for the physician's assistant to treat our illness, even if that person is perfectly qualified because it's only the flu and the flu is a well-understood problem; we hold out for the doctor. We don't want the apprentice electrician even though it's only a light switch; we want the experienced one. We only consider the "lesser" positions if we can save money, for the most part. (Yes, of course I'm over-generalizing.) So I think it's the same with rabbis and services; people want the rabbi, who they know will do everything right, and not the qualified layman who has no credentials, even though it's only a regular Shabbat service and that person has seen this hundreds or thousands of times. I've already seen this with respect to music; the Reform congregations I'm familiar with want the professional singers, even if they're not Jewish, and not the ameteurs from within the congregation.

Why is this a more common attitude in Reform than in other movements? Two factors, I think: first, we're more assimilated into the surrounding culture and second, we're (overall) less educated.

Assimilation means, in this case, that we are more inclined to imitate what we see or hear about from other parts of Americana, like church services. That organ at services isn't a coincidence, after all. The Reform community is more outward-focused, while the Orthodox community is more inward-focused (or so it appears from the outside). We're more likely to have had diverse worship experiences, and the ideas rub off. (Remember that most Orthodox would not set food in a church at all, and some of them will not set foot in non-Orthodox Jewish services.) I'm not trying to say that they're shutting the world out; it's not nearly that active. But they will have fewer chance encounters, and therefore fewer opportunities to pick up foreign ideas about "how things are done". Combine this with the fact that most Reform Jews do not attend services regularly, and you get a community that's more in tune with the outside world than with its own traditions and history.

And then there's the education factor. In the Orthodox community, it is pretty much presumed -- correctly -- that almost any adult male present is capable of leading services. He's been davening daily for most of his life, after all, so he knows the drill and can probably read the Hebrew correctly. Maybe he doesn't have a good voice, but that's not so important. I see this dynamic in play in the morning minyan at the Conservative shul I frequent, by the way; at least half the regulars can step in to lead services if the regular guy isn't there. (By the way, I am not yet one of those people. I am in the bottom third of that group for liturgical skill. I have most of the knowledge, but am just not fast enough with the Hebrew yet. Ironically, I am in the top half or third for pronoucing the Hebrew correctly -- I'm just too slow.)

Most Orthodox and many Conservative Jews of my generation have had significant Jewish educations -- day school, or at least a daily after-school program, and maybe Yeshiva, and maybe something beyond that. They also attend services regularly, so the Hebrew component of that is reinforced on a regular basis. But there's more to it than just the Hebrew; they learn halacha, study Talmud, study Torah in some depth, and so on. Most of my traditional friends can quote relevant sources off the tops of their heads, and know how to look up most of the rest. And they're just regular people -- lawyers and accountants and programmers and shopkeepers, not rabbis.

Most Reform Jews of my generation have not had a similar education, and are not seeing that their children get that kind of education. They send their kids to Hebrew school, which meets after school one day a week and on Sunday mornings, until bar mitzvah. A smaller number continue on through high school. They are studying a broader range of topics (after all, the Reform movement's focus isn't on traditional halacha), and they are spending less time on it, so of course their knowledge isn't as deep. Hebrew is not a large part of it, judging from what I've heard when the various classes lead services; they just don't read well, for the most part. I'm not dissing the kids; they read better than I probably would have at that age, and some of them read better than I do now. But most of them do not read well, do not maintain the skill past the bar mitzvah, and are not going to emphasize it with their eventual kids.

So, all told, the average person at a Reform service probably isn't capable of leading it. (Some of those could if they had time to practice.) So if you suggest to the average Reform Jew that someone other than the rabbi can lead the service, his thinking will probably go something like this: "Well, I can't do it, and I'm pretty normal, so why should I assume that David there can? He hasn't had any more schooling than I have; he's just a regular guy. No, he'll probably screw something up. We should stick with the rabbi; he's an expert." And if they've never actually heard David lead services, how are they to know that he's actually capable of doing it?

So the Reform Jew who is qualified to lead services faces a real up-hill battle -- not necessarily with the rabbi or the administration, but rather with the congregation. And who wants to put up with that kind of grief? Speaking only for myself, why would I want to try to force myself onto people who apparently wouldn't want me? And who am I to go to the rabbi and say "please make a pitch and let me do this"? Unless the rabbi decides that you don't have to be a rabbi to lead services, thus drawing flack from people who will say he's shirking his job responsibilities, it's not going to happen. So at some level, it's all politics.

And that's why, in the Reform movement, you have to be a rabbi to lead services, most of the time. In my opinion, of course.

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags