Dough rising

Remember when "Dollars to Doughnuts" referred to two things of radically different value or probability?  Not so much anymore.

I was driving past a Dunkin' Donuts recently, and it's almost impossible not to do so in this area as there are about three per mile, and saw a poster advertising a half dozen for about $4.00.  I understand the overhead involved, but what do you think the product cost is for a doughnut, maybe 15 cents? But if you're buying doughnuts regularly, you probably won't need the money anyway.  So you'd think that doughnut shops would be making a financial killing as well, but who eats doughnuts these days (and they are delicious)?  Mostly old folks, families with bad moms, and Canadians.  Now with all the justified concern about obesity, the doughnut shops are turning to healthier foods.  But who goes to a doughnut shop if they want to eat healthy? (that's what Chipotle is for- I like Chipotle)  No, coffee is where the money is, with about a 90% gross margin.

A lot of people just want a decent cup of java at a reasonable price, especially coffee on the run (and that's what you'll be doing about an hour later), rather than what they'll find at Starbucks. (Grande? Really?)  But there is still something fundamentally tempting about the lowly doughnut.  I can still remember that as a kid on the coast of Maine in yesteryear summers what a treat it was to load up the car after the evening's family card game to take a spin up to Old Orchard (if not walk down the beach road for clam cakes) to watch the sour old man with the handlebar mustache make those tasty delights in front of you while you wait.  And even today, when a salesperson brings in a dozen beauties, those nutritionally pious faculty suddenly devolve into a horde of doughnut locusts.  Yes, it's easy enough not to stop at the store, but an entirely different matter when there's one right in front of you calling your name.  And doughnot holes?  Genius (makes up for those horrible jelly-filled).  Ummmm, doughnutsss, non-nom-nom...

imagre from forum.bodybuilding.com

Occupado

This "Occupy" movement is interesting, but I'm not exactly sure what it's about, and in particular what the protesters want.  As best I can tell, the main participants are idealists who see gross injustice in capitalism's excesses in compensating individuals, the unemployed and underemployed who want more of the pie as they are angry at those who seem to have disproportionate slices (a variation of class envy), and those who just like to stir up the pot using the cause-du-jour (though for most not rising to the level of anarchists). The first and last groups can be dismissed fairly easily.  In the first case, it's just the usual socialist arguments, but the thing is, socialism is great in theory, but doesn't work in practice.  In circumstances other than rudimentary microeconomic situations, some people will not play fair and follow the rules, and thus socialism is doomed to failure regardless of whether its philosophical arguments have merit or not. (As Churchill said, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”)  And for the rabble-rousers, and I don't think there are that many of them, well, they just seem to like the rousing.  But it's the middle group that's interesting...

There are a lot of unhappy people.  When you see people rioting in London, of all places, because they're angry about being poor and not having jobs (and who wouldn't be?), you know things are bad.  The middle class may or may not be evaporating, and it's hardly a new complaint or phenomenon ("Let them eat cake!"- widely and probably inaccurately attributed to Marie Antoinette.  I like the Mel Brooks History of the World, Part I version better:  "The people are revolting."  to which the king responds "You said it; they stink on ice.").  People are unhappy about the level of corporate profits and in particular the ridiculously high executive salaries.  I'd agree that executive salaries are often wildly excessive, but those in the movement seem to believe, much as many students do, that effort is the important measure of value, i.e., I deserve a good grade because I tried so hard.  But effort and productivity, in terms of quality and value, are not the same.  For instance, it's a good thing to teach children that trying your best and good sportsmanship are what's most important in playing a sport, but the practice of not keeping score delivers the inappropriate message that performance does not matter.  Oh, but we don't want children to feel that they've lost, as this might hurt their delicate self-esteem.  Congratulations, now we have a generation with too many irresponsible, entitled, and self-absorbed people.

So anyway, people are unhappy because they try hard too but are not paid a lot.  This usually reduces to the "luck" argument, where someone wins the birth lottery or is the right place at the right time.   There's probably a lot of truth to that, as there is ample evidence to support the proposition that there is a ton of brilliance and talent out there that goes unrewarded, comparatively, as evidenced by American Idol, for instance (still have never watched that show).  So I think it's fairly obvious that it isn't just those that are three standard deviations out from the mean that are the super-successful.  Just look at those who went to high school with you who weren't as smart or athletic or popular or whatever seems to matter in high school and yet they have a way bigger paycheck, status, etc. Maybe they have more motivation or other skills or attributes that matter, even if those skills or attributes shouldn't really matter, or maybe it's just luck.  It's also pretty obvious, though, that in many cases the lucky have contributed to some degree to their own luck.  What's fascinating to me is not just the randomness involved for someone to end up in a position to receive monster compensation for their performance, but in the randomness involved in being perceived as a high performer.

This is especially true where others are involved in the outcome.  Over time, a baseball player's batting average will probably "even out," where the randomness that affects which batted balls in play become base hits regresses to the mean.  But for a corporate executive, whose bonus is tied to company performance, those strategic and tactical decisions are often swamped by exogenous factors such as the economy and competition, not to mention that others in the company are often doing a good deal of the work.  In other words, CEOs and senior executives typically don't have a lot to do with the company's performance.  I read a book a while back cataloging this in some detail, but I'm pretty sure this blog is long enough already.

Is that fair that the randomness of selection and the randomness of perception should make the 1% so different from the 99%?  Who knows, who cares.  If you measure your worth by others you'll always be unhappy as there is always somebody "better" than you.  And how many people are jealous of the success of even their friends?  Envy has no purpose. 

image from democraticunderground.com

The best laid plans...

I was part of a strategic planning committee for our college a while back, and at times was a tiny bit frustrated that some on the committee were acting very much like many of our students when it comes to critical thinking and planning in just wanting to leap to intuitively gleaned and superficially considered conclusions.  I suppose I was becoming a bit of a thorn to some in trying to structure the task in the traditional strategic planning fashion, especially on the SWOT analysis part, but I backed off some and became reasonably content with a process that seemed somewhat incomplete and unsophisticated, particularly for an organization's 5 year plan, as it occurred to me that a rigorous strategic planning process probably would yield only a marginally better result than the "top-of-the-head" "here's my opinion" type of ideas people were throwing out.  

Part of this stems from the discontent I had been feeling in the latter years of teaching a strategy course as I came to have some doubts about the value of rigorous strategic planning as described in so many books and articles.  This is because I am becoming increasingly impressed by the role of randomness and uncertainty in the world.  My wife will often be frustrated by my lack of a definitive answer for planning for what to me is the distant future, as all I can do is express desire, intent, and probability, and the same seems true, to a degree, for organizations.  There is so much that is unforeseeable that all we can do is reduce the amount of uncertainty and be comfortable with the concept of ambiguity.  What this means is that we can be guided by principle and develop somewhat imprecise goals, with strategies and tactics that reflect the mission but may be nimbly altered as circumstances change.  

But this is more than just contingency planning or prepared nimbleness, as it is more than alertness and flexibility that drive an organization.  At the core of company or product is value, which often is more than just economic value and includes some psychological value.  People like to buy from those that they like.  They like products that express shared values, and reflect something of themselves (and we are all "brands," in a sense).  The same is true for other stakeholders as well.  If you think smoking is bad and selling tobacco is evil, you probably wouldn't invest in Altria. (and probably why Philip Morris changed their name to reduce the perceived association with tobacco)  If you're an employee, of course you'd like to work for a company that believes in what you believe in, which often includes important elements of corporate culture, i.e., hiring "good" people, empowering employees, and all those things that make work a little less like work.

 

In other words, the endless hours developing and relying on a detailed strategic plan that will have to be  frequently altered, needs to be based on and balanced with the consideration of  the vision and culture driving the organization.  This seems obvious, doesn't it?  Well, ask people at any level in an organization and see how many times you get a clear answer as to its vision, values, and culture (at most, some might be able to parrot the mission statement).  It was during one of our strategy meetings that this dimension of vision and culture became clearer to me, as after an idea was forwarded one of the members of the committee got excited (as excited as one can be in such a meeting) and said, "I'd like to work at a place like that."  My point, then, is that while strategic planning has a place, particularly in satisfying investors/creditors and clarifying one's thinking, the sine qua non is having a clear vision and values that resonate with stakeholders, and being able to not just talk the talk, but to walk the walk.

image from stonyfield.com

"If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking till you do succeed." (Jerome Lester Horvitz, aka Curly Howard)

It's nice to teach children that trying your best and good sportsmanship are what's most important in playing a sport, which is absolutely true, but the practice of not keeping score delivers some bad messages.

It turns out, for instance, that performance does matter.  Oh, but we don't want children to feel that they've lost, as this might hurt their delicate self-esteem.  Really, is that the way life works?   Everybody wins and everybody's a winner?   It's easy to be a good winner, and hard to be a good loser.  The latter is a very valuable skill, and being able to accept and learn from defeat is critical. It also develops skills in "picking one's battles," assessing cost-benefit, developing priorities and strategizing, and so much more, including having a grasp of reality. 

And sometimes it's OK to let a kid know that what they did wasn't great. Of course you'd never yell at or criticize a kid for making a bad play. (Hear that, win-at-all-cost coaches? And by the way, they're playing, not you, and it's just a game.)  These are "teaching opportunities," and "Nice try" is fine, but let's not go over the top in complimenting every little thing. Most people develop the ability to differentiate between a deserved compliment and a specious one.  For some, praise becomes meaningless, as do consequences, because whatever you do is great, so why try hard to do something great since you'll get complimented/rewarded regardless of outcome?  Ice cream for everybody!

And guess what, we're all the same but we're not all the same.  Some people/kids are smarter, more athletic, more popular, and more and less of a lot of things.  Learning that there's always somebody that's better than you  on some dimensions will avoid some of the Deadly Sins later and let you be content with who you are and happy for others' successes.  And in some cases, though you "deserve" better, life can be unfair, so learning this when the stakes are very low (e.g., ref's/ump's bad call) will make the road ahead much smoother.  I see enough people, especially the younger ones, with a lack of responsibility and a sense of entitlement.  Mommy won't always fix it, or as the Eagles say in one of my favorite songs (Get Over It): 

You don't want to work; you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing

We want to protect our children, but in doing so we sometimes do them a disservice.  I see a lot of people that have not really learned many of the lessons of sports.  They do not know how to lose, do not understand or accept the consequences of their actions, have a sense of entitlement, are not empathetic to those less fortunate, etc. There are winners and losers, better and worse, and gently teaching a child to have the courage to put oneself out there when one might fail or look foolish is a precious gift.  

"Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And---which is more---you'll be a Man, my son!" 

[Rudyard Kipling]

image from randomfunnypicture.com

It Never Does

Why is it that whenever anyone says, "It goes without saying," that s/he then will say it?  I guess it's better than "speaking volumes" though.




image from stuarland.com

Who cares?

I've written a fair amount about grading over the years in this blog, often despondently (e.g., Nobody here but us chickens 5/22/08, Just following directions, 11/16/05), but maybe I should give a tip or two to help bump up a grade for those that care about such things.    And caring, or creating the appearance of caring, is one of those tips.  I remember that during the first class of the semester, or "meet the teacher day,"  I typically would describe how hard it is to get an F, as you have to show me that you don't know anything, and you don't want to.  Remarkably, there were students that did both.  

Professors do actually care about the subjects that they teach, and typically will be impressed by those that appear to care about the subject or class, and more prone to give those care about learning students a break.  I've had many conversations with professors who, when considering whether to give a student a break on an assignment or a grade, and especially the final grade, will consider whether the student has any real interest in the subject/course (sometimes measured by an often related construct, effort).  Create the impression that you care, and you'll get that extension or extra half grade.

So how does one create the perception of caring?  First and foremost, go to class.  Some professors figure that it's your dollar and you're adults, so you decide if you want to go or not, and frankly would rather not see you if you're just going to snooze or be a distraction.  Others will take it personally if you're not there.  Many will view attendance as a vital part of learning, where you not only get a better experience by being privy to the performance and discussion, but contribute to that experience.  Faithfully going to class is a big one to many professors. The smaller the class, the more important these behaviors. Corollaries for the classroom:

-Be on time (some professors are easy-going and just happy to see you there; others are offended by the interruption or the insult of tardiness.  I've known some to lock the door at the start of class.)

-Don't sit in the back.  Professors know that's where the bad students sit.

-Look like you're paying attention.  Eyes open and in the general direction of the instructor (bonus points for eye contact), body leaning forward just a touch, jot something down now and then, and give a slight smile when s/he makes his or her corny little jokes.

-Don't be Little Sir/Miss Question.  You don't have to constantly answer.  The same is true for asking questions.  Don't ask questions to which you know the answer; you think it makes you look smart, but it doesn't, and as professors probe, they generally catch on.  Don't ask questions that are so tangential that they really are disruptions- they can wait until after class.  Don't dominate discussions; let somebody else play.  All these types of things irritate the professor and your classmates.

-Don't be disruptive.  You'd be surprised at what we can see from the front.  Not only does our vantage point allow us to see everything, but any behavior that is different from everybody else just jumps out at the instructor.  Most of the time it's just talking, using phones or tablets/laptops inappropriately, cheating, and things like that.  

-Don't try to ingratiate yourself to the professor.  This one's kind of interesting, so maybe I'll expand on this in the next entry.  In sum, it might be flattering or desirable for a few professors (in my opinion, the more insecure or lecherous), but most will just be annoyed.  

For the office:

-If you set up an appointment with an instructor, be there and be on time.  One of the most common complaints I hear from professors is when a student doesn't show up.  Many's the time I've seen a professor come in just to meet with a student and then have the student not show up, and not even send an email to say s/he will be late/can't make it.  You'd be surprised at how little time professors have, at least the good ones, and blowing off an appointment will probably really hack him/her off.

-If you go to a professor's office hour, or set an appointment, be prepared when you get there.  Ask specific questions.  The last thing the professor wants to hear is, "I don't get it."  We don't know what that means.  Give some thought to what you do and don't know and indicate precisely the points of confusion.  Really give an honest effort to try and understand what you're having trouble with.  Don't ask the professor to restate the syllabus or reteach a lecture.  Communicate your understanding of the material, offer your interpretations of the assignment's requirements, suggest means on how to proceed, etc.  And by the way, the odds are high that the professor will give you plenty of clues (read: hit you over the head with information) about what will be on the test or what s/he values in an assignment.  Professors are usually eager to help those that care and have earnestly tried to help themselves.

Communication:

-If your going to class is important to the professor, let him/her know ahead of time if you're going to miss one, being appropriately contrite, and indicate a desire to "make it up" somehow.  Is there another section you can attend at another time?  Should you make an appointment for an office visit?  Is getting the notes from someone else enough?  etc.  Similarly, if it is after the fact, email an explanation and apology as soon as possible (not at the next class), with the same questions about how to make up the material.  I personally find students telling me whether they're going to class or not annoying, but a lot of professors eat this up.

-When a professor asks you a question, in class or in the office, answer the question that is asked.  Ask for it to be restated if you're not sure.  Listening to the professor communicates a positive signal about your motivation and ability.  For example, many students will approach a professor with a situation for which they want a remedy.  Most of these students are prepared to tell their story, often a long and convoluted one. Most professors will patiently listen if you insist on telling the whole story, but you are just wasting their time in cramming 20 minutes of story into 20 seconds of information.  Almost always the professor has encountered your situation before, with your specific circumstances just variations on previously encountered themes.  State briefly what happened and what you are asking for, concluding with the offer to provide more detail and an expression of caring about the class ("I'd like an extension to show you what I've learned," not "A bad grade will hurt my GPA.").  And don't try to make the professor suggest the remedy; ask what you want.

Other demonstrations of caring:

-When you want a make-up or extension, what instructors want to hear is that unforeseeable circumstances prohibited you from doing what you were supposed to do (not you got home really late and you were too tired to study), so you're asking for the opportunity to do your best work, though you understand if that is not possible or if a penalty will be involved.  Even if the penalty is so severe that it isn't worth it to do the assignment/test, consider doing it anyway; maybe even volunteer to do an assignment for no credit (most of us hate it when you ask for extra credit, by the way); do a good job on something that really won't help you and it will impress the heck out of the professor.  Your goal is to show that you care about the subject and that you want to learn.

-Don't wear a baseball cap (particularly backwards- you look like an idiot), especially on test day, and never with "NY" on it. (OK, maybe that's just me) 

image from getyourgreenon.wordpress.com

Trick or Trick

Snow before Halloween (just a few inches, but a foot or two and 5 day power failures just a little north); don't like the looks of that, but contrary to public sentiment, we'll probably have a mild winter, which will make my oil bill slightly less painful but hurt all those winter-recreation businesses.  Funny how many people's lives are weather-dependent. Must be awful to be at the vagaries of climate, but then that's the way it's been for most of history.  Many great civilizations have been wiped out because of weather.  Though now ours may be destroyed by man-made causes, as it nearly was with disco.

image from steadfasthomeinventory.com

Because we've always done it this way

What is the answer you usually get when asking about a bad policy or procedure?

And about Jeopardy, it was pretty interesting that a computer beat the best humans.  I remember when a computer beat the world chess champion (having effectively "solved" the game, meaning that every possible move leading to the end of the game could be analyzed at any point).  Now if only a customer service computer menu could provide the least bit of customer service.

 image from mentalfloss.com

NPR

A production meeting at NPR.

"Let's see, we've got a betting scandal on the World Series, the British Prime Minister announcing that Great Britain is pulling out of the European Union, or a debate on which irrigation system to build in a Bolivian village.  Let's go with a half hour on the Bolivian water story.  No, make it an hour, and make sure you get the most soporific speakers available who can blame global warming somehow."

Sorry, no picture with this entry.  Tried to find a photo depicting NPR humor. There don't seem to be any.

The lower crust

It annoys me when people think they are special.  And I'm not writing just about the conspicuously consuming spoiled narcissistic snobs whose coffee must be from a particular freshly ground bean or who must wear particular branded clothing or who are so "outer directed" that they are but hollow shells of humanity.  ("Oh, who cares if  those animals are slaughtered; I must have natural fur to properly warm my body."  Don't think you'll need to keep warm where you're going in the afterlife.)  No, I'm talking about that everyday lout who doesn't eat pizza crusts, takes the middle piece in the cake pan even though the edge piece is next, and in general doesn't adhere to rules or convention because it is not convenient to do so ("Why should I put this back on the shelf where I found it?  I'll just dump this item anywhere, and somebody else will but it away.  They have people for that."  They have people for that because there are selfish immoral people like you.)  Morality for the "special" goes beyond a specialized form of individual utilitarianism to be reduced to "helps me, good; doesn't help me, bad"  After all, they're "special."  Here's the thing:  everybody's special so nobody's special.  So eat the bleeping bread crusts, drink the flipping tap water, stop at the stinking stop sign, and stop being so insufferably prissy and self-indulgent.

image from mypersiankitchen.com

Till death do us part? A license to nil.

This is an idea I've been spouting for many years, and finally somebody has listened.  I suppose it's possible that others actually had this idea as well, especially since there are so few truly novel thoughts (including this one), but I like to think that I started the ball rolling on this one. 

Mexico reportedly is considering a marriage license that is valid for two years:  "The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends," Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman from the Party of the Democratic Revolution who co-authored the bill, told Reuters. "You wouldn't have to go through the tortuous process of divorce.”  The marriage contracts would include detailed provisions on how children and property would be divided up if the marriage ended at the two-year mark, Reuters reports.

Of course a very legitimate argument is why get married at all, but the reality is that there is a significant  social stigma associated with cohabitation.  I actually have a fairly strong bias against cohabitation, but it has moderated a bit over the years to be strong only against those that are young, certainly under 21, and probably under 23-25 or so.  I've heard the argument from young people living together that they do so for economic reasons, but that's nonsense.  If that were the case, then platonic roommates offer a better solution with a very high probability of a less acrimonious break when each goes their separate way, which is the very likely conclusion.  Parenthetically, I've read that those who live together prior to marriage remarkably have a higher divorce  than those who do not live together first. Cohabitating  at a young age is at best just playing house, and at worst prostitution.  But once you're an adult, do what you want, though I think if you're going to have kids, you should be married, generally.

So while you might think that dating and engagements serve the purpose of this "probationary" period, the fact is that you never really know your spouse until after you've been married for a while, and besides that truism it often happens that people change, sometimes not in compatible ways.  (One of my all-time favorite cliches is that "A woman marries a man hoping that he will change, and a man marries a woman hoping that she never will.  Both are usually disappointed.")  Really what we're talking about here is immaturity and unrealistic expectations.  But maybe that will change somewhat now that people are getting married so much later.(I've read that 29 is now the average age for first marriages for both genders- kind of hard to believe, but perhaps a good sign)

I think I'd make the marriage license period longer, but regardless of the length, this has no chance of passing, of course, because it makes too much sense.  Besides, Mexico is predominantly Catholic, and think of all the money the lawyers would lose.

image from brideminders.com

Who's grandpa?

Nobody knows their grandpa anymore.  It's kind of ironic in that they're living so much longer, but between them moving away and/or us moving away, they're just not around so much.  I hear my parents speak of how their grandparents lived with the family for a time, and for many there are childhood memories of a grandparent being part of the nuclear family, or at least so close that it was over the river and through the woods and you were at grandma and grandpa's house.  I didn't know my grandparents particularly well, typically seeing them for holidays and the typical family events, and I don't remember them spending a lot of time at the kids' table at Thanksgiving, both literally and figuratively speaking.  Now grandparents are in better health and don't live with their children and grandchildren, leading more independent lives often involving moving to Florida or the like.  By the time grandparents start to decline, the grandkids are usually grown up, and the kids have and exercise more "managed care" options.  In general, I don't think that kids have a very close relationship with the grandparents, at least not the way it used to be, and I think both grandparents and grandchildren are missing something there.  On the other hand, I see more grandparents increasingly involved in child rearing, as many of the single parents come to rely more on the grandparents for babysitting and primary care.  Folks that already raised kids shouldn't have to do it again for someone else, but sometimes having grandparents act as surrogate parents is the best option available. But that really isn't the "traditional" grandparent role either.  Nobody goes fishing with grandpa anymore.

Nothing don't mean nothing if it ain't free

I really hate it when commercial-free radio stations have so many commercials telling me that there aren't any commercials.

image from onepennysheet.com

Keep on truckin'

Can't remember the last time I saw a sunscreen under a car's windshield, a bra on a hood, lights on a hubcap or license plate holder, elevator struts, or brightly colored windshield wipers.  Then again, I can't remember the last time I took my pills.  You just don't see a lot of guys working on cars these days, and who can work on an engine anymore with all the electronics.  Cars don't need tune-ups too often, it's not worth changing the oil yourself, and "pimp my car" is just a TV show, it seems.  Trucks, on the other hand, don't seem to be just work vehicles anymore.  But why would anyone spend $40,000 on a truck (or put a gun rack on the dashboard, but that's a different line of criticism)?  Yet there are a fair amount of trucks tricked out.  I'd love to have a beat up truck with an engine that wouldn't die.  If you own a truck, you shouldn't have to worry about dents or scratches or a little rust, never mind if it has multi-zone air conditioning and heated seats or not.

image from green.autoblog.com

Wine and vinegar

My dad turned 80 this week, which strains credulity some.  Over the years he has served as my "leading indicator," and we've talked frequently about the things he is experiencing and therefore what I may expect as I age.  Unfortunately, it seems I am "ahead of schedule" on some things, but he's been an impetus to be more careful about diet and exercise, so things are OK.  At my last approximately-annual check-up (can't say I'm real good about that), my GP performed a few tests he had never done before.  He explained that he was essentially gathering baseline data for what I'll benignly label "future observations."  Of course once you hit your 40s your eyesight declines a bit, there is some "thickening," and the minor yet annoying memory lapses begin to occur more frequently.   Yet these sorts of changes, and granted I'm still fairly early in the process, kind of sneak up on you, like the realization that the aches and pains that have always healed no longer go away.   For instance, my doctor correctly noted that my hearing may be just beginning to decline ever-so-slightly.  But it's not that I don't hear as well as I used to, it's just that I don't listen as much.

image from http://ansi1260.wordpress.com/

Speed Demons

Maybe we should just eliminate traffic laws and drive like people do in Boston (or Rome, or Istanbul, or most metropolitan areas), as the only moving violation that seems to be enforced is speeding.  I'm not whining about getting a speeding ticket, as I haven't had one for almost 20 years.  I don't believe that is coincidental, by the way, as I haven't been driving a red sports car since around then.  I'm convinced that the "Arrest me red" folklore is true.  I don't drive any differently, and yet my car now seems to be invisible (will probably get a ticket soon for saying that).  Anyway, I see people run stop signs, right on reds, and even red lights all day long.  Who gets stopped for running a stop sign or not stopping for a right on red, and almost everyone does, unless the police are looking for an excuse to stop you to see if you've been drinking.  Click it or ticket?  I don't think so.  Wrong way?  Who cares.  And do cars even come equipped with turn signals anymore?  Look at all the drivers without registrations, licenses, inspection stickers, still allowed to drive with drunk driving records, and a million other things, but as long as they don't get caught speeding, it's all good.  As an interesting aside, I read a while ago that a company in California (where else) sells vouchers so that people can pre-pay speeding tickets.  The way it works is that you can, for example, pay $13.33 for a $100 voucher to be applied toward a future ticket (don't know if there is an expiration date)- kind of a speeding ticket insurance policy. Pretty crazy, huh?

(image from gamerevolution.com)

Lyin' Stinkin' Weasels

Got this from Chase.  I don't think I even have a card from Chase, but I could be wrong, as I've been "slammed" (signed up for things I didn't sign up for) before, like that time I specifically told the lady at Macy's that I did not want their credit card but it showed up in the mail anyway.  So I don't use a Chase card, don't want a Chase card, and don't know of having a Chase account, but got this anyway:

"Currently, our records indicate that you are not being mailed any offers from Chase and we wanted you to know we are continually developing new products and services that may be of interest to you.  We are updating our prospective customers' preferences for receiving these mailings.  We want to be sure that you know about available offers and that you have the opportunity to consider them.

Please completely fill in the ovals below next to the Chase product and service offers you do not want to receive by mail.

And there's a deadline too. So the point is that it's up to me to open the junk mail, actually read through it, notice the trick, take the trouble to fill and send this out by a specified time of their choosing, all to keep them from assigning preferences which I have not indicated to be preferences, and which they'll probably assign anyway and send me an endless stream of sales pitches because they're lyin' stinkin' weasels.

Can this possibly be legal?  It's obviously not moral.  I really have to tell them not to sign me up and if I don't I'll get stuff I have never indicated I wanted?  Maybe that's how I supposedly have a Chase card in the first place.  Wish I could find it so I could tear it up.  But then, are the other banks any better?

Natural hairspray

A "mini-station wagon?"  That really isn't a station wagon at all then, is it?  It's like having a "performance SUV," or a "luxury truck."  Why would anybody buy these automotive oxymorons?

On a short leash

Why aren't there tests to determine if one is fit to be a parent?

The ring of truth

I've heard men say that they can't tell if a ring on a woman's finger is a wedding ring.  Is it really that hard?  If there's a simple band of gold on the left ring finger, leave her alone.  Same for the diamond.  Of course, there are some unmarried women that will place a wedding-type ring on the finger to broadcast or feign unavailability; disingenuous but clear, so again, leave her alone. 

There are those that want to individualize the ring to the extent that the meaning is not clear.  It's gold (white gold, platinum OK, but yellow gold better), it's smooth and plain (to symbolize eternity), and it's on the finger next to the pinkie on the left hand because people used to think that there was a vein there leading directly to the heart.  If you want to do something unique, go ahead with your Celtic Claddagh or jewel encrusted filigree ring or the like, but beyond being confusing for the rest of the world, I suspect that the saying that applies for weddings also applies for rings, i.e., the more elaborate the wedding, the less likely the marriage will last.

I think more latitude should be given to the engagement ring, though.  It's the primary ring for only a short time, and while a single diamond is classy, really anything will deliver the message.  And the truth be told, expensive engagement rings are one of the dumbest ideas in the history of mankind.   Why would anyone spend thousands of dollars on a shiny pebble at a time they can least afford to do so?  Because we have to, because some women need to show off, because we're idiots.  And ostentatious weddings?  Don't get me started...

I imagine the ring thing does get a little complicated for unmarried, unengaged women who for whatever reason are "not in the market," as men are constantly prowling and always looking at the ring finger.  I've thought forever that there should be some sort of color coding, not unlike traffic signals, to indicate availability; maybe something similar with the ring finger would do the trick: 

-Gold band and/or diamond ring: taken.  

-Any other ring:  not available.  

-No ring:  available.  

The trouble sometimes arises with those women that wear a multitude of rings, making the furtive check-the-finger glance burdensome and prone to error.  Also, the wedding ring on the right hand ring finger, rare for the younger set, can complicate matters.  It usually means that the person is a widow/widower, and I think the practice, though melancholy, is touching and respectful.  Don't be intimidated by the practice; that former spouse will always be an important part of his/her life; don't try to take it away.  It has its rightful place, and is no threat to you.  But sometimes the right handed wedding band has other meanings, many of which I'm unaware, I'm sure.  I know that for Eastern Orthodox members and in some parts of Europe the right hand is the norm.  But odds are you're not cruising in the Ukraine.  I've heard that some gay people wear the right hand ring in areas where gay marriage is not permitted. (And by the way, why shouldn't gay people be able to marry?  You're in love, you want to marry, go ahead. What's the big deal?)  Don't know if that's true, but I'm sure there's probably other reasons for the right hand ring too.

These same ring finger principles should apply to men as well.  Wedding ring: taken.  Any ring: not available.  No ring:  available.  I know a  lot of men, including me, don't like to wear rings, but it would simplify matters and is respectful to your spouse.  So I wear mine all the time (occasionally through my nose, I sometimes think). Yes, in some jobs for both men and women, where a ring might get caught in machinery, for instance, a ring can be a hazard, so don't wear it on the job.  Just like one wouldn't wear a diamond ring where the ring is in "danger."  But in general, if you're married, just wear the wedding ring.  It's the right thing to do.

Some final ring-related thoughts:  Tattoo rings are creepy.  Rings on toes are weird (and virtually always unattractive.  There are very few attractive toes in the world, unless you're the Rex Ryan type, so don't go attracting attention to those spindly talons.)  And if you see a tan line where a ring might be, run.

Whoopee

A test of one's security is what you do when you sit on a suddenly "squeaky" seat cushion eliciting a sound that mimics that of an embarrassing sound associated with a body function.  Most people will try to reproduce the sound to "prove" that is was the couch/chair rather than him/her.  Odd behavior, but most of us seem to do it.

Perhaps the more interesting case, though, is when the sound really is from the person.  This isn't particularly common, as most people have sufficient self control (as opposed to the "eight year olds" who actually make an effort to be coarse).  But what does a person do, and what does the "listener" do, on those rare unfortunate occasions?  In polite and professional circles, the sound never happened.  It is just ignored, presumably not to embarrass the "offender."  In impolite or unprofessional company, the crowd reverts to a pack of eight year olds in persecuting the "offender," and there are few things funnier than embarrassing body functions to an eight year old (and most men are eight year olds in bigger bodies).  Of course, many of these "offfenders" are intentionally so.

There is a middle ground.  A simple "pardon me" is actually kind of classy for those times when one couldn't get to the lavatory and light a match. (I actually dated someone who used to do that.  Kind of quaint, really).  Or maybe a little joke ("Oh, the geese are flying low.") and then just move on.  And move on is the key.

Press release?

How can clothing manufacturers get away with labeling dress shirts "wrinkle free" or "permanent press?" Wrinkle resistant, OK, but without wrinkles?  Not happening.  Even "steaming them" by a hot shower isn't going to do the trick, like anybody really does that (though a lot of us have tried it once), and it's not like you can put a shirt between the mattress and box spring like you can with pants (better line up the seams and pleats just right, though).  Of course, if you're going to wear a sweater over a shirt, the issue is obviously moot.  And it's not so bad if you'll be wearing a suit/sports jacket with a tie, as the exposed area is not that noticeable and will even out a little bit as your body warms up the shirt.  Wear a 100% cotton dress shirt?  Looks good once and never again.  Iron?  Who's got time (or a spouse that will do that)?  So when it comes time to wear a dress shirt, it has to be wrinkle free, but wrinkle free it will never be, except on those rare occasions when you really shouldn't have wrinkles and will have to pull out the flat thing that gets hot.  Of course, you can always send them out to the laundry for a buck a shirt or so, plus transportation time and aggravation, but not many of us will do that.

Got milk?

I got a flyer in the mail from Hooters, which is about as close as I've ever been to the place.  I don't really understand the concept.  Not so much seeing attractive women , which resonates with all men, or at least 90% of them, I guess.  But what exactly is the point?  What does one expect to happen there?  Will a young buxom waitress become smitten with your suave manner of ordering hot wings, or at your clever and subtle double-entendre that she's only heard a thousand times or so?  But if it's all about an opportunity to admire the female form, which strikes me as a bit sad, well, if you want to pay your money to gawk, go right ahead, it's your money. 

But here's what really befuddles me.  On this flyer it says, "Kids Eat Free Every Saturday." What?  Now there's some good quality time for dad and little Timmy.  But the Hooters folks aren't dumb; they see the loophole, so underneath it says, "Must be 12 and younger and order from the children's menu."  

Stop the Madness

Memes, viral videos, and the various internet fads can occasionally be entertaining, but usually they're just dumb, much like 90% of the shared email friends send you to enlighten and brighten your day.  Except for the patently absurd and erroneous  hoaxes we all get way too often, most of the things our well-intentioned friends send are innocuous and easily ignored, and usually their hearts are in the right place.  But please, make the cute kitty pictures stop!  The ubiquitous lolcat photos just aren't as hilarious and cute as you imagine.  Saccharine, silly, slightly annoying, yes, funny and adorable, not so much.


By the way, (and I really am not in such a hurry that I have to use "btw."  In fact, no one is ever in such a hurry.), why would anyone call a class of perfume products "Toilet Water?"
 
   

Ps and Qs

A few months ago I wrote about the actions and responses associated with the apparently simple act of letting a waiting driver cut ahead of you into traffic (Alphonse and Gaston, 1/23/11).  After writing that I was curious to see if my perceptions about the ingratitude of those let in were correct or products of selective perception.  Historically, letting someone cut in front of you merits a wave, head nod, or smile.  So for the last few months I've been keeping track, informally, of the number of people who acknowledge the kindness of being let into traffic.   I've probably observed well over a hundred cars let into traffic, by me and others, and it appears that only about 30% of the people let in actually give the figurative thank you.  In fact, I've tried to note in general the behavior of people in "please and thank you" situations and am disappointed at how infrequently these words are used.  But I guess that is something that an "old person" would say, isn't it?

A bit of kindness always clings to the hand that gives roses. (Chinese Proverb)

This happened a couple of days ago, but it is still bothering me.  I'm driving behind this fellow and up ahead I see a squirrel crossing the road.  Like a lot of squirrels, it apparently doesn't have a wealth of knowledge about the intricacies of internal combustion vehicles, and is confused at the prospect of crossing the asphalt swath.  As I religiously wear glasses when driving, finding them quite helpful at times, I can see this quite clearly and have plenty of time to slow down to ensure the safety of the little critter, and the car in front has plenty of time to do so as well.  But instead of slowing down, swerving if necessary, and making at least a tiny effort not to needlessly kill a creature, this Neanderthal (and forgive me for slandering Neanderthals) makes not the slightest effort to alter his driving and sure enough squashes the poor critter.  No brake light, no remorse, and I'm sure, no soul.  And he was traveling with what I assume to be his wife and young son.  Fine role model.

And earlier on this same trip, as the road passed a lake, there were a few signs warning drivers to not "abuse" geese as they crossed the road.  Why would there be a need for such signs?  Apparently there is.

I can see why there are so many movies, etc., about zombies, vampires, devils and other dead, evil beings.  They travel among us.

Tenure Games

This topic could be a book rather than just a blog, so I'll try to keep it manageable.  First, let me frame the topic by stating that though I directly benefit from the tenure process by essentially being guaranteed a job for the entirety of my professional life, I am actually against tenure for college professors as we know it today.  I do understand the desirability of protecting academic freedom*, but it seems unfair to allow such job security without accountability.  It's kind of like the notion, which strikes me as absurd, that the actions of a human lifetime can determine the rewards and punishments of eternity.  And in fact, it's pretty common that once one gets tenured, s/he is on autopilot for the rest of the ride.  A few schools are going to five year reviews.  I think that makes sense, but not if the expectations are the same as those for getting tenure, which can burn people out.

When I was a student, I can recall a really excellent teacher, one of the maybe three good teachers I had in college, that suddenly disappeared one semester.  A lot of students complained, as we didn't understand how the college could let such a good teacher go.  But now I understand.  You can get fired for being a bad teacher, but you can't get tenured or promoted for being a good one. (Note "Student Evaluations" blog of 10/11/09, and especially the comments of EM)  As it happens, "Publish or Perish" is not only alive and well, but is thriving under the moniker of "teacher/scholar."

Now don't misunderstand me, a college instructor absolutely has to be engaged with his/her discipline.  My problem is the rigidity with which "traditionalists" adhere to that mantra, interpreting engagement as being published in "prestigious" journals, and often measured by an arbitrary and esoteric formula (Tier 1 journal? First author? X points for that....)  PRJs (Peer Reviewed Journals) are the coin of the realm in academia, and since these count the most (sometimes they're all that counts), the game is all about figuring out how to get published in these journals that hardly anybody reads, and less still understand.  In many cases, the overriding question piloting one's professional engagement is "Can this get published, and can I get credit for it?" not "Does this have value, is it interesting to me, does it make me a better teacher and scholar?"  Thus you see the same drivel sliced up three different ways with a slightly different spin (maybe) to get 3 hits to pad the vita, or faculty agreeing to advising students on their theses and dissertations only if they can later receive a coauthor credit.  Maybe I should expand on this in another entry, but the point is that tenure too often hinges on quantity rather than quality within rigidly defined parameters of engagement (i.e., a specific kind of scholarship, though creative projects, grants, etc., are "counted" in some fields), commonly established by those that never had to live up to such standards themselves.

And this is where the fun begins.  At somewhere around the fifth year, a tenure-track assistant professor (and as schools try to cut costs with adjuncts there aren't as many of those, as apparently hiring a $50,000+ a year History professor- and I'm not making that number up, as liberal arts professors often start in that range- is cost prohibitive) submits a portfolio in application for tenure (typically in conjunction with promotion to associate professor).  Some schools have college-wide tenure committees, others have committees internal to the department/area, but however constructed, a committee of one's peers will engage in serious review of the candidate's career to determine whether that career will continue at that institution.  There are 3 questions that typically underlie the deliberations, though few will admit to it: 1)  Is there anything about the candidate's teaching that is a serious problem?  (Really really terrible instructor, sleeps with students, lawsuit waiting to happen, things like that)  2)  Are the number and type of publications "over the bar?"  (The interesting thing about this one is that often nobody really knows where "the bar" is.)  and 3)  Do the other faculty like him/her?  (And this is usually a function of who happens to be on the committee, but this can only raise or lower the bar, not eliminate or infinitely elevate it.)   If the candidate is passable as an instructor, has listed enough acceptable publications on his/her vita, and hasn't aggravated those faculty members on the committee (sometimes multiple committees), then that instructor is awarded a job for life, called tenure, which comes with no further performance obligations beyond adhering to the rules and not engaging in illegal or immoral activities.

And students wonder why so many of their instructors don't seem to have a passion for teaching.

*And by the way, it is no small irony that the system designed to protect academic freedom and encourage free thinking may in fact be limiting it, as the haves are often judging the have nots, typically with a bias of maintaining the status quo.  That statement doubtlessly requires support, but I'm tenured, so I don't have to.

Consensus

There's been a lot of attention given to bullying lately, and rightly so, as kids learn how wrong it is and what to do about it, and we all learn about the hazards of cyberbullying.   But this is about bullying in the workplace.

Of course intimidation is a time-honored management style.  I remember a teacher/football coach from high school who used to say, for instance, that "the only thing the primitive animal understands is pain," as we were apparently the primitive animals to which he referred. Delightful fellow. But it isn't just about preying on the weak for figurative lunch money anymore.  I've seen a different type of workplace bullying, where apathy, self-interest, and fear are  artfully corralled and manipulated.  I call this "consensus bullying."  

Here's how I've seen it work, with faculty, at least.  An individual with a small amount of power creates or participates in the illusion that the group is to make a decision in a democratic manner.  When the group meets, that individual strongly, even relentlessly, presses his/her case.  There may be some others that agree or are convinced by the presentation, but most have reservations or disagree.  Those others know that there is a price to pay for "speaking up."   For the untenured members, the imagined price is risking one's career (tenure) by taking sides or potentially alienating anyone that might influence one's career.   (This is an interesting aside, so I'll make the next entry about tenure games.)  That's understandable.  Cowardly,  melodramatic, but understandable.  For the tenured members, the price is the hassle.  And this is the key. Where the typical bully, such as the instructor that loves to exert power over students (and we've all seen these pitiful, insecure instructors) calculates that the weak will not engage in the hassle because the conflict is likely to have negative repercussions for the loser, the consensus bully understands that it's not so much about the strength of the "opponent" as it is about the size of the hassle.  Most people don't enjoy conflict (though faculty are famous for notable exceptions), and most of us have learned to "pick our battles." So in finding an issue that is important to the bully and not  terribly important to the others, when the bully creates a high hassle potential situation, most others will simply let the bully have his/her way.  At most, token resistance may be forwarded, then abandoned when it becomes apparent that it's not worth the hassle.  And the thing is, most of the time a faculty member (or probably most people, really) will not think it's worth the hassle if it doesn't seem to affect him/her directly and significantly.  For example, if there is a suggested change to a course/program, if it's not your course/program, you probably don't care that much and will just go with the flow, even if you disagree, when faced with the aggressive bully.  But let me be clear, where faculty do have self-interest at stake and it's perceived to be a fair fight, faculty can mix it up with and beyond the best of them.

What often happens, then, is that the silent majority is uncaring or opposed, but unwilling to go through the hassle of fighting the battle that may be harmful or at least uncomfortable, so most people will just let it slide, say little or nothing, and vote yes.  And then the bully is able to say that there was a democratically determined, even mandated, outcome, and move forward with the aegis of consensus.  Yet the truth is that the bully got his/her way. 

What have you done for me lately?

Your distant past has little bearing on your immediate future.  By that I mean that it is your most recent experience that is of interest to an employer, admissions officer, and almost everyone else.  So if you are in college writing a resume for a potential employer or graduate school, don't write anything at all about high school.  Everyone will know that you have a high school degree (from where no longer matters), and no one cares about any of your high school sports and activities.  In general, it is only the last degree that matters.  If you have a doctorate, it doesn't matter where you got your master's and undergraduate degrees.  So basically, once you become an adult, you should probably stop talking about high school, and the older you are, the more true that is.

	"peaked in high school" [Urban Dictionary]
	(n./adj.) This phrase can be used to describe people that routinely bring up high school when they are well into their 30's, because they haven't had a single exciting or interesting experience since their senior year, and as such their lives and themselves are said to have, "peaked in high school." This term is often used when speaking disparagingly about an individual or group. This phrase can only be used appropriately after-the-fact (i.e. after individual/group leaves high school) to accurately gauge if (s)he qualifies for such status.

Pick-Up Artist

So I'm just reading the Sunday paper and working away at the computer, with whatever game is on in the background, which is pretty much my typical Sunday afternoon if no one bothers me (in other words, pretty rare).  I'm surrounded here by windows- I never counted them before, but there are exactly 100 of them in this room, 100 @11"x8" windows.  I live on a corner, and all these windows look out on both streets, so I look out a lot, and occasionally see things.  

Today's sight was innocuous but curious, as a young woman I hadn't seen before was walking a large dog I hadn't seen before.  Fortunately, our dogs were snoozing.  As one pup in particular also likes to look out the window, such a sight would doubtlessly incite some vigorous barking, as it does several times a day, but on this occasion I watched in peace as the big dog did what big dogs do on the lawn.  This is mildly irritating when the owner doesn't clean up- some do, some don't- but unlike my wife, who has been known to chase offenders down the street, I really can't get excited about it.  But in this instance, the lady who failed to clean up actually made me laugh.  As she pulled out her bag and turned it inside out, I nodded to myself approvingly, only to see her bend over and wave her hand over the poop, only pretending to pick it up, and making quite a show of it.  I've actually seen such behavior before, but never with such a flourish.  And what made me laugh was not just the histrionics, but the notion that the act was premeditated.  She actually took the trouble when leaving her house to pack a poop bag in order to have props for the performance.  Most offenders just ignore the mess and go on their merry way, apparently oblivious to civility, or, more likely, simply expressing the darkness in their soul.  But this woman knew that not cleaning up was wrong, anticipated that the situation would occur, but rather than do the right thing to avoid the social disapprobation of strangers, chose to pretend to do the right thing should strangers be watching.  

It's an unlucky man that will marry her, but not more so than the poor baby around changing time.  However, it seems unlikely that this insecure evildoer will have to worry about that.

Reach out and touch someone

I'm getting tired of people "reaching out" to me.  Where did this expression originate?  I know it's a harmless phrase, and often used by kind and sensitive people, but it is too dramatic.  What are you reaching out for?  Do I need help?  Do you need help?  Are you engaging in an arduous or unusually magnanimous act for which I should be truly grateful?  Because it just seemed like a business-related email to me.

The picture raises an interesting question:  what is the worst boy band ever?  Answer:  all of them.

To Serve Man

I never really got involved with video games because I knew I wouldn't rest until I found the princess (for those old enough to remember the original Mario games), and I don't have that kind of time.  It's the same with Facebook, as I don't have time to relate the inane details of my inane life, nor do I have time to read the same about others.  But there's something else about Facebook, even beyond the distaste for that company's founder (though not the concept's founder, apparently).  It just seems like a Twilight Zone episode- or perhaps Southpark- or come to think of it a million shows and movies where some social phenomenon explodes onto the scene with epic popularity, all the while with some hidden and nefarious agenda. ( "Mr. Chambers, don't get on that ship! The rest of the book To Serve Man, it's... it's a cookbook!")  It seems innocuous enough, and connecting people seems so noble a cause.  But beyond the obvious criticisms around privacy (and they've been quite duplicitous in this area) and security- and with so many people in the world, there are just too many bad people being cyberbullies, stalkers, trollers, and aggressive marketers.  But maybe this bad company will be obsolete soon, a victim of their own popularity.  Now dominated by middle-aged women searching for long-ago boyfriends (and being disappointed with what they find) and then resigning themselves to posting pictures of their kids, the cool factor is definitely gone.  You'll know Facebook is completely dead if MicroSoft acquires it.

Kickin'

The sneaker industry and culture is pretty interesting, but I really don't care about sneakers, and won't go down the long and well-trodden road of sneaker commentary beyond stating unequivocally that I won't be spending crazy money so that the kids can try to impress other shallow kids.  I really only need three pairs of sneakers, one for running, one for hanging around, and one for mowing the lawn and such.  I probably have a couple of other pairs that I just haven't gotten around to throwing out yet, but how many pairs do you really need?  

One thing though.  I always thought those little loops at the back of sneakers were pretty girly, but as I get older and my feet get farther away they're starting to look a little better (and it probably won't be long before the looking will be through bifocals).  What's next, using a shoe horn?  Velcro straps instead of laces?  Those god-awful Crocs?  Might as well just start wearing a sweat suit and go to the mall.

baby beards

Children give cover for men to play.  Men are just boys in bigger bodies.  Some people say that the toys just get bigger, but it's even simpler than that. We just like to play, and what greater joy than playing with your kid.  Dads can be silly, dads can be fun, and dads can be themselves with their kids.  This is just one of the many reasons being a dad is just the greatest.

Crocuses, umbrellas, and baseball

Spring must be coming, as the truck has left for Florida

Trophies

I have written about the worst day of the year, Valentine's Day, from the man's perspective before, noting that it is a holy day of obligation mandating romance, making it incredibly unromantic and distasteful.  The only positive aspect is that there is at least the prospect  of intimacy at its merciful conclusion, though that prospect wanes with the years together.

Of course, for those not involved, by choice or circumstance, it's a day where the world tries to make you feel abnormal and insignificant.  Great "holiday."  And while certainly not universally true, I have noticed that this relationship "status" is sometimes especially important  for women, at least at Valentine's Day.  I think the Hallmark people will back me up on this one. However, men are certainly guilty of relationship status displays too- note the "trophy wife" phenomenon, for example.

Valentine's Day seems to be mostly about showing off trophies.  First and foremost, it is about showing everybody that you have a man.  But given that, Valentine's Day is about showing everybody how successful you are in the game, as measured by the quantity and quality of gifts.  Large mushy cards, large expensive killed flowers, large gemstones that may be publicly displayed, and large bills at expensive restaurants are all about demonstrating to the woman the man's devotion, so that she may have tangible evidence to show herself and others how successful she is in the game.  Of course, once married the opportunities for public displays diminish, as does the man's willingness to play the game, so the man delivers the least acceptable trophies, and the woman is content, no longer needing to display the trophies, with the reduced tokens. 

Wouldn't it be nice if Valentine's Day and all days were about love instead of the trophies?

College Websights

A lot of times I go to college websites, and all I want to do is see a class schedule, and maybe how many seats are available in a section.  Instead, I see mission statements, letters from presidents, and ways for how I can give money.  The ones that should get it are the ones that don't get it.


cartoon by Randall Munroe

Life in the Left Lane

I've lived in areas of the country where surface roads are newer and typically contain turning lanes, at least at intersections.  But in older areas, there is typically just a couple of lanes in each direction separated only by a solid line or two.  Since a lot of people have trouble finding that little rod on the left side of the steering column when making a turn (and even if they don't), traveling on these moderately to heavily trafficked* two laners involves a fair amount of mental calculus.  The left lane usually goes faster, but what if someone in that lane has to make a left, in which case you lose, and have to wait for the left lane turn to be made or for the right lane traffic to go by to proceed around that left-laner. At best, the on-coming traffic is thin enough for a quick left causing only a mild delay.  But if there are no turners, the left lane is a win.

When you're in the left lane you may see the left-laner ahead preparing to make the dreaded turn; do you dare try to merge back to the right?  The static right merge, where merging from a standstill in the left lane into uncoming right lane traffic, is a hazardous maneuver requiring guile and judgment, as typically there is not a lot of space to the the car in front, and finding and integrating into the moving gap is perilous.  A complication here is if there are cars in front or behind you who may also be contemplating the merge.  But this pales in comparison to the dynamic right merge, which in addition to static merge concerns, involves driving toward stopped cars and has only a small window of opportunity to make the merge.  This can be a bold and sometimes reckless move, as you need to keep an eye on the rapidly approaching car(s) ahead which have slowed or stopped while simultaneously gauging the speed of and gap between the upcoming right-laners. You must mentally define the position of the cars in front, calculate what their likely future position relative to yours will be over the next few seconds, and translate that to opportunity time, i.e., the time until you reach the "event horizon," where there is no longer a margin for stopping if you can't merge.  If you have not committed to slowing/stopping by this time, you must merge or likely rearend the car in front of you.  If you have calculated that the forward opportunity time to the event horizon is enough to consider the high risk/high reward of the moving merge, you then must quickly determine the probability that the dynamic merge can be successfully executed.  This entails looking away from the upcoming slowed/stopped cars to the oncoming right-laners.  If you look in the rear or side view mirror, you've bought a little extra time and may have some peripheral contact with the lane in front of you, but have reduced your field of vision and accuracy in gauging the upcoming right-laners.  And remember, objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear.  If you turn to look, you've got a better view and can make a more accurate read on the probabilities for merging, but have lost a fraction of a second as well as lost peripheral vision contact with the left-laners, thereby expanding your computational error term and opportunity for corrective action.  But regardless of whether you are a mirror viewer or a turn viewer, the "event horizon" approaches rapidly and may require a split-second all-in or fold decision. Sometimes you're lucky and the dynamic right merge is a piece of cake, or sometimes there is simply no opportunity to attempt the right merge.  But sometimes there is but a brief chance to make it back to the staid right lane, but it may require an act of courage if not an act of faith, be it gutsy or stupid.

And then there's the prospective left-laner who has crept over the divider to coerce the on-coming drivers to let him/her make the turn, which for them may or may not be an act of free-will.  But in so doing, the left lane turn creeper has freed up some room in your lane.  Is there enough to squeeze by, which will require usurping a slice of the right lane? 

Sometimes you get in the left lane even if you have to make an up-coming right, figuring that one of the cars on the right will have to make a sooner right and open up a gap.  Of course, you might see a "war-veteran" plate on a car ahead and figure that he'll be slow enough to open a gap, but what if there's a car ahead in the left lane who is thinking the same thing, in which case you'll need a two-gap or double opening to make your merge, never mind the left-turn risk.  Or what if there is a car in the left lane not moving fast enough for you to reach the gap?  It's a gamble.

Yes, you can live life in the right lane, where everything is slower, safer, and more predictable, but do you have what it takes for that wild ride in the left lane?

*Never being involved in the drug trade as supplier or consumer, I don't think I've ever written that word as a verb in the past tense. Why isn't the "c" doubled for the "ed?"  Odd spelling, but so much in English is.  It's reasonable, for instance, and this isn't an original thought, that "ghoti" could be the spelling of fish:

• gh, pronounced /f/ as in tough /tʌf/;
• o, pronounced /ɪ/ as in women /ˈwɪmɪn/; and
• ti, pronounced /ʃ/ as in nation /ˈne͡ɪʃən/.

Alphonse and Gaston

I let a lot of people trying to merge into traffic cut in front of me, but have developed some rules for doing so.  First and foremost, if the driver is on the phone or texting (or really doing anything other than driving), s/he isn't getting in.  If the driver has tried to force his/her way into the lane by inching forward so that half the car is sticking out into the road, I'm probably going to try to keep the bully in (unless there's a real risk of an accident- it's OK to make a point, but don't be stupid about it).  If the driver is not paying attention as I slow and stop, I won't wait forever- sorry, you missed your chance.  If the driver just got to the corner, sorry, you haven't done your time yet and earned the break.  If there's a passenger begging to let them in, that's a judgment call.  The same applies to the driver who has rolled down their window* and asks to be let it in. You have to judge the sincerity and necessity of the plea.  Clueless driver, made a mistake, really in a hurry, I'll probably let that person in; pretty girl just trying to manipulate me, expensive car driver used to getting their way, bad aura, they'll probably wait.  Tough call, though.

If there's a traffic light ahead, that's a factor.  If it's red, the odds are greater that I'll let the car in, as it isn't going to cost me any time.  If it's been a long green and I'm in a hurry (and isn't everybody), then probably not.  I can't tell you how many times I've let someone in only to have them get through on the yellow and I catch the red.  And if I've just let in a couple of people over the past few blocks, then it's somebody else's turn to be nice, as I'm starting to feel like a patsy if I'm the only one letting people in.

There are definitely some drivers I'm predisposed to let in.  A parent with children in the car (I know what's that's like), big rig truck drivers, old ladies (that's somebody's granny), and anybody with a good vibe gets priority.  And anybody who looks like they've been sitting there a while and looks reasonably normal is somebody I'd like to help.

But here's the thing, and I remember seeing this on a Seinfeld episode so I know a lot of people feel this way.  Isn't it aggravating when you let somebody in and you don't get the wave, the nod, the smile--- nothing!  Now I know that the joy is supposed to be in the giving, but darn it, I want that wave, and feel like a chump if I don't get it, as though I've just let a bad person get over on me. But I have noticed that if I let somebody in, the odds seem higher that that person will also let somebody in.

*For the younger readers, the expression "roll down your window" comes from the olden days when people actually had to manually crank down their car windows.