I accurately foresaw two things today, one unfortunately so, the other irrelevantly so. The unfortunate clairvoyance had to do with some hand pain I've been experiencing for the last year or so. Actually, pain isn't the right word; it's more of a discomfort. It only occurs when I put pressure on my right hand like in a pushup position, and it's not excruciating, but I can tell something is off. I've been waiting for it to heal on it's own, but it's just not. I finally went to the doctor today, but I don't have a doctor, so I went to a walk-in clinic. Before I left I told S, "I'm going to go there, fill out a stack of paper work, wait for three hours, see a doctor for two minutes, be referred to a specialist, charged $50 for a copay, and sent on my way." Lo and behold ... I have an appointment with an orthopedist on Tuesday. I'm guessing there is something wrong with a tendon. We shall see.
The irrelevant clairvoyance had to do with an email chain about parking at Lil' S's daycare between fellow parents. Parking can be a hassle. There are only three spots in the "lot" (which is actually just a driveway) and two of them are in a line so the second person always blocks in the first person. There is also ample street parking, but that sometimes is occupied near the daycare, so you can't park super close. If you don't get a good spot, it's not that big of a deal -- the worst thing that ever happens is you have to walk a block -- but it can be annoying, especially if you're in a hurry or your kid is acting up or it's bad weather.
So anyway, the "leader" of the parent's group sent out an email this morning reminding everybody of the agreed upon parking etiquette for the two spots in the same line. Namely, if you get there first, you should pull all the way forward so that another car can fit. It was all very friendly and courtesy -- a nothing email, really -- but I thought to myself, "Somebody is going to write back to this and say something that offends somebody else; that person will then get defensive and respond back in an icy tone; this will set off a petty back-and-forth between those two people; somebody else not involved will jump in, just because there is always somebody not involved who jumps in; and eventually somebody else not involved -- a reasonable person -- will get annoyed and tell the feuding parties to quit using 'reply all'; and that will be the end of it." Lo and behold ...
It was uncanny how accurately I nailed this one. About a minute after the initial email, a woman responded that her husband was blocked in for a really long time twice by the same car and asked that people not use the second parking spot, if they can't get their kids in a reasonable amount of time. Then the guy who did the blocking got all defensive and pissy and went on a long screed about fussy kids and icy sidewalks and dark streets and whatnot (as if every parent at the daycare doesn't have to deal with the exact same thing). This in turn prompted another round of responses from the woman and then her husband and then somebody random and then the blocker-man again. Phrases like "your time", "other people's time", "respect others", "freezing temperatures", and "passive aggressive" were liberally thrown about, before somebody finally asked them to stop.
I mostly just found the whole thing humorous, but if I had to pick a side I'd go with the woman. The car that gets there first is being courteous by pulling forward. The second car should be equally respectful. I felt like the man was being an "inconvenience socialist" -- somebody who always wants to spread his wealth of inconvenience to everybody else. Also he was being a total "hassle rounder-upper" -- somebody who tries to make a hassle sound like something worse than a hassle. The go-to move for a hassle rounder-upper is to try to make a hassle sound like a safety hazard. If you tell somebody that you had to unpack a stroller and walk 30 extra yards while it was drizzling, you don't get much sympathy; if you tell somebody you had to run 300 extra yards, while carrying your screaming child, on icy sidewalks, in subzero weather, in pitch black darkness, while a ravenous yeti was chasing you, it's a different story.
Inconvenience socialist, hassle rounder-upper, I like those; I'm going to start using them more frequently.
Alright, that's it for the meat of this entry. But let's hit a few topics lightning round style.
The irrelevant clairvoyance had to do with an email chain about parking at Lil' S's daycare between fellow parents. Parking can be a hassle. There are only three spots in the "lot" (which is actually just a driveway) and two of them are in a line so the second person always blocks in the first person. There is also ample street parking, but that sometimes is occupied near the daycare, so you can't park super close. If you don't get a good spot, it's not that big of a deal -- the worst thing that ever happens is you have to walk a block -- but it can be annoying, especially if you're in a hurry or your kid is acting up or it's bad weather.
So anyway, the "leader" of the parent's group sent out an email this morning reminding everybody of the agreed upon parking etiquette for the two spots in the same line. Namely, if you get there first, you should pull all the way forward so that another car can fit. It was all very friendly and courtesy -- a nothing email, really -- but I thought to myself, "Somebody is going to write back to this and say something that offends somebody else; that person will then get defensive and respond back in an icy tone; this will set off a petty back-and-forth between those two people; somebody else not involved will jump in, just because there is always somebody not involved who jumps in; and eventually somebody else not involved -- a reasonable person -- will get annoyed and tell the feuding parties to quit using 'reply all'; and that will be the end of it." Lo and behold ...
It was uncanny how accurately I nailed this one. About a minute after the initial email, a woman responded that her husband was blocked in for a really long time twice by the same car and asked that people not use the second parking spot, if they can't get their kids in a reasonable amount of time. Then the guy who did the blocking got all defensive and pissy and went on a long screed about fussy kids and icy sidewalks and dark streets and whatnot (as if every parent at the daycare doesn't have to deal with the exact same thing). This in turn prompted another round of responses from the woman and then her husband and then somebody random and then the blocker-man again. Phrases like "your time", "other people's time", "respect others", "freezing temperatures", and "passive aggressive" were liberally thrown about, before somebody finally asked them to stop.
I mostly just found the whole thing humorous, but if I had to pick a side I'd go with the woman. The car that gets there first is being courteous by pulling forward. The second car should be equally respectful. I felt like the man was being an "inconvenience socialist" -- somebody who always wants to spread his wealth of inconvenience to everybody else. Also he was being a total "hassle rounder-upper" -- somebody who tries to make a hassle sound like something worse than a hassle. The go-to move for a hassle rounder-upper is to try to make a hassle sound like a safety hazard. If you tell somebody that you had to unpack a stroller and walk 30 extra yards while it was drizzling, you don't get much sympathy; if you tell somebody you had to run 300 extra yards, while carrying your screaming child, on icy sidewalks, in subzero weather, in pitch black darkness, while a ravenous yeti was chasing you, it's a different story.
Inconvenience socialist, hassle rounder-upper, I like those; I'm going to start using them more frequently.
Alright, that's it for the meat of this entry. But let's hit a few topics lightning round style.
- Warren Buffett is giving away $1 billion to anybody who can pick a perfect NCAA bracket. His money is safe. People don't realize how insanely unlikely this is. I did an analysis once for fun, and although I don't remember the exact conclusion, it was something like everybody in the U.S. could fill out 100 brackets for 100 years and the probability of somebody ever picking a perfect bracket would still be well under 1%. (Obviously this would change if college basketball ever becomes much easier to predict.) What's funny to me is that Buffett will make money off this promotion. He's the insurer for Quicken Loans who is actually the one making the offer. So he's going to get the publicity and get paid. I guess that's why he's a multibillionaire.
- Obviously I don't know if what Dylan Farrow says is true. But Woody Allen was definitely doing something shady. Normal grown men just don't behave that way around kids. (It's like Michael Jackson regularly sleeping in a bed with a bunch of kids.) I certainly don't. When we were babysitting our friend's 5-year old, she wanted to take her pants off and run around in her underwear (which she does frequently at home), and S was going to let her. But I was like, "are you nuts?" This little girl always wants to wrestle me, and there's no way I'm wrestling a half-naked little girl when her parents aren't around. That's madness.
- I watched the debate between Bill Nye and the Ken Ham, the nutty creationism guy. It wasn't very good. Nye was way too technical and all over the place; Ham was more focused (which I suppose is easy when all you have to say is "because the Bible says so"). Also I didn't like the debate format. Ham was completely let off the hook at one point -- when he basically admitted that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally -- because there wasn't much time for follow up (and Nye did a lousy job following up, in my opinion). I would've liked to have seen the debaters ask each other questions directly. I wonder whether or not Nye should've done the debate at all. It's always a sticky wicket with religious wackos like Ham. Is it best to take them on directly? To indirectly try to discredit them? To ignore them altogether? I don't know.
No comments:
Post a Comment