"packt like sardines in a crushed tin box"

Often I arrive at the bus stop with many other people--a good indicator that this particular bus ride will be packed. The bus is inbound at my stop, and it happens to be the second stop. You'd expect the bus to be nearly empty. This is rarely the case for the morning commute, since this stop is convenient to two apartment complexes.

The other morning I apparently decided to take the bus to school along with most of my neighbors, so we took most of the seats on the bus. Closer to campus there is a similar stop with several apartment complexes near one bus stop. By this point on the route, all of the seats were taken, and a few riders were standing. We arrive at this stop, the bus driver asks the "standers" to make room for the next wave of "standers." If you are unfamiliar with public buses, the engine is in the back. That means that the floor in the back is higher than in the front, since the engine is back there, too. For whatever reason, people do not like to stand in the aisle at the back of the bus. As a result people crowd around the back door (which is just before the steps up to the back section of the bus). It's really amusing, because the ride is really no more enjoyable when you are standing, so standing in the back is no different than standing in the front. Nevertheless, a few idiots (keep in mind that most of these idiots are heading to class at an Ivy League school) refuse to move to the back of the bus to accommodate the bus's newest passengers which makes the ride miserable to everyone standing and humorous to us "sitters."

Corporate Persuasion

A recent study found that children preferred food packaged in McDonald's bag, regardless of the contents. For instance, carrots (a child's favorite food--ha!) presented in a McDonald's bag were accepted and eaten by children, but without the bag, children rejected the carrots. It seems that McDonald's has developed a positive image by eating its food--no surprise there. Their huge ad campaign always shows people enjoying their model sandwiches (How often have you had a Big Mac that even resembles the one in the commercial). Eventually, the thought of eating McDonald's is positive, and it makes their food appealing. What you should ask when you see a commercial for any food is the following: why does this company need to advertise its product? You might realize that it has something to do with the lack of a true need for that product. The company invests in making their product appealing, so you will buy it even if it isn't necessary to have it. Again, no big surprise, but rarely are these thoughts in mind when we watch commercials or search for food in the grocery store. These company's are catering to society's overwhelming concern of self-image--you should buy this product, because it will improve your self-image.

Another upset followed the release of Apple's new iPod Touch, which essentially is an iPhone without the phone and a few other applications. Cool idea, right? Sort of. While I like the idea of having a touch-screen iPod, the limited hard drive space (up to 16GB as compared with the iPod classic 160GB) is a disappointment. It seems the company probably chose to have a thinner iPod, so they sacrificed the hard drive capacity. However, a new partnership with Starbucks is particularly annoying. Now, Starbucks stores will broadcast its playlist to your iPod Touch via WiFi. You can instantly connect to iTunes with the WiFi card in the iPod Touch and purchase a song from that list. Apple has made it even easier (well, you have to initially cough up the $300 for the iPod Touch or $400 for the iPhone) to purchase from iTunes over WiFi. What's the benefit for Starbucks out of this partnership? Do you have to purchase a cup of coffee to see the playlist? Maybe iPod Touch owners will increase their frequency to Starbucks to see the new, hip playlist. There is something appealing about the aura of a coffee shop, but I am not sure you can capture that appeal by having the same playlist pumping into your ears.

"Schoolhouse Crock"

An article by Peter Schrag appeared in the September 2007 issue of Harper's Magazine titled "Schoolhouse Crock: Fifty Years of Blaming America's Educational System for Our Stupidity" (Note:  This link requires a subscription to read the article.).  Schrag's credentials did not accompany his article, but a note indicates that he has written two books regarding America's education system.  Thus, the claims offered by Schrag could result from observation rather than elaborate experimentation and investigation.  Nonetheless, his claims feel compatible with what has happened over the last 50 years.

Schrag points immediately to the Russian launch of Sputnik to begin his argument.  He posits that this event forced Americans to doubt their education system, which had publicly been deemed questionable in recent years.  The fear of another country possessing mental-superiority frightened Americans; to abate this fear it is concluded that the education system must be reformed to guarantee America's mental hegemony.  The essay follows the government's participation in the design and redesign of America's classrooms and observes the common feeling that the education system of the last generation saw much more success, yet Schrag reports that people have always questioned the template of the present-day education system.  

Schrag's essay centers on the premise of education reform as a means to resolve present-day obstacles, which unchecked or unnoticed will persist for future generations--or so we think.  He ends with a clever, succinct summary: "[p]erhaps it is time we thought of schools as places where our children might simply learn something--not just for our benefit, not for the nation's, but for their own."

An Analogy Lacking Thought

My wife watches Robin & Company on CNN-Headline News frequently in the morning, so I often receive a dose of what headlines CNN considers most important (or probably most interesting to viewers to captivate the audience). In any case, Robin was off today (a common occurrence, for some reason), and Christi covered "what's on tap" (their words, not mine) for the show. One story is about a Cadillac Escalade found stuck on a pedestrian bridge in Minneapolis. While the story itself sounds entertaining, the analogy offered by local resident Ryan Miller of Miller Towing provided even more amusement. He acknowledged the difficulty faced with the removing of the SUV from the bridge by saying its like "Trying to get 10 pounds through a 5 pound hole." I would ruin the humor in this statement by saying anything more, but fortunately the misplaced vehicle was removed from the bridge. "Trial and error, all you can do. Try, and if it fails, try again, that's what we did," said Miller.

Exposing Office Pet Peeves

An article appearing on The Ithaca Journal website referenced a blog addressing workplace pet peeves. The blog "Civility in the Workplace" seeks to disclose those rude behaviors that take place in the work environment. Even better, the blog does not restrain itself, for it remains true to its cause, identifying even those annoyances many of us refuse to acknowledge in fear of being, go figure, rude to our colleagues.

Naturally, email is a recurrent theme in the "Civility in the Workplace" blog, and there are several entries regarding email that probably should be read by email addicts (e.g. those of us who check our inbox within the first fifteen minutes of our day). Email is a convenience designed to expedite the transmission of information, intended as a surrogate to handwritten letters, yet the ease of composing, typing, and sending an email quickly led to the transmission of dilapidated information. Recipients must decrypt the meaning from poorly written messages (ah! a slip on my part--"messages" naturally replaced "letters"), which, of course, leads to incorrect interpretations. But, we do not have time to compose clear and concise emails; we must stay abreast of the "information" available in our own inbox or some pointless website (like this blog)! How many times have you struggled to understand the purpose of an email sent to you? It would be nice if people would adopt the practice of sending the email you wish to receive.