Monday, March 31, 2008
Isle of Palms town councilman...
Isle of Palms town councilman Ryan Buchanan says his proposal asking that building of sand castles demolish their structures when they leave the beach, is part of a larger effort for beach goers to remove their trash. The local press and the nationally syndicated talk show picked up on the sand castle angle, Buchanan said he was surprised. listen
Powered by Jott
Powered by Jott
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Texas dominates fastest-growing cities list
Here are the fastest growing large cities in the US, according to the census bureau:
1- Dallas
2- Atlanta
3- Phoenix
4- Houston
5- Riverside, CA (my home town)
6- Charlotte
7- Chicago
8- Austin
9- Las Vegas
10- San Antonio
A couple of observations: First, this is heavy on Teas (four of the 10), which has it all. Warm weather. Halfway inexpensive housing, as compared with the rest of the nation. No state income tax. Nevada: Also no state income tax.
1- Dallas
2- Atlanta
3- Phoenix
4- Houston
5- Riverside, CA (my home town)
6- Charlotte
7- Chicago
8- Austin
9- Las Vegas
10- San Antonio
A couple of observations: First, this is heavy on Teas (four of the 10), which has it all. Warm weather. Halfway inexpensive housing, as compared with the rest of the nation. No state income tax. Nevada: Also no state income tax.
I noticed who is hiring...
I noticed who is hiring, according to the website JournalismJobs.com -- the Islamist house organ Al-Jazeera. Yeah ... you get watched and your phone tapped by the government. Yeah, buddy. I'll get right on it. listen
Powered by Jott
Powered by Jott
Add, 30 March 2008:
Here are the ads:
For planinng editor:
For output producer:
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
... and they only wanted chopper batteries
Now if this doesn't scare you, you're beyond scaring.
At least it's a good thing these missile components were sent to Taiwan rather than someplace that's a little less friendly. Can you say WMD's, boys and girls?
At least it's a good thing these missile components were sent to Taiwan rather than someplace that's a little less friendly. Can you say WMD's, boys and girls?
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Game sounds better with real wood
This is definitely the best time of year. The whole world wakes up at this time, trees are budding, and the azaleas are in bloom. And in most parts of the country, you can hear the whack of wooden stick hitting ball.
If you’re a baseball junkie like I am, that last part means life begins again.
Admittedly, I’m a traditionalist when it comes to baseball. A few days ago I was listening to a game – the collegiate version, that is. The University of South Carolina Gamecocks – to my friends out west, that’s what we mean when we say USC – and over the radio you can hear the collision of bat and ball.
Not a “whack,” though. More like a “pling.”
It took me a while to figure out this strange noise. While I tend to be something of a thinker, often pondering questions that would put Socrates in a tizzy, nothing seemed more important at that moment than the “pling.” Right then, that “pling” became symbolic of Western civilization’s decline and eventual fall. I got over that, though I still have to get used to the idea of aluminum bats in our national sport. It seems, well, un-American. A travesty. An infiltration by Commies, if you will.
Did I mention I’m quite traditional about baseball?
I’m not alone here. One of our day’s great pundits and thinkers, George Will, is also a baseball nut. He wrote great books on the sport, and like me, considers the aluminum bat as some sort of mutant that you hope stays contained like a bad virus.
Pitchers, it seems, have lost the fine art of pitching to the inside half of the plate since bats went to aluminum. Pitching inside is a great intimidation move (and probably verboten in our politically-correct society), but more importantly, Will argues it’s become an ineffective tactic at the college level.
On the wooden bat, there’s a “sweet spot” that gives you maximum leverage and power on the ball. It’s a small part of the bat, and if the pitcher jams the hitter with inside stuff. The best the hitter can do then is get the pitch on the handle of the bat, away from that sweet spot. A home-run swing then produces a lazy fly ball, and a line-drive stroke produces an easily-handled infield play. Pitching inside is good strategy.
With the aluminum bat, it’s all sweet spot. It doesn’t matter which part of the bat strikes the ball. Everyone suddenly hits like Barry Bonds. You can’t neutralize a good hitter by jamming him, so pitchers end up learning that tactic in the minor leagues. That is, if they ever do learn it.
I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Angels fan. I’m dating myself here because I remember them as the Los Angeles Angels without the “of Anaheim” tag. Back then, they shared digs with the Dodgers, and you can always tell where a California baseball fan’s loyalties were by what he called the stadium. To us, it was Chavez Ravine, while those Dodgers fans referred to it then – as they do now – as Dodger Stadium.
Baseball is a tough sell in our no-subtlety, sound-bite, instant-gratification society. It’s too slow, folks say. No action like football, where tons of linemen-on-the-hoof collide every few seconds. And to the obtuse, this is a good argument.
But the knowing baseball fan will tell you much of the real action is mental. Although there may not be many engineering degrees or rocket scientists in the major leagues – former manager Mayo Smith once said that if you split open a player’s skull you’d find a jazz band and two or three women – the battle between pitcher and batter is really a chess game. Each one is trying to figure out the other, and the fielders are also trying to size up the matchup. The pitcher is remembering that the guy at bat was badly fooled by a slow curve last time up – should he try it again and get lucky? The batter, meanwhile, notices the pitcher may be getting a little fatigued, thinking maybe the fastball wouldn’t be as fast or have as much movement. As it is in war, everything else being equal, the one with the best information will usually be the one to win the battle.
Which is why I’m no fan of the designated hitter rule that the American League (home of the Angels) uses. Pitchers aren’t supposed to be able to hit, and going to a pinch hitter may be a good strategic move but then you’d have to replace your pitcher who may be mowing down the opposition. Do you stay with your pitcher and close your eyes as he attempts to swing the bat, or do you gamble on a) the better hitter and b) a relief pitcher? The designated hitter rule takes that strategy away, an attempt to replace some of the less-exciting brain work with more action. Hey, football (which I also like) is a made-for-TV sport; must they try to do that with baseball, too?
Don’t even get me started on another game “innovation,” interleague play. Suffice it to say, I turn the radio off and skip over the sport’s section’s baseball scores when interleague games are playing. Much as I love the sport, I don’t recognize alien powers. And the revamped playoff schedule still sets me off, even though the Angels got to the playoffs for the 2002 World Series as a wild-card team. Even though my team was a beneficiary, I still don’t have to like it.
But in late March and early April, all these objections are forgotten. I don’t even think about multi-million-dollar contracts or players trying to decide between the clear and the cream. None of that matters. It’s that time of year.
Play ball!
If you’re a baseball junkie like I am, that last part means life begins again.
Admittedly, I’m a traditionalist when it comes to baseball. A few days ago I was listening to a game – the collegiate version, that is. The University of South Carolina Gamecocks – to my friends out west, that’s what we mean when we say USC – and over the radio you can hear the collision of bat and ball.
Not a “whack,” though. More like a “pling.”
It took me a while to figure out this strange noise. While I tend to be something of a thinker, often pondering questions that would put Socrates in a tizzy, nothing seemed more important at that moment than the “pling.” Right then, that “pling” became symbolic of Western civilization’s decline and eventual fall. I got over that, though I still have to get used to the idea of aluminum bats in our national sport. It seems, well, un-American. A travesty. An infiltration by Commies, if you will.
Did I mention I’m quite traditional about baseball?
I’m not alone here. One of our day’s great pundits and thinkers, George Will, is also a baseball nut. He wrote great books on the sport, and like me, considers the aluminum bat as some sort of mutant that you hope stays contained like a bad virus.
Pitchers, it seems, have lost the fine art of pitching to the inside half of the plate since bats went to aluminum. Pitching inside is a great intimidation move (and probably verboten in our politically-correct society), but more importantly, Will argues it’s become an ineffective tactic at the college level.
On the wooden bat, there’s a “sweet spot” that gives you maximum leverage and power on the ball. It’s a small part of the bat, and if the pitcher jams the hitter with inside stuff. The best the hitter can do then is get the pitch on the handle of the bat, away from that sweet spot. A home-run swing then produces a lazy fly ball, and a line-drive stroke produces an easily-handled infield play. Pitching inside is good strategy.
With the aluminum bat, it’s all sweet spot. It doesn’t matter which part of the bat strikes the ball. Everyone suddenly hits like Barry Bonds. You can’t neutralize a good hitter by jamming him, so pitchers end up learning that tactic in the minor leagues. That is, if they ever do learn it.
I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Angels fan. I’m dating myself here because I remember them as the Los Angeles Angels without the “of Anaheim” tag. Back then, they shared digs with the Dodgers, and you can always tell where a California baseball fan’s loyalties were by what he called the stadium. To us, it was Chavez Ravine, while those Dodgers fans referred to it then – as they do now – as Dodger Stadium.
Baseball is a tough sell in our no-subtlety, sound-bite, instant-gratification society. It’s too slow, folks say. No action like football, where tons of linemen-on-the-hoof collide every few seconds. And to the obtuse, this is a good argument.
But the knowing baseball fan will tell you much of the real action is mental. Although there may not be many engineering degrees or rocket scientists in the major leagues – former manager Mayo Smith once said that if you split open a player’s skull you’d find a jazz band and two or three women – the battle between pitcher and batter is really a chess game. Each one is trying to figure out the other, and the fielders are also trying to size up the matchup. The pitcher is remembering that the guy at bat was badly fooled by a slow curve last time up – should he try it again and get lucky? The batter, meanwhile, notices the pitcher may be getting a little fatigued, thinking maybe the fastball wouldn’t be as fast or have as much movement. As it is in war, everything else being equal, the one with the best information will usually be the one to win the battle.
Which is why I’m no fan of the designated hitter rule that the American League (home of the Angels) uses. Pitchers aren’t supposed to be able to hit, and going to a pinch hitter may be a good strategic move but then you’d have to replace your pitcher who may be mowing down the opposition. Do you stay with your pitcher and close your eyes as he attempts to swing the bat, or do you gamble on a) the better hitter and b) a relief pitcher? The designated hitter rule takes that strategy away, an attempt to replace some of the less-exciting brain work with more action. Hey, football (which I also like) is a made-for-TV sport; must they try to do that with baseball, too?
Don’t even get me started on another game “innovation,” interleague play. Suffice it to say, I turn the radio off and skip over the sport’s section’s baseball scores when interleague games are playing. Much as I love the sport, I don’t recognize alien powers. And the revamped playoff schedule still sets me off, even though the Angels got to the playoffs for the 2002 World Series as a wild-card team. Even though my team was a beneficiary, I still don’t have to like it.
But in late March and early April, all these objections are forgotten. I don’t even think about multi-million-dollar contracts or players trying to decide between the clear and the cream. None of that matters. It’s that time of year.
Play ball!
Friday, March 21, 2008
Bumper sticker history lesson 1
A post from a few days ago reminded me of this:
Back in California's 1966 gubernatorial election, with incumbent Pat Brown running, a particularly rabid bumper sticker was seen in SoCal:
"IF IT'S BROWN, FLUSH IT."
I don't think this was the product of any candidate's committee; this had to have been a freelance job.
By the way, Pat Brown did indeed get flushed. He was beaten by a political unknown who had made his name as a movie actor. Some guy named Ronald Reagan.
Back in California's 1966 gubernatorial election, with incumbent Pat Brown running, a particularly rabid bumper sticker was seen in SoCal:
"IF IT'S BROWN, FLUSH IT."
I don't think this was the product of any candidate's committee; this had to have been a freelance job.
By the way, Pat Brown did indeed get flushed. He was beaten by a political unknown who had made his name as a movie actor. Some guy named Ronald Reagan.
At last, an honest man ...
One of my loyal readers sent this to me (thanks, Mom!)
No caption required here.
No caption required here.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
They are playing their...
They are playing their song again. It seems that in banana growing regions through out the world the weather has been really really bad so bananas are in short supply. It could be that your produce manager may actually treat you a few measures of, "Yes, We Have No Bananas." Or not. listen
Powered by Jott
Powered by Jott
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Scrutiny becomes rite of passage for Obama
You just knew the love affair was going to end sometime.
Barack Obama, who enjoyed rock-star status in his run for the White House, went under severe scrutiny after word came out that his pastor/spiritual advisor had been spewing some real over-the-top rhetoric from the pulpit.
And here's a video of Wright.
You really have to hear some of these sermon excerpts; they’re something else. But several things happened since the sound bites became public: Obama removed his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, from his campaign committee. Over the weekend, Obama’s poll numbers dipped significantly, putting a dent in his momentum. And the media, for really the first time, began digging into the candidate and looking beyond the surface.
Note to Obama: Welcome to the big leagues, keed. This is just a rite of passage.
Although I can’t see myself voting for him, I like Obama. He’s done something to electrify the disenfranchised in this country. He brings a sense of hope that one hasn’t seen in decades. And, unlike Howard Dean four years ago, he actually has a chance to win – at this point it would take some major pooch-screwing on his part for him to lose the nomination. But he reminds me of Gary Hart in the 1980s in that, while he speaks of new ideas, he’s awfully vague about what these new ideas are. No one seems to have any idea whether these new ideas are good or bad for the country, but they are new.
Obama’s also got a bit of Ronald Reagan luck. Up until now, he’s made it to the front line of candidates without anyone laying a glove on him. OK, there were a few lightweight jabs here and there (mostly from the Clinton camp), but he simply hasn’t undergone the scrutiny that Hillary Clinton or John McCain went through. And that part is dangerous; the more a voter knows about a candidate, the more informed he will be when he hits the polling place.
Of course, we’ve had years to check out the other two leading candidates. Hillary’s been under the microscope since the early 1990s (being a rather controversial First Lady will do that), and McCain lived under the glare eight years ago, when he was George Bush’s biggest Republican opponent. This is Obama’s first rodeo.
One can blame the so-called lefty media for this lack of scrutiny, and I concede that it’s a valid point. There are news types out there who are wrestling with themselves – how does one criticize an Obama without creating the perception he’s anti-black, a “cracker?”
But the truth is, like Reagan in 1980, Obama brings a fresh face in troubled times. He presents himself well. He’s polished. He says the right things, and can launch an oratorical barnburner when he needs to. But, like Reagan, it’s easy to get caught up in the veneer without paying attention to what’s underneath. And, as I mentioned, that’s dangerous.
Even if Obama believed his pastor’s anti-American rhetoric, you can’t help but root for the guy. He’s tailor-made for the media. Journalists tend to be a bit more idealistic than the common herd – they’d have to be, because I can’t think of any other reason why someone would want to go into that field anyway. We tend to pull for the underdog. Back when I was getting started in the business, Watergate was still fresh in people’s minds. My contemporaries thought it would be a good thing to uncover scandal and corruption in high places, and maybe even hang a president or three. Woodward and Bernstein were our role models. (My advice to young idealists who want to go into journalism: Forget it. The pay sucks.)
Naturally you’d find more idealism on the left side of the political aisle than the right, too, though in 1980 Reagan cornered the idealism market. He was an outsider who represented something new, something fresh. Jimmy Carter, who was something new and fresh four years before, was something old and stale come 1980.
So far, Obama has made mostly the right moves on the campaign trail. For the most part he’s stayed on the high road while the Clintons, veteran politicos both, launched occasional salvos from the gutter. He may not be making major policy points – that part is still too vague for the informed voter to even consider – but he’s scoring major style points. Again, like Reagan in 1980 and Jack Kennedy in 1960.
To Obama’s credit, although he removed Wright from the campaign committee, the candidate refused to disown his pastor and friend. And in his speech this week, he gave white voters an insider’s look at how the black community views things.
He may have stopped the damage to his campaign in the short run, but the general election is more than seven months away. By then, Obama will have been faced with further scrutiny that is just part of the vetting process. Last week’s events cracked the door open. We’re looking for a president; probably the most important job in the world, and it’s imperative we know who’s going to fill that job. Hopefully, Obama will continue to take this scrutiny in stride, and the voters will get to know the man underneath the veneer.
Barack Obama, who enjoyed rock-star status in his run for the White House, went under severe scrutiny after word came out that his pastor/spiritual advisor had been spewing some real over-the-top rhetoric from the pulpit.
And here's a video of Wright.
You really have to hear some of these sermon excerpts; they’re something else. But several things happened since the sound bites became public: Obama removed his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, from his campaign committee. Over the weekend, Obama’s poll numbers dipped significantly, putting a dent in his momentum. And the media, for really the first time, began digging into the candidate and looking beyond the surface.
Note to Obama: Welcome to the big leagues, keed. This is just a rite of passage.
Although I can’t see myself voting for him, I like Obama. He’s done something to electrify the disenfranchised in this country. He brings a sense of hope that one hasn’t seen in decades. And, unlike Howard Dean four years ago, he actually has a chance to win – at this point it would take some major pooch-screwing on his part for him to lose the nomination. But he reminds me of Gary Hart in the 1980s in that, while he speaks of new ideas, he’s awfully vague about what these new ideas are. No one seems to have any idea whether these new ideas are good or bad for the country, but they are new.
Obama’s also got a bit of Ronald Reagan luck. Up until now, he’s made it to the front line of candidates without anyone laying a glove on him. OK, there were a few lightweight jabs here and there (mostly from the Clinton camp), but he simply hasn’t undergone the scrutiny that Hillary Clinton or John McCain went through. And that part is dangerous; the more a voter knows about a candidate, the more informed he will be when he hits the polling place.
Of course, we’ve had years to check out the other two leading candidates. Hillary’s been under the microscope since the early 1990s (being a rather controversial First Lady will do that), and McCain lived under the glare eight years ago, when he was George Bush’s biggest Republican opponent. This is Obama’s first rodeo.
One can blame the so-called lefty media for this lack of scrutiny, and I concede that it’s a valid point. There are news types out there who are wrestling with themselves – how does one criticize an Obama without creating the perception he’s anti-black, a “cracker?”
But the truth is, like Reagan in 1980, Obama brings a fresh face in troubled times. He presents himself well. He’s polished. He says the right things, and can launch an oratorical barnburner when he needs to. But, like Reagan, it’s easy to get caught up in the veneer without paying attention to what’s underneath. And, as I mentioned, that’s dangerous.
Even if Obama believed his pastor’s anti-American rhetoric, you can’t help but root for the guy. He’s tailor-made for the media. Journalists tend to be a bit more idealistic than the common herd – they’d have to be, because I can’t think of any other reason why someone would want to go into that field anyway. We tend to pull for the underdog. Back when I was getting started in the business, Watergate was still fresh in people’s minds. My contemporaries thought it would be a good thing to uncover scandal and corruption in high places, and maybe even hang a president or three. Woodward and Bernstein were our role models. (My advice to young idealists who want to go into journalism: Forget it. The pay sucks.)
Naturally you’d find more idealism on the left side of the political aisle than the right, too, though in 1980 Reagan cornered the idealism market. He was an outsider who represented something new, something fresh. Jimmy Carter, who was something new and fresh four years before, was something old and stale come 1980.
So far, Obama has made mostly the right moves on the campaign trail. For the most part he’s stayed on the high road while the Clintons, veteran politicos both, launched occasional salvos from the gutter. He may not be making major policy points – that part is still too vague for the informed voter to even consider – but he’s scoring major style points. Again, like Reagan in 1980 and Jack Kennedy in 1960.
To Obama’s credit, although he removed Wright from the campaign committee, the candidate refused to disown his pastor and friend. And in his speech this week, he gave white voters an insider’s look at how the black community views things.
He may have stopped the damage to his campaign in the short run, but the general election is more than seven months away. By then, Obama will have been faced with further scrutiny that is just part of the vetting process. Last week’s events cracked the door open. We’re looking for a president; probably the most important job in the world, and it’s imperative we know who’s going to fill that job. Hopefully, Obama will continue to take this scrutiny in stride, and the voters will get to know the man underneath the veneer.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Wal-Mart skirmish just a part of larger war
Wal-Mart's plan to build a supercenter on James Island brings out heavy opposition among the neighbors, and is shaping up as another skirmish in the town's longstanding efforts to set its own destiny without interference from Charleston.
The supercenter is planned for a site off Folly Road, a short hop from the existing Wal-Mart. That store, if approved, will be built over three acres of wetlands, and 30 grand trees will be cut down to accommodate the 176,000-square-foot. Recently, Charleston's zoning board gave Wal-Mart a variance to chop down the trees.
But, while most Charleston city officials back the project, City Council members Tim Mallard and Kathleen Wilson are in opposition. Maybe they have inside information. The Wal-Mart site is within District 11, Mallard's jurisdiction. Wilson, who lives on James Island, has a good chunk of that area in her District 12. But they're not alone. The James Island Public Service District and the town of Folly Beach also stand in opposition to the Wal-Mart project. Along with an overflow crowd of nearly 200 people who showed up at a meeting of the newly-created Islanders For Responsible Expansion last week. And the more than 2,700 people who signed an online petition on the group’s site (isrex.org) opposing the project. But those entities and people really don't have a pony in that race, nor does the town of James Island itself. Although the supercenter is on the physical island, the crazy-quilt boundaries place the project squarely in Charleston's turf.
I could go on about the effects of building a Wal-Mart supercenter - and I have - but the issue I'm bringing up here is the longtime battle between James Island and Charleston. For the past two decades, islanders have attempted to form their own town, and Charleston has been successful in getting the whole thing nullified. Now the town of James Island lives again, though Charleston, again has been fighting it.
Between incorporations, Charleston has been busy annexing choice slices of the island, and the boundaries truly resemble Swiss cheese. As an island resident which town he lives in, and unless he's been keeping up on the news he'd really have to sit down and think about it.
It's anybody's guess what will happen if the new Wal-Mart is built - especially considering the supercenter will also carry groceries. And it's a tough call whether this will cut into James Island's tax base. While the island has seven grocery stores (a Publix, Harris-Teeter, Food Lion, Bi-Lo, and three Piggly Wiggly stores), a look at a city map with my faulty 50-year-old eyeballs shows that only the Harris-Teeter lies within James Island town limits. How the city of Charleston missed annexing that, I'll never know.
Even though these shops are all chain stores, there's no way they can argue when the world's largest corporation is undercutting them in food prices. Within a couple of years after a Wal-Mart Supercenter opened near the Charleston International Airport, two Piggly Wiggly stores in the vicinity shut down, and "The Pig" is not a weak company.
In the long run, one can almost make an office pool out of naming the first James Island grocery store casualty, and sure enough I expect there will be at least one within a year after the ribbon is slashed for the supercenter. Hopefully, it will be one of the stores within Charleston's jurisdiction; let the city cannibalize itself for sales tax and property tax revenue.
Public backlash against Wal-Mart and similar big-box retailers has created a backlash of communities all over the nation opposing the company’s plans to build stores in their neighborhoods. But in this case, the retail giant is little more than a stage prop. Here, the skirmish is merely symptomatic of the larger issue – a government entity cramming its own will down the throats of area residents who have so steadfastly fought for their right to determine their own decisions.
The supercenter is planned for a site off Folly Road, a short hop from the existing Wal-Mart. That store, if approved, will be built over three acres of wetlands, and 30 grand trees will be cut down to accommodate the 176,000-square-foot. Recently, Charleston's zoning board gave Wal-Mart a variance to chop down the trees.
But, while most Charleston city officials back the project, City Council members Tim Mallard and Kathleen Wilson are in opposition. Maybe they have inside information. The Wal-Mart site is within District 11, Mallard's jurisdiction. Wilson, who lives on James Island, has a good chunk of that area in her District 12. But they're not alone. The James Island Public Service District and the town of Folly Beach also stand in opposition to the Wal-Mart project. Along with an overflow crowd of nearly 200 people who showed up at a meeting of the newly-created Islanders For Responsible Expansion last week. And the more than 2,700 people who signed an online petition on the group’s site (isrex.org) opposing the project. But those entities and people really don't have a pony in that race, nor does the town of James Island itself. Although the supercenter is on the physical island, the crazy-quilt boundaries place the project squarely in Charleston's turf.
I could go on about the effects of building a Wal-Mart supercenter - and I have - but the issue I'm bringing up here is the longtime battle between James Island and Charleston. For the past two decades, islanders have attempted to form their own town, and Charleston has been successful in getting the whole thing nullified. Now the town of James Island lives again, though Charleston, again has been fighting it.
Between incorporations, Charleston has been busy annexing choice slices of the island, and the boundaries truly resemble Swiss cheese. As an island resident which town he lives in, and unless he's been keeping up on the news he'd really have to sit down and think about it.
It's anybody's guess what will happen if the new Wal-Mart is built - especially considering the supercenter will also carry groceries. And it's a tough call whether this will cut into James Island's tax base. While the island has seven grocery stores (a Publix, Harris-Teeter, Food Lion, Bi-Lo, and three Piggly Wiggly stores), a look at a city map with my faulty 50-year-old eyeballs shows that only the Harris-Teeter lies within James Island town limits. How the city of Charleston missed annexing that, I'll never know.
Even though these shops are all chain stores, there's no way they can argue when the world's largest corporation is undercutting them in food prices. Within a couple of years after a Wal-Mart Supercenter opened near the Charleston International Airport, two Piggly Wiggly stores in the vicinity shut down, and "The Pig" is not a weak company.
In the long run, one can almost make an office pool out of naming the first James Island grocery store casualty, and sure enough I expect there will be at least one within a year after the ribbon is slashed for the supercenter. Hopefully, it will be one of the stores within Charleston's jurisdiction; let the city cannibalize itself for sales tax and property tax revenue.
Public backlash against Wal-Mart and similar big-box retailers has created a backlash of communities all over the nation opposing the company’s plans to build stores in their neighborhoods. But in this case, the retail giant is little more than a stage prop. Here, the skirmish is merely symptomatic of the larger issue – a government entity cramming its own will down the throats of area residents who have so steadfastly fought for their right to determine their own decisions.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Extricate phone first, then do business
Maybe I'm showing my age here, but I remember when there was a thing called customer service.
Really.
You'd go into a store or some other place of business, and even if the employee on the front line didn't really mean it, he acted as if he was happy you took your business there.
Now, business transactuins are made without eye contact, without the usual pleasantries that us older folks remember. Even in a brick-and-mortar store (a new term since the Internet; there was a time when all stores were that kind), business is being done without everyone being there -- mentally, that is. You'd have to separate them from their cell phones first.
A fellow Lowcountry blogger came across this sign the other day, which shows how cell phones have changed the way we approach business:
Think about it. Today's technology allows you to do two things at once -- go through the checkout line at the grocery store, while talking to your Mom in Green Bay. However, the ability to actually do those two things well, let's not discuss that part.
I'd grown accustomed to this phenomenon, or at least as much as I choose to. I watched cell phones become more ubiquitous during my years driving a cab. Many of my customers would have their phone conversations the whole trip, and sometimes it was difficult catching their attention long enough to get basic information -- like a destination -- from the customer. I'm not interrupting anything important, am I? This was especially laughable when I had a full load of three or four passengers, each with their own cell phone, and each with their own conversation going. The back seat would sound like a phone bank.
There would be times where a passenger would ask me something and I'd answe, before glancing in the rearview mirror and seeing that the customer's got his phone in his ear again.
But that's never been something that would get me upset. But my all-time pet peeve is when I go into a store -- any store, but usually a fast food place or convenience store -- and can not pry the cashier from the cell phone. Often the transaction will be completed with no eye contact. The cashier would hold out his or her hand -- pay me! -- and give me my change. And it's so tempting to reach over and snatch that cell phone -- "you'll get this back at the end of the semester."
Now, this is a bunch of crap. This is my time; I'm paying for it. I'd take my business elsewhere, but the cashier at the next store is also on the phone -- probably talking to the first cashier. It's that prevalent. Where is the store manager during all this? Doesn't matter. I've never seen an employee ordered to put down the cell phone, never seen one reprimanded. It doesn't matter if the supervisor is standing right there, either.
OK. I know that convenience stores and fast-food places don't pay their help all that well, but the employee is showing total contempt for the gig by staying glued to the cell phone. Meanwhile, the supervisor is showing similar contempt -- or advanced wussiness -- by allowing this to happen.
Back in my taxi-driving days, I got a lot of phone calls myself. If I was with a customer, I'd tell the caller that I'd get back to him as soon as I'm done with the passenger. That's simple enough, and most of my cell phone use was for business anyway. I think I even did this same thing to my own mother once, and she was calling from California. She certainly understood, as she taught me phone etiquette.
In truth, cell phones didn't kill customer service. I trace the demise in part to your big-box stores, where the customer would rather pay low prices than get personalized service. Have you ever tried to get knowledgeable help from an "associate" at a WalMart or one of those other giant stores? Forget it.
So the elements for diminished customer service have been there for a while; but reports of the death of customer service were spread by phone.
Really.
You'd go into a store or some other place of business, and even if the employee on the front line didn't really mean it, he acted as if he was happy you took your business there.
Now, business transactuins are made without eye contact, without the usual pleasantries that us older folks remember. Even in a brick-and-mortar store (a new term since the Internet; there was a time when all stores were that kind), business is being done without everyone being there -- mentally, that is. You'd have to separate them from their cell phones first.
A fellow Lowcountry blogger came across this sign the other day, which shows how cell phones have changed the way we approach business:
Think about it. Today's technology allows you to do two things at once -- go through the checkout line at the grocery store, while talking to your Mom in Green Bay. However, the ability to actually do those two things well, let's not discuss that part.
I'd grown accustomed to this phenomenon, or at least as much as I choose to. I watched cell phones become more ubiquitous during my years driving a cab. Many of my customers would have their phone conversations the whole trip, and sometimes it was difficult catching their attention long enough to get basic information -- like a destination -- from the customer. I'm not interrupting anything important, am I? This was especially laughable when I had a full load of three or four passengers, each with their own cell phone, and each with their own conversation going. The back seat would sound like a phone bank.
There would be times where a passenger would ask me something and I'd answe, before glancing in the rearview mirror and seeing that the customer's got his phone in his ear again.
But that's never been something that would get me upset. But my all-time pet peeve is when I go into a store -- any store, but usually a fast food place or convenience store -- and can not pry the cashier from the cell phone. Often the transaction will be completed with no eye contact. The cashier would hold out his or her hand -- pay me! -- and give me my change. And it's so tempting to reach over and snatch that cell phone -- "you'll get this back at the end of the semester."
Now, this is a bunch of crap. This is my time; I'm paying for it. I'd take my business elsewhere, but the cashier at the next store is also on the phone -- probably talking to the first cashier. It's that prevalent. Where is the store manager during all this? Doesn't matter. I've never seen an employee ordered to put down the cell phone, never seen one reprimanded. It doesn't matter if the supervisor is standing right there, either.
OK. I know that convenience stores and fast-food places don't pay their help all that well, but the employee is showing total contempt for the gig by staying glued to the cell phone. Meanwhile, the supervisor is showing similar contempt -- or advanced wussiness -- by allowing this to happen.
Back in my taxi-driving days, I got a lot of phone calls myself. If I was with a customer, I'd tell the caller that I'd get back to him as soon as I'm done with the passenger. That's simple enough, and most of my cell phone use was for business anyway. I think I even did this same thing to my own mother once, and she was calling from California. She certainly understood, as she taught me phone etiquette.
In truth, cell phones didn't kill customer service. I trace the demise in part to your big-box stores, where the customer would rather pay low prices than get personalized service. Have you ever tried to get knowledgeable help from an "associate" at a WalMart or one of those other giant stores? Forget it.
So the elements for diminished customer service have been there for a while; but reports of the death of customer service were spread by phone.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Dumped 20-foot pythons could settle in U.S.
The southeast coast is indigenous to a wide variety of snakes. Rattlers could be seen out here, as well as copperheads, water moccasins, and land developers.
However, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) predicts Burmese pythons may take up residence in the southeast -- in fact, the entire southern third of the country within the next hundred years, if there is indeed a warming trend as all evidence suggests.
It's a comfort to know Burmese pythons are not poisonous snakes. A good thing; there are plenty of those kind around here. What's not so comforting is that pythons are just plain big. Big enough to hunt deer and alligator. Try 20 feet long and around 250 pounds. That's one big piece of reptile.
Besides the southeast -- as far north of Virginia -- the USGS predicts these jumbo snakes could take up residence across Texas and the rest of the southwest, and up California as far north as San Francisco.
Definitely, there's a lot of guessowrk and what-ifs in predictions such as this. In this case, the USGS charted the range of several snakes found in Florida and Arkansas -- snakes that were originally dumped by pet owners who didn't want them any more, studied their usual Asian habitat, and cranked in global warming estimates.
"We were surprised by the map," USGS zoologist Gordon Rodda said. "It was bigger than we thought it would be. They are moving northward, there's no question."
Despite the current presidential administration's stance that global warming is nothing but pseudoscience, it's real stuff. One need only watch so much footage of Antarctic ice shelves breaking apart into the ocean or study so many satellite images of the eroding polar ice cap up north. Optimists say it's a trend, similar to other temperature fluctuations during the Earth's history. Pessimists -- and count me in that group -- say this particular warming trend is man-made, that it is either triggered or aggravated by man's own wastes. Whatever it is doesn't change the evidence that it is indeed getting warmer, though the computer models may or may not be realistic.
But check out those maps, anyway. What's really interesting is the map showing where these pythons could live right now:
This second map shows what the python population could look like by the year 2100:
But anything involving an introduced species is tricky to predict anyway. Out in my part of the country we have kudzu, an ivylike plant that nothing can kill. It just spreads, choking off everything in its path. It's imported, and no one is real sure why, but most southerners probably want the head of the person who did it.
Some years ago, when the St. Lawrence Seaway was completed, this not only turned the Great Lakes into a viable shipping entity, but it gave the lamprey -- a type of parasitic eel -- a route to the Lakes, doing a real number on sport fishing there.
And in Hawaii, you're likely to see mongoose everywhere. They were brought there to control the rat population, and it seemed like a real good idea at the time. The only problem is that rats are nocturnal while mongoose hunt by day. Rather than set their alarm clocks, Hawaiian mongoose are content to feast on birds' eggs. Now, there are tight restrictions on what plant or animal life you bring onto the islands; a good call given Hawaii's fragile ecosystem.
In Florida, the python problem has been taken seriously enough that the state government recently started regulating their sale and ownership. Good choice there. Florida pythons eat bobcats, deer, alligators, raccoons, cats, rats, rabbits, 'possum (the other white meat), mice, and songbirds. Anything they can catch in their teeth, they'll eat -- but not without giving them the ol' python hug first. The snakes are not considered dangerous to humans, though have attacked pet owners who mishandle or misfeed them.
That part is understandable. If the python owner runs out of mice and the snake begins to eye the pizza delivery man, there's a problem right there.
Meanwhile, as things get a little warmer around these parts, keep your eye peeled for big snakes. They just might be coming.
Eeeeek!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)