Bourgeois Deviant

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Edwards Feingold '08 Please

I was surfing about the internets and came upon this post. For a long time now, I have been of the opinion that Edwards, prior to his acceptance of Kerry's vice-presidential slot offer, had a really good message with regards to poverty. I am pleased that, with the exception of the time spent campaigning on the Kerry bandwagon, he's kept it up.

The link mentioned above alludes to The Great Society of the mid 1960s. Currently, the Democrats are all over the place on a great many hugely important issues. While I am a fan of diversity generally, I don't think it is productive when it results in a divisive diaspora within the current Democratic Party. I don't think that the balm to cure the party's woes is to revert to visions of its former self, necessarily. However, the post made me think about periods of America's history where there was a lot of hope and faith in our public leaders.

In my waking memory there aren't any times like that. Clinton's election in 1992 came close, but the partisan divide was present and growing aggressively. People were nuts about Reagan, but he was mired in Iran Contra and being a crotchety but loveable father figure. Perhaps that’s what the country thought it needed at the time, but we call the 80's the "Me" decade. My view of that time is that it gave us the Taliban, a war on drugs that was completely unnecessary, much self centered narcissism (not Reagan's fault, but just an unintended byproduct of the era in general), and a boatload of nationalistic hubris in international affairs which we are largely paying for today. But I am just ranting. I digress. If there was a lot of hope during the Reagan years, it was soiled or false.

So, excluding Carter, Ford, Nixon and Johnson, we are left with Kennedy. Sure the guy had extra-marital affairs and probably abused amphetamines or barbiturates, but the nation was, in retrospect, nuts about him. Camelot and all! He got us out of the Cuban Missile crisis and asked the great question "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." An excellent question indeed. In Kennedy we had a young, charismatic guy with a vision. He inspired people to participate.

It is not my intention to say that Edwards is the next Kennedy. However, he fits the type more than any of the other potential hopefuls. And to have Russ Feingold as his running mate would put balls and further integrity on the ticket. He was the only guy to try to reprimand the President in any palpable way for the gross ineptitude that has led us to our current state of affairs. Plus, demographically, the combo totally rocks! Edwards is a southern boy and Feingold is rock solidly from the heartland.

Of the other obvious possibilities, it’s not my intention to slight Hillary, but she is so divisive that I disqualify her from my consideration primarily because if she were nominated, the acrimonious partisanship would escalate to such a nasty degree that any hopes of positive gains in getting people to be interested in government again would be shot to hell.

Work is distracting me too much. This is all I can cogently (if that) string together right now. Chew on it and let me know how it tastes.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Randomly Heard Things

Things you hear randomly at a major banking institution in Manhattan:
That's ok. I like a permissive Rabbi.
I've been authorized to use this by its generator in whatever creative endeavor I see fit. What to do... What to do...?

Update/PS: If anyone knows how to fix my sidebar so it appears where it should instead of at the bottom of the content column, I welcome your help gladly.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Mrs. Deviant writes the Postmaster

Dear Postmaster,

I feel that is important to notify you that the standard of service for mail delivery under your supervision is declining. Normally, I would not take the time to bother you with this except that it is not the first time this issue has occurred. Also, at the time of my writing this letter and the day of the particular event, I am nine months pregnant, thus making this matter which I am reporting particularly bothersome.

On Monday, July 3, 2006 at approximately 12:30 p.m. my apartment was rung up by an employee of the United States Postal Service to deliver a package. I buzzed the person in and assumed that they would be bringing it up to my 4th floor apartment. After waiting a while, I came to assume that the delivery person had, on a particularly hot day, decided to leave the package by my mailbox on the first floor of the building. As you might glean, this was not the case.

Being nine months pregnant as I am, you might well imagine that four flights of stairs are no easy task. With that in mind, you might also assume that a person in my stage of pregnancy might try to avoid (and with good reason) making repeated trips up and down those stairs. Especially in the summer heat. Later in the day, laundry required me to go to the basement of the building to retrieve my clothes. I had counted on being able to combine tasks on this trip and retrieve what I thought would be a delivered package additional to my laundry. As I am sure is abundantly clear to you by now, I was sorely mistaken.

Looking at my mailbox, I found no package, but a delivery slip that gave notice an attempt was made (copy enclosed) and that a signature was required for release of the package. As this was not the first time for something like this to happen, I was quite dismayed. My disappointment does not come from anything but for the fact that I saw the person as I let them into the building via closed circuit television. They appeared able bodied and unencumbered by large, heavy or otherwise unwieldy packages. I don't fault the carrier for not knowing of my present physical duress. I fault them for not advising me that a signature was required when I admitted them to the building. Frankly, I find it is lazy. It certainly doesn't speak well for the quality of service that people should associate with the USPS.

I hope that this circumstance does not occur again. But, as I am still with child for at least a few more weeks, I fear it may. In the future, I shall try to be more diligent when admitting employees of the Postal Service into my apartment building. I will make sure that they are aware that they will need to actually bring the package up to me as I am in the end process of gestating a child. I should hope that henceforward you, your staff and other employees will be comparably diligent and make better efforts in providing a higher standard of customer service.

If I am in error in my perception of this or am mistaken about the terms of service that the USPS provides, kindly inform me as such. However, should similar events continue to happen despite someone being on the premises to sign for signature required parcels, I will be more than happy to solicit the services of other more reliable couriers with better customer service.

Mrs. Bourgeois Deviant
Brooklyn, NY

Labels: , , ,