"Pumpkin Spice" in anything and everything around Halloween is amusing. I am trying to think how pumpkin spice could be added to a lap dance. ... I can't.
Maybe you get three of them at once and they are named Cinnamon, Ginger, and Clove. However, it would be awkward as hell since my lap is not big enough and once I knew their names, i would just be thinking about actual pumpkin pie.
I never worked in a restaurant, but the summer after I graduated high school I did work for a general contractor, basically gutting a retail space before the construction crew came in. For some reason I have never seen fit to include that on my IT résumé.
I spent the summer between high school and college working at a small company that has long since gone out of business. I can't even prove IT existed much less that I got paid by them. I think most of us have had minimum wage jobs at one time or another and haven't had any reason to put them on a resume / CV.
500 out of ~30,000 employees. So, 1 in 60 jobs is DEI related, with average salary being ~$60k. Maybe I'm missing the point, but that doesn't sound like such a big deal.
It's a ludicrous number of people who do nothing of value. Your comparison of the number to the total number of employees is unintentionally revealing of another outrage: the administrations of universities today are way, way, way too large. When your administration positions are more than your number of undergraduates, when they dwarf your academic staff, I don't know what you're doing, but it's something wrong. This is a relatively recent phenomenon, it's a big part of the reason why college is so expensive, and it's a great issue for some candidate out there if they wanted to fire up a few voters with a common-sense message....
So you assume that an employee that can be labeled as a DEI hire does nothing of value? I don't know exactly why UM has the number of employees it does, but my first reaction wouldn't be to call their jobs unnecessary without knowing what they do.
I don't assume it. I suspect it, based on evidence. This giant New York Times article we're talking about, for example, which paints a grim picture of lots of people looking busy and inserting themselves into every aspect of the university's functioning to much eye-rolling and no apparent worthy effect. If anything, the effects strike me as negative. They should not require diversity statements from potential faculty hires, for example. They should not have a system of anonymous reporting on supposed diversity offenses, which chills campus speech. They should not investigate or punish faculty for what are patently bullshit claims that fall well within professors' prerogatives as classroom teachers. They should not require tedious paperwork from professors or department heads asking them to explain everything they do in terms of a lot of highly questionable DEI mumbo jumbo they may very plausibly and defensibly reject as incoherent, beside the point, or contrary to their or the university's core mission. They should not busy themselves creating programs and statements and documents and banners and all the rest that assume (a) that there is a dire culture and climate problem when it comes to race, gender, ethnicity, etc., at this school, among the most progressive places on earth, and (b) that this relentless focus on it would successfully address such concerns anyway.
One reason I buy that story is that it is 100 percent consistent with my own personal experience of DEI initiatives at the high school level, which were utter garbage from top to bottom. I say this as a lifelong liberal Democrat, a longtime fervent supporter of civil rights, and even a longtime supporter of affirmative action (though i admit my commitment to it has waned in in recent years in response to evidence that, in practice, it's no mere matter of recruitment and admissions nudges but rather a wholesale lowering of academic standards that ends up discriminating against other minorities). In short, I'm a liberal who has taken a personal tour of the DEI sausage factory only to find that, yes, it's gross.
All this comes amid increasing questions about every aspect of DEI methodology, which has escaped rigorous scrutiny because nobody wants to appear to be against such worthy words as diversity, equity, and inclusion. The idea, for example, that people live their lives burdened by a constant stream of microaggressions is gospel in DEI land but isn't demonstrated by strong research. Meanwhile, there is substantial research that DEI programs do more harm than good, even when measured by their own goals, because their approach is so off-putting that it fails to win converts but succeeds in causing resentment. In my experience, such resentment does not come from reactionary elements. After all, and this is important, *there aren't any such reactionary elements at these places*! Rather, it comes from people who (rightly) feel that their good will and competence are being questioned without basis and who feel that their intelligence is being insulted by well-meaning folks who either have taken a big swig of Kool-Aid and/or have no idea what they're doing or talking about.
You might be right about administration being overly staffed. But more administrators than undergrads and academic staff? I would love to see an example and actual numbers. I attended Northern Illinois University. At the time it had around 24,000 students. I don't have exact numbers. But as far as I know they didn't have 24,000 administrative positions
U of M has about 38,000 employees. 23,800 are administrators and 7,954 faculty. They have about 34,500 undergrads and 18,500 grad students. The numbers seem out of whack to me.
I admit that I had in mind numbers from Yale, a leader in administrative bloat, and the eye-popping figures from Michigan seemed broadly consistent with that trend.
This mode of analysis is consistent with any organization that does not view operating efficiency as a priority. It is one of the reasons why universities are so absurdly expensive. Particularly when the total staffing represents three staff for every five students. It also overlooks all of the associated costs of facilities and benefits that go with the staffing, not to mention the negative effects of the activities that might counterbalance the hoped for positive effects.
As a comparison, if all dorm residents are paying for the basic meal plan (9500 * $5766) that is $54.7 million. The money might be better spent elsewhere.
I grew up in Flint, MI, and attended a high school that was 60% African-American. I was astounded when I got to Ann Arbor and saw so few Black students. I'm glad UM tried to do something about the significant under-representation, although I'm with JayG that the large scale of the administrative response surprises me.
As a comparison, Career Services has 20 staff positions and another 14 student assistants serving 40,000 students and more alumni. Maybe they could help a couple hundred of the DEI staffers find jobs in the private sector and save the taxpayers $10+ million or lower tuition by $250 per student.
Another comparison of other Big 10 school’s DEI staffing:
OSU: 189, WI: 130, ILL: 71, Iowa: 61, Purdue:11 moving to 40 over next few years.
So MI at 265% of its closest peer. This might suggest they are over staffed… or maybe ahead of the curve?😉
The University of Nebraska closed its Office of Diversity and Inclusion and reabsorbed its five staff members into other positions across campus. (Career Services?) 😂🤷♂️
With all due respect, John, I do not see the relevance of your money or employment percentages. Should they also have over 500 staffers and a $30 million dollar budget for Career Services because it’s only 1 out of 60 jobs and only 0.27% of operating revenue?
[The university told the publication that the report is “flawed and misleading,” and that many employees work in DEI in addition to other duties. “Diversity, equity and inclusion are core values at the University of Michigan,” Colleen Mastony, Umich’s assistant vice president for public affairs, told College Fix. “As such, there is not a specific budget set aside for diversity outreach and recruitment.”]
And the relevance of the budget and staff percentages is that DEI isn't that big of a program in the grand scheme of things.
You make a fair point, though I see numerous org charts there that seem devoted to DEI stuff that go beyond those 13. I also note that the Ann Arbor campus has a budget that's more like $5 billion; most of the rest is for the very major hospital.
In any case, yes, the number cited in that article about DEI hires is a tiny percentage. And yet, it strikes me as very much going in the wrong direction. Ask any aspiring academic about their future prospects. They are grim. Full-time tenure-track faculty positions have not grown during these years of spectacular administrative growth. More classes are taught by adjunct faculty paid peanuts. Put it this way: If $30 million ain't no thing, I'd far rather it be devoted to reinvigorating academic programs and pursuits or just given to people in need.
Administrative bloat is a problem throughout education, including public high schools, where a corporate business model has taken hold. Throw in a very real problem— colleges are strikingly non-diverse— and you have a perfect storm of nobody wanting to say “hold on” when highly paid admin positions keep popping up.
$30 million here, $30 million there, not a big deal in “the grand scheme of things”. I’m not quite sure what “Diversity, equity and inclusion are core values at the University of Michigan,” “As such, there is not a specific budget set aside for diversity outreach and recruitment.” means.
Eric, I suggest you ignore the morons who say the PS is too long. They can merely skip over items that they feel are too long or too hard for them to read.
However if you feel the need to please them, why not have one week for post 2000 music and one week for pre 2000 music.
I think there is value and interest to allow folks to suggest pre 2000 music, especially since you are already doing it! And I liked the song you picked!
When I was still working I would have said it was too long. When I first retired, PS was one of the first things I fully embraced as now having time for.
i agree in genl. but the use of the term 'moron' for someone who offers a constructive criticism sounds so lame - and immature.
just because you & i [or anyone & i] hold different opinions, it doesn't make either of us a moron. we just disagree. accept it, file it [or toss it - or express your disagreement], and move on.
Well, someone who says either reduce the articles or do not include new material because I can not either read all of it or understand it is not constructive criticism.
It is coming from someone who is selfish…if I can’t handle it, then nobody should.
And someone who is really poor at problem solving…if it is too much to handle, just skip over the parts that give you a problem!
This is not an issue of different opinions, this is someone who cannot solve an easy day to day problem and wants the PS readership to suffer for it!
Yo Garry spelled correctly…think I am being too harsh here?
It's called human nature. It's always wasted space to the person doing the critique if the person is not interested. I applaud diversity of topics even if some of it is not of interest to me.
I also agree with Peter. I am fairly busy and do not always have time to read the full PS, but I can always skim and the read parts I am particularly interested in. It is nice to have options.
Eric, you had an interesting discussion on field goal kicking. Here is an interesting thought, targeting is viewed as a dangerous and unsportsmanlike act. Off the field you would likely see it as criminal assault.
So why not take a page from hockey. If targeting is called and verified, 15 yard penalty, player ejected and that team plays with 10 men until the opposition scores a touchdown.
Harsh, but the damage done by targeting can be career ending.
And it certainly motivates coaches and players to avoid targeting.
Over the years, many different potential solutions have been discussed, most of them not adopted. The truth is that there is no good answer. It's a contact sport. It involves tackling the person with the ball. There is no such thing as a safe tackle. They are trying to get away from head injuries. So the tackler is not supposed to use his head or the one of the person he tackled. It often goes against coaching which teaches sticking a helmet between the numbers. That is dangerous for both tackler and the person with the ball. Okay, more shoulder tacking is being taught. But human anatomy says the head is still there out front. It can still get hit. It also leads to a lot of missed tackled. The only answers are to get rid of tackled or get rid of football. I don't see either one soon happening. There is a deep American thirst for Bloodsport. Think of the cheering of hardcore fans when a perfectly timed and placed hit drives a ball carrier into the turf. It's great when a spectator is watching and not the one being hit. Field goals? I just laugh at the entire controversy. I keep meaning to look up when a game involving running and passing to make scores added kicking to make points and why.
Originally early football players did not wear helmets and basically games were one big scrum. Lots of injuries and some deaths. Teddy Roosevelt threatened to shut down football completely.
So helmets, rule changes, passing….it made the game more fluid and somewhat safer.
And so the dynamic of safety versus violent hits goes on.
We have new kick off rules, rules concerning hitting the QB and even the new balloon safety helmets being used. All in the name of safety while still trying to keep football well football.
Targeting is a very specific technique and can result in serious injury. We have rules on horse collar tackling, crack back blocks and a punch after the whistle gets you thrown out. So why not really punish a team for targeting?
As for it being a”mess” in the college game, one person’s opinion.
Last point, players are way bigger, faster and stronger than say 1970 or 1980, heck even 2000. Lines average over 300 lbs, defensive ends can easily run the 40 yard dash in under 4.7 seconds.
I think this demands a review on keeping players safe while still keeping it “football”.
Not easy, but as new safety rules get added, I only see high school, college and pro football getting more popular.
Hi Laurence - sadly, I am in agreement with you that there is a tendency on the part of some spectators for blood sport. Professional hockey is a textbook example of this in that fighting between the players is tolerated to the degree that it is going to continue occurring on a regular basis. I believe it's hard to argue that the league does not do this because they believe that is an attraction to a certain percentage of their fans. It drives me nuts to see referees simply standing by circling while opposing skaters pummel each other for a while before they decide to break it up. Institution of serious consequences to the player and the teams for fighting could eliminate this overnight if the league wanted, but they obviously do not want to do so. This is why I much prefer collegiate and Olympic hockey that is all about skating and passing.
I was really surprised to see that Sambo's in Santa Barbara a few years back, given the decades-old controversy. But, it was the original, and there is the nostalgia of being "the last". The last Blockbuster in Bend, and the last Woolworth's lunch counter in Bakersfield.
The fat traitor's stunt at that McDonald's was far worse than reported. No one paid for any food he handed out, because no one ordered the food, they were vetted ahead of time for the drive-thru & were just handed random food he didn't prepare. He also violated the health laws by being in the back without a hat or hairnet. He also wasn't wearing even a McDonald's T-shirt, he just put the apron over his white shirt & tie & he's so incompetent, someone else had to tie it in the back for him. I assume his tiny hands couldn't handle an apron tie.
I also wonder if that fool of a franchise owner realizes he must file with the FEC, that this was an in kind donation to the campaign & he must calculate the wages he paid the employees for their time there, plus the amount of revenue he lost by being closed to the public for that time!
I'll be voting for the same non-CTU school board candidate, for the same reasons stated. When the mudslinging mailers started a few years ago for the Il State Rep race, both candidates being stellar members of our NW side community, I lost all respect for the tactics of groups like the 38th Ward Democrats.
I think working a menial job as a teenager does improve a person's ability to relate or have empathy. Sure, it can be learned in other ways, like from parents or mentors or from popular culture, but the actual experience of dealing with diverse customers, having to learn a skill, follow instructions, working with others as a team (in the "real world", as opposed to school work), understanding where money comes from, is far more memorable and effective in shaping an empathetic, open-minded, grounded person.
I don't think there is any question of the potential value of such jobs. Whatever you want to say about the actual duties, employees are supposed to learn certain responsibilities such as showing up when expected , doing the expected duties, treating customers right, working together well with coworkers, and maybe doing some extras when needed. Having said that, the duties may have little to do with future expectations or needed skills and aren't going to help with a job application, other than to show that the applicant actually had a job. No interviewer for a teaching position ever cared that I once cleaned offices and took trash out to be illegally burned in an incinerator.
Laurence - When I was hiring people for entry level positions, even a position that required a college degree, I did indeed have a positive reaction to an applicant having worked menial jobs in their younger years. Having done so evidences personal responsibility and commitment to showing up on time, taking direction from supervisors and a general willingness to work. I could always ensure that a new employee was put in position to learn and develop technical skills, but a work ethic is something that cannot be taught.
As I told the graduate students I was mentoring, EVERY job you have had adds to the value you bring to a position. I used bagging groceries as an example of how it can contribute to their development. BUT I suggested that they use it as an element of their professional interview rather than an element of their CV.
i bagged ['parceled'] groceries at my local jewel for $1.60 and hr, starting a week after my 16th birthday. i was thrilled to have received increases up to $1.85 an hr a yr later.
and i learned an awful lot from that job - show up on time, every sgl scheduled workday, treat all customers respectfully, learn to work with fellow employees, respect authority.
the last 3 were tested over my lifetime, especially my work career - but they were valuable lessons as a youth, nonetheless.
Omg. My first job that was not babysitting was waitressing at a Sambo's in the great state of Idaho. I also have no proof but if any of the guys I dated at the time can be found, they'll back me up. Thanks for the update on the history.
My time working at McDonald's in high school provided many very good life lessons. My pack-rat self has kept one pay stub (as I've done from every job) as a memento so I could prove it. I included that job on my adult resume on one occasion -- as a young lawyer interviewing for an in-house counsel position in their legal department because I'd heard they have all corporate employees work in a store for a week as part of orientation, which I thought was a great idea.
I did consulting work for McDonald's for a couple of years. Every year the corporate staff spent a day working in a store, which I happily volunteered to join. In my career, I also found many executives that liked to share stories about their start.
I like and agree with the Bertrand Russell quote. I run away from people who speak in absolutes.
Speaking of being old, I realized the other day that the White Stripes song ‘Seven Nation Army’ is now old enough to drink…
"Pumpkin Spice" in anything and everything around Halloween is amusing. I am trying to think how pumpkin spice could be added to a lap dance. ... I can't.
Maybe the dancer’s stage name is Cinnamon?
Maybe you get three of them at once and they are named Cinnamon, Ginger, and Clove. However, it would be awkward as hell since my lap is not big enough and once I knew their names, i would just be thinking about actual pumpkin pie.
Well I was in the Navy…and I can visualize where the (two?) pumpkins would be…
Wait, I am going inappropriate here…so no need to finish this🤪
I'm surprised Trump isn't offering himself as the pumpkin spice candidate. After all, he is the right color.
I never worked in a restaurant, but the summer after I graduated high school I did work for a general contractor, basically gutting a retail space before the construction crew came in. For some reason I have never seen fit to include that on my IT résumé.
I spent the summer between high school and college working at a small company that has long since gone out of business. I can't even prove IT existed much less that I got paid by them. I think most of us have had minimum wage jobs at one time or another and haven't had any reason to put them on a resume / CV.
Googled: How many DEI positions at U of M...
"University spends some $30.68 million annually on more than 500 DEI jobs—”
Too much? Not enough? Thoughts...
500? That's insanity & they went amuck on it! No wonder that article was written about it!
500 out of ~30,000 employees. So, 1 in 60 jobs is DEI related, with average salary being ~$60k. Maybe I'm missing the point, but that doesn't sound like such a big deal.
It's a ludicrous number of people who do nothing of value. Your comparison of the number to the total number of employees is unintentionally revealing of another outrage: the administrations of universities today are way, way, way too large. When your administration positions are more than your number of undergraduates, when they dwarf your academic staff, I don't know what you're doing, but it's something wrong. This is a relatively recent phenomenon, it's a big part of the reason why college is so expensive, and it's a great issue for some candidate out there if they wanted to fire up a few voters with a common-sense message....
So you assume that an employee that can be labeled as a DEI hire does nothing of value? I don't know exactly why UM has the number of employees it does, but my first reaction wouldn't be to call their jobs unnecessary without knowing what they do.
I don't assume it. I suspect it, based on evidence. This giant New York Times article we're talking about, for example, which paints a grim picture of lots of people looking busy and inserting themselves into every aspect of the university's functioning to much eye-rolling and no apparent worthy effect. If anything, the effects strike me as negative. They should not require diversity statements from potential faculty hires, for example. They should not have a system of anonymous reporting on supposed diversity offenses, which chills campus speech. They should not investigate or punish faculty for what are patently bullshit claims that fall well within professors' prerogatives as classroom teachers. They should not require tedious paperwork from professors or department heads asking them to explain everything they do in terms of a lot of highly questionable DEI mumbo jumbo they may very plausibly and defensibly reject as incoherent, beside the point, or contrary to their or the university's core mission. They should not busy themselves creating programs and statements and documents and banners and all the rest that assume (a) that there is a dire culture and climate problem when it comes to race, gender, ethnicity, etc., at this school, among the most progressive places on earth, and (b) that this relentless focus on it would successfully address such concerns anyway.
One reason I buy that story is that it is 100 percent consistent with my own personal experience of DEI initiatives at the high school level, which were utter garbage from top to bottom. I say this as a lifelong liberal Democrat, a longtime fervent supporter of civil rights, and even a longtime supporter of affirmative action (though i admit my commitment to it has waned in in recent years in response to evidence that, in practice, it's no mere matter of recruitment and admissions nudges but rather a wholesale lowering of academic standards that ends up discriminating against other minorities). In short, I'm a liberal who has taken a personal tour of the DEI sausage factory only to find that, yes, it's gross.
All this comes amid increasing questions about every aspect of DEI methodology, which has escaped rigorous scrutiny because nobody wants to appear to be against such worthy words as diversity, equity, and inclusion. The idea, for example, that people live their lives burdened by a constant stream of microaggressions is gospel in DEI land but isn't demonstrated by strong research. Meanwhile, there is substantial research that DEI programs do more harm than good, even when measured by their own goals, because their approach is so off-putting that it fails to win converts but succeeds in causing resentment. In my experience, such resentment does not come from reactionary elements. After all, and this is important, *there aren't any such reactionary elements at these places*! Rather, it comes from people who (rightly) feel that their good will and competence are being questioned without basis and who feel that their intelligence is being insulted by well-meaning folks who either have taken a big swig of Kool-Aid and/or have no idea what they're doing or talking about.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/an2018.pdf
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202206/the-problem-with-research-on-microaggressions
You might be right about administration being overly staffed. But more administrators than undergrads and academic staff? I would love to see an example and actual numbers. I attended Northern Illinois University. At the time it had around 24,000 students. I don't have exact numbers. But as far as I know they didn't have 24,000 administrative positions
U of M has about 38,000 employees. 23,800 are administrators and 7,954 faculty. They have about 34,500 undergrads and 18,500 grad students. The numbers seem out of whack to me.
I admit that I had in mind numbers from Yale, a leader in administrative bloat, and the eye-popping figures from Michigan seemed broadly consistent with that trend.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/yale-university-employs-nearly-one-administrator-per-undergrad/
https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/11/yale-now-has-more-administrators-than-undergrads-thanks-to-a-mammoth-bureaucracy/
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-part-of-its-leadership-to-lead-yales-administration-increases-by-nearly-50-percent/
This mode of analysis is consistent with any organization that does not view operating efficiency as a priority. It is one of the reasons why universities are so absurdly expensive. Particularly when the total staffing represents three staff for every five students. It also overlooks all of the associated costs of facilities and benefits that go with the staffing, not to mention the negative effects of the activities that might counterbalance the hoped for positive effects.
As a comparison, if all dorm residents are paying for the basic meal plan (9500 * $5766) that is $54.7 million. The money might be better spent elsewhere.
Like Eric, I am a proud alum of UofM, and I laud the DEI goals - but that is WAY, WAY, WAY too many.
I grew up in Flint, MI, and attended a high school that was 60% African-American. I was astounded when I got to Ann Arbor and saw so few Black students. I'm glad UM tried to do something about the significant under-representation, although I'm with JayG that the large scale of the administrative response surprises me.
As a comparison, Career Services has 20 staff positions and another 14 student assistants serving 40,000 students and more alumni. Maybe they could help a couple hundred of the DEI staffers find jobs in the private sector and save the taxpayers $10+ million or lower tuition by $250 per student.
Hard to answer. What do they do for the money? DEI takes in a lot of territory.
Another comparison of other Big 10 school’s DEI staffing:
OSU: 189, WI: 130, ILL: 71, Iowa: 61, Purdue:11 moving to 40 over next few years.
So MI at 265% of its closest peer. This might suggest they are over staffed… or maybe ahead of the curve?😉
The University of Nebraska closed its Office of Diversity and Inclusion and reabsorbed its five staff members into other positions across campus. (Career Services?) 😂🤷♂️
By the way, it should also be noted that the $30.68M spent on DEI hires is from an operating revenue of $11B, or 0.27%.
With all due respect, John, I do not see the relevance of your money or employment percentages. Should they also have over 500 staffers and a $30 million dollar budget for Career Services because it’s only 1 out of 60 jobs and only 0.27% of operating revenue?
Looking at the org chart for the Office of DEI (https://odei.umich.edu/leadership-staff/) shows thirteen people. Many of the 500+ employees cited actually work in other areas and do work for ODEI in addition to their regular jobs, according to the university (https://www.jns.org/college-fix-university-of-michigan-spends-30-68-million-on-500-dei-jobs/):
[The university told the publication that the report is “flawed and misleading,” and that many employees work in DEI in addition to other duties. “Diversity, equity and inclusion are core values at the University of Michigan,” Colleen Mastony, Umich’s assistant vice president for public affairs, told College Fix. “As such, there is not a specific budget set aside for diversity outreach and recruitment.”]
And the relevance of the budget and staff percentages is that DEI isn't that big of a program in the grand scheme of things.
You make a fair point, though I see numerous org charts there that seem devoted to DEI stuff that go beyond those 13. I also note that the Ann Arbor campus has a budget that's more like $5 billion; most of the rest is for the very major hospital.
In any case, yes, the number cited in that article about DEI hires is a tiny percentage. And yet, it strikes me as very much going in the wrong direction. Ask any aspiring academic about their future prospects. They are grim. Full-time tenure-track faculty positions have not grown during these years of spectacular administrative growth. More classes are taught by adjunct faculty paid peanuts. Put it this way: If $30 million ain't no thing, I'd far rather it be devoted to reinvigorating academic programs and pursuits or just given to people in need.
Administrative bloat is a problem throughout education, including public high schools, where a corporate business model has taken hold. Throw in a very real problem— colleges are strikingly non-diverse— and you have a perfect storm of nobody wanting to say “hold on” when highly paid admin positions keep popping up.
you're right about admin. bloat at public HS's. i would disagree with your assignment of the cause to 'corporate business model'.
the primary reason is unfunded mandates from the fed govt and state govt's.
$30 million here, $30 million there, not a big deal in “the grand scheme of things”. I’m not quite sure what “Diversity, equity and inclusion are core values at the University of Michigan,” “As such, there is not a specific budget set aside for diversity outreach and recruitment.” means.
too much and too many
Eric, I suggest you ignore the morons who say the PS is too long. They can merely skip over items that they feel are too long or too hard for them to read.
However if you feel the need to please them, why not have one week for post 2000 music and one week for pre 2000 music.
I think there is value and interest to allow folks to suggest pre 2000 music, especially since you are already doing it! And I liked the song you picked!
When I was still working I would have said it was too long. When I first retired, PS was one of the first things I fully embraced as now having time for.
Peter: I agree! I skip over sections sometimes but am grateful to have a choice of good reading.
i agree in genl. but the use of the term 'moron' for someone who offers a constructive criticism sounds so lame - and immature.
just because you & i [or anyone & i] hold different opinions, it doesn't make either of us a moron. we just disagree. accept it, file it [or toss it - or express your disagreement], and move on.
Well, someone who says either reduce the articles or do not include new material because I can not either read all of it or understand it is not constructive criticism.
It is coming from someone who is selfish…if I can’t handle it, then nobody should.
And someone who is really poor at problem solving…if it is too much to handle, just skip over the parts that give you a problem!
This is not an issue of different opinions, this is someone who cannot solve an easy day to day problem and wants the PS readership to suffer for it!
Yo Garry spelled correctly…think I am being too harsh here?
It's called human nature. It's always wasted space to the person doing the critique if the person is not interested. I applaud diversity of topics even if some of it is not of interest to me.
100%
I also agree with Peter. I am fairly busy and do not always have time to read the full PS, but I can always skim and the read parts I am particularly interested in. It is nice to have options.
But you aren't running for president and claiming you are one of the working class and you aren't known for embellishing on facts.
I'll take Kamala Harris reflecting on her days working at McDonald's over Donald Trump reminiscing about Arnold Palmer's genitals any day...
Outstanding!
Best line from today: ... " its advocates have a tendency to be insufferable, obtuse, prickly and overly censorious to the point of punitive."
spot on!
Eric, you had an interesting discussion on field goal kicking. Here is an interesting thought, targeting is viewed as a dangerous and unsportsmanlike act. Off the field you would likely see it as criminal assault.
So why not take a page from hockey. If targeting is called and verified, 15 yard penalty, player ejected and that team plays with 10 men until the opposition scores a touchdown.
Harsh, but the damage done by targeting can be career ending.
And it certainly motivates coaches and players to avoid targeting.
College football has targeting rules and it's a mess
Over the years, many different potential solutions have been discussed, most of them not adopted. The truth is that there is no good answer. It's a contact sport. It involves tackling the person with the ball. There is no such thing as a safe tackle. They are trying to get away from head injuries. So the tackler is not supposed to use his head or the one of the person he tackled. It often goes against coaching which teaches sticking a helmet between the numbers. That is dangerous for both tackler and the person with the ball. Okay, more shoulder tacking is being taught. But human anatomy says the head is still there out front. It can still get hit. It also leads to a lot of missed tackled. The only answers are to get rid of tackled or get rid of football. I don't see either one soon happening. There is a deep American thirst for Bloodsport. Think of the cheering of hardcore fans when a perfectly timed and placed hit drives a ball carrier into the turf. It's great when a spectator is watching and not the one being hit. Field goals? I just laugh at the entire controversy. I keep meaning to look up when a game involving running and passing to make scores added kicking to make points and why.
It
Originally early football players did not wear helmets and basically games were one big scrum. Lots of injuries and some deaths. Teddy Roosevelt threatened to shut down football completely.
So helmets, rule changes, passing….it made the game more fluid and somewhat safer.
And so the dynamic of safety versus violent hits goes on.
We have new kick off rules, rules concerning hitting the QB and even the new balloon safety helmets being used. All in the name of safety while still trying to keep football well football.
Targeting is a very specific technique and can result in serious injury. We have rules on horse collar tackling, crack back blocks and a punch after the whistle gets you thrown out. So why not really punish a team for targeting?
As for it being a”mess” in the college game, one person’s opinion.
Last point, players are way bigger, faster and stronger than say 1970 or 1980, heck even 2000. Lines average over 300 lbs, defensive ends can easily run the 40 yard dash in under 4.7 seconds.
I think this demands a review on keeping players safe while still keeping it “football”.
Not easy, but as new safety rules get added, I only see high school, college and pro football getting more popular.
Hi Laurence - sadly, I am in agreement with you that there is a tendency on the part of some spectators for blood sport. Professional hockey is a textbook example of this in that fighting between the players is tolerated to the degree that it is going to continue occurring on a regular basis. I believe it's hard to argue that the league does not do this because they believe that is an attraction to a certain percentage of their fans. It drives me nuts to see referees simply standing by circling while opposing skaters pummel each other for a while before they decide to break it up. Institution of serious consequences to the player and the teams for fighting could eliminate this overnight if the league wanted, but they obviously do not want to do so. This is why I much prefer collegiate and Olympic hockey that is all about skating and passing.
there is almost no fighting in college hockey - because the consequences for fighting are so severe.
I was really surprised to see that Sambo's in Santa Barbara a few years back, given the decades-old controversy. But, it was the original, and there is the nostalgia of being "the last". The last Blockbuster in Bend, and the last Woolworth's lunch counter in Bakersfield.
TedB, I look forward to the day when Trump becomes nostalgia as the last felon to run for the presidency.
Hope so, but the way that played out, not counting on it.
The fat traitor's stunt at that McDonald's was far worse than reported. No one paid for any food he handed out, because no one ordered the food, they were vetted ahead of time for the drive-thru & were just handed random food he didn't prepare. He also violated the health laws by being in the back without a hat or hairnet. He also wasn't wearing even a McDonald's T-shirt, he just put the apron over his white shirt & tie & he's so incompetent, someone else had to tie it in the back for him. I assume his tiny hands couldn't handle an apron tie.
I also wonder if that fool of a franchise owner realizes he must file with the FEC, that this was an in kind donation to the campaign & he must calculate the wages he paid the employees for their time there, plus the amount of revenue he lost by being closed to the public for that time!
Garry, at least he didn’t throw any catsup packets against the wall or at anyone.
Bet you he filled his face with an extra large order once the photo op was over.😉.
I wonder if the Trumpers find that to be courageous?
The sign at the Tuffy on Diversey and Southport jokes about having pumpkin spice oil changes. They do it every fall.
Pretty sure that was an entry last year.
I'll be voting for the same non-CTU school board candidate, for the same reasons stated. When the mudslinging mailers started a few years ago for the Il State Rep race, both candidates being stellar members of our NW side community, I lost all respect for the tactics of groups like the 38th Ward Democrats.
I think working a menial job as a teenager does improve a person's ability to relate or have empathy. Sure, it can be learned in other ways, like from parents or mentors or from popular culture, but the actual experience of dealing with diverse customers, having to learn a skill, follow instructions, working with others as a team (in the "real world", as opposed to school work), understanding where money comes from, is far more memorable and effective in shaping an empathetic, open-minded, grounded person.
I’m pretty sure JB Pritzker never had a menial job, and he seems to be very empathic when it comes to working people.
Of course, I'm not saying that's the only possible way to have any empathy, just that it generally helps.
I believe his mother dying early did something & affected him to become that way.
I don't think there is any question of the potential value of such jobs. Whatever you want to say about the actual duties, employees are supposed to learn certain responsibilities such as showing up when expected , doing the expected duties, treating customers right, working together well with coworkers, and maybe doing some extras when needed. Having said that, the duties may have little to do with future expectations or needed skills and aren't going to help with a job application, other than to show that the applicant actually had a job. No interviewer for a teaching position ever cared that I once cleaned offices and took trash out to be illegally burned in an incinerator.
Laurence - When I was hiring people for entry level positions, even a position that required a college degree, I did indeed have a positive reaction to an applicant having worked menial jobs in their younger years. Having done so evidences personal responsibility and commitment to showing up on time, taking direction from supervisors and a general willingness to work. I could always ensure that a new employee was put in position to learn and develop technical skills, but a work ethic is something that cannot be taught.
As I told the graduate students I was mentoring, EVERY job you have had adds to the value you bring to a position. I used bagging groceries as an example of how it can contribute to their development. BUT I suggested that they use it as an element of their professional interview rather than an element of their CV.
amen
i bagged ['parceled'] groceries at my local jewel for $1.60 and hr, starting a week after my 16th birthday. i was thrilled to have received increases up to $1.85 an hr a yr later.
and i learned an awful lot from that job - show up on time, every sgl scheduled workday, treat all customers respectfully, learn to work with fellow employees, respect authority.
the last 3 were tested over my lifetime, especially my work career - but they were valuable lessons as a youth, nonetheless.
Omg. My first job that was not babysitting was waitressing at a Sambo's in the great state of Idaho. I also have no proof but if any of the guys I dated at the time can be found, they'll back me up. Thanks for the update on the history.
Yes. How in the world would I document my 6 years as an A&W carhop over 60 years ago? There’s not even a photo.
I"ll take a root beer, please. Isn't that kind of what they were known for?
Yes
And in a cold, frosty mug.
Joan, those ice cold root beer mugs were really heavy. Suspect you developed very strong arms. Wow.
The worst was hooking a tray on the car window with 8 jumbos
I'd enjoy a real A&W Root Beer Float.
The best,
😋
My time working at McDonald's in high school provided many very good life lessons. My pack-rat self has kept one pay stub (as I've done from every job) as a memento so I could prove it. I included that job on my adult resume on one occasion -- as a young lawyer interviewing for an in-house counsel position in their legal department because I'd heard they have all corporate employees work in a store for a week as part of orientation, which I thought was a great idea.
I did consulting work for McDonald's for a couple of years. Every year the corporate staff spent a day working in a store, which I happily volunteered to join. In my career, I also found many executives that liked to share stories about their start.