Jones To The Grindstone

I did get a response from the Cambridge Department of Public Works. Mr. Riordan didn’t call me back, but he passed my message along.

Within hours I got a call from Randi Mail, the recycling director for the city.

She explained that the term “residue” means items that are not recyclable. “The Watertown recycling center has 7 percent residue while Cambridge has 3 to 5 percent, one of the cleanest loads,” Mail said.

As a sidebar, I asked why the city won’t take plastic shopping bags in the toters. Mail said that the bags jam the conveyor belt system. I always wondered why it was hard to find depositories for the plastic bags.

I started going through a Web site that my professor suggested. It is filled with incredible photo essays. Going through the portfolios drew me in for a much longer period of time than I had planned. It was a “reality check” for me to view some of the global issues.

Here are two links out of many:

featuring Ashley Gilbertson, with a less serious topic — repair of luxury goods during the recession

featuring Joachim Ladefoged, with a jarring topic — sex trade in the Congo

A toupee has nothing to do with this post, but toupees, in general, amuse me.

Until recently, I had not touched audio software — unless you count the early days of those clunky tape recorders and cassette tapes. I made lots of radio song mixes with that thing. OH, and my friends and I would record ourselves talking and think we were hilarious upon playback. Never mind all the recordings of me trying to sing “Amazing Grace” and failing to a miserable degree.

Onwards– For my multimedia course, we were assigned to make a 1-2 minute story. It’s a brief mix of me, my son and my daughter talking about living and going to school on an Air Force base. I edited out long pauses, mixed tracks over each other, and added some “echo” effects. It’s not brilliant, but I did a good job of keeping the pace rolling along. A one to two minute sound byte sounds like nothing, but it was a load of work.

…VO4.omf_mixdown_01

I went to deposit my plastics, cardboard, and aluminum cans in my building’s recycling collection area. On one of the canisters, or “toters,” it said, “Containers Only — glass, metal, and plastic.” I opened the lid and found woven baskets, tote bags, and bowls. Literally “containers” that hold things, but not the recyclable kind.

The toter had the universal recycling symbol on it, including the words, “NO TRASH.”  Also, it had a color picture (a big sticker) of what kind of items are acceptable. I can only assume it was someone whose first language isn’t English or perhaps a child who didn’t understand the scene.

However, the trash dumpsters are in the same area, too. All the recycling canisters are lined up in a row, directly across from the dumpsters.

To make recycling collection more clear, perhaps the canisters should be in its own area, not close to regular trash dumpsters.

There are instructions available explaining the proper way to recycle in Cambridge. I called and ended up leaving a voice mail for Tom Riordan, the Compliance Office for recycling in the City of Cambridge. I asked him if people mixing trash into toters was a common occurrence. I look forward to hearing back from him.

This Volvo 800AJ blocks the entrance to my apartment in Cambridge. I have to go through the shrubbery and flowerbeds to get to the door. It’s a dirty and prickly route. The mulch is damp and the shrubs poke me as I walk by.

I wonder if the landlord, First Cambridge Realty, has a permit for such a beast. Having this monster cut off an apartment building’s entrance off-and-on for a month is no small potatoes. What if there was a fire?

I saw a woman moving a large harp the other day. She’s lucky that the AJ was off to the side at the moment.

When the workmen are up high, working on the roof, there are no safety nets to catch falling debris. No one is on the ground directing the AJ when it’s being moved. The workers also blast music as they clean and chip at roof parts.

All the residents received was a note posted on the lobby door, informing us of the monster’s visit.

Karen in Norway celebrating their National Day, May 17th.

I’ve heard some people say, “Who cares about Norway?” Well, more Americans should because Norway (Norge) is often cited as a shining example of socialism. And, with next year’s big election, chances are good that the word “socialism” is going to be tossed around like beads at a Mardi Gras parade. Understanding Norway may be a decent guide to an education on socialism.

As far as the rest of the world caring about the small Nordic country goes, Norway.org, the nation’s official US website, boasts that “Norway has been ranked the best country to live in by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) several times during the past decade.” Norway clearly identifies itself as a welfare state and provides significant benefits to its residents, like a public health system and a national insurance scheme.

Apparently, the good news is spreading worldwide, resulting in Norway’s immigration levels to rush in like flash floods. The February 2011 KAS Reports by Norbert Beckmann-Dierkes and Johann C. Fuhrmann reveal that, “The number of immigrants in Norway has risen dramatically in a short space of time: since 1970 the total has risen nearly tenfold.” When weight is put on the body too quickly, the heart is strained — Needless to say, Norway has had its difficulties providing a Utopian environment to its bumper crop of new Norwegians and keeping it secure for the natives.

Even though I am American and have no heritage rooted in Scandinavia, I have been to Norway four times in the past twelve months.
Normally, when I travel, it’s only for a few days up to a couple of weeks. However, my visit this past May into June lasted nearly six weeks. This was the first time I had been there long enough to get past the tourist sensations and start to “get real” while in the country of nearly 5 million people. On the top of my list was to decipher what is the name of the system that sustains its population’s high quality of life.

I turned to a friend first and then to social networking. I posted on Facebook, “I felt a bit foolish the other day when discussing what
kind of government Norway has. I have been educated to believe it is socialist. However, a Norwegian friend of mine balked at that, saying that socialist means communist. I know Norway is not communist. So, what is it, then?” This was my first predicament on the matter.

Many responses followed. The list goes like this: democratic constitutional monarchy, democratic socialism, socialist democracy, unitary parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy, and, lastly, a liberal democracy. I decided to use my laptop’s browser and found another descriptor, hereditary constitutional monarchy. Also, after reading the string of Facebook comments, I realized how few of us, including myself, know when to properly capitalize anything written about political philosophies or parties. That was my second perplexing situation.

It is easier to clear up the capitalization matter. According to The Associated Press Stylebook, “Capitalize Communist, … Liberal … Socialist, etc., when they refer to a specific party or its members. Lowercase these words when refer to political philosophy.” Now that we have that behind us, let us figure out more about Norway’s political system.

None of my over 1,000 Facebook friends suggested, including my Norwegian friends, Norway’s officially accepted answer. Norway.org
states, “In formal terms, Norway is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democratic system of governance. Democratic because the source of political power and legitimacy according to the Constitution lies with the people, in that all citizens are able to participate in the Storting (Norwegiannational assembly), county and municipal councils [sic].” Note that nowhere is the word, “socialist.”

Comprehending Norway includes realizing that socialism is not its ruling government, but instead a part of its mixed economic policy. The travel guide website, World66.com, creatively describes Norway as “a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism.”  Furthermore, World66 states, “The economy is modeled on a free market capitalist model, subject to varying levels of government regulation and intervention.” Not to be played down, Norway supports its generous public sector programs with some of the highest taxes in the
world. On April 11, 2011, CNBC.com’s Constance Parten’s article, “World’s Highest Tax Rates” reported Norway to be ranked as number 8 with a tax rate of 41 percent of the gross domestic product. While not the highest on the planet, that percentage is still staggering.

Americans are often criticized for not bothering to know about the world outside her borders. I was happy that my Facebook friends tried to identify Norway’s government. Even though none of them got it perfectly correct, they were pretty close. There are a lot more interesting undercurrents to this northern European country and I plan to uncover them.

Over 1.5 million people, and counting, have accepted to take part in the Facebook event called, “No Gas Day.” All the participants are committing to not buy gas on an upcoming appointed day. I’ve seen such intellectual pap before and will likely see it again. This is yet another misguided attempt to punish “big oil” companies, like ExxonMobil and Chevron, as the accused evil manipulators who enjoy running up citizens’ fuel bills.

The event’s logo is of a gasoline pump’s handle in red with a big circle around it and a line going through the handle. The organizer says she her name is Sarah Thompson. “This is about taking a stand, together, against greedy people whose commodity happens to affect all other commodity’s prices,” wrote Thompson on the event’s description.

The problem isn’t these publicly owned oil companies, but rather the packs of whiners and their narrow educations on the issue. Consumers should be grateful instead of bitter about the success of our oil companies like ExxonMobil (Exxon).

Participants in the “No Gas Day” may be tired of the rising prices at the pump: However, simply buying gas the day before or after the scheduled boycott is trite. That’s what’s going to happen – we have to buy gas sometime. We are dependent on petroleum products. We made that decision a long time ago.

“That’s silly,” said George Jones, 72, of Houston, Texas, in response to the pending event, “The only way to have any economic impact is to reduce consumption.” Jones, now retired, was a technical expert for a large oil company for nearly 40 years. His specialty was natural gas, but provided advice in the oil business as well.

“These types of activities [boycotts] just cramp things up,” stated Jones, “and often give harm to people that are not the intended targets.” Jones is speaking of, for example, the owners of the gas stations, which are increasingly owned by private individuals instead of the oil companies. 

Being angry with Exxon or any other publicly owned “big oil” companies in America for our personal fuel bill woes is a mistake.  “We’re mad as hell, and are tired of watching the big oil companies laugh all the way to the bank while we all suffer,” Thompson added.

If she and her followers were to succeed at shrinking the oil companies’ bottom line — they would be hurting their own countrymen — not some imaginary group of men in suits that have cash sticking out of their pockets, are skipping to the bank, and howling in laughter. According to the March 11, 2011, edition of Value Line, Exxon net profited over 30 million in 2010, but it paid 40.7 percent in taxes. Imagine our country’s federal budget without such padding; I wince at the thought.

Exxon making a profit benefits Americans in many avenues. The company is run well and it’s the responsibility of Exxon to wisely invest its money for its shareholders. Yahoo’s Finance web page on March 27, 2011, showed that 1,734 institutions own 48.9 percent of Exxon. The top listed institutional investor in Exxon is The Vanguard Group, an investment management group. Also, ranked in the top 10 institutional owners are Bank of America and The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. The number one mutual fund investor in Exxon is again Vanguard and at number six is the College Retirement Equities Fund-Stock Account.  Individuals own the rest of Exxon without a single person owning more than five percent. Many of America’s banks, other companies, and retirement nest eggs depend on Exxon continuing to be sound. Our economy would sink even lower if Exxon were to lose some steam.

Other countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela own some of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. In those countries, the government owns the mineral rights. At least in America, a person can own a piece of the pie. A person doesn’t even need a stock broker – it can be done directly through the company. It’s as easy as visiting their website and following instructions.

With Exxon and other companies like it, our economy is better overall. Thompson and her ilk should watch what they wish for. Practically the entire country owns a part of Exxon, but it runs its finances a hell of a lot better than our government does. Go check the balance sheets.

In the interest of disclosure, I did not receive payment to promote Exxon in this article.

Mr. Bartley’s Gourmet Burgers, a Harvard Square landmark since 1960, knows what it’s talking about. Sitting in its primo location in Cambridge, Mass., it will change its menu of burgers to include new blends of toppings and renames its beefy works of art after current events and people. At the busy times, customers line up outside the restaurant and read the menu ahead of being seated. The hungry captives smirk, politely cover their mouths, and guffaw as they read the list of slams disguised as “burger descriptions.”

Today’s “The Democrat” hamburger has the parenthetical comment, “(Where’s the change?),” following the title and right before the toppings’ description of Swiss cheese, grilled sauerkraut, and Russian dressing: a multi-national homage. Currently, on Mr. Bartley’s web site, “The Republican” sandwich has the comment of “lying in wait” and “The Tea Party” reads as “throw the bums out.” None of the above say, “smothered in bullcrap.”

Of course Mr. Bartley’s doesn’t have bullcrap on its patties; it’s a restaurant selling mouthwatering burgers. However, what are America’s political kingpins trying to push? Their ravaged constituents are formed in line, too, and want to read what’s on the menu. And, the spin doctors are doing their jobs protecting their bosses and hoping to control the populace’s simmering anger.

Whatever’s being put out there, America still sees the truth: President Barack Obama’s term has erectile dysfunction.

I knew Obama would be flaccid. I sound like a Monday morning quarterback, but I’m not. In 2007, being a small town’s elementary school’s PTA President in North Carolina cast me as a political oracle. I learned, in person, that once the new chief — or perhaps, more aptly, the fool who let others talk her into the job with promises of great accomplishments in her name and ego stroking on how much she’s needed –  takes the oath of office, she does not get to act alone and accomplish all her goals.

Even Obama’s corny and cliché campaign buzzwords made the masses vote for him. “Hope and change are the words most associated with Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. His best–selling campaign memoir was titled, The Audacity of Hope, and Shepard Fairey’s iconic ‘Hope’ posters featuring Obama’s multi-colored face were seen all across America during 2008,” wrote Brendon O’Connor on Nov. 16, 2010, for The Lowy Institute for International Policy’s web site, “’Change we can believe in’ was the slogan most associated with the campaign and it was often displayed behind Obama when he spoke.”  

While Obama was running for office as a newbie to Washington, D.C., his campaign’s “hope and change” mantra was doomed to be pure hokum. Simply put, Obama had not been in D.C. long enough to have people owe him favors.

Other elected leaders must also approve of everything the board’s leader wants to have repealed, added, or modified. This means political backscratching. It only makes sense. I’m only stating basic American government policy. It’s easy to forget or brush aside this reality until it’s your problem. I had only been in my small town for a year before taking on the PTA. No one owed me anything and I didn’t have enough experience to smooth over my hardened adversaries. It was hell.

First, the pro-Obama people did a fine job of showcasing the opposition, Senator John McCain, then 71, as the old, white man.  ”’This one guy running is about as old as me,’ he [Democratic Rep. John Murtha, then 75] said, drawing laughter and applause. ‘Let me tell you something, it’s no old man’s job,’” reported the web site, The Huffington Post, on April 16, 2008, from Nedra Pickler’s article, “Murtha says McCain too old to be president.” This is a case of what one old, white man in office said about the other old, white man in office. Irrelevant.

Nonetheless, I translated the senior citizen part as an accomplished man who had an arm’s length list of people who owed him political favors.

Second, the anti-McCain efforts portrayed the senator as a President George W. Bush clone. “The Democrats like to say that electing Senator John McCain would usher in the third term of George W. Bush,” wrote Elisabeth Bumiller in her article, “How Close McCain Is to Bush Depends on the Issue,” for The New York Times on June 17, 2008, “and they do not mean it as a compliment.” As far as the successful Bush-McCain parallelism, the Democratic marketers used reverse psychology: many people voted for Obama to not re-elect Bush.

In 2008, it was clear to me that Bush was not running for a third term and I think even Bush knew that.

Next time, voters need to elect a seasoned, meaty presidential candidate that comes with a winning combination of toppings. Perhaps Obama should go order Mr. Bartley’s “The Viagra” burger, as we wait for him to “rise to the occasion.”

A decade ago, when I would fly back to Texas to visit my parents, I chose to travel with my largest suitcase, which was similar to a vintage, flat top steamer trunk. Routinely, I packed almost my closet’s entire contents and tried to close the behemoth box. I ended up sitting on the trunk and struggling to fasten it shut. Next, I wrapped it with a colorful luggage strap in case the zipper busted from overexertion — a giant gift for the baggage handlers.

It used to be that if could get the luggage on the ticket agent’s conveyor belt, even if it weighed more than me, I was golden. Those days are long gone. Currently, domestic routes on America’s airlines are fee-infested. Now, it’s me versus the airline policies. These new and higher “auxiliary fees” are for the birds.

Due to soaring fuel prices in 2008, America’s airlines began charging for checking luggage on domestic flights to offset the higher expenses. Until then, it was taken for granted that bringing a piece of luggage on a flight was part of the purchase price. Proponents of the auxiliary fees believe it makes sense that everyone pays for only what they bring on the plane, instead of spreading the bill around to everyone. However, it’s not rocket science to figure out why air travelers feel entitled to bring a bag on a trip: One of the key components of travel is packing.

For instance, in the 1992 Oscar-winning movie, “A Few Good Men,” this notion of preparing to travel is highlighted in the pivotal, climatic court scene between Lt. j.g. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and Col. Nathan Jessep (Jack Nicholson). Kaffee is defending the idea that the dead Marine private, William Santiago, never was scheduled to depart Guantanamo’s naval base — the night before he was supposed to permanently relocate, Santiago had not “packed a thing.” While in contrast, when Jessep was going to Washington, D.C., for only one day, he testified that he “brought a change of clothes and some personal items.”

 Once on board, I will be offered headphones, meals, and snacks for a price. Also, the flight attendants will pester me to buy something, anything, from the mall in the sky.  I am scared that my gratis half a can of soda is going to be sacrificed next. I know at least one airline has cancelled my free soft drink. In my fondest memories of yore, no one tried to sell me anything on board, unless I wanted to throw back a drink.

These days, I’m more inclined to take a drink while flying. Is that part of their plan, to drive me to buy a single can of domestic beer for at least $5? Not only are there more fees to contend with, but Travelpulse.com informed me on Feb. 2, 2011, that the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported that average domestic airfares increased 10.7 percent in the third quarter of 2010 compared to the same quarter in 2009. I’m paying more to fly, but have fewer benefits included than ever before. This is all good news for our airlines, but bad news for my wallet.

“Commercial aviation is a linchpin of the U.S. economy,” testified the Air Transport Association of America’s (ATA) President and CEO Nicolas Calio on Feb. 9, 2011, before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, “… it drives approximately $1.2 trillion in annual economic activity in the United States and is responsible for 10.9 million U.S. jobs. This is roughly 5.2 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Every $1 million of commercial aviation activity generates 24.6 jobs.” Yes, airlines are an important part of our economy.

However, Aaron Smith wrote “Airline Profits Soar as Staffing Shrinks and Fees Rise” for CNNMoney.com on Sept. 21, 2010. Smith reported, “Revenue from auxiliary fees has U.S. airlines profits soaring, but despite the economic upturn the airlines collectively shed 2.3 percent of their workforce over the last year ….” Seems the airlines, with their huge profit load, could work harder to keep their employees on the payroll. Instead, the airlines are contributing to the January 2011 unemployment rate of 9 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. While America grapples with its plane crash of an economy, keeping as many jobs as possible is crucial.

            To check one bag for a round-trip flight, I will likely pay $50 for that convenience. For a second piece, add another $70 to my bill. It is OK if my luggage’s fare is close to half of what I paid to ride in the cabin because that money will go toward the airlines not needing another federal bailout. No, it’s not OK. If the airlines need another government bailout in the future, I’m fine with that as long as it is done right: Federal bailouts can help the Treasury. Jesse Nankin posted on Propublica.org on Sept. 25, 2008 the piece, “What Happens After a U.S. Gov’t Bailout?” Nankin reported that after the September 11 law, Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, that the Treasury had a “… total net profit, ranging from $141.7 million to $327 million.”

The airlines are too aggressive and greedy with their execution of extra fees. Perhaps the generations born after me, who grow up with these extra charges, won’t even blink at their increasing bills for such extra services. I suppose I should congratulate the airline industry for embracing their ability to make a profit. Well, maybe I will when they stop handing out pink slips despite their new money.

from sonofthesouth.net

Nobody could understand what the lady at the cash register was saying. Her raven, course coarse hair, that had some silver strands mixed in, was twisted up in a bun and she was wearing small, wire-rimmed glasses. She looked frustrated and anxious. 

Everybody in the long line turned to look at me for translation assistance, since I was the only white person waiting with them. 

The Sears department store employee was speaking in mixed-up English with a thick Hindi accent. She was trying to communicate with a person who was from South or Central America. The other people in line created a motley cluster — the Middle East, the Orient, and Africa were all represented. 

The cashier was saying that her register was malfunctioning and that she needed help. The line was like a log jam. Because everyone was looking at me to clear up the message, I loudly stated the problem. Then, a sense of submission blanketed the patrons. 

The Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is a major international city in the United States. I lived in Alexandria, Virginia, for two years, in a highly multi-cultural pocket of the city. I was often asked to “translate” broken English into more clearly understood English. 

Each of those immigrants, or perhaps visitors, spoke in different tongues, but they all had a basic understanding of English. Making English the national language of America is not a dividing effort, but a uniting one. 

Nearly every congress session discusses this proposed amendment to the Constitution. Only a nine percent of Americans do not want English to be the official language, according to the May 14, 2009, Rasmussen Reports, a digital media company that specifically works in public opinion polling. Despite this minority opinion, the congressional attempts fail to pass. 

Those against the move feel that it is simply bigotry being made legal. One of the opponents’ main arguments is that the amendment is construed as unkind and racist toward immigrants, the very type of people who contributed to making our country what it is: a great “melting pot.” 

However, this melting pot often seems more like a chunky stew. 

The unfairness in the amendment is the attempts to roll into the package that all government documents or discussions in the workplace must be in English only. That is extreme, especially in states that border with Mexico. A more fair option would be to allow the individual states and counties to address their own needs, depending on the density of immigrant population. 

When living in America, knowing English benefits the immigrants. It allows for better job opportunities and an understanding of what’s going on around them. 

My hairdresser in Northern Virginia was Moroccan. She told me of her immigration and career progression tale. She said that she began working in a sandwich shop and that she only knew French and Arabic. She learned English quickly. She wanted out of the sandwich shop and in to the cosmetology school. She made it. 

Since no one at the sandwich shop spoke the Moroccan’s languages, she said she was forced to learn English. Unable to hide in an enclave of her native speakers at work, she was able to eventually have a job she enjoyed and financially flourish. 

The Moroccan commented that all the Hispanic ladies rinsing “heads” in the shampooing area were stuck there for years, even some for more than a decade. The Moroccan believed it was because the Spanish-speaking ladies enabled each other to only fluently know Spanish. 

She made a similar observation about the nail technicians, except they were of Asian descent. 

The other hair stylists at the Arlington, Virginia, salon natively spoke Turkish, French, and English. The proprietress was Cuban. The common language between all of them was English. 

Congress has failed to pass the English language as the recognized tongue of America because of precise wording in the legislation. The hairsplitting was first addressed between the words “national” and “official.” The word “national” was used to smooth over those who didn’t like “official.” The word “official” has more negative connotations than “national” does. 

After the word “national” was used, the next debate was that “national” could not be used in conjunction with “common and unifying” when describing English as America’s language. 

“From an outsider’s perspective this might seem slightly insane,” Benjamin Zimmer posted on the University of Pennsylvania’s website on May 19, 2006, “but it makes perfect sense in the context of congressional party politics.” 

What? 

Apparently, the moderates present did want to “have it both ways” and voted thus. However, there weren’t enough moderates to have anything agreed upon, due to, as Zimmer put it, “the adjectival divide.” 

The former British Empire once controlled some of the countries who teach English in their schools today. It is a part of their histories and makes them who they are today. 

Americans chose to use English when more and more people started piling in to the new colonies and kept it. Those people conquered the Native Americans. Those wars and other wars with foreign countries cannot be undone. 

We have a national anthem to unify us, it’s “our song.” We can have “our language,” too, to bring us together and improve us as a cohesive country. Language unifies people and English is the most used secondary language in the world. English is not an exclusive language; rather, it’s all-inclusive to most people around the world.