Coffee Klatch

I Can’t Believe We Made It!

---

According to today’s regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were kids in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s or even the early 80s, probably shouldn’t have survived.

Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint.

We had no childproof lids or locks on medicine bottles, doors, or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets.

Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pickup truckon a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle. Horrors!

We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we were never overweight because we were always outside playing.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one actually died from this.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then rode down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the street lights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. No cell phones. Unthinkable!

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo 64, X-Boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, video tape movies, surround sound, personal cell phones, personal computers, or Internet chat rooms.

We had friends! We went outside and found them.

We played dodge ball, and sometimes, the ball would really hurt.

We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. They were accidents. No one was to blame but us. Remember accidents?

We had fights and punched each other and got black and blue and learned to get over it.

We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out any eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend’s home and knocked on the door, or rang the bell or just walked in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn’t had to learn to deal with disappointment.

Some students weren’t as smart as others, so they failed a grade and were held back to repeat the same grade. Horrors!

Tests were not adjusted for any reason.

Our actions were our own. Consequences were expected.

The idea of parents bailing us out if we got in trouble in school or broke a law was unheard of. They actually sided with the school or the law. Imagine that!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers, and inventors, ever.

We had freedom, failure, success, and responsibility — and we learned how to deal with it.

And you’re probably one of them!
Congratulations.

I‘m sad to say that I am continuing to lose respect for Indianapolis law enforcement. They seem to do a great job showing up when a crime is reported and even making their presence known in various places around the city. Their philosophy about crime prevention, though, appears to be limited to that.

Call me old school, but it’s my opinion that the role of police officers should be more than showing up when a crime is committed. I still believe (or hope anyway) that police officers should be respected and should be role models for the community, both for children and adults. I know a lot goes on where I don’t see them, but if you don’t live where crimes are committed too frequently, the only times you see them is when they’re driving around town, which is probably the case for most people. And that’s where the role model falls apart.

We have a rather large problem in Indianapolis with people’s general driving habits. If police officers actually enforced traffic laws, this would be a safer and less stressful place to drive. From what I’ve seen over the last three years living in Indianapolis, though, our police officers actually discourage obeying traffic laws. First by NOT enforcing them and, second, by not following the laws themselves. If there’s no enforcement and the example set by the police also ignores the traffic laws, what will the general community do?

I must admit as an aside that I actually have seen some police officers with radar guns pulling people over, both on city streets and on highways, but that is by far the exception and is usually a one-time speed trap, which then is never seen again.

Here is a breakdown of the primary offenses I’ve observed:

---

Speeding
Whether on city streets or highways, everyone (including police officers) drives 10-15 mph over the posted speed limits. The typical highway custom for our police cars is to go as fast as they want in the left lane of the highways. Of course no emergency lights or anything; just driving fast without them. I’ve seen police cars actually be “in pursuit,” and that has a different feel to the speed. On the highways, the speed limit is 55 mph around most of Indianapolis. Police cars tend to drive over 70 mph in that left lane and people really make an effort to get out of their way when they see them coming up behind. Which leads to the next topic.

Tailgating
When someone doesn’t get out of the way quick enough, police cars usually ride right up behind the person, figuratively screaming at them to get out of the way. It’s quite a common occurrence. Just this morning I followed a police car most of the way to work and watched them do it to car after car. And that was in one of the right lanes. Eventually they worked their way over to the left lane, but for a while it was busy, so they just rode the bumpers of the cars in front of them until they got out of the way. (I mean, wouldn’t YOU? Imagine looking in your rear view mirror and seeing a police car right on your tail!) Standard traffic guidelines suggest leaving enough room between you and the car in front of you for TWO SECONDS to pass before you arrive where they were. Around here, that’s just an invitation to have people cut in front of you and make you slow down more. Our police officers certainly aren’t a role model in this area.

Running Red Lights
People run red lights around here all the time. It’s not unusual to see two or even three cars go through after the light turns red. Police cars do it too. What really burns me up is when I see a police car stopped at an intersection and doing nothing when people run the red light right in front of them.

Red lights are one of the few times that I’ve actually seen the flashing lights used. Last week, for example, I watched a police car that was in the left turn lane. Right before the light turned, they put on their flashing lights, did a U-turn into the opposite lanes, turned off the lights as soon as they were through the intersection, and then they drove half a block and turned into a fast food drive-thru. The “emergency lights” seem to be used more for their convenience than for actual emergencies or making people pull over.

Changing Lanes Without a Turn Signal
Not a very major thing, but it’s the role model idea. When there’s a lot of traffic, it’s just (un)common courtesy to put your turn signal on before you change lanes in front of someone. Probably half the cars I see changing lanes don’t use their turn signals, and that’s also true for police cars.

---

Don’t get me wrong. As I said earlier, I believe our police officers should be respected and obeyed. But I also believe they should be examples to us in areas such as obeying traffic laws and showing courtesy to others. That respect has to be earned. I would PREFER that we (all) be expected to obey the traffic laws; if you’re going to make a rule you should ENFORCE it. Either that or change it. That’s part of what made me be an R.A. in college for three years. But when even the “law enforcement” officers don’t enforce or abide by the laws, they discourage the general populace from obeying the law as well.

Here are a couple of jokes about Americans and languages. They are stereotypical, yes, but unfortunately all too common. I guess that’s where “stereotypes” come from.

Language Riddles

What do you call someone who speaks two languages? Bilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks three languages? Trilingual.

What do you call someone who speaks just one language? American.

---

Why Bother?A Swiss guy, looking for directions, pulls up at a bus stop where two Americans are waiting.

“Entschuldigen Sie bitte, koennen Sie Deutsch sprechen?” he says.

The two Americans just stare at him.

“Excusez-moi, parlez vous Francais?”

The two continue to stare.

“Parlare Italiano?” No response.

“Hablan ustedes Espanol?” Still nothing.

The Swiss guy drives off, extremely disgusted and frustrated.

The first American turns to the second and says, “Y’know, maybe we should learn a foreign language….”

“Why?” says the other, “That dude knew four languages, and that didn’t do him any good!”

I got really frustrated on the way home today, because I was listening to the governor of Florida lamenting his state’s current situation with regard to the Democratic Primary and their votes not being counted.

Florida and Michigan are both in this situation because they moved their states’ primaries to earlier in the year, hoping that their states would have more say in the process. In hindsight, things are still so even between Obama and Clinton that they would have HAD their say if they’d done things properly. But they had to KNOWINGLY break the rules and move their primary date. They knew it was against the rules and even refused to talk to reporters about it afterwards.

And NOW the governor of Florida is saying he wants the votes counted. Shouldn’t he have thought about that BEFORE breaking the rules?? It sure isn’t the Democratic National Committee’s fault that his state’s voters are “disenfranchised.” But during this whole interview, he ignores the rules and keeps insisting that the best solution is to count the votes that were already cast (improperly). I was appalled. (Yes, I feel sorry for Florida (and Michigan) for their Democratic Primary votes not counting, but it’s the states’ fault.)

Give a listen at NPR’s All Things Considered.

In the middle of watching the Colts game, my middle son, Blaise, who is 10 years old, walked in and caught the tail end of a commercial for the “Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.” Since he was unfamiliar with the brand name, he read it as Victoria’s Secret-Fashion-Show instead of Victoria’s-Secret Fashion-Show, if you see what I mean.

His observation (a direct quote): “That doesn’t look very secret!”

Out of the mouths of babes….

People have long complained about the quality of network television, but since I’ve been watching NFL football this fall, I’ve gotten to see more commercials for various TV shows than I used to see. Outside football season, the only time I usually watch network TV is for the morning news, when there are more car commercials than TV show commercials.

So I’ve noticed lately that the vast majority of prime-time shows on network TV involve people committing terrible crimes and people trying to catch them. Sure, there’s an element of solving a mystery and meting out justice, but there’s also a major element in every episode where you’re seeing the crimes being committed or the results of their crimes. I don’t care how much you enjoy the mystery element; what goes through your eyes into your head STAYS THERE. When you’re watching these scenes on TV that show people torturing or killing someone else, that’s imprinting itself on your mind and coloring your way of looking at the world. Unless you destroy brain cells, that will always be a part of you.

Sometimes these prime-time crime drama shows involve sex as well, either peripherally or as the core of the program. It seems like most of the newer comedies are like that also. The same is true of sex as of violence–fill your mind with it and it will color your relationships and your way of looking at the world.

The final result is that violence and sex are continuing to insinuate themselves into the minds of our people and the mentality of our culture. And we wonder why crimes are still high and why people treat each other poorly.

What *I* know is that there are plenty of commercials aired during football games that I don’t want my kids to see. More on NBC than FOX this year, but either way, I still feel obligated to distract my kids so they don’t see those commercials.

And with so many of these kinds of shows on network TV getting great reviews and high viewerships, there’s no reason for the networks to stop making them. Instead, there’s more reason to continue developing spinoffs, which will perpetuate the downward spiral of TV and society.

Anyone who lives in the Indianapolis area, or probably in the state, is aware of the problem we’ve had with housing taxes. Specifically, many people saw their taxes double or worse from last year to this year. Since the big hoohah over the situation, the state has backed off, allowing people to pay at last year’s rate and apparently just about the whole state is getting reassessed.

In a neighborhood near where I work, many houses have had this particular sign up since it all hit the fan. It’s in protest of the taxes, but the sign itself really bothers me. It says:

For Sale      By Owner      Due to (Unfair Taxation)

I get their point and all, but if you’re going to put a sign in your front lawn and leave it there for months, maybe you should give a LITTLE thought to its internal logic.

1. First of all, if you really wanted to even SLIGHTLY interest someone in buying the house, you wouldn’t broadcast the fact that the local taxes are unfair.
2. What’s with the parentheses?? You’re selling your house because of (unfair taxation)? What the heck is THAT supposed to mean? It MIGHT make some sense if you moved the open parenthesis to right before the “Due to,” but because of font size choices that would look kind of weird also.
3. All you show by displaying this sign in your yard is that you’re saying you want to sell your house but you’re not really serious about it, that you have no sense of proper grammar, and, oh, you’re also unhappy about the tax situation.

If it were me and I were going to keep a sign in my yard for any length of time, especially more than a couple months as has been the case with the above-mentioned signs, I’d want to make sure that the sign said what I really felt and didn’t insult my intelligence. But that’s just me….

Arthur Schopenhauer lived from 1788 to 1860. He was a philosopher and writer who wrote books like The World as Will and Idea and Studies in Pessimism. He is one of those writers that everyone should read, because as you read his style of writing, you almost cannot help becoming more eloquent. Of particular interest is one of his essays, called Counsels and Maxims, which can be found at Project Gutenberg. You can also read it as an etext from the University of Adelaide (Australia) Library at http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/counsels/

What I find interesting is that he lived 150+ years ago and yet his observations are still true today. And all the more interesting is Chapter 3 of his Counsels, “Our Relation to Others,” when read with a view of today’s society and culture in mind. Below are some excerpts that I found particularly compelling.

It is astonishing how easily and how quickly similarity, or difference of mind and disposition, makes itself felt between one man and another as soon as they begin to talk: every little trifle shows it. When two people of totally different natures are conversing, almost everything said by the one will, in a greater or less degree, displease the other, and in many cases produce positive annoyance; even though the conversation turn upon the most out-of-the-way subject, or one in which neither of the parties has any real interest. People of similar nature, on the other hand, immediately come to feel a kind of general agreement; and if they are cast very much in the same mould, complete harmony or even unison will flow from their intercourse.

This explain two circumstances. First of all, it shows why it is that common, ordinary people are so sociable and find good company wherever they go. Ah! those good, dear, brave people. It is just the contrary with those who are not of the common run; and the less they are so, the more unsociable they become; so that if, in their isolation, they chance to come across some one in whose nature they can find even a single sympathetic chord, be it never so minute, they show extraordinary pleasure in his society. For one man can be to another only so much as the other is to him. Great minds are like eagles, and build their nest in some lofty solitude.

Secondly, we are enabled to understand how it is that people of like disposition so quickly get on with one another, as though they were drawn together by magnetic force—kindred souls greeting each other from afar. Of course the most frequent opportunity of observing this is afforded by people of vulgar tastes and inferior intellect, but only because their name is legion; while those who are better off in this respect and of a rarer nature, are not often to be met with: they are called rare because you can seldom find them.

You cannot see in another man any more than you have in yourself; and your own intelligence strictly determines the extent to which he comes within its grasp. If your intelligence is of a very low order, mental qualities in another, even though they be of the highest kind, will have no effect at all upon you; you will see nothing in their possessor except the meanest side of his individuality—in other words, just those parts of his character and disposition which are weak and defective. Your whole estimate of the man will be confined to his defects, and his higher mental qualities will no more exist for you than colors exist for those who cannot see.

Intellect is invisible to the man who has none. In any attempt to criticise another’s work, the range of knowledge possessed by the critic is as essential a part of his verdict as the claims of the work itself.

Hence intercourse with others involves a process of leveling down. The qualities which are present in one man, and absent in another, cannot come into play when they meet; and the self-sacrifice which this entails upon one of the parties, calls forth no recognition from the other.

I feel respect for the man—and he is one in a hundred—who, when he is waiting or sitting unoccupied, refrains from rattling or beating time with anything that happens to be handy,—his stick, or knife and fork, or whatever else it may be. The probability is that he is thinking of something.

With a large number of people, it is quite evident that their power of sight completely dominates over their power of thought; they seem to be conscious of existence only when they are making a noise; unless indeed they happen to be smoking, for this serves a similar end. It is for the same reason that they never fail to be all eyes and ears for what is going on around them.

Most men are so thoroughly subjective that nothing really interests them but themselves. They always think of their own case as soon as ever any remark is made, and their whole attention is engrossed and absorbed by the merest chance reference to anything which affects them personally, be it never so remote: with the result that they have no power left for forming an objective view of things, should the conversation take that turn; neither can they admit any validity in arguments which tell against their interest or their vanity. Hence their attention is easily distracted. They are so readily offended, insulted or annoyed, that in discussing any impersonal matter with them, no care is too great to avoid letting your remarks bear the slightest possible reference to the very worthy and sensitive individuals whom you have before you; for anything you may say will perhaps hurt their feelings. People really care about nothing that does not affect them personally. True and striking observations, fine, subtle and witty things are lost upon them: they cannot understand or feel them. But anything that disturbs their petty vanity in the most remote and indirect way, or reflects prejudicially upon their exceedingly precious selves—to that, they are most tenderly sensitive.

Distance and long absence are always prejudicial to friendship, however disinclined a man may be to admit. Our regard for people whom we do not see—even though they be our dearest friends—gradually dries up in the course of years, and they become abstract notions; so that our interest in them grows to be more and more intellectual,—nay, it is kept up only as a kind of tradition; whilst we retain a lively and deep interest in those who are constantly before our eyes, even if they be only pet animals. This shows how much men are limited by their senses.

A man must be still a greenhorn in the ways of the world, if he imagines that he can make himself popular in society by exhibiting intelligence and discernment. With the immense majority of people, such qualities excite hatred and resentment, which are rendered all the harder to bear by the fact that people are obliged to suppress—even from themselves—the real reason of their anger.

What actually takes place is this. A man feels and perceives that the person with whom he is conversing is intellectually very much his superior. He thereupon secretly and half unconsciously concludes that his interlocutor must form a proportionately low and limited estimate of his abilities. That is a method of reasoning—an enthymeme—which rouses the bitterest feelings of sullen and rancorous hatred. And so Gracian is quite right in saying that the only way to win affection from people is to show the most animal-like simplicity of demeanor—para ser bien quisto, el unico medio vestirse la piel del mas simple de los brutos.

To show your intelligence and discernment is only an indirect way of reproaching other people for being dull and incapable. And besides, it is natural for a vulgar man to be violently agitated by the sight of opposition in any form; and in this case envy comes in as the secret cause of his hostility. For it is a matter of daily observation that people take the greatest pleasure in that which satisfies their vanity; and vanity cannot be satisfied without comparison with others. Now, there is nothing of which a man is prouder than of intellectual ability, for it is this that gives him his commanding place in the animal world. It is an exceedingly rash thing to let any one see that you are decidedly superior to him in this respect, and to let other people see it too; because he will then thirst for vengeance, and generally look about for an opportunity of taking it by means of insult, because this is to pass from the sphere of intellect to that of will—and there, all are on an equal footing as regards the feeling of hostility. Hence, while rank and riches may always reckon upon deferential treatment in society, that is something which intellectual ability can never expect; to be ignored is the greatest favor shown to it; and if people notice it at all, it is because they regard it as a piece of impertinence, or else as something to which its possessor has no legitimate right, and upon which he dares to pride himself; and in retaliation and revenge for his conduct, people secretly try and humiliate him in some other way; and if they wait to do this, it is only for a fitting opportunity. A man may be as humble as possible in his demeanor, and yet hardly ever get people to overlook his crime in standing intellectually above them. In the Garden of Roses, Sadi makes the remark:—You should know that foolish people are a hundredfold more averse to meeting the wise than the wise are indisposed for the company of the foolish.

Okay, it’s time to help spread the news. “Recent polls have shown that a fifth of Americans can’t locate the U.S. on a world map.” A Miss Teen USA contestant was told this and asked why she thinks this is. I’d think by this time she could put together a halfway well-reasoned answer to such a basic question by this stage in her contestant career. The problem here is not just an issue of public speaking, but of it really makes me thinks she’s ONE of those 20%.

Check out her response:

Here’s the transcript if you didn’t catch it in her response (which is quite possible) or if you just want to follow along:

Questioner: Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can’t locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?

Miss Teen South Carolina: I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and the Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for us.

And we wonder why the rest of the world thinks we’re idiots!!

I really can’t understand cable companies. They give you a nice discount to sign up and then if you decide to stick with them, they raise your rates. I mean, it would make sense to me that if you continued with them longer, they should REWARD your loyalty by giving you perks or lower rates or something. So why do they charge you MORE for staying with them?

I signed up for Comcast’s “Triple Play” last year, which gave me cable for $33, high-speed internet access for $33, and digital voice phone service for $33 a month. Of course, there’s always hidden fees like modem rental, $10/month extra for DIGITAL cable, cable box rental, etc. Plus taxes on the phone service, but that’s going to happen regardless of your phone service.

So this year I found out that after this startup deal was finished my rates were going to go up by almost $50 a month. I called them this last week to find out how much prices were going up and to compare my options. I also looked at all the other options I have for Cable/Satellite TV, I found out that DISH Network had the best prices overall. $29.99/month for the Top 100 package. DirecTV was over $40 for a similar package. Comcast’s basic digital cable was going from $43 to $69 a month. Basic analog cable is $54 a month and I could get it down to $37 if I dropped all the “interesting” channels like History Channel, Disney, Nickelodeon, etc.

Once I called Comcast today to cancel my cable service (since I just got DISH Network installed), they offered to give me a discount and stay basically at the current rate if I kept all 3 services. While I saw that as a decent option, I’d already signed up with DISH. My internet access is going from the original $33/month to $43/month. Phone service is going from $33 to $45, but I need to keep it because otherwise the internet service will go up to $57/month. Plus $3/month for the cable modem rental. And then they surprise me with an extra $18 charge for them to “downgrade” my cable, meaning come out and pick up the receiver and disconnect the cable TV service.

And all because I can’t get DSL at this house. Otherwise I’d use Earthlink for DSL, DISH for satellite TV, and something non-AT&T for phone. But apparently we’re in a pocket where DSL just doesn’t reach, so if I want high-speed internet access (and I assuredly do), I have to use a cable modem.

BTW, DISH has some discounts now that basically give me HD service for free. At least for $10 months. But I can downgrade if I need to when it comes to it. Unless I get so addicted to HDTV that I’m willing to pay a little more for it. So now I pay about the same as I used to, but I have DISH network with HDTV and local channels in HD right through my satellite box.