No More Planes

Several weeks ago I went to Chicago to see some friends and judge my law school's Moot Court competition. I don't typically take flights at 6 a.m., but the ticket was only $40, so I went for it. My night-person ass managed to get up at 4 a.m. and drive to the airport. There was nothing remarkable about security or boarding at that hour. Next stop: Chicago!

Unfortunately, fog in Chicago prevented us from landing. We held around Midway airport for an hour or so, and then had to divert to Columbus, OH to refuel. By now it was noonish, so I just hung out at the wine bar with soup and champagne while awaiting further instructions.

The flight ended up getting cancelled, and immediately a gigantic line formed as every person on that flight had to rebook through the single agent available at the gate.

I don't do lines. I stayed at the wine bar waiting for the line to diminish. Meanwhile, I also used the telephone - what a concept - in hopes that I could get my situation fixed without having to deal with the gate agent at all.

Well, it turns out that in this particular situation, the folks on the phone were unable to help. I was told that the only option was to rebook through a gate agent at Columbus airport.

On Guns

I don't own guns, but I have handled and shot a variety of firearms, from a .22 handgun to a 30 0 6 rifle. Somewhere in this house I have some great photos of myself shooting cans in the middle of nowhere, New Mexico, and if I can ever find them, I'll add them to this post. Shooting is fun, no doubt. Not so fun that I want to own a gun; I was persuaded that a gun in the home is more likely to be used for domestic injury than for self defense and I decided I am better off without them.

Regarding hunting, I respect people who kill and dress their own meat more than I respect people who eat meat out of the grocery store. Factory farming is heinous and any attempt to undermine it, whether it be by killing your own, going veg, or limiting your meat purchases to small farms that nurture the animal from birth to slaughter, meets with my approval. I find sport hunting and captive hunts unconscionable violations of an individual animal's autonomous right to life.

My husband owns a 12 gauge shotgun and a .44 magnum Blackhawk. He once shot and killed a bear who was carrying away his sheep. I've never seen his guns; they are currently in a safe in storage in a town other than the one we live in. He doesn't miss them.

Lately, I've found that the pro-gun response to suggestions of various control methods is simply, "that won't work." Well, you know what? You have no idea whether it will work or not. One huge problem in addressing gun violence is that no one knows what will work, because until last week, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was not allowed to use congressional funding to do any research on guns. The new spending bill clarifies that the CDC can in fact do firearm research, and I hope that they will. I am optimistic that this country will go further in that direction, in part due to the heroic organizational efforts of the inspirational Parkland students, but I remain concerned, because the NRA still exists.

Use Good Judgment, Policy Be Damned

I have worked retail and other customer service since before it was legal for me to be employed. I grew up in a retail establishment, and I worked for over a decade on the front lines and in supervisory roles of various organizations. I've also trained staff in customer service best practices. I think it's fair for me to call myself an expert in customer service. 

There is a philosophy that leaves no room for service agents to evaluate a particular circumstance and determine that policy is inappropriate. "Consistency" becomes the Promised Land, and POLICY becomes the almighty.

I don't disdain rules, but slavish adherence to them can undermine the purpose they are meant to serve. It is crucial that anyone working in customer service have both the freedom and the self-confidence to thoughtfully apply rules and policies to circumstances. Customer service requires good judgment.

Why, of course this post sprung from an experience. 

A Tale of Two UTIs: Universal Health Care in a Nutshell

Copyright juliasudnitskaya / 123RF Stock Photo

There was a time when I tended to contract urinary tract infections on a regular basis. Two particular times, I was visiting a long-distance boyfriend (two separate boyfriends, that is, not at the same time) who, after I assured him that a UTI was not an STI, had to help me address the issue according to the medical norms of the country in which he lived at the time.

One situation took place in Australia. The boyfriend took me to a doctor down the road, where I waited about twenty or thirty minutes before seeing a doctor who ordered a lab to confirm my UTI, and then prescribed appropriate medication. That medication didn't work, so I had to go back to the doctor and get a different prescription. Ultimately my UTI was treated, with about two total hours, including both visits, spent getting diagnosis and medication. My total cost for both visits and both prescriptions was less than $100 (if I'd been an Australian citizen, it would have been free).

In Chicago, on the other hand...

#IAmComplicit

"A product of its time" is not an excuse, but it is a reason. I am embarrassed about some ways I've contributed to the culture. I can only apologize.

The Facts of Life, my very, very favorite show, a show that I believe was hugely ahead of its time regarding its commentary on many social issues of the time, a show that can do just about no wrong in my eyes, is guilty of minimizing sexual assault and contributing to rape culture.

In Part 1 of the 2-Part fourth season finale "Graduation" (1983), Roy the delivery man makes an appearance. His unrequited crush on Jo is a running joke for a couple of seasons (the entire storyline is problematic and will be discussed elsewhere). In this episode, Roy arrives announcing that he has a graduation present for Jo. What is it?

Following Jo's assault, the other girls proceed to make jokes about and to make fun of Jo for "kissing" Roy! Jo tells them that it's not a laughing matter, but no one makes the connection to the last time Jo was sexually assaulted or to the time Natalie was the victim of an attempted rape.

The phrase "a product of its time" is meaningful. It is certainly not an excuse for sexual assault. It is hard to explain what I am trying to say without sounding like a rape apologist.

Free Speech on Campus Pt 2: Is Violence Ever OK?

Copyright: 123RF Stock Photo

[Click here to skip the series intro and go straight to the column regarding violence]

I believe it was way back in college that I first heard of some finding it controversial that there are few right-wing university faculty and staff members. The reason for that seemed obvious to me even at the time: It's all about money. A right-wing ideology tends to go hand-in-hand with a pursuit of profit. The life of an academic involves years or decades of the opposite of profit, so it is a path that few profit-motivated people pursue.

I learned a few other things when I worked on a college campus for ten years. One notable item was that business and engineering programs often charge higher tuition than arts and sciences programs in large part because professors in those fields tend to come from industry rather than academia, and therefore command higher salaries than their Ph.D. counterparts in other disciplines. The same is true of law schools. This is of course a chicken-or-egg cycle in which those fields command high salaries so that the people in those fields can pay for their education which is so expensive because universities have to compete with industries that command high salaries.

The research generally supports my assertion that the left-leaning university phenomenon is more a product of self-selection than of bias in hiring. Right-leaning people don't flock to university environments like left-leaning people do. It's no surprise, then that right-leaning speakers, especially those who are more about entertainment than politics, have poor receptions at universities. Nevertheless, the right prefers to characterize this phenomenon as an infringement on said speakers' individual - and, in general, the right's - free speech. This recently-published column clearly and succinctly summarizes why I think that argument is bogus.

I appreciate being challenged, and my sharing of the above-referenced column on Facebook resulted in a challenge. Thoughtful arguments were raised by a person who disagrees, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. These six speakers are representative of the phenomenon I believe we are discussing.

Before addressing the questions, I would like to underscore the fact that the column focuses not on "conservatives" or "Republicans," but on "modern conservatism," otherwise known as the Party of Donald Trump. People who identify with what's generally known as the right really need to examine whether they want to identify with what this president stands for, in ideology and in deed. Those who continue to support - even revere - him are making a statement that they need to be prepared to be judged for.

Is Violence Ever OK?

Free Speech on Campus Pt. 1: Are Conservative Speakers Having their Free Speech Rights Violated?

I believe it was way back in college that I first heard of some finding it controversial that there are few right-wing university faculty and staff members. The reason for that seemed obvious to me even at the time: It's all about money. A right-wing ideology tends to go hand-in-hand with a pursuit of profit. The life of an academic involves years or decades of the opposite of profit, so it is a path that few profit-motivated people pursue.

I learned a few other things when I worked on a college campus for ten years. One notable item was that business and engineering programs often charge higher tuition than arts and sciences programs in large part because professors in those fields tend to come from industry rather than academia, and therefore command higher salaries than their Ph.D. counterparts in other disciplines. The same is true of law schools. This is of course a chicken-or-egg cycle in which those fields command high salaries so that the people in those fields can pay for their education which is so expensive because universities have to compete with industries that command high salaries.

The research generally supports my assertion that the left-leaning university phenomenon is more a product of self-selection than of bias in hiring. Right-leaning people don't flock to university environments like left-leaning people do. It's no surprise, then that right-leaning speakers, especially those who are more about entertainment than politics, have poor receptions at universities. Nevertheless, the right prefers to characterize this phenomenon as an infringement on said speakers' individual - and, in general, the right's - free speech. This recently-published column clearly and succinctly summarizes why I think that argument is bogus.

I appreciate being challenged, and my sharing of the above-referenced column on Facebook resulted in a challenge. Thoughtful arguments were raised by a person who disagrees, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. These six speakers are representative of the phenomenon I believe we are discussing.

Before addressing the questions, I would like to underscore the fact that the column focuses not on "conservatives" or "Republicans," but on "modern conservatism," otherwise known as the Party of Donald Trump. People who identify with what's generally known as the right really need to examine whether they want to identify with what this president stands for, in ideology and in deed. Those who continue to support - even revere - him are making a statement that they need to be prepared to be judged for.

Are Conservative Speakers Having their Free Speech Rights Violated?