BusinessWeek.com recently created a list of "Best Cities to Raise Kids" and they chose Jacksonville in North Carolina.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. I've lived in Jacksonville. It's the LAST place I want to raise kids.
Yes, I met my husband there (and he hated the place). We spent most of our time SOMEWHERE ELSE while we were dating. We held our wedding SOMEWHERE ELSE -- down the road in Wilmington. Our first child was born SOMEWHERE ELSE -- again, in Wilmington -- because it was the closest place with certified nurse-midwives willing to support me in a natural, non-invasive childbirth.
When our baby was only three months old, we relocated SOMEWHERE ELSE -- to Raleigh, the capital of North Carolina.
Jacksonville had way too many strip clubs, massage parlors, bars and pawn shops, and way too few opportunities.
We wanted to live in a place with excellent medical facilities, birth centers, doctors and dentists. A place where there's a diverse population. Where racism wasn't rampant, families didn't disown their daughters for "dating a colored boy," confederates weren't still flying their flag, political and social views weren't Bible-thumping right-wing and narrow, and the population, on average, was much better educated (Raleigh is the 3rd highest educated city in America). And we did not want our daughter growing up in a town where, as one person put it, "The crack of dawn ain't safe," due to the significant population of rowdy, randy young men from the military bases.
In Raleigh, we are within a few miles of history museums, historic sites, art galleries and museums, world-class restaurants, theaters, festivals, several parks and greenways, and science museums. We have Peace, Meridith, St. Augustine's, and NCSU, and are close to Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill. There's a wide range of educational choice at the lower grades, as well, with a large number of charter, magnet, and private schools, and several large homeschooling support groups.
Jacksonville is surrounded by wonderful local farms, and has a lot of fresh fruits and veggies. But, we have that here in Raleigh, too. Plus, we have the state fairgrounds, and the state farmer's market, Whole Foods Market, and tons of restaurants and shops which aren't found in Jacksonville's chain stores and strip malls.
The job opportunities here, versus Jacksonville, are so much better, too. If parents are happy and stable, that has a huge impact on children. Choices for employment in Jacksonville are basically between various low-paying retail establishments, or the military. The Triangle, however, is a thriving spot for the tech field and medical research, among other things. Raleigh ranks #1 on the Forbes "Best List for Business and Careers." It's #1 on MSNBC's "Best Places to Live" list. As of June 2008, Raleigh has appeared on at least 22 different "Best Of" lists.
I cry SHENANIGANS, BusinessWeek!
Look at what BusinessWeek wrote about Jacksonville:
"Population: 71,922... Jacksonville, a former farming town, is now a commercial hub and home to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River."
Now look at the Jacksonville city website:
"Jacksonville is the commercial hub of Onslow County and home to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River. Some 72,254 people make the city their home. The once quiet farming community has grown into the business, retail, medical, banking and cultural center for Onslow County."
BusinessWeek looked up a few statistics, copied from the Jacksonville city website, and voila, chose a crap-hole as "the best place to raise a kid" in North Carolina.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Incredibly pointless junk fails to fly off shelves as Americans forced to focus on things that matter
The Associated Press reports that retail sales took a steep decline in October, "as the financial crisis and mounting layoffs left shoppers too scared to shop."
I don't know if I'd call it "scared." How about "Forced Reassessment of Junk I Don't Really Need"?
The article goes on to state that prices are being slashed on everything, including holiday ornaments, and that luxury merchants and teen retailers are suffering deep declines. Linens 'N Things has been forced to liquidate. Saks and Gap both recorded 16 percent drops.
Only Wal-Mart seems to be treading water, which is good, because they are the largest private employer in the country.
"Even teens stayed away from malls. American Eagle Outfitters Inc. reported a steeper-than-expected 12 percent drop in same-store sales, while Abercrombie & Fitch Co. had a 20 percent drop," AP reports.
While it is unfortunate that the retail sector will be forced to lay off workers, I can't say I'm surprised or dismayed that Americans' once seemingly limitless appetite for pointless shit is coming to an end. How many fondue pots and matching bathroom sets do we really need? That snowman ornament there is cute, in all it's shiny sugar-glaze looking goodness, but is it $30 cute? I don't fucking think so.
I'm no financial expert, but are retail sales truly the only basis for our economy? To the extent that, if we all stop buying incredibly stupid shit, then our nation collapses?
If so, that's a problem which needs immediate attention. Considering all the infrastructure which needs repairing, alternative energy which needs developing, aging boomers needing health care, and schools needing improvements, that fact that our economy is tied so precariously to whether or not I need a new set of holiday ornaments and an over-priced shirt is just so WRONG.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Are you horny, baby?
My husband and I have a long-running disagreement (approaching 10 years, now) over the fact that women are just as sexual as men. He says they're not.
He points out that pornography is much more popular among men. I counter that, in our culture, a "right of passage" is having your uncle or father or older brother give you your first porn mag at age 12. Do we do that with girls? Heck no. Women are forced to keep things to themselves more than men due to centuries of double standards, social pressures and persecution. Never forget that even now there are places in the world where women are maimed and murdered for committing adultery or losing their virginity. That threat kind of puts a damper on sexual expression.
I also contend that women have better imaginations, and better memories. Men like to have a picture right in front of them. Women can recall perfectly what Matt Damon looks like.
Continuing the ongoing argument, I sent my husband a little tidbit I came across on Wikipedia today:
Malleus Maleficarum
The Malleus Maleficarum (Latin for "The Hammer of Witches", or "Hexenhammer" in German) is a famous treatise on witches, written in 1486 by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, two Inquisitors of the Catholic Church, and was first published in Germany in 1487. The main purpose of the Malleus was to systematically refute arguments claiming that witchcraft does not exist, refute those who expressed skepticism about its reality, to prove that witches were more often women than men, and to educate magistrates on the procedures that could find them out and convict them.
The bit of the article I found particularly interesting was this: The Devil’s power is greatest where human sexuality is concerned, for it was believed that women were more sexual than men. Loose women had sex with the Devil, thus paving their way to become witches. To quote the Malleus “all witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable.”
"Insatiable," eh?
Monday, October 20, 2008
A history lesson
Anyone remember the 1960 presidential election? Well, unless you're in your 60s or older, you probably don't, because you weren't even old enough to vote for John F. Kennedy or his opponent Richard Nixon.
One interesting thing about that election was that, up until then, there had NEVER been a Catholic president of the United States. So what, right? Well, that was a HUGE deal, back then.
Here's a little context. Anti-Irish/Anti-Catholic racism was a powerful force in Victorian Britain and 19th-century United States. The Irish were stereotyped as violent, impoverished, and prone to substance abuse, and they were accused of monopolizing certain (usually low-paying) job markets. It was common for Irish people to be discriminated against in social situations, and intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants was uncommon. "No Irish need apply" (NINA) signs were familiar to the Irish.
And they continued to be discriminated against in various professions into the 20th century. While the Irish dominated such occupations as domestic service, building, and factory work, they were not present in large numbers in the professions, finance, and other "white collar" businesses.
Kennedy was only the second Catholic to become a major-party presidential candidate (the first was a few decades earlier, in the 1920s). During his campaign, Kennedy said that under the Republicans, America was falling behind, both militarily and economically, and that as President he would "get America moving again." Nixon responded that Kennedy was too young and inexperienced to be trusted with the Presidency.
Does all of this sound kind of familiar?
A key factor which hurt Kennedy during his presidential campaign was widespread prejudice -- against his religion. Some Protestants believed that, if he were elected president, Kennedy would take orders from the Pope in Rome. It was widely believed that Kennedy lost some heavily Protestant states because of his Catholicism. Kennedy was the last candidate to win the presidency without carrying Ohio and was the only non-incumbent in the 20th century to do so.
In West Virginia, Kennedy visited a coal mine and talked to mine workers to win their support. Most people in that conservative, mostly Protestant state were deeply suspicious of Kennedy's Roman Catholicism. His popularity in West Virginia cemented his credentials as a candidate with broad appeal.
To address fears that his Roman Catholicism would impact his decision-making, he told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me." Kennedy also brought up the point of whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class citizenship just because they were Roman Catholic.
Still sounding familiar?
Yesterday, I found out that someone I know (who is, yes, white) is "afraid that, if Obama becomes president, he'll be assassinated and that will start a race war." Which makes me wonder whether they remember the religious war sparked by the JFK assassination. This country's been a regular Northern Ireland ever since, right?
Personally, I eagerly await the day this country elects its first black president. Because then another minority group will have what author Bob Considine called, in his 1961 book It's the Irish, "full membership":
At exactly 12:51 p.m. on January 20, 1961, America's Catholic Irish reached the end of a long and difficult journey. When John Fitzgerald Kennedy took the oath of office as the 35th President of the United Sates, and delivered an address hailed as an eloquent classic, they finally pulled abreast of the Protestant English majority that had run the nation since its founding.
Over the previous half-century, Catholic Irishmen had won prestige and prominence in every field of honorable endeavor. But, ... they had not been able to elect one of their number President. That one final achievement eluded them; the White House still was off-limits to Catholics.
Kennedy changed all that -- and he changed it despite a continuing though dwindling mass of anti-Catholic prejudice. With his election, the Catholic Irish -- despised, derided, denied even the most menial jobs a century and a quarter before -- at long last reached the ultimate political and social pinnacle.
In the balloting of 1960, American did more than elect John Fitzgerald Kennedy President; it also elected the Catholic Irish to full membership.
Sources: Wikipedia.org and "It's the Irish" by Bob Considine (out of print). Photo from Harper's Weekly, December 1876
Friday, October 17, 2008
Crap service competition: AT&T vs. Blockbuster
At this point, I'm not sure which is worse, AT&T or Blockbuster. Let's examine:
AT&T
I used to have Bellsouth for local and long-distance phone service. Then AT&T bought Bellsouth. Things were alright for awhile, until I decided to sign up for AT&T's bundle plan for local, long-distance and Internet.
When I called AT&T, I was told I'd have to lose some of my calling features, things like call waiting, 3-way calling, and voice mail. A little fact they left out of their promotional material. But I never used those features, anyway, so, no problem.
Then I was told I'd have to pay for a special modem (another fact left out of the promotional material), which they would send to me, but hooking up our service would be easy. Just plug in the modem and follow the instructions. No technicians needed to visit. Yay.
We received the modem, and my husband went to hook it up. We needed a password which we didn't have. The modem came with some discs, which we figured out we were supposed to use to access said password and activate our online service. But the discs only worked for Windows.
We run Linux.
After spending a considerable amount of time on the phone with AT&T customer service, the bottom line was that we could not connect to the Internet using AT&T. You'd think that the AT&T rep might have said, "You must have Windows in order to connect," when I signed up. But, no.
AT&T told us to box everything back up, and they would send us a return label. Meanwhile, we had to scramble to reconnect our previous internet service, which can be used with Linux, and which required I stay home half a day and wait for a technician to come out to our house. We got the return label, we sent the modem back to AT&T. All done, right?
Wrong. After that, I got a bill from AT&T which included a charge for the modem we were never able to use, and charges for internet service, even though we were never able to connect. I spent a half-hour on the phone, being shuffled between various AT&T departments, and explaining my circumstances to no fewer than 4 different people, before the connection charges were dropped.
The modem charge of $75, however, would only be dropped when the modem was received by AT&T.
That was in September.
Come October, I get another bill from AT&T for the $75 unused modem.
"If you have any questions," said the bill, "you may call 1-888..." So, I call, I work my way through the automated system, wait on hold for several minutes, and finally get a human being. I explain that I just got a bill charging me for a modem I never used. And he says, "I'll need to transfer you to customer service." Really? Well, then who are you? "Billing." Right. So, why can't you answer a question about my bill? "I don't have the information about your modem, I'll need to transfer you." OK.
So, I'm put on hold, again. I wait several minutes, then I get to explain my story to the next person. She says, "I'll need to transfer you to the DSL department. They handle that."
I was put on hold a third time. When the DSL department picked up, the connection was crap and I could only hear every other syllable. I was able to confirm my home phone number with him, and I told him I could barely hear so could he please call me back for a better connection. He agreed.
A few minutes later, I received his call, and I explained my story again. He said, "I'm sorry, you'll need to talk to someone in billing about that."
I shit you not. That's what he said.
"No. No way. I talked to billing, that's who I called to begin with. They transferred me to customer service, and customer service transferred me to you, and now you're telling me I've got to go back to billing? You've got to be kidding me!"
He reassured me that he would find someone who could answer my questions. I was transferred to a "Ms. Fitzpatrick," who said, yes, AT&T did indeed receive the returned modem, and she would credit my account the $75 right now.
Which begs the question, why didn't they credit my account before I called?
BLOCKBUSTER
The same day I called AT&T, I had to deal with Blockbuster. I'd noticed a charge of $7.92 from Blockbuster on my bank statement. I called the store and asked what the charge was for. "Max and Ruby." Oh, yeah, I'd rented that for the kids a month or two ago, but we have piles of DVDs, so maybe it got lost and we forgot to take it back.
"Was it returned?" I asked. Yes, it was. In fact, I hadn't kept the movie very long, maybe 2 weeks tops. "Then what's the charge for?" Late fees. "But I thought Blockbuster didn't charge late fees like that any more."
At that point, I was told that "Blockbuster hadn't really decided what it was going to do about late fees," and that my city is a test market for reinstating the fees.
Then he told me that I'd received some automated phone calls telling me to return the movie. Wow. Charging late fees AND hiring psychics now? I don't remember receiving any automated phone calls, and even if I had, I probably wouldn't have paid attention because I used to receive automated reminders all the time, back when Blockbuster WASN'T charging late fees.
At that point, I was mad. I hung up and went to Blockbuster.com. From there, I clicked "Contact Us" and got an online form. The form had a drop-down menu for selecting a subject, and I chose "Store Feedback" and "Extended Viewing Fees." I gave my name, email, etc, and explained what happened. Then I explained that Blockbuster has lost me as a customer.
What kind of reply, if any, did I expect? I figured they would say something like, "Blockbuster is examining its current fee structure and we are very sorry to hear that you are disappointed with our level of service. We will take your comments into consideration when determining our nationwide late-fee policies and hope that you will return again to Blockbuster."
What I did receive, later that day, was this reply from "Paula":
I have carefully reviewed your billing information and I have not seen any $8.00 charge for movie rental. The only billing I saw was on last January 9, 2005 which has the billing amount of $16.00 for Total access subscription. I would suggest that you contact your bank and check if there is overdue fee of $8.00 from Blockbuster.
If in future you would like to reinactivate your account, you may write down your current e-mail address and password.
Always here to help,
Paula
Blockbuster Customer Care
Yeah, real helpful, Paula. First, I already know for a fact that I was charged an overdue fee by Blockbuster, not for a movie I kept over a month but for a movie I kept about a week and a half, I talked to the store, and now you're trying to tell me it didn't happen? Second, how the hell would my BANK know it's an overdue fee and not just a rental fee or purchase? And third, what the hell is "reinactivate"?
I emailed Paula and said:
I don't know what account you're looking at, but I was charged exactly $7.92 by Blockbuster for a movie I rented -- a "Max and Ruby" kids dvd -- and did not return by a particular date. I called the store in question (here I provided the store's address and phone number) and I talked to someone, I think he said his name was "----." He told me I was charged for keeping the rental for one week past the due date, and when I said I thought that Blockbuster got rid of overdue charges, he said that (my city) was a "test market" for re-instating the fees again.
The whole point here is that I DO NOT nor will I ever again choose Blockbuster as my "entertainment provider." What prescription meds are these people on? I have no idea what email address is associated with my account, if not this one. And I don't have a "subscription plan" nor do I have any other email address that would be connected to Blockbuster.
I wrote back to Eliza today:
I do NOT choose Blockbuster as my entertainment provider, and I never complained about charges on my subscription program. I was complaining about charges to my movie rental account at a Blockbuster store location.
I submitted my complaint through Blockbuster.com, assuming this was how to contact the Blockbuster company which controls the Blockbuster stores. If I am incorrect, could I please have the correct contact info for the Blockbuster company? Thank you.
And I got this reply from "Vian":
I understand that you would like to know why you have been billed. I reviewed your account and I see that there was no $8.00 charge. I believe you have rented it in a store in (my city). It would be best if you could drop by at the store so we could assist you better. Please let me know If there is anything I can help you with. It is my pleasure serving you today.
Always happy to help,
Vian
Blockbuster Customer Care
Are these people even reading my messages?
To Vian, I reply:
No, I do NOT want to know why I've been billed. I KNOW why I was billed, I already called and talked to the store. They told me that they are now charging late fees again. SO WHAT I'M TELLING BLOCKBUSTER is that, as a result, they have LOST ME AS A CUSTOMER. That's all I've been trying to say all along. I don't need any explanations, credits, or confirmations. I'm submitting a complaint. THE END. It is not necessary to contact me again.
And then I received an email inviting me to take the "Blockbuster online support survey," which only had a few questions about the speed of their response, the courtesy and professionalism of the response, and whether I felt that customer support actually understood my inquiry. So, they've GOT to know, already, that their customer support system is ass or else why would they ask?
"Much like the print media and retail stores refusing to change, Blockbuster has been a victim on an online company finding new and inventive ways of bringing a product to a customer. And due to its size and outdated corporate culture, there really is no salvation for Blockbuster at this point. Try as it might, the future of Blockbuster is bleak, at best."
"Blockbuster reported a loss of $44.7 million, or 23 cents a share, in the second quarter, ended June 30, compared to a $34.2 million loss in the same period last year. But same-store revenue rose 9%, and the company reaffirmed that it expects a profit for the year." (09-2008)
Well, yeah, if they spring a bunch of new late fees on people, and raise rental fees, they'll definitely show a profit. For a little while. Until all of those folks remember that's why they were sick of Blockbuster, before, and go somewhere else.
AT&T
I used to have Bellsouth for local and long-distance phone service. Then AT&T bought Bellsouth. Things were alright for awhile, until I decided to sign up for AT&T's bundle plan for local, long-distance and Internet.
When I called AT&T, I was told I'd have to lose some of my calling features, things like call waiting, 3-way calling, and voice mail. A little fact they left out of their promotional material. But I never used those features, anyway, so, no problem.
Then I was told I'd have to pay for a special modem (another fact left out of the promotional material), which they would send to me, but hooking up our service would be easy. Just plug in the modem and follow the instructions. No technicians needed to visit. Yay.
We received the modem, and my husband went to hook it up. We needed a password which we didn't have. The modem came with some discs, which we figured out we were supposed to use to access said password and activate our online service. But the discs only worked for Windows.
We run Linux.
After spending a considerable amount of time on the phone with AT&T customer service, the bottom line was that we could not connect to the Internet using AT&T. You'd think that the AT&T rep might have said, "You must have Windows in order to connect," when I signed up. But, no.
AT&T told us to box everything back up, and they would send us a return label. Meanwhile, we had to scramble to reconnect our previous internet service, which can be used with Linux, and which required I stay home half a day and wait for a technician to come out to our house. We got the return label, we sent the modem back to AT&T. All done, right?
Wrong. After that, I got a bill from AT&T which included a charge for the modem we were never able to use, and charges for internet service, even though we were never able to connect. I spent a half-hour on the phone, being shuffled between various AT&T departments, and explaining my circumstances to no fewer than 4 different people, before the connection charges were dropped.
The modem charge of $75, however, would only be dropped when the modem was received by AT&T.
That was in September.
Come October, I get another bill from AT&T for the $75 unused modem.
"If you have any questions," said the bill, "you may call 1-888..." So, I call, I work my way through the automated system, wait on hold for several minutes, and finally get a human being. I explain that I just got a bill charging me for a modem I never used. And he says, "I'll need to transfer you to customer service." Really? Well, then who are you? "Billing." Right. So, why can't you answer a question about my bill? "I don't have the information about your modem, I'll need to transfer you." OK.
So, I'm put on hold, again. I wait several minutes, then I get to explain my story to the next person. She says, "I'll need to transfer you to the DSL department. They handle that."
I was put on hold a third time. When the DSL department picked up, the connection was crap and I could only hear every other syllable. I was able to confirm my home phone number with him, and I told him I could barely hear so could he please call me back for a better connection. He agreed.
A few minutes later, I received his call, and I explained my story again. He said, "I'm sorry, you'll need to talk to someone in billing about that."
I shit you not. That's what he said.
"No. No way. I talked to billing, that's who I called to begin with. They transferred me to customer service, and customer service transferred me to you, and now you're telling me I've got to go back to billing? You've got to be kidding me!"
He reassured me that he would find someone who could answer my questions. I was transferred to a "Ms. Fitzpatrick," who said, yes, AT&T did indeed receive the returned modem, and she would credit my account the $75 right now.
Which begs the question, why didn't they credit my account before I called?
BLOCKBUSTER
The same day I called AT&T, I had to deal with Blockbuster. I'd noticed a charge of $7.92 from Blockbuster on my bank statement. I called the store and asked what the charge was for. "Max and Ruby." Oh, yeah, I'd rented that for the kids a month or two ago, but we have piles of DVDs, so maybe it got lost and we forgot to take it back.
"Was it returned?" I asked. Yes, it was. In fact, I hadn't kept the movie very long, maybe 2 weeks tops. "Then what's the charge for?" Late fees. "But I thought Blockbuster didn't charge late fees like that any more."
At that point, I was told that "Blockbuster hadn't really decided what it was going to do about late fees," and that my city is a test market for reinstating the fees.
Then he told me that I'd received some automated phone calls telling me to return the movie. Wow. Charging late fees AND hiring psychics now? I don't remember receiving any automated phone calls, and even if I had, I probably wouldn't have paid attention because I used to receive automated reminders all the time, back when Blockbuster WASN'T charging late fees.
At that point, I was mad. I hung up and went to Blockbuster.com. From there, I clicked "Contact Us" and got an online form. The form had a drop-down menu for selecting a subject, and I chose "Store Feedback" and "Extended Viewing Fees." I gave my name, email, etc, and explained what happened. Then I explained that Blockbuster has lost me as a customer.
What kind of reply, if any, did I expect? I figured they would say something like, "Blockbuster is examining its current fee structure and we are very sorry to hear that you are disappointed with our level of service. We will take your comments into consideration when determining our nationwide late-fee policies and hope that you will return again to Blockbuster."
What I did receive, later that day, was this reply from "Paula":
I have carefully reviewed your billing information and I have not seen any $8.00 charge for movie rental. The only billing I saw was on last January 9, 2005 which has the billing amount of $16.00 for Total access subscription. I would suggest that you contact your bank and check if there is overdue fee of $8.00 from Blockbuster.
If in future you would like to reinactivate your account, you may write down your current e-mail address and password.
Always here to help,
Paula
Blockbuster Customer Care
Yeah, real helpful, Paula. First, I already know for a fact that I was charged an overdue fee by Blockbuster, not for a movie I kept over a month but for a movie I kept about a week and a half, I talked to the store, and now you're trying to tell me it didn't happen? Second, how the hell would my BANK know it's an overdue fee and not just a rental fee or purchase? And third, what the hell is "reinactivate"?
I emailed Paula and said:
I don't know what account you're looking at, but I was charged exactly $7.92 by Blockbuster for a movie I rented -- a "Max and Ruby" kids dvd -- and did not return by a particular date. I called the store in question (here I provided the store's address and phone number) and I talked to someone, I think he said his name was "----." He told me I was charged for keeping the rental for one week past the due date, and when I said I thought that Blockbuster got rid of overdue charges, he said that (my city) was a "test market" for re-instating the fees again.
I received another reply, but this time from "Eliza."
Thank you for contacting Blockbuster Customer Care!
I sincerely apologize for the confusion regarding the charges on your Subscription plan.
Using your email address I was not able to see any charges on this account not even for any non returned DVDs. It would be helpful if you can give us the email addres associated with this account or the account number itself. So that we are able to pull up the right account and give you an efficient answer.
Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. It was a pleasure serving you today.
You have a great weekend! Thank you for choosing Blockbuster as your #1 entertainment provider.
Sincerely,
Eliza
BLOCKBUSTER Customer Care
The whole point here is that I DO NOT nor will I ever again choose Blockbuster as my "entertainment provider." What prescription meds are these people on? I have no idea what email address is associated with my account, if not this one. And I don't have a "subscription plan" nor do I have any other email address that would be connected to Blockbuster.
I wrote back to Eliza today:
I do NOT choose Blockbuster as my entertainment provider, and I never complained about charges on my subscription program. I was complaining about charges to my movie rental account at a Blockbuster store location.
I submitted my complaint through Blockbuster.com, assuming this was how to contact the Blockbuster company which controls the Blockbuster stores. If I am incorrect, could I please have the correct contact info for the Blockbuster company? Thank you.
And I got this reply from "Vian":
I understand that you would like to know why you have been billed. I reviewed your account and I see that there was no $8.00 charge. I believe you have rented it in a store in (my city). It would be best if you could drop by at the store so we could assist you better. Please let me know If there is anything I can help you with. It is my pleasure serving you today.
Always happy to help,
Vian
Blockbuster Customer Care
Are these people even reading my messages?
To Vian, I reply:
No, I do NOT want to know why I've been billed. I KNOW why I was billed, I already called and talked to the store. They told me that they are now charging late fees again. SO WHAT I'M TELLING BLOCKBUSTER is that, as a result, they have LOST ME AS A CUSTOMER. That's all I've been trying to say all along. I don't need any explanations, credits, or confirmations. I'm submitting a complaint. THE END. It is not necessary to contact me again.
And then I received an email inviting me to take the "Blockbuster online support survey," which only had a few questions about the speed of their response, the courtesy and professionalism of the response, and whether I felt that customer support actually understood my inquiry. So, they've GOT to know, already, that their customer support system is ass or else why would they ask?
"Much like the print media and retail stores refusing to change, Blockbuster has been a victim on an online company finding new and inventive ways of bringing a product to a customer. And due to its size and outdated corporate culture, there really is no salvation for Blockbuster at this point. Try as it might, the future of Blockbuster is bleak, at best."
"Blockbuster reported a loss of $44.7 million, or 23 cents a share, in the second quarter, ended June 30, compared to a $34.2 million loss in the same period last year. But same-store revenue rose 9%, and the company reaffirmed that it expects a profit for the year." (09-2008)
Well, yeah, if they spring a bunch of new late fees on people, and raise rental fees, they'll definitely show a profit. For a little while. Until all of those folks remember that's why they were sick of Blockbuster, before, and go somewhere else.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Montessori vs. Home School UPDATED
I home schooled my oldest daughter, Tara, through second grade, but we placed her in a private Montessori school for third grade in August. I continue to have my 3-year-old daughter, Amber, at home with me (meaning, she does not attend pre-school or daycare, though the Montessori school would accept her). I also work from home.
Several people have asked me about the differences between Montessori and home schooling; why we decided to put Tara into Montessori school; and why we decided to return to home schooling again at the end of this 2007-2008 school year.
First, I think I should talk about why we chose to home school in the first place. The short answer is: because public schools suck. However, if you want the long answer:
* We want our children to be able to experience more than they would in public school. In addition to the basics (reading, writing, math), we explore science, economics, computers, yoga, art, history, languages, psychology, world cultures, mythology, poetry, sports, music, dance, logic, politics, archeology, sociology, and more.
* We want them to learn by doing, living, talking, researching, and interacting, and to be able to pursue whatever knowledge interests them, instead of just sitting there receiving whatever the teacher or textbook decides to tell them.
* They are not animals. They don't need to be trained to follow ringing bells, or beg to go to the bathroom, or be generally treated like inmates.
* We want our children to be able to meet and interact with people of ALL ages and backgrounds, not just the same 30 children of the same age and from the same neighborhood every day.
* While we are not Christians, we do want our children to know about all religions and holidays. In public school, religious expression, discussion and celebration is forbidden, (or, in the case of the bible-belt area where we live, one-sided).
* Our children are very bright. Children with high intelligence have special needs. Public schools in our area are not equipped to deal with these types of children.
Other reasons we chose a non-traditional method of education include: the inefficient waste of time in public schools; our belief in the importance of family bonds and activities; the negative social environment of public schools; and several points of disagreement with "traditional" teaching methods.
So, why did we put Tara in a Montessori school? The short answer here is that Tara is a very difficult and demanding child. The "terrible twos" came on when she was only 10 months old, and didn't go away until ... ummmm... yesterday. Mommy needed a break.
We also felt that Amber would benefit greatly, at this point in her development, from having mommy all to herself for a few hours a day.
And Tara was becoming aware of the fact that most other children in our society go to public school, and that school is (according to children's television shows) a magical place of talking dinosaurs, dancing blue dogs, shiny happy people, and playing all day long. She kept asking questions about school, and was curious what it would be like.
There was no way in hell-o operator that we were going to put her in public school, so we began investigating private schools. I'd read quite a bit about the Montessori method five years ago, when I began Tara's pre-school education, and was already using some of the ideas and techniques.
For some humor on this topic, check out "Something Weird Going On In That Montessori School, Neighbor Reports" from The Onion spoof newspaper.
From wikipedia.org: "The (Montessori) method is characterized by an emphasis on self-directed activity on the part of the child ... It stresses the importance of adapting the child's learning environment to his developmental level, and of the role of physical activity in absorbing academic concepts and practical skills."
After four months with the Montessori school, here are some of the differences I've noted between Montessori and public school.
Montessori classrooms do not have assigned seating, and there are only a few desks. Children work on the floor, or at various tables. The classroom is full of accessible plants, animals, learning tools, folders, worksheets, books, and other materials. There is also a kitchen and bathroom in Tara's classroom.
Our Montessori school is much smaller than most public schools. Students range in age from 3 to 15. Administrators get to know all of the students. Teachers and administrators are available via phone and email all the time. Parents can request conferences at any time. Tara's class takes at least two field trips a month. The school is very flexible, and does not classify any absence as "unexcused."
Family obligations are always considered more important than anything else. Parents are actively involved in the school and classroom. Students are not given much homework, only about 20-30 minutes a night, and that includes 15 minutes of reading from any book of their choice. They never receive homework over the weekends or holidays.
Here's a little story that illustrates another difference. We went to dinner last night with a family whose daughter attends public school. The mom asked Tara, "So, do you like your teacher?" And Tara responded, "Which one? We have four classroom teachers, plus a Spanish teacher, art teacher, drama teacher, yoga teacher, gymnastics teacher, PE teacher, and music teacher." And that's all for a classroom of just 26 students.
Another big difference, one which we like very much, is the lack of grading and testing. Students are given workbooks and assignments appropriate to their needs (there are several different ages and achievement levels within Tara's class). But students are not expected to work on the same thing at the same time, or to complete assignments within the same time-frame. And if they do something incorrectly, they are helped until they can do it correctly, not just handed back a paper marked "C" and then moved on to the next assignment.
Children are also not separated strictly by age or ability. Tara is in what's called "lower elementary" and there are children ages 6-9 in her class. Older students help tutor and mentor younger students. Students, even at this age, are expected to be responsible for their education, and are taught organizational, time management and self-discipline skills.
"Although there are many schools which use the name 'Montessori,' the word itself is not recognized as a trademark, nor is it associated with a single specific organization. Thus it is legally possible to use the term 'Montessori' without necessary adherence to a particular training or teaching method." Which is probably why I've heard people accuse "Montessori" public schools of not actually following all - or even most - of the Montessori method.
Now, about that topic which is thrown in the face of every home-schooling family: socialization.
Tara never comes home in tears because anyone is making fun of her. She does not generally talk about things like popularity, clothes, or bullies. She comes home with things like a necklace someone made her to apologize for treating her poorly on the playground. Or stories about someone hurting someone else's feelings and how they all talked it out. I have tried asking questions such as, "Do kids ever make fun of you, or each other?" "Who is the most popular person in class?" etc. These questions don't seem to relate to her experiences.
The Montessori school promotes the attitude that the entire class is a team. They are expected to help each other, work together, to forgive, and to accept each others' differences. Much emphasis is placed on conflict resolution and creating a safe environment, emotionally and physically. They use such techniques as the Peace Rose to work out problems between students. Feelings are not ignored or belittled, no one is expected to put up with bullies or to just ignore a problem until it goes away. Compliments are encouraged, teasing not tolerated.
Children are taught to shake hands, make eye contact, clean up after themselves, tidy up their classrooms and playgrounds, be polite, and other manners which are often lacking in "socialized" public school students.
Diversity is also embraced at the Montessori school. Children are allowed to dress any way they want to, and I've seen several students (and parents) with colored hair. Children wear clothing styles of all kinds. Families are invited to share all of their cultural and religious practices with the school. For instance, recently an email went out to all of the parents asking if they wanted to share their holiday traditions in the classroom - whether that be Christmas, Hanukkah, Diwali, Ramadan, Winter Solstice, Kwanzaa, or whatever.
All of that said, however, I'm not saying things are perfect. She is starting to struggle a little with feeling awkward, sad, shy, and insecure, and the dark part of "socialization" -- the realization that some people can't be trusted, some people aren't nice, some people can be lying and manipulative, and there's some things you just can't fix no matter how hard you try. But these have all been good lessons for her to learn.
So why are we going back to home schooling? One of the main reasons is because Tara requested it. Science is her favorite subject, but one which is not pursued to her satisfaction in the Montessori school. She misses the variety of educational topics and experiences she had while home schooling. Tara recently told us that she also wants to home school again because it gives her more time to think. The noise and constant distractions during lessons are bothering Tara. She said last night, "You know, mom, after being at that school for several weeks now, I've realized that most of the other kids don't care at all about learning anything."
I think Montessori has been, overall, a good experience for Tara, but I don't feel that she's able to work up to her full academic or creative potential. Our Montessori school has done very well with the basic academics** and some of the extracurriculars (such as Spanish, art and music) but it still has its limitations. And I lean toward the unschooling philosophy enough to keenly feel them.
I hope this has explained our experiences with Montessori. I have taken for granted that my audience has an intimate understanding of home schooling. If not, I highly recommend further online research. If you have any questions about our particular experiences with Montessori vs. Home School, I'd be happy to answer them.
** UPDATE MAY 2008: Tara recently finished mandatory standardized testing and did very well.
** UPDATE OCT 2018: Tara is now attending college. She's doing great.
Several people have asked me about the differences between Montessori and home schooling; why we decided to put Tara into Montessori school; and why we decided to return to home schooling again at the end of this 2007-2008 school year.
First, I think I should talk about why we chose to home school in the first place. The short answer is: because public schools suck. However, if you want the long answer:
* We want our children to be able to experience more than they would in public school. In addition to the basics (reading, writing, math), we explore science, economics, computers, yoga, art, history, languages, psychology, world cultures, mythology, poetry, sports, music, dance, logic, politics, archeology, sociology, and more.
* We want them to learn by doing, living, talking, researching, and interacting, and to be able to pursue whatever knowledge interests them, instead of just sitting there receiving whatever the teacher or textbook decides to tell them.
* They are not animals. They don't need to be trained to follow ringing bells, or beg to go to the bathroom, or be generally treated like inmates.
* We want our children to be able to meet and interact with people of ALL ages and backgrounds, not just the same 30 children of the same age and from the same neighborhood every day.
* While we are not Christians, we do want our children to know about all religions and holidays. In public school, religious expression, discussion and celebration is forbidden, (or, in the case of the bible-belt area where we live, one-sided).
* Our children are very bright. Children with high intelligence have special needs. Public schools in our area are not equipped to deal with these types of children.
Other reasons we chose a non-traditional method of education include: the inefficient waste of time in public schools; our belief in the importance of family bonds and activities; the negative social environment of public schools; and several points of disagreement with "traditional" teaching methods.
So, why did we put Tara in a Montessori school? The short answer here is that Tara is a very difficult and demanding child. The "terrible twos" came on when she was only 10 months old, and didn't go away until ... ummmm... yesterday. Mommy needed a break.
We also felt that Amber would benefit greatly, at this point in her development, from having mommy all to herself for a few hours a day.
And Tara was becoming aware of the fact that most other children in our society go to public school, and that school is (according to children's television shows) a magical place of talking dinosaurs, dancing blue dogs, shiny happy people, and playing all day long. She kept asking questions about school, and was curious what it would be like.
There was no way in hell-o operator that we were going to put her in public school, so we began investigating private schools. I'd read quite a bit about the Montessori method five years ago, when I began Tara's pre-school education, and was already using some of the ideas and techniques.
For some humor on this topic, check out "Something Weird Going On In That Montessori School, Neighbor Reports" from The Onion spoof newspaper.
From wikipedia.org: "The (Montessori) method is characterized by an emphasis on self-directed activity on the part of the child ... It stresses the importance of adapting the child's learning environment to his developmental level, and of the role of physical activity in absorbing academic concepts and practical skills."
After four months with the Montessori school, here are some of the differences I've noted between Montessori and public school.
Montessori classrooms do not have assigned seating, and there are only a few desks. Children work on the floor, or at various tables. The classroom is full of accessible plants, animals, learning tools, folders, worksheets, books, and other materials. There is also a kitchen and bathroom in Tara's classroom.
Our Montessori school is much smaller than most public schools. Students range in age from 3 to 15. Administrators get to know all of the students. Teachers and administrators are available via phone and email all the time. Parents can request conferences at any time. Tara's class takes at least two field trips a month. The school is very flexible, and does not classify any absence as "unexcused."
Family obligations are always considered more important than anything else. Parents are actively involved in the school and classroom. Students are not given much homework, only about 20-30 minutes a night, and that includes 15 minutes of reading from any book of their choice. They never receive homework over the weekends or holidays.
Here's a little story that illustrates another difference. We went to dinner last night with a family whose daughter attends public school. The mom asked Tara, "So, do you like your teacher?" And Tara responded, "Which one? We have four classroom teachers, plus a Spanish teacher, art teacher, drama teacher, yoga teacher, gymnastics teacher, PE teacher, and music teacher." And that's all for a classroom of just 26 students.
Another big difference, one which we like very much, is the lack of grading and testing. Students are given workbooks and assignments appropriate to their needs (there are several different ages and achievement levels within Tara's class). But students are not expected to work on the same thing at the same time, or to complete assignments within the same time-frame. And if they do something incorrectly, they are helped until they can do it correctly, not just handed back a paper marked "C" and then moved on to the next assignment.
Children are also not separated strictly by age or ability. Tara is in what's called "lower elementary" and there are children ages 6-9 in her class. Older students help tutor and mentor younger students. Students, even at this age, are expected to be responsible for their education, and are taught organizational, time management and self-discipline skills.
"Although there are many schools which use the name 'Montessori,' the word itself is not recognized as a trademark, nor is it associated with a single specific organization. Thus it is legally possible to use the term 'Montessori' without necessary adherence to a particular training or teaching method." Which is probably why I've heard people accuse "Montessori" public schools of not actually following all - or even most - of the Montessori method.
Now, about that topic which is thrown in the face of every home-schooling family: socialization.
Tara never comes home in tears because anyone is making fun of her. She does not generally talk about things like popularity, clothes, or bullies. She comes home with things like a necklace someone made her to apologize for treating her poorly on the playground. Or stories about someone hurting someone else's feelings and how they all talked it out. I have tried asking questions such as, "Do kids ever make fun of you, or each other?" "Who is the most popular person in class?" etc. These questions don't seem to relate to her experiences.
The Montessori school promotes the attitude that the entire class is a team. They are expected to help each other, work together, to forgive, and to accept each others' differences. Much emphasis is placed on conflict resolution and creating a safe environment, emotionally and physically. They use such techniques as the Peace Rose to work out problems between students. Feelings are not ignored or belittled, no one is expected to put up with bullies or to just ignore a problem until it goes away. Compliments are encouraged, teasing not tolerated.
Children are taught to shake hands, make eye contact, clean up after themselves, tidy up their classrooms and playgrounds, be polite, and other manners which are often lacking in "socialized" public school students.
Diversity is also embraced at the Montessori school. Children are allowed to dress any way they want to, and I've seen several students (and parents) with colored hair. Children wear clothing styles of all kinds. Families are invited to share all of their cultural and religious practices with the school. For instance, recently an email went out to all of the parents asking if they wanted to share their holiday traditions in the classroom - whether that be Christmas, Hanukkah, Diwali, Ramadan, Winter Solstice, Kwanzaa, or whatever.
All of that said, however, I'm not saying things are perfect. She is starting to struggle a little with feeling awkward, sad, shy, and insecure, and the dark part of "socialization" -- the realization that some people can't be trusted, some people aren't nice, some people can be lying and manipulative, and there's some things you just can't fix no matter how hard you try. But these have all been good lessons for her to learn.
So why are we going back to home schooling? One of the main reasons is because Tara requested it. Science is her favorite subject, but one which is not pursued to her satisfaction in the Montessori school. She misses the variety of educational topics and experiences she had while home schooling. Tara recently told us that she also wants to home school again because it gives her more time to think. The noise and constant distractions during lessons are bothering Tara. She said last night, "You know, mom, after being at that school for several weeks now, I've realized that most of the other kids don't care at all about learning anything."
I think Montessori has been, overall, a good experience for Tara, but I don't feel that she's able to work up to her full academic or creative potential. Our Montessori school has done very well with the basic academics** and some of the extracurriculars (such as Spanish, art and music) but it still has its limitations. And I lean toward the unschooling philosophy enough to keenly feel them.
I hope this has explained our experiences with Montessori. I have taken for granted that my audience has an intimate understanding of home schooling. If not, I highly recommend further online research. If you have any questions about our particular experiences with Montessori vs. Home School, I'd be happy to answer them.
** UPDATE MAY 2008: Tara recently finished mandatory standardized testing and did very well.
** UPDATE OCT 2018: Tara is now attending college. She's doing great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)