These are some thoughts, suggestions, etc. that I have based on several years of having been a switchboard operator for an insurance company. Actually, this is really sort of "venting" about all the people who are not exactly pleasant to deal with on the phone! If even one of them reads this, sees themselves in this post, and tries to take my comments to heart, I'll feel I've done a service for switchboard operators everywhere!
First of all, if you call your insurance company, and you have a question about your policy, or about a claim, please please please have the foresight to have your claim number (if you know it) or your policy number (you surely have that somewhere) handy. Why? Because if I answer the phone, "XYZ Insurance Company," and you say, "Yeah, I have a question about my policy," the first thing I'm going to say back is, "Do you have your policy number?" because I need to look the policy up on our computer so I can either answer your question or direct you to someone who can. It is simply mind-boggling to me how many people say, "Uh, no."
And I have then had conversations that go like this:
"Ok, what is the name of the insured?"
"XYZ Insurance."
"No, that's us, that's the insurance company. What is the NAME of the INSURED?"
"Huh?"
"The policyholder. The name on the policy."
"Oh, that's me."
"No, I need your business name. We're a commercial insurer. We register policies by the business name. What is the business name?"
"Yeah, it's my business."
You get my point.
I've also had people call and say, "Yeah, I have a question about my policy," and I say, "Do you have your policy number so I can look that up for you?" and they reply, "No, I'm in my car. That information is back at my office/home/apartment/wherever." First of all, DON'T BE CALLING ME ON A CELLPHONE WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING. THAT'S DANGEROUS. HANG UP AND DRIVE OR PULL OVER TO MAKE YOUR CALL! Second, it's really stupid to call from your car with a question about your policy when you don't have your policy information with you so I can look it up for you. Get a clue!
Please, if you call and ask to speak to Mary Jones or John Smith, and I transfer you to Mary Jones or John Smith, and you get that person's voice mail, do NOT call me back at the main switchboard and get sarcastic with me and say, "I wanted Mary Jones, and YOU gave me her VOICE MAIL. I want to talk to a LIVE PERSON. Do NOT put me through to voice mail!" You see, I am not that stupid. I KNOW that you want to speak with a live person. I did NOT intentionally, on purpose, put you through to voice mail. I do not have two buttons on my switchboard console, one marked "Live Person" and the other marked "Voice Mail." If the person you requested is away from his or her desk, you will get voice mail. I have no way of knowing if that person is at their desk, because I sit in the front lobby, and I cannot see through walls and around corners. And I am not going to call ahead to make SURE the person is at their desk for every single call that comes to my switchboard. Simply not gonna happen.
People step away from their desks for a variety of reasons. They might have to use the restroom (hey, ever sit for 8 hours without going potty even once?) and you might have had the bad luck to call during the five minutes they're in the restroom. They might have gone to get a cup of coffee (hence the need to use the restroom later) or to get a snack from the vending machine. They might be using the fax machine or the copy machine. They might have gone into a meeting. (They don't always tell the switchboard operator when they go into a meeting, either. And yes, if you're told that so-and-so is in a meeting, odds are pretty good that so-and-so is in a meeting, because people DO go into meetings in offices ALL the TIME. It is NOT an excuse they came up with to avoid taking your call.)
Now, if you call me back, and in a NICE tone of voice say, "I'm sorry, I got Mary's voice mail. Do you know if she's available right now? I really need to speak with her," I'm MUCH more likely to bend over backwards to help you. But if you treat me like you think I'm a dumb jerk who just decided on purpose to dump you into voice mail, I might not be so inclined to help you. And please understand, sometimes, people just aren't available. Example: I had one woman call who needed to talk with someone in accounting. We are a small company. We have three people in the accounting department. I tried each person THREE TIMES and nobody answered the phone. Apparently, all three people were not at their desks, perhaps in a meeting or something. The woman did not want to leave a message on anyone's voice mail and insisted on talking to "a live person, right now." I finally, politely, had to tell her, "I'm sorry, but I've tried everyone three times and no one is answering the phone. You will have to leave a message on voice mail or call back. There's nothing else I can do for you." She grudgingly accepted that she had to leave a message, but it took me the better part of five or six minutes to get her to do so.
Please, please, please, remember there is such a thing as TIME ZONES. I have had people call at 8:00 in the morning, wanting to speak with someone who will not be in the office until 8:30. When I tell them that person hasn't arrived in the office yet, I get the almost inevitable sarcasm, "What do you mean they're not there? It's 10:00 in the morning!" Well, it might be 10:00 where YOU are, but it's 8:00 where WE are. Or I tell you that the person is at lunch, and you reply, "At 2:00 in the afternoon?" To which I say, "It's noon here," and I get, "Where ARE you?" Well, we're further west than you, and that means we're a couple hours behind you. Get a clue.
I am a switchboard operator. I am unable to answer in detail questions about claims, policies, premiums, etc. If I tell you, "I'm sorry, I just answer the phone. I need to direct your call to someone who can answer your question," do not come back with "Well, let me just ask you this." I just told you I can't answer your question! And do not jump down my throat because you've already tried reaching someone and nobody has returned your call yet. I understand your frustration, but it's not the switchboard operator's fault if a claims examiner or underwriter hasn't called you back yet, so don't take your anger out on me. All you do is raise my blood pressure and ruin my day. You don't get anywhere, because I'm powerless to make anybody call you back.
Please, if you have a question about your policy, and I try to find it by the business name, be patient. It takes longer to find it that way than if you actually miraculously have the policy number to give me. Example: One guy called about his policy, wanting to file a claim, and the name of his business was something like BJ's Sports Grill. (Not the actual name, but similar to that.) Ok, in our computer system, that could be input in a million ways, such as:
BJ's Sports Grill
B.J.'s Sports Grill
B J's Sports Grill
B. J.'s Sports Grill
As it turns out, it was in our computer as BJs Sports Grill. (No periods, no apostrophe.) The only way I found it was because the caller finally, after several minutes of rustling through paperwork on his desk, unearthed his policy number (which he should have had in front of him before placing his call to us) and I put in his policy number and up popped his information.
I'm sure I'll think of more later, but you can begin to see how frustrating dealing with the public is for a switchboard operator!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
More thoughts regarding traffic control cameras
In an earlier post, I expressed my wholehearted support for the use of traffic control cameras to catch speeders and red-light runners. My attitude was and continues to be - if you don't want your picture taken, don't speed or run a red light. Duh.
The newest argument that opponents of traffic control cameras are attempting to use is that the flash of a camera going off will startle the driver(s), and people will be slamming on their brakes because the flash scared them, and that this in and of itself is a danger, and therefore the cameras should be gotten rid of.
Oh puh-leeze. I've been on the freeway when one of these cameras flashed, and I didn't notice drivers slowing down or slamming on their brakes when the flash went off. Ditto with people running red lights. And while I'm not denying such a thing *could* happen, I think that the danger that speeders and red-light runners pose is MUCH greater than the danger of people "slamming on their brakes because the flash startled them." It's already an established fact that people who speed or run red lights are a threat and a danger, while the argument I've heard camera opponents use (are you listening, Austin Hill of KTAR radio?) is that "it's bound to happen" that accidents will be caused by drivers who are startled by the camera flash and slam on their brakes. If it's "bound to happen," that means it isn't happening NOW with any great frequency (notice the future tense of "bound to happen") and yet these cameras have been around for several years now. Why aren't we hearing about accidents happening all the time with these startled drivers? We hear about accidents from people who ran red lights and plowed into other drivers, or idiots speeding down the freeway who rammed into somebody, but I have yet to hear very many, if ANY, accounts of accidents from these drivers who are supposedly startled by cameras flashing and hit their brakes.
Keep the cameras! If you don't want your picture taken, obey the law! (Mr. Hill's argument on KTAR radio earlier this week was that in a perfect world, everyone would obey the law, but a lot of people aren't going to obey the law EVEN IF we have the cameras, so why not get rid of the cameras? Ok, Mr. Hill, then using your lack of logic, in a perfect world, people would obey the law so as not to get stopped by an officer patrolling a freeway or intersection, but unfortunately, a lot of people are going to break the law even if an officer is right there with a radar gun to catch them and give them a ticket - so why are we paying police officers to patrol traffic if some people are going to break the law anyway? That dog don't hunt, Mr. Hill! Try another argument, one that isn't so lame!)
The newest argument that opponents of traffic control cameras are attempting to use is that the flash of a camera going off will startle the driver(s), and people will be slamming on their brakes because the flash scared them, and that this in and of itself is a danger, and therefore the cameras should be gotten rid of.
Oh puh-leeze. I've been on the freeway when one of these cameras flashed, and I didn't notice drivers slowing down or slamming on their brakes when the flash went off. Ditto with people running red lights. And while I'm not denying such a thing *could* happen, I think that the danger that speeders and red-light runners pose is MUCH greater than the danger of people "slamming on their brakes because the flash startled them." It's already an established fact that people who speed or run red lights are a threat and a danger, while the argument I've heard camera opponents use (are you listening, Austin Hill of KTAR radio?) is that "it's bound to happen" that accidents will be caused by drivers who are startled by the camera flash and slam on their brakes. If it's "bound to happen," that means it isn't happening NOW with any great frequency (notice the future tense of "bound to happen") and yet these cameras have been around for several years now. Why aren't we hearing about accidents happening all the time with these startled drivers? We hear about accidents from people who ran red lights and plowed into other drivers, or idiots speeding down the freeway who rammed into somebody, but I have yet to hear very many, if ANY, accounts of accidents from these drivers who are supposedly startled by cameras flashing and hit their brakes.
Keep the cameras! If you don't want your picture taken, obey the law! (Mr. Hill's argument on KTAR radio earlier this week was that in a perfect world, everyone would obey the law, but a lot of people aren't going to obey the law EVEN IF we have the cameras, so why not get rid of the cameras? Ok, Mr. Hill, then using your lack of logic, in a perfect world, people would obey the law so as not to get stopped by an officer patrolling a freeway or intersection, but unfortunately, a lot of people are going to break the law even if an officer is right there with a radar gun to catch them and give them a ticket - so why are we paying police officers to patrol traffic if some people are going to break the law anyway? That dog don't hunt, Mr. Hill! Try another argument, one that isn't so lame!)
Sam Bottoms and "East of Eden"
Reading about the untimely passing of actor Sam Bottoms yesterday, I began remembering the wonderful 1981 miniseries he starred in, "East of Eden," with Jane Seymour. Since "Centennial" was released on DVD earlier this summer, I decided to check and see if "East of Eden" would be released anytime soon. I didn't expect much, but imagine my delight when I checked Amazon and saw it will indeed come out on DVD in the spring! This is an absolutely fabulous miniseries (not IMHO as good as "Centennial," but close!) and I can't wait to own it! Why does TV not do quality programming like this anymore? I'd much rather watch a wonderful miniseries like this, with a great cast, great script, great music, than watch people voting each other off an island, or stars dancing with each other, or talent contests. Well, at least we will have these classics on DVD to enjoy, even if the networks don't bother to make any new miniseries anymore!
Children's programming on TV
My discovery last week of clips from "The Friendly Giant" on You Tube made me nostalgic for the TV shows I grew up with, and sad that today's children, such as my own 8-year-old grandnephew Patrick, will never see these shows. The TV networks no longer seem to care about programming for children the way they did 40 years ago. How well I remember getting up every morning to watch "Captain Kangaroo," and waiting to see what animals Mr. Green Jeans would have on! Or "Romper Room," and hoping Miss Whoever would see me in her magic mirror and say my name (she never did, but I always hoped!) And our local PBS station (or perhaps it's PBS in general, I don't know for sure) has stopped airing reruns of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood," which had aired for a couple of years following the passing of Fred Rogers. And there are no longer cartoons on Saturday mornings on the major three networks like there used to be. Of course there is cable TV, with kids programming, but somehow it's not the same as knowing that one morning a week, Saturday, had cartoons on from 6:00 through noon, and some great classic cartoons like "Scooby Doo" got their start on Saturday mornings back in the 60's and 70's.
Speaking of "Romper Room," I'm reminded of an incident a few years ago when I was eating lunch with some co-workers. Most of us were in our 40's, and one gentleman was in his 30's. We were complaining about the management of the company where we worked, and one woman said, "They treat us like we're in Romper Room." The 30ish man said, "Romper Room? What's that?" There was a startled moment while all of us in our 40s looked at each other, and then the woman who had been doing the complaining said, "That was a kid's show on TV."
That made us feel old! This man was too young to have seen "Romper Room!" But then, on the other hand, how can you NOT have at least a passing, surface familiarity with "Romper Room" even if you were not born when it was on? I never saw "Howdy Doody" but I know it was a kid's show in the 50's.
Then there's my erstwhile friend, Lisa in Gardena, who was not familiar with the Tasmanian Devil from the Looney Tunes cartoons. Say WHAT? You never watched Bugs Bunny growing up? That's just - that's just - that's UNAMERICAN! (LOL!) Not to mention just plain weird!
Speaking of "Romper Room," I'm reminded of an incident a few years ago when I was eating lunch with some co-workers. Most of us were in our 40's, and one gentleman was in his 30's. We were complaining about the management of the company where we worked, and one woman said, "They treat us like we're in Romper Room." The 30ish man said, "Romper Room? What's that?" There was a startled moment while all of us in our 40s looked at each other, and then the woman who had been doing the complaining said, "That was a kid's show on TV."
That made us feel old! This man was too young to have seen "Romper Room!" But then, on the other hand, how can you NOT have at least a passing, surface familiarity with "Romper Room" even if you were not born when it was on? I never saw "Howdy Doody" but I know it was a kid's show in the 50's.
Then there's my erstwhile friend, Lisa in Gardena, who was not familiar with the Tasmanian Devil from the Looney Tunes cartoons. Say WHAT? You never watched Bugs Bunny growing up? That's just - that's just - that's UNAMERICAN! (LOL!) Not to mention just plain weird!
"Almanzo Wilder: Life Before Laura"
I want to give a plug to a new DVD that has recently become available, focusing on the boyhood of Almanzo Wilder, husband of Laura Ingalls Wilder, who was of course the author of the famous "Little House" books. The "Little House" books have been among my favorite books since I was 9 years old. (The TV series was a big disappointment in that it did not stay faithful to the Ingalls family unit. I didn't care that they deviated from the books, but I *DID* care that they didn't stay true to the basic Ingalls family unit and began inventing relatives who never existed, such as Albert, James, Cassandra, Adam, and Adam Charles. Puh-leeze. But that's another story for another post.)
This new DVD, produced and narrated by Dean Butler, who portrayed Almanzo on the TV series, is a wonderful mixture of live-action recreations of scenes from Almanzo's boyhood (with a little boy who looks very much like photos of the real Almanzo as a boy), and the famous Garth Williams illustrations from the book "Farmer Boy." Mr. Butler's wife Katherine Cannon (you'll remember her from the early 80's series "Father Murphy" with Merlin Olsen) reads excerpts from "Farmer Boy" as well.
This DVD is delightfully done and very enjoyable. While it's too late to get it for Christmas, you can order it for yourself or a Wilder fan anytime through the website www.almanzowilderfarm.com.
Incidentally, I'm very pleased that they pronounce Almanzo's name correctly on this DVD. The TV series mangled the pronunciation of his name. It was never "Al-MON-zo" but rather "Al-MAN-zo." The middle syllable of his name was pronounced "man," which is where his boyhood nickname of "Mannie" came from. This is verified by a tape of Laura Ingalls Wilder herself that is available through the various Wilder memorial societies throughout the Midwest, on which she says her husband's name several times, each time saying "Al-MAN-zo." Since she was married to him for 64 years, I would trust her pronunciation of his name!
This new DVD, produced and narrated by Dean Butler, who portrayed Almanzo on the TV series, is a wonderful mixture of live-action recreations of scenes from Almanzo's boyhood (with a little boy who looks very much like photos of the real Almanzo as a boy), and the famous Garth Williams illustrations from the book "Farmer Boy." Mr. Butler's wife Katherine Cannon (you'll remember her from the early 80's series "Father Murphy" with Merlin Olsen) reads excerpts from "Farmer Boy" as well.
This DVD is delightfully done and very enjoyable. While it's too late to get it for Christmas, you can order it for yourself or a Wilder fan anytime through the website www.almanzowilderfarm.com.
Incidentally, I'm very pleased that they pronounce Almanzo's name correctly on this DVD. The TV series mangled the pronunciation of his name. It was never "Al-MON-zo" but rather "Al-MAN-zo." The middle syllable of his name was pronounced "man," which is where his boyhood nickname of "Mannie" came from. This is verified by a tape of Laura Ingalls Wilder herself that is available through the various Wilder memorial societies throughout the Midwest, on which she says her husband's name several times, each time saying "Al-MAN-zo." Since she was married to him for 64 years, I would trust her pronunciation of his name!
Saturday, December 13, 2008
"Centennial" and "Into the West"
If anyone in your family loves wonderful historical drama set against the backdrop of the American West in the 19th and 20th centuries, you need to rush out and get the DVD of the 1978 miniseries "Centennial" which was released this past summer.
I saw "Centennial" for the first time when I was in high school, and it is one of my favorite series that has ever been on TV. What a magnificent job they did, telling the story of the fictional town of Centennial, Colorado over 150 years or so of history! Truly this was the finest acting job Robert Conrad ever did as feisty French fur trapper Pasquinel, and the rest of the cast, especially Gregory Harrison as Levi Zendt, were equally as wonderful.
A few years back, a miniseries produced by Steven Spielberg aired, called "Into the West." I watched that one as well, but while it was okay, it was not nearly in the same league as "Centennial." Perhaps it's unfair to compare the two since "Into the West" was only 12 hours long compared to 25 hours or so for "Centennial," and thus didn't have the same length of time to tell a detailed story. Still, there were many annoyances with "Into the West," the two primary ones being characters and storylines that just petered out with no resolution, and the jarring use of different actors to play the same roles. It seems like they didn't feel one actor could portray the same character from age 20-something to age 70-something, so they changed actors in mid-stream for almost all the major roles in the miniseries.
Contrast that with "Centennial" where Gregory Harrison portrayed Levi Zendt from about age 25 to age 70 or so, and all the other actors in the great cast (William Atherton, Barbara Carrera, Timothy Dalton, Lynn Redgrave, Richard Chamberlain) aged over the decades with their characters. Old-age makeup along with the actors actually *acting* by pretending to be middle-aged and elderly did the trick. For the most part, the old-age makeup used in 1978 in "Centennial" was fantastic, especially on Redgrave and Carrera. (They could have done a better job on a few of the others, but you could overlook it.) Couldn't actors and actresses in 2005 in "Into the West" have been made up to look older, and used their acting skills to portray age convincingly? I can't imagine someone taking over the role of Levi from Gregory Harrison halfway through "Centennial," or another actress portraying Charlotte Seccombe Lloyd after she got older the way Lynn Redgrave portrayed her.
So "Into the West" was a disappointment in several aspects, but you can't go wrong with "Centennial!" Truly a classic!
I saw "Centennial" for the first time when I was in high school, and it is one of my favorite series that has ever been on TV. What a magnificent job they did, telling the story of the fictional town of Centennial, Colorado over 150 years or so of history! Truly this was the finest acting job Robert Conrad ever did as feisty French fur trapper Pasquinel, and the rest of the cast, especially Gregory Harrison as Levi Zendt, were equally as wonderful.
A few years back, a miniseries produced by Steven Spielberg aired, called "Into the West." I watched that one as well, but while it was okay, it was not nearly in the same league as "Centennial." Perhaps it's unfair to compare the two since "Into the West" was only 12 hours long compared to 25 hours or so for "Centennial," and thus didn't have the same length of time to tell a detailed story. Still, there were many annoyances with "Into the West," the two primary ones being characters and storylines that just petered out with no resolution, and the jarring use of different actors to play the same roles. It seems like they didn't feel one actor could portray the same character from age 20-something to age 70-something, so they changed actors in mid-stream for almost all the major roles in the miniseries.
Contrast that with "Centennial" where Gregory Harrison portrayed Levi Zendt from about age 25 to age 70 or so, and all the other actors in the great cast (William Atherton, Barbara Carrera, Timothy Dalton, Lynn Redgrave, Richard Chamberlain) aged over the decades with their characters. Old-age makeup along with the actors actually *acting* by pretending to be middle-aged and elderly did the trick. For the most part, the old-age makeup used in 1978 in "Centennial" was fantastic, especially on Redgrave and Carrera. (They could have done a better job on a few of the others, but you could overlook it.) Couldn't actors and actresses in 2005 in "Into the West" have been made up to look older, and used their acting skills to portray age convincingly? I can't imagine someone taking over the role of Levi from Gregory Harrison halfway through "Centennial," or another actress portraying Charlotte Seccombe Lloyd after she got older the way Lynn Redgrave portrayed her.
So "Into the West" was a disappointment in several aspects, but you can't go wrong with "Centennial!" Truly a classic!
More memories on You Tube - "In the News" with Christopher Glenn
If you were a child in the 70's, watching Saturday morning cartoons (and only weird kids didn't watch cartoons on Saturday mornings - it's what you DID as a normal child in the 60's and 70's on Saturday mornings!) - you saw these little two-minute summaries of events in the week's news, written and designed to be understood by children and narrated by the CBS reporter with the wonderful voice, Christopher Glenn. Everybody who remembers "In the News" remembers the weird sound effects heard at the beginning and end of each segment.
I've never forgotten these, and lo and behold, some "In the News" segments are on You Tube! (Where do people FIND this stuff to post??) What a trip, to go back to yesteryear and see some of these again and remember Saturday mornings in the 70's!
I've never forgotten these, and lo and behold, some "In the News" segments are on You Tube! (Where do people FIND this stuff to post??) What a trip, to go back to yesteryear and see some of these again and remember Saturday mornings in the 70's!
Robert Montgomery/"Bewitched"
One of my all-time favorite TV series is "Bewitched." I loved that show as a child and still love the reruns as an adult. It never gets old.
I read somewhere that consideration had been given to using Elizabeth Montgomery's dad, Robert Montgomery, to play her father on the show. Ultimately, of course, the role of her bombastic, blustering, domineering but loveable father went to Maurice Evans, who was just marvelous in the role (Maurice is one of my favorite characters on the series, along with Uncle Arthur and Dr. Bombay).
I have to wonder, though, what it would have been like to see Robert Montgomery acting with his daughter on this series. What a shame we never got to find out! I wish they could have cast him as another uncle. Since Arthur was Endora's brother, Mr. Montgomery could have perhaps played Maurice's brother. What fun that would have been!
Oh well - "Bewitched" was classic anyway! Still, it makes you think about what might have been.....
I read somewhere that consideration had been given to using Elizabeth Montgomery's dad, Robert Montgomery, to play her father on the show. Ultimately, of course, the role of her bombastic, blustering, domineering but loveable father went to Maurice Evans, who was just marvelous in the role (Maurice is one of my favorite characters on the series, along with Uncle Arthur and Dr. Bombay).
I have to wonder, though, what it would have been like to see Robert Montgomery acting with his daughter on this series. What a shame we never got to find out! I wish they could have cast him as another uncle. Since Arthur was Endora's brother, Mr. Montgomery could have perhaps played Maurice's brother. What fun that would have been!
Oh well - "Bewitched" was classic anyway! Still, it makes you think about what might have been.....
"The Friendly Giant"
The things you can find on the Internet - it's truly amazing!
Years ago, when I was very small, one of my favorite TV shows was "The Friendly Giant." The format was quite simple - a friendly giant would invite you into his castle, put out chairs (dollhouse furniture, but as a child you were supposed to believe it was real furniture and looked small because, well, he was a giant, of course) for his young visitors to sit in, and then he would visit with a chicken named Rusty and a giraffe named Jerome (hand puppets, but if you were a child, you imagined they were real). The series was so gentle, so sweet, so simple, and the Giant (Bob Homme) had such a soft, friendly, gentle, soothing voice. He played a recorder, and the theme music to the series was done with a recorder and a harp, adding to the overall sweet and gentle feel of the show.
I watched this series all the time as a young child, but never saw it again after we moved to Arizona when I was 6. I never ever forgot it over the years, though, and have always wished I could find some way to see it again.
So this evening when I found several lengthy clips from it on You Tube while searching for other things, I have to confess, I sat in front of my computer crying! There was everything I remembered - the recorder music, the Giant's castle with the drawbridge, the tiny furniture, his soft, melodious voice, everything. It was as if I had stepped into a time machine and gone back to my earliest childhood.
Could today's children enjoy something like this? My own 8-year-old grandnephew loves action-packed, loud and noisy video games. He never saw Mister Rogers, or Romper Room, or Captain Kangaroo, and would have no idea what those were. I can't help but think his generation is the poorer for having missed out on all of this.
Years ago, when I was very small, one of my favorite TV shows was "The Friendly Giant." The format was quite simple - a friendly giant would invite you into his castle, put out chairs (dollhouse furniture, but as a child you were supposed to believe it was real furniture and looked small because, well, he was a giant, of course) for his young visitors to sit in, and then he would visit with a chicken named Rusty and a giraffe named Jerome (hand puppets, but if you were a child, you imagined they were real). The series was so gentle, so sweet, so simple, and the Giant (Bob Homme) had such a soft, friendly, gentle, soothing voice. He played a recorder, and the theme music to the series was done with a recorder and a harp, adding to the overall sweet and gentle feel of the show.
I watched this series all the time as a young child, but never saw it again after we moved to Arizona when I was 6. I never ever forgot it over the years, though, and have always wished I could find some way to see it again.
So this evening when I found several lengthy clips from it on You Tube while searching for other things, I have to confess, I sat in front of my computer crying! There was everything I remembered - the recorder music, the Giant's castle with the drawbridge, the tiny furniture, his soft, melodious voice, everything. It was as if I had stepped into a time machine and gone back to my earliest childhood.
Could today's children enjoy something like this? My own 8-year-old grandnephew loves action-packed, loud and noisy video games. He never saw Mister Rogers, or Romper Room, or Captain Kangaroo, and would have no idea what those were. I can't help but think his generation is the poorer for having missed out on all of this.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Traffic control cameras - for or against?
There is a lot of controversy going on in the greater Phoenix area about the use of traffic cameras to catch speeders on our freeways and red-light runners on our city streets. The main thrust of the argument is that it is "Big Brotherish," that it is an "invasion of privacy," that it is "just a moneymaker for the city-county-state-whatever."
As far as I'm concerned, I bless the traffic control cameras. If people have to slow down on the freeway so they won't get their picture taken and receive a fine for speeding, isn't that the entire purpose of the camera? If people don't run a red light because they'll get their picture taken and receive a fine, isn't that an improvement in safety at intersections? The only way one of these cameras will take your picture is if you are speeding or running a red light, neither of which you are supposed to be doing in the FIRST place.
In other words, if you are so worried about your privacy being invaded, simply DON'T BREAK THE LAW, and your privacy will be guaranteed. And if you're worried about these cameras being simply a way for a city or county or state to make money, guess what? If you don't want the authorities to get your money, don't break the law, and they won't! It's a voluntary tax, people! If you don't run a red light, you won't get your picture snapped, you won't be charged with a fine, your privacy won't be invaded, and the authorities won't get their hands on your money. Ditto with speeding like a maniac down the freeway.
I think all the arguments the opponents of traffic control cameras are putting forth is just a coverup for the real reason they oppose the cameras - they think that if a police officer pulls them over to give them a ticket for a traffic infraction, they can BS their way out of the ticket. That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? You can't BS a camera, so let's be against the cameras.
As for the argument that we should have police officers patrolling the freeways and intersections instead of the cameras - where are we going to get the extra officers? If you DO have officers patrolling freeways and intersections, then the scofflaws argue that these officers should be assigned to control REAL crimes like homicides and robberies and so on. Well, by having the cameras as a law enforcement tool (and that is exactly what they are, a LAW ENFORCEMENT TOOL), that frees up our limited amount of officers to be investigating other crimes.
I don't want to think that you are going to run a red light and crash into me or somebody I love who is coming legally through the intersection, and I don't want to think you're going to be zooming down the freeway and cause an accident with me or someone I love. (In fact, I avoid driving on freeways because the behavior of other drivers terrifies me on freeways, and at the much higher rates of speed, it's that much more difficult to compensate for the idiocy of the other drivers.) If a camera snapping your picture and causing you to receive a fine for breaking the law will help keep me and mine safe from you, I'm all for it.
As far as I'm concerned, I bless the traffic control cameras. If people have to slow down on the freeway so they won't get their picture taken and receive a fine for speeding, isn't that the entire purpose of the camera? If people don't run a red light because they'll get their picture taken and receive a fine, isn't that an improvement in safety at intersections? The only way one of these cameras will take your picture is if you are speeding or running a red light, neither of which you are supposed to be doing in the FIRST place.
In other words, if you are so worried about your privacy being invaded, simply DON'T BREAK THE LAW, and your privacy will be guaranteed. And if you're worried about these cameras being simply a way for a city or county or state to make money, guess what? If you don't want the authorities to get your money, don't break the law, and they won't! It's a voluntary tax, people! If you don't run a red light, you won't get your picture snapped, you won't be charged with a fine, your privacy won't be invaded, and the authorities won't get their hands on your money. Ditto with speeding like a maniac down the freeway.
I think all the arguments the opponents of traffic control cameras are putting forth is just a coverup for the real reason they oppose the cameras - they think that if a police officer pulls them over to give them a ticket for a traffic infraction, they can BS their way out of the ticket. That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? You can't BS a camera, so let's be against the cameras.
As for the argument that we should have police officers patrolling the freeways and intersections instead of the cameras - where are we going to get the extra officers? If you DO have officers patrolling freeways and intersections, then the scofflaws argue that these officers should be assigned to control REAL crimes like homicides and robberies and so on. Well, by having the cameras as a law enforcement tool (and that is exactly what they are, a LAW ENFORCEMENT TOOL), that frees up our limited amount of officers to be investigating other crimes.
I don't want to think that you are going to run a red light and crash into me or somebody I love who is coming legally through the intersection, and I don't want to think you're going to be zooming down the freeway and cause an accident with me or someone I love. (In fact, I avoid driving on freeways because the behavior of other drivers terrifies me on freeways, and at the much higher rates of speed, it's that much more difficult to compensate for the idiocy of the other drivers.) If a camera snapping your picture and causing you to receive a fine for breaking the law will help keep me and mine safe from you, I'm all for it.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
25 and naive
The "Arizona Republic" today had a quote from a 25-year-old who said he "doesn't care about all that spreading the wealth around, I just care that we've elected the first black man to be president." (Paraphrased).
Ok, son, that's because you're 25. By the end of Obama's first (and hopefully only) term, you will be in your late 20's and not mid-20's, and you will probably be starting to climb the ladder in whatever profession you have chosen for yourself. And you will find, to your startled amazement, that any salary increases your employer grants you will be swallowed up by President Obama and the Democrats who think you really don't NEED all that extra money, and they want to take it away from you and give it to somebody else they deem needs it more. And when you protest, "Hey, wait a minute! I worked for that money, it's MY salary, and I need it to pay my own bills! You can't take it!" we will remind you that you said in 2008 that you didn't CARE about "spreading the wealth around," you only cared about electing the first black president. Wait till he and the Democrats stick their hands into your wallet and your bank account and tell me this again in a few years.
In other words, grow up.
Ok, son, that's because you're 25. By the end of Obama's first (and hopefully only) term, you will be in your late 20's and not mid-20's, and you will probably be starting to climb the ladder in whatever profession you have chosen for yourself. And you will find, to your startled amazement, that any salary increases your employer grants you will be swallowed up by President Obama and the Democrats who think you really don't NEED all that extra money, and they want to take it away from you and give it to somebody else they deem needs it more. And when you protest, "Hey, wait a minute! I worked for that money, it's MY salary, and I need it to pay my own bills! You can't take it!" we will remind you that you said in 2008 that you didn't CARE about "spreading the wealth around," you only cared about electing the first black president. Wait till he and the Democrats stick their hands into your wallet and your bank account and tell me this again in a few years.
In other words, grow up.
No freebies after all
Ok, we now have a President Obama (sigh). My question is - what will his avid followers do when he cannot deliver on his grandiose promises? Such as the moronic woman who rejoiced that once he got into office, she would no longer have to put gas in her car or pay her mortgage? (She's becoming as famous as Joe the Plumber, except Joe was SMART.) On January 21, the day after the coronation - excuse me, inauguration - when she goes to get a tank of gas, and finds out she still has to either put her credit card into the pump or go inside to pay the cashier, is she going to whine, "But President Obama says I don't have to pay no more!" When she rips up her mortgage bill and dances around in joy that she no longer has to pay it, and then the mortgage company tells her, "Pay up or we foreclose," will she retort, "I don't hafta pay - President Obama is gonna take care of me!"
Fool.
Sarah Palin in 2012! Go, Sarah!
Fool.
Sarah Palin in 2012! Go, Sarah!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Obama - the Teflon Candidate
Remember when the press dubbed Ronald Reagan "the Teflon president" because no matter what, nothing ever seemed to "stick" with him? Well, I submit to you - the Teflon candidate - Barack Obama. No matter what dubious things happened in his past, and no matter what kind of shady characters he's associated himself with over the years, and no matter how many times he trips himself up in lies - his fawning admirers won't see the truth. Nothing "sticks" with this candidate. Does he have to club baby seals to death on national TV or something similar before ANYbody decides he's not worth your vote?
Obama - Just a pretty suit of clothes
Did anyone ever read "Gone with the Wind?" (I'm talking reading the novel, not seeing the movie. The novel gives you insight into Scarlett O'Hara's thoughts and feelings that the movie can't do.) Remember at the end of the book, when Scarlett realizes she loves Rhett and never really loved Ashley? She realizes that she had made up in her imagination a pretty suit of clothes, and when Ashley came along, so handsome and so charming, she in her imagination put that suit of clothes on him and made them fit him whether they actually fit or not. In other words, she fell in love with her romanticized ideal of him, and not the person he really was, and all those years she loved a fantasy and not the real person at all.
It strikes me this is what Barack Obama's supporters are doing with him. People are so starved for a leader, someone who has the charisma and charm of a John F. Kennedy or a Ronald Reagan, and here comes Obama, so seemingly charismatic, such a glib speaker, so different, so smooth, and his ardent supporters are in love with a fantasy, not with the person he actually is. That's why all his questionable past alliances, the murky background about his birth, his obviously socialistic leanings, etc., don't matter to them. They have all "put a suit of pretty clothes" on him and are insisting on making that suit fit, whether it actually does or not. They all have this "my mind's made up, don't bother me with the facts" mentality.
Shame on us if we follow the blind into a ditch.
It strikes me this is what Barack Obama's supporters are doing with him. People are so starved for a leader, someone who has the charisma and charm of a John F. Kennedy or a Ronald Reagan, and here comes Obama, so seemingly charismatic, such a glib speaker, so different, so smooth, and his ardent supporters are in love with a fantasy, not with the person he actually is. That's why all his questionable past alliances, the murky background about his birth, his obviously socialistic leanings, etc., don't matter to them. They have all "put a suit of pretty clothes" on him and are insisting on making that suit fit, whether it actually does or not. They all have this "my mind's made up, don't bother me with the facts" mentality.
Shame on us if we follow the blind into a ditch.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Neil Diamond - simply the best!
My niece Tammy and I went to see Neil Diamond in concert last Friday. I've lost count of how many times I've seen Neil in concert - is it six or seven now? - dating back to the early 1980s, but I hadn't seen him in concert since 1996, so I was glad to have the opportunity to see him again. I've been a Neil Diamond fan since I was about 14 years old (!).
And as usual, the "Solitary Man" put on a fantastic show! He is 67 but has the energy of someone half his age, and he is on stage for an entire two hours - no opening act, no intermission. While he isn't able to perform ALL his hits (I would have liked to hear "If You Know What I Mean," "Desiree" and "September Morn," all of which I've seen him do in past concerts, but which were left out this time around) he sings MOST of them, and what he gives you isn't an abbreviated verse and chorus as part of a medley, either! He gives you the entire song! His audience absolutely adores him (none of the other performers I've ever seen in concert has such a close rapport with their audience, none), and he has people out of their seats and dancing for tunes like "Cherry Cherry" and "I'm A Believer." And no Neil Diamond concert is complete without him and his fans singing the chorus of "Sweet Caroline" over and over and over! (So good, so good, so good!) (Pun intended!)
A very moving moment is when he sings the achingly poignant "Brooklyn Roads," a song about his boyhood in New York, and on a large screen behind him is shown home movies from his teen years with his parents and his brother. VERY nice, Neil - hard to keep a dry eye while watching that footage and listening to that beautiful biographical song!
Also new since the last time I saw him in concert is the slow dance he and Linda Press do while singing "You Don't Bring Me Flowers." Just beautiful! (And she gets PAID to do that - sigh...)
Here's hoping Neil keeps rocking for many years to come - your fans sure do love you, Mr. Diamond!
And as usual, the "Solitary Man" put on a fantastic show! He is 67 but has the energy of someone half his age, and he is on stage for an entire two hours - no opening act, no intermission. While he isn't able to perform ALL his hits (I would have liked to hear "If You Know What I Mean," "Desiree" and "September Morn," all of which I've seen him do in past concerts, but which were left out this time around) he sings MOST of them, and what he gives you isn't an abbreviated verse and chorus as part of a medley, either! He gives you the entire song! His audience absolutely adores him (none of the other performers I've ever seen in concert has such a close rapport with their audience, none), and he has people out of their seats and dancing for tunes like "Cherry Cherry" and "I'm A Believer." And no Neil Diamond concert is complete without him and his fans singing the chorus of "Sweet Caroline" over and over and over! (So good, so good, so good!) (Pun intended!)
A very moving moment is when he sings the achingly poignant "Brooklyn Roads," a song about his boyhood in New York, and on a large screen behind him is shown home movies from his teen years with his parents and his brother. VERY nice, Neil - hard to keep a dry eye while watching that footage and listening to that beautiful biographical song!
Also new since the last time I saw him in concert is the slow dance he and Linda Press do while singing "You Don't Bring Me Flowers." Just beautiful! (And she gets PAID to do that - sigh...)
Here's hoping Neil keeps rocking for many years to come - your fans sure do love you, Mr. Diamond!
No matchup with Big Brown and Curlin
Very disappointing news today that Big Brown has been retired following an injury sustained during a workout. That's racing for you - thrills and memories tempered by disappointments and letdowns.
Curlin looks to be (quite obviously) the one to beat in the Classic now, but I have to wonder why more attention isn't being paid to Casino Drive, the colt who was deemed to have the best chance at derailing Big Brown's Triple Crown bid before pulling out of the Belmont with a bruised foot. Is Casino Drive "the real thing" or not? And with such a deep field for the Classic, anything is possible! I look forward to seeing these two magnificent chestnuts, along with all the other class horses in the field, on Breeders Cup Day.
Enjoy your retirement, Big Brown. You've given us a lot of memories, even if you didn't win the Triple Crown.
Curlin looks to be (quite obviously) the one to beat in the Classic now, but I have to wonder why more attention isn't being paid to Casino Drive, the colt who was deemed to have the best chance at derailing Big Brown's Triple Crown bid before pulling out of the Belmont with a bruised foot. Is Casino Drive "the real thing" or not? And with such a deep field for the Classic, anything is possible! I look forward to seeing these two magnificent chestnuts, along with all the other class horses in the field, on Breeders Cup Day.
Enjoy your retirement, Big Brown. You've given us a lot of memories, even if you didn't win the Triple Crown.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Debate comments
First of all, while I felt that based on the controversial aspect of her being the moderator, Gwen Ifill should have stepped aside, I also, as a fan of Ms. Ifill, am delighted that she did in my opinion a fantastic job moderating this debate. As with her hosting duties on "Washington Week," she came across, to me at least, as being unbiased and fair. She did not seem to favor one candidate over the other, she did not seem to be trying to pull a "Couric" moment on Gov. Palin, she was not (and never is) "in your face" with liberal politics (see Keith Olbermann for an example of the opposite), and she seemed as gracious and warm as always. To those bloggers out there who called her "pathetic" and "unprofessional," I am sure there are recipes for crow available on the Internet; crow probably tastes best fried in butter, and be sure to remove the feathers before serving it. And next time, try actually *watching* Ms. Ifill on "Washington Week" before you open your mouth and criticize her before the fact. Jerks.
It's fun to see that even the Palin critics are grudgingly conceding she won the debate; of course, as a conservative, I am thrilled by that! I do want to say that if you want to see something very interesting, turn Fox off and watch CNN (some people I know would never turn Fox off for anything, and can't stand CNN, but hear me out here). CNN had a running opinion line on the bottom of the screen of undecided Ohio voters, both men and women, and you could see as the debate progressed what comments by each candidate were scoring quite highly with the undecided Ohio focus group and which were not. It was quite interesting to see Gov. Palin's lines going through the roof for much of the debate, and as soon as Sen. Biden began to speak, the lines went down!
I do wonder if those people who criticized Sen. Obama for constantly referring to Sen. McCain as "John" were in the least offended by Gov. Palin continually referring to Sen. Obama as "Barack" throughout the debate? Would they admit to it if they were? (See, I can play devil's advocate with the best of them!)
10/3 - additional comment - Interesting to note that thus far, none of the bloggers who so scornfully attacked Gwen Ifill have had the decency to apologize. Watching "Washington Week" tonight, I still maintain the opinion that Ms. Ifill comes across as a gracious, warm, charming lady, certainly not an "unprofessional whiner" as she has been characterized by some bloggers. I also still maintain that you cannot tell from her demeanor or her questions what her political beliefs are. She comes across as neither liberal nor conservative to me, which is what a good host (or debate moderator) should be like. I think some of these bloggers are thinking of people like Eleanor Clift of "The McLaughlin Group," but Ms. Ifill is hardly like Eleanor Clift. Bloggers (and you know who you are if you're reading this), are you humble enough to apologize, or at least to grudgingly admit that Ms. Ifill did not seem biased in the least in her moderating role of last night's debate? (And, no, she wasn't "being careful," because she *never* comes across as biased, and if you actually bothered to *watch* "Washington Week," you might realize this.)
Is NBC really calling the election for Obama, four weeks out? Well, first of all, I certainly hope they're wrong, and second, remember it was the news media who predicted that one state (which one was it? can't remember now - was it New Hampshire?) for Obama, and Hillary Clinton in a major surprise trounced Obama in that state, and the news media spent the next 48 hours scratching their heads and trying to figure out how all their polls had been so totally wrong. So don't give up hope yet, if you're a McCain supporter!
It's fun to see that even the Palin critics are grudgingly conceding she won the debate; of course, as a conservative, I am thrilled by that! I do want to say that if you want to see something very interesting, turn Fox off and watch CNN (some people I know would never turn Fox off for anything, and can't stand CNN, but hear me out here). CNN had a running opinion line on the bottom of the screen of undecided Ohio voters, both men and women, and you could see as the debate progressed what comments by each candidate were scoring quite highly with the undecided Ohio focus group and which were not. It was quite interesting to see Gov. Palin's lines going through the roof for much of the debate, and as soon as Sen. Biden began to speak, the lines went down!
I do wonder if those people who criticized Sen. Obama for constantly referring to Sen. McCain as "John" were in the least offended by Gov. Palin continually referring to Sen. Obama as "Barack" throughout the debate? Would they admit to it if they were? (See, I can play devil's advocate with the best of them!)
10/3 - additional comment - Interesting to note that thus far, none of the bloggers who so scornfully attacked Gwen Ifill have had the decency to apologize. Watching "Washington Week" tonight, I still maintain the opinion that Ms. Ifill comes across as a gracious, warm, charming lady, certainly not an "unprofessional whiner" as she has been characterized by some bloggers. I also still maintain that you cannot tell from her demeanor or her questions what her political beliefs are. She comes across as neither liberal nor conservative to me, which is what a good host (or debate moderator) should be like. I think some of these bloggers are thinking of people like Eleanor Clift of "The McLaughlin Group," but Ms. Ifill is hardly like Eleanor Clift. Bloggers (and you know who you are if you're reading this), are you humble enough to apologize, or at least to grudgingly admit that Ms. Ifill did not seem biased in the least in her moderating role of last night's debate? (And, no, she wasn't "being careful," because she *never* comes across as biased, and if you actually bothered to *watch* "Washington Week," you might realize this.)
Is NBC really calling the election for Obama, four weeks out? Well, first of all, I certainly hope they're wrong, and second, remember it was the news media who predicted that one state (which one was it? can't remember now - was it New Hampshire?) for Obama, and Hillary Clinton in a major surprise trounced Obama in that state, and the news media spent the next 48 hours scratching their heads and trying to figure out how all their polls had been so totally wrong. So don't give up hope yet, if you're a McCain supporter!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Gwen Ifill
Should Gwen Ifill be the moderator for tomorrow night's vice presidential debate?
First, let me say that I like Gwen Ifill. I've always thought she was a classy lady and she does a great job hosting "Washington Week." She may be liberal in her politics, but I've always thought she does a good job of keeping her political beliefs low-key when she's interviewing people or conducting the panel discussion on "Washington Week." (By contrast, take one look at Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews - you have NO DOUBT where their sympathies lie politically!)
That being said, since Gwen has a book coming out about Barack Obama, and since she is obviously an Obama supporter (and she has a right to be), she should recuse herself from being the moderator of tomorrow night's debate. It would be the graceful, professional, dignified thing to do. (I would say the same if she were a McCain supporter and had a book coming out about John McCain.)
Come on, Gwen, do the right thing - let a less biased person moderate the debate. (Won't happen, but that's my feeling about it.)
It will be nice, though, if she can conduct the debate in such a way that any personal biases of hers won't be evident, and all her critics will have to eat crow.
First, let me say that I like Gwen Ifill. I've always thought she was a classy lady and she does a great job hosting "Washington Week." She may be liberal in her politics, but I've always thought she does a good job of keeping her political beliefs low-key when she's interviewing people or conducting the panel discussion on "Washington Week." (By contrast, take one look at Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews - you have NO DOUBT where their sympathies lie politically!)
That being said, since Gwen has a book coming out about Barack Obama, and since she is obviously an Obama supporter (and she has a right to be), she should recuse herself from being the moderator of tomorrow night's debate. It would be the graceful, professional, dignified thing to do. (I would say the same if she were a McCain supporter and had a book coming out about John McCain.)
Come on, Gwen, do the right thing - let a less biased person moderate the debate. (Won't happen, but that's my feeling about it.)
It will be nice, though, if she can conduct the debate in such a way that any personal biases of hers won't be evident, and all her critics will have to eat crow.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The race we wanted to see!
Big Brown v. Curlin in the Breeders Cup Classic! It may indeed actually come off, provided both horses stay sound and answer the call to the post, as Curlin, winner of the Jockey Club Gold Cup yesterday, has arrived in California to prepare for the Classic. As a fan of thoroughbred racing for well over 30 years, I cannot wait for this race!
Monday, September 15, 2008
Jack Kelly
Jack Kelly of "Maverick" has long been one of my all-time favorite actors. Tomorrow would have been his 81st birthday. It was my privilege to meet the gentleman on two different occasions, and he was a very kind and genuinely nice guy in person. He is still missed by all his fans, including myself.
"Maverick" airs on the Encore Westerns network on cable. If you get a chance, check it out. It's my own personal all-time favorite TV show, and a classic for many many reasons!
Geri Ann
"Maverick" airs on the Encore Westerns network on cable. If you get a chance, check it out. It's my own personal all-time favorite TV show, and a classic for many many reasons!
Geri Ann
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Meeting John McCain
Having lived in Phoenix virtually all my life, and with John McCain being one of our senators, it was inevitable I would have had some chance sightings of him over the years. Now that there is a strong possibility he will become our next president, it's fun to look back on those sightings.
In about 1984 or 1985, I was in downtown Phoenix for a parade. After the parade was over and the crowd was scattering to leave, I was walking down the sidewalk and up ahead, I saw then-Congressman McCain, his wife Cindy, and their baby daughter Meghan in a stroller. The congressman was pushing the stroller, and they were waiting, all by themselves, at a corner for the light to change so they could cross the street. Just an ordinary couple with their baby, and nobody was noticing them or paying any attention to them. I recognized them and thought to myself, "Oh, there's Congressman McCain and his wife and their baby." Just an ordinary moment, but now I think it's safe to say they will never be able to stand unnoticed and alone on any street corner ever again!
In 1992, when George Bush Sr. was running for re-election, Ronald Reagan came to downtown Phoenix to Patriots Square to give a campaign speech for him (I believe it was one of President Reagan's last public appearances). I went downtown to see President Reagan. McCain, by now a senator, was there, and was working the crowd, shaking hands. He came by where I was seated and shook my hand. To think that on that particular afternoon, I may have been seeing, not only a former president, but a future president as well!
Fun memories as the campaign continues....
Geri Ann
In about 1984 or 1985, I was in downtown Phoenix for a parade. After the parade was over and the crowd was scattering to leave, I was walking down the sidewalk and up ahead, I saw then-Congressman McCain, his wife Cindy, and their baby daughter Meghan in a stroller. The congressman was pushing the stroller, and they were waiting, all by themselves, at a corner for the light to change so they could cross the street. Just an ordinary couple with their baby, and nobody was noticing them or paying any attention to them. I recognized them and thought to myself, "Oh, there's Congressman McCain and his wife and their baby." Just an ordinary moment, but now I think it's safe to say they will never be able to stand unnoticed and alone on any street corner ever again!
In 1992, when George Bush Sr. was running for re-election, Ronald Reagan came to downtown Phoenix to Patriots Square to give a campaign speech for him (I believe it was one of President Reagan's last public appearances). I went downtown to see President Reagan. McCain, by now a senator, was there, and was working the crowd, shaking hands. He came by where I was seated and shook my hand. To think that on that particular afternoon, I may have been seeing, not only a former president, but a future president as well!
Fun memories as the campaign continues....
Geri Ann
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Is Sen. Obama fading?
I love the new polls showing Sen. McCain with an (admittedly slight) lead. Glenn Beck says Sen. Obama is "unable to close the deal" with the American people, and I hope he's right.
I am both happy that Gov. Palin is still wildly popular (haven't had a chance to talk to my two co-workers who were so livid over her being selected as McCain's running mate) and highly amused that people who once vowed, "I will NEVER vote for John McCain! He is not a true conservative! Rush says this and Rush says that about him...I may have to skip voting in an election for the first time in my life!" are now referring to him as "a classy candidate!" Remember, people, when you vote for the McCain-Palin ticket, you are getting HIM as the president, not HER, although you could easily be paving the way for her to become president sometime in the future, and all the issues you had with McCain three months ago or six months ago or a year ago are still there.
I'm personally very pleased to learn from watching CNN this evening that Sen. McCain supports stem cell research. I share his opinion 100% - while it is a highly controversial and difficult issue, if these cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen, something should be done to help alleviate human suffering (I believe that's almost an exact quote from Sen. McCain.) In my own family, diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and congestive heart failure have ended the life or ruined the quality of life for many of my relatives. If stem cell research can help to provide a cure for some of these terrible diseases, then perhaps my 8-year-old grandnephew Patrick will not have to face them when he becomes an adult or when his children become adults one day. I hope if Sen. McCain does indeed win the presidency, he will permit federal funding for stem cell research. (Gov. Palin is against it, but then again, she won't be president, only vice president.)
Geri Ann
I am both happy that Gov. Palin is still wildly popular (haven't had a chance to talk to my two co-workers who were so livid over her being selected as McCain's running mate) and highly amused that people who once vowed, "I will NEVER vote for John McCain! He is not a true conservative! Rush says this and Rush says that about him...I may have to skip voting in an election for the first time in my life!" are now referring to him as "a classy candidate!" Remember, people, when you vote for the McCain-Palin ticket, you are getting HIM as the president, not HER, although you could easily be paving the way for her to become president sometime in the future, and all the issues you had with McCain three months ago or six months ago or a year ago are still there.
I'm personally very pleased to learn from watching CNN this evening that Sen. McCain supports stem cell research. I share his opinion 100% - while it is a highly controversial and difficult issue, if these cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen, something should be done to help alleviate human suffering (I believe that's almost an exact quote from Sen. McCain.) In my own family, diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and congestive heart failure have ended the life or ruined the quality of life for many of my relatives. If stem cell research can help to provide a cure for some of these terrible diseases, then perhaps my 8-year-old grandnephew Patrick will not have to face them when he becomes an adult or when his children become adults one day. I hope if Sen. McCain does indeed win the presidency, he will permit federal funding for stem cell research. (Gov. Palin is against it, but then again, she won't be president, only vice president.)
Geri Ann
Monday, September 8, 2008
Sarah Palin didn't say it first
Everyone loves the line that Gov. Palin used in her speech at the Republican Convention about "the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom being lipstick," but I know I heard that line uttered by someone else the night BEFORE her speech. It was either on MSNBC or CNN, possibly Fox, and one of the anchors gave that joke, 24 hours before Gov. Palin used it in her speech. Was it Chris Matthews? I'm not sure. Wish I could remember! The one thing I know beyond any shadow of any doubt is that I heard somebody give that joke the evening before Gov. Palin gave her speech.
It's a classic line, but she didn't say it first.
Geri Ann
It's a classic line, but she didn't say it first.
Geri Ann
Friday, September 5, 2008
Hang up and drive!
One of my biggest pet peeves - people who can't stop talking on their cellphones while driving! I definitely am one of those who feel there needs to be a law - a law with TEETH - against this kind of thing. None of these namby-pamby, "slap on the wrist" with a $20 fine type of laws.
Please tell me, why is it necessary for you to be yakking on your cellphone while maneuvering a vehicle down a busy street or freeway? Or while driving through a parking lot? Yes, lady in the parking lot at Wal-Mart the other day, this means you. You were *backing out of your parking space* with one hand on the steering wheel of your car, the other holding that blankety blank cellphone plastered to your ear. Why couldn't you have made your call, finished your conversation, then put the key in the ignition, started the car, and backed up? Are you not aware that there are people, some of whom are elderly, or disabled, or little kids, walking through that parking lot right behind your car, and if your attention is distracted by your conversation on your cellphone, you might not even be aware those people are there?
Or you, lady who was trying to execute a U-turn in the narrow drive between the Forum office building and the Hilton Village shopping center on Scottsdale Road a few weeks ago. A U-TURN with ONE HAND on the wheel and the other holding that omnipresent cellphone to your ear! Could you not at least finish your U-turn before getting on the phone?
And the baseball moms who drive the big SUVs at 30 miles an hour or more down the alley behind my house, taking your sons to their Little League games at the school field. You are THIRTY SECONDS from your destination and driving down a narrow alley with blind spots, and there you are, yakking away on that cellphone. Couldn't you at least wait until you reach the ballfield and get settled in the bleachers before making your call? What call is so important that you couldn't wait an extra 30 seconds to make it?
And the guy who was driving a big boat of a car, an older model Cadillac, who was trying to maneuver that huge car through a left turn onto my residential street, with one hand on the steering wheel and the other hand holding the phone to his ear, and almost clipped me in my minivan as I sat helplessly waiting to make my own turn, with nowhere to go to avoid him. He missed me, and he saw me holler at him to "Hang up the cellphone!" and at least he had the decency to look guilty instead of flipping me off as I thought he might do.
Yes, I've heard all the arguments about how eating in the car, changing the radio dial, talking to a passenger, hollering at your kids, etc. etc. are all distracting, and I agree, those things are distracting. And I HATE seeing doofus women who are trying to apply makeup while driving, or the idiot I saw one day who had the newspaper spread out on the steering wheel, reading it while driving! But to me, the biggest offense commited by insane drivers by far is the use of a cellphone while driving. It's just brain-dead. There is NOBODY you need to be talking to that is so important you can't wait until you reach your destination, or at least PULL OVER, to make your call.
And no, it is not a "nanny state" law to have a law against using cellphones while driving, any more than it is a "nanny state" law to say you can't drink and drive, or be high on drugs and drive, or have non-working equipment on your vehicle such as burned-out lights, bad brakes, or bald tires. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and you don't have the privilege to endanger me or anyone I love who is on the same road as you while you're yakking on your cellphone.
HANG UP AND DRIVE.
Thank you. I feel better now. (At least, until I see the next person mindlessly carrying on a cellphone conversation while driving.)
Geri Ann
Please tell me, why is it necessary for you to be yakking on your cellphone while maneuvering a vehicle down a busy street or freeway? Or while driving through a parking lot? Yes, lady in the parking lot at Wal-Mart the other day, this means you. You were *backing out of your parking space* with one hand on the steering wheel of your car, the other holding that blankety blank cellphone plastered to your ear. Why couldn't you have made your call, finished your conversation, then put the key in the ignition, started the car, and backed up? Are you not aware that there are people, some of whom are elderly, or disabled, or little kids, walking through that parking lot right behind your car, and if your attention is distracted by your conversation on your cellphone, you might not even be aware those people are there?
Or you, lady who was trying to execute a U-turn in the narrow drive between the Forum office building and the Hilton Village shopping center on Scottsdale Road a few weeks ago. A U-TURN with ONE HAND on the wheel and the other holding that omnipresent cellphone to your ear! Could you not at least finish your U-turn before getting on the phone?
And the baseball moms who drive the big SUVs at 30 miles an hour or more down the alley behind my house, taking your sons to their Little League games at the school field. You are THIRTY SECONDS from your destination and driving down a narrow alley with blind spots, and there you are, yakking away on that cellphone. Couldn't you at least wait until you reach the ballfield and get settled in the bleachers before making your call? What call is so important that you couldn't wait an extra 30 seconds to make it?
And the guy who was driving a big boat of a car, an older model Cadillac, who was trying to maneuver that huge car through a left turn onto my residential street, with one hand on the steering wheel and the other hand holding the phone to his ear, and almost clipped me in my minivan as I sat helplessly waiting to make my own turn, with nowhere to go to avoid him. He missed me, and he saw me holler at him to "Hang up the cellphone!" and at least he had the decency to look guilty instead of flipping me off as I thought he might do.
Yes, I've heard all the arguments about how eating in the car, changing the radio dial, talking to a passenger, hollering at your kids, etc. etc. are all distracting, and I agree, those things are distracting. And I HATE seeing doofus women who are trying to apply makeup while driving, or the idiot I saw one day who had the newspaper spread out on the steering wheel, reading it while driving! But to me, the biggest offense commited by insane drivers by far is the use of a cellphone while driving. It's just brain-dead. There is NOBODY you need to be talking to that is so important you can't wait until you reach your destination, or at least PULL OVER, to make your call.
And no, it is not a "nanny state" law to have a law against using cellphones while driving, any more than it is a "nanny state" law to say you can't drink and drive, or be high on drugs and drive, or have non-working equipment on your vehicle such as burned-out lights, bad brakes, or bald tires. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and you don't have the privilege to endanger me or anyone I love who is on the same road as you while you're yakking on your cellphone.
HANG UP AND DRIVE.
Thank you. I feel better now. (At least, until I see the next person mindlessly carrying on a cellphone conversation while driving.)
Geri Ann
Happy birthday to Bob Newhart
What a class act this man is! And what countless hours of wholesome, genuinely FUNNY, entertainment he has provided for us over the years with "The Bob Newhart Show" and "Newhart!" Not like some of the - well, "dreck" is the best word - that has been on network TV in more recent years. So Happy Birthday, Mr. Newhart, and many more! Thank you for the hours of fun and laughter your TV series have provided to your many fans!
Geri Ann
Geri Ann
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
A female Ronald Reagan
Gov. Palin gave a superb speech tonight - In wit, humor, conservative values, and sheer determination, she reminds me very much of my political hero, Ronald Reagan. I sincerely hope that the people such as my co-workers who have been so vitriolic about her selection as Sen. McCain's running mate might reconsider after seeing more of her (although the practical and pragmatic side of my nature tells me that the people who are so vehemently against her won't change very easily).
Geri Ann
Geri Ann
Monday, September 1, 2008
Gov. Palin
Someone pointed something out to me that I find very amusing. Senator Obama created some controversy a couple months back with his comments about people "clinging to guns and religion," etc. So who does Sen. McCain choose as a running mate? A person who is deeply religious, loves guns, and loves to hunt! Interesting! I love the symbolism there!
Geri Ann
Geri Ann
"For Better or For Worse"
It was very sad for me to see this particular comic strip come to an end in its current form yesterday. I've been following it for about 25 years now. It follows the story of the Patterson family - husband John, wife Elly, and their three children, Mike, Elizabeth, and April. The thing I liked about the strip was that, unlike other family strips such as "Family Circus" (which I also love), the strip ran in "real time," meaning the family aged as time went by. You got to see the kids actually grow up, moving through grade school, high school, and college, and we got to see Mike get married and have two children of his own.
I know a lot of readers thought the strip had gone on for too long, and had declined in quality over the past few years, but I personally enjoyed reading it right up to the end. I also loved the quality of the artwork - the children grew so subtly that you couldn't really notice the changes in how they were being drawn until you would go back and look at a strip from six months or a year ago, and see that they, like real children, looked different, and you hadn't noticed the changes! THAT is talented artwork! I wish I had the talent to draw like that!
So thank you for all the years of enjoyment, Lynn Johnston, and I will continue to read the strip in its new form as you go "back in time" and begin telling the story of the Pattersons over again.
Geri Ann
I know a lot of readers thought the strip had gone on for too long, and had declined in quality over the past few years, but I personally enjoyed reading it right up to the end. I also loved the quality of the artwork - the children grew so subtly that you couldn't really notice the changes in how they were being drawn until you would go back and look at a strip from six months or a year ago, and see that they, like real children, looked different, and you hadn't noticed the changes! THAT is talented artwork! I wish I had the talent to draw like that!
So thank you for all the years of enjoyment, Lynn Johnston, and I will continue to read the strip in its new form as you go "back in time" and begin telling the story of the Pattersons over again.
Geri Ann
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Big Brown vs. Curlin
Is there any possible hope these two great horses can face each other before the end of the season and the (probable) retirement of both? There must be a way to pull it off if only the connections of each would be determined to find that way. Surely they could compete in a final race sometime following the Breeders Cup Classic. (And are Curlin's connections really positive he couldn't handle the artificial surface over which the Breeders Cup will be run this year? I don't think he did so terribly finishing second in his only turf start this year, but then, that's just me.)
Just wishful thinking from a long-time fan of thoroughbred racing...Hoping this wish somehow, someway, comes true.
Geri Ann
Just wishful thinking from a long-time fan of thoroughbred racing...Hoping this wish somehow, someway, comes true.
Geri Ann
Please, Josh Byrnes, find a way to keep Adam Dunn
On the slim chance that the Diamondbacks GM Josh Byrnes is reading this - please, don't let Adam Dunn become a "rent a player" that we will lose when the season ends. He has already had such an impact at the heart of the order in our lineup, the idea of him not being back with the team next season is virtually unthinkable!
Before the acquisition of David Eckstein today, I was hoping that if Orlando Hudson departs as a free agent at the end of the season as he seems to be expected to do, that it might be possible to have Justin Upton move to second base for next season. If I remember correctly, he started as a shortstop and was moved to right field because Stephen Drew also played shortstop. Couldn't Justin Upton learn to play second base and perhaps feel more comfortable there than in the outfield, and then Adam Dunn, if the D-backs can find a way to keep him, could stay in right field? Granted, Dunn may not be spectacular defensively, but as long as he drives in more than he lets in, I as a fan can live with that! Besides, Upton has looked rather tentative all season in right field, at least to me, and Romero was doing a better job defensively in right field after Upton went down with an injury some weeks back.
So please, Mr. Byrnes, figure out a way to have Adam Dunn in a Diamondback uniform next season - let's keep his bat and his presence with our club permanently!
Geri Ann
Before the acquisition of David Eckstein today, I was hoping that if Orlando Hudson departs as a free agent at the end of the season as he seems to be expected to do, that it might be possible to have Justin Upton move to second base for next season. If I remember correctly, he started as a shortstop and was moved to right field because Stephen Drew also played shortstop. Couldn't Justin Upton learn to play second base and perhaps feel more comfortable there than in the outfield, and then Adam Dunn, if the D-backs can find a way to keep him, could stay in right field? Granted, Dunn may not be spectacular defensively, but as long as he drives in more than he lets in, I as a fan can live with that! Besides, Upton has looked rather tentative all season in right field, at least to me, and Romero was doing a better job defensively in right field after Upton went down with an injury some weeks back.
So please, Mr. Byrnes, figure out a way to have Adam Dunn in a Diamondback uniform next season - let's keep his bat and his presence with our club permanently!
Geri Ann
John McCain's choice for VP
The reactions, both pro and con, to Senator McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate have been very interesting and even amusing to me. There are some people who seem to think that he has automatically won the Presidency just by choosing her, and others who think he has made a terrible mistake by choosing her.
To those who are ga-ga over his selection of Gov. Palin, my caution is - slow down. Take a deep breath. Don't get too excited. She may not be the "winning ticket" choice that you want to believe she is. On Friday morning at my place of work, she was the topic of conversation among my co-workers after the announcement of her selection was made. The reaction was NOT positive. Two of my co-workers, one male, and one female (so much for her appeal to women voters, at least where this one lady was concerned), were absolutely LIVID over her being the choice. The male co-worker, jabbing his finger in the air to emphasize his points, and sounding positively vitriolic, said, "I do NOT want that woman a heartbeat away from the White House! What experience does she have? Not even two years as a governor, and before that mayor of a small town? What kind of experience is that to potentially become President? And John McCain is OLD. If he dies, I don't want that woman running the country!"
Yes, I know she has more experience than Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama for that matter, but temper your enthusiasm with the cold water of reality - a lot of people aren't comparing her to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, they're simply looking at her and her alone, and thinking that someone who has spent less than two years governing a state whose entire population is less than the city of Phoenix doesn't exactly have the credentials to take over running the country at a moment's notice. This may not be the way YOU feel about her, but it's seeming, based on comments I'm reading and conversations I'm having, to be the way a lot of potential voters DO feel about her, like it or not. Few and far between are those who say, "I wasn't going to vote for McCain no matter what, but now that he's picked Gov. Palin to be on his ticket, I'm ready to run out and put a sign in my yard for them! She rocks!" (Puh-leeze! What an incredible 180-degree turn some people can exhibit!)
For me personally, I was planning to vote for McCain no matter who he chose as a running mate, because I am a Republican and cannot envision voting for Obama under any circumstances. I will withhold judgment on Gov. Palin until I have an opportunity to see and hear more about her, and see how she fares in the upcoming vice presidential debate with Sen. Biden. (I still lament that Fred Thompson dropped out of the race...sigh...) I hope deeply that she proves to be an asset to the Republican ticket, but I will not jump to the conclusion that she will indeed be an asset just because I personally happen to like her or agree with her stand on the issues. I fear other people are doing just that. Wait and see how this plays out first.
Geri Ann
To those who are ga-ga over his selection of Gov. Palin, my caution is - slow down. Take a deep breath. Don't get too excited. She may not be the "winning ticket" choice that you want to believe she is. On Friday morning at my place of work, she was the topic of conversation among my co-workers after the announcement of her selection was made. The reaction was NOT positive. Two of my co-workers, one male, and one female (so much for her appeal to women voters, at least where this one lady was concerned), were absolutely LIVID over her being the choice. The male co-worker, jabbing his finger in the air to emphasize his points, and sounding positively vitriolic, said, "I do NOT want that woman a heartbeat away from the White House! What experience does she have? Not even two years as a governor, and before that mayor of a small town? What kind of experience is that to potentially become President? And John McCain is OLD. If he dies, I don't want that woman running the country!"
Yes, I know she has more experience than Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama for that matter, but temper your enthusiasm with the cold water of reality - a lot of people aren't comparing her to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, they're simply looking at her and her alone, and thinking that someone who has spent less than two years governing a state whose entire population is less than the city of Phoenix doesn't exactly have the credentials to take over running the country at a moment's notice. This may not be the way YOU feel about her, but it's seeming, based on comments I'm reading and conversations I'm having, to be the way a lot of potential voters DO feel about her, like it or not. Few and far between are those who say, "I wasn't going to vote for McCain no matter what, but now that he's picked Gov. Palin to be on his ticket, I'm ready to run out and put a sign in my yard for them! She rocks!" (Puh-leeze! What an incredible 180-degree turn some people can exhibit!)
For me personally, I was planning to vote for McCain no matter who he chose as a running mate, because I am a Republican and cannot envision voting for Obama under any circumstances. I will withhold judgment on Gov. Palin until I have an opportunity to see and hear more about her, and see how she fares in the upcoming vice presidential debate with Sen. Biden. (I still lament that Fred Thompson dropped out of the race...sigh...) I hope deeply that she proves to be an asset to the Republican ticket, but I will not jump to the conclusion that she will indeed be an asset just because I personally happen to like her or agree with her stand on the issues. I fear other people are doing just that. Wait and see how this plays out first.
Geri Ann
First post
This is my first attempt at blogging, so hopefully everyone will bear with me. This blog will contain rambling comments (hence the title!) about everything from television to movies to sports to politics. I am a moderately conservative Republican, born-again Christian, animal lover, baseball fan, and any or all of the above will of necessity influence my opinions and comments! My opinions are just that - opinions - and as such, neither right nor wrong, and hardly objective in nature! Just the way I see the world from my small corner of the world!
Geri Ann
Geri Ann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)