I’m the mother of a court reporting school graduate in Phoenix Arizona. I would not recommend that anyone you care for embark on a career in court reporting here in Arizona. Pharmacy or nursing or veterinary school are much better alternatives, because these fields appear actually to want new people, whereas the requirements to get into court reporting here are so stringent that they have successfully kept anyone at all from entering the field for the past year. The powers that be have put into place professional entrance requirements that are positively hostile to newcomers. Of course, they say they want and need new court reporters, but their actions belie this, and in fact, even before the gates closed completely over the past year, only one or two people have been admitted annually in the past five years. And the people they are keeping out have all completed their schooling and are ready to work. They have student loans that they are required to start paying off, and the profession will not let them work. Unfriendly. You don’t want this for anyone you’re not actually mad at.

And anyway, who wants to waste what may very well be four or five or more years of schooling on a profession that doesn’t want you? And, (I’m not making this up) when newcomers who have completed school and who have been practicing rigorously for the exam complain about this draconian system, working court reporters, the ranks of whom these folks are, god help them, trying to join, often respond by belittling them. “Well, you are just lazy. You must not have been practicing. I passed the test, so there is not a problem.” (And it’s surprising how many people say this who have not, in fact, passed the test, but who were grandfathered in. As I said, welcoming newcomers is not a big strong point with many of these folks.) My daughter started school in 2000, and she is still trying to pass their exam. You’re not, by the way, allowed to put your training to work in Arizona at all until after you have passed the test. There’s no such thing as a paid internship, or any sort of grace period for newcomers. You don’t pass the frigging test, you don’t work. Prospective candidates had better have a regular job, because they most likely won’t be working in this one.

Oh yes, the test is offered twice a year. You get five minutes each to demonstrate that you can take down literary material, a judge’s statement to the jury, and courtroom testimony. You get one take of each of these every six months, for which you pay a hundred bucks or more. My daughter’s taken the thing eight times now, and there is so much riding on this fifteen minutes of dictation that she’s now so wound up that I don’t know how she can possibly pass the damn thing at this point. And she’s not the only person like this. Did I mention that not a single person has passed the frigging test in the past year? There are many graduates of the only court reporting program now operating here in Phoenix who have completely abandoned the field.

So don’t send anyone you love to court reporting school here now. If my daughter had started pharmacy school in 2000, she’d be a pharmacist with a couple of years of work under her belt. Send ‘em to pharmacy school. Recent Arizona pharmacy graduates pass those exams every year. According to the AZPharmacy.gov 2008 annual report, 272 people were issued new licenses as a result of passing the exam in 2008. So, for 2008, pharmacists, 272; court reporters, 0. The numbers speak for themselves.

Arizona ballot proposition 100

Paraphrased, it's "Let's amend the state constitution to prohibit taxing the sale of real estate." Interesting. I wonder that there are not three or four hundred more propositions on the ballot, since there are many many bad-sounding laws that we can pick to prohibit people attempting to enact. How about, for example, Proposition 137, proposing an amendment to the Arizona constitution to prohibit anyone making a law requiring citizens to name their offspring "Griselda"? Or Proposition 189, proposing an amendment to the Arizona constitution to prohibit anyone making a law requiring citizens to wear blue underpants? Once we open the door to amending the constitution to prohibit the making of ill-advised laws, where does it stop?

A more important question to me is who is behind this and why? If I had lots and lots of money, and was thinking of coming to Arizona to buy large quantities of real estate, particularly in this depressed market, at a bargain basement price, I'd certainly want to make sure nobody taxed me when I turned around and sold it at an enormous profit at a future date.

Bailout passed

Are all these photographs in today's papers that feature our President and Paulson smiling creeping anyone else out? Geez, they look like they just came into money or something. Oh wait...

OMG everybody panic

It is hard to believe that everyone is falling for the same old Bush administration claim that the sky is really falling this time. (So give us $700 billion and no looking over our shoulders as we spend it, ok? We know what we're doing, this time. Really. Honest. We swear on the Bible. Did we mention that we have Bible study in the White House every week? That means we're honest and also that God is directing us!)

Look at this ridiculous reaction to the stock markets. It's a given: Stocks fluctuate. Yet I'm listening to the radio all week and all anybody can talk about is that TODAY their portfolio is only 75% of what it was yesterday and how the government has to step in.

It's been demonstrated again and again that government intervention in banking is necessary. It gets demonstrated every time the banking industry is deregulated. Yet, if you had suggested this bailout (or any regulation whatsoever) a year or two ago, the Bush administration would have screamed at you for trying to put more "big government" in and impose more restrictive regulation on businesses, and for being a socialist and then they'd have started hurling personal insults at you and trying to find every little mistake you'd ever made and throwing it in your face in order to discredit you along with your argument, since apparently that is what passes for reasoned debate nowadays.

And where was government regulation when these mortgage companies were lending people too much money and getting houses valued far, far above their market values? Where was government regulation when credit card companies started charging 20% interest and crippling fees? Apparently, any unethical business practice is just fine if it makes you money now. Plus, you can blame your victims when anyone tries to admonish you. Woo hoo.

The stock market is for long term investment. This is what I read over and over. This ridiculous panic over individual people's portfolios is only about getting enough pressure put on Congress to hand $700 billion unsupervised over to the Treasury Secretary. But no, people are looking at their portfolios and panicking and now suddenly we're all in favor of government intervention.

I guess if we shit our pants in public, the government is supposed to show up with baby wipes and new pants. And yet at least half of us fulminate against socialism (while advocating it just one time in this case only). Universal health care? NO WAY -- that would be socialism! GASP!

Now that stock prices are falling, wouldn't that be the time to get into the stock market? Whatever happened to buy low, sell high anyway? Oh wait. Maybe that's why they want the $700 billion, but only if nobody is looking where they spend it and where the profits go.

Peripatetically, briefly yet fulsomely

In Roberta Smith's review of the "Van Gogh and the Colors of the Night" show at the Museum of Modern Art (NYTimes, 9/19/2008), there is some unfortunate unintended humor of the "I don't think that word means what you think it means" variety. Fulsome does not mean wordy in a nice way. It means to fawn, to express admiration in an excessively suave or ingratiating fashion. I read further and didn't see any references to excessive praise or insincerity, and she seemed to admire the show, so I'm guessing she meant to use a synonym for complete or comprehensive.

I am surprised that this sort of thing made it past the editors at the New York Times. The thing is also full of mixed metaphors and awkwardly worded imagery. She's got Van Gogh pitting his colors against one another in a visual drama, egging on clashes, and I'm still not sure what about the show is peripatetic. (Does she mean that Van Gogh traveled extensively to find stuff to paint? Does she mean you have to walk around a bunch of different of rooms to see it, presumably in all its brief yet fulsome glory? Perhaps the museum needed a lot of room for all that dramatic clashing and egging.)

She's got the night very busy as well, since it's challenging, stirring, expanding, and keeping him close, as well as harboring and bringing relief. I'm getting dizzy. I am not sure what a fully articulated painting surface is, but it doesn't sound like it would hold paint very well. By page two, the imagery is uncomfortably heaving and thrashing too violently for me. Maybe that's a statement about the nature of Van Gogh's paintings, but I'm not sufficiently caffeinated this morning to want to rummage for the Dramamine.

A t-shirt slogan, "Writing about painting is like dancing about architecture," comes to mind here. It's difficult to write coherently about art, as this article illustrates. The slide show of the work that accompanies the article is astonishing.

More yet on the New American Dream

As you can see, I joined the New American Dream's pledge to quit using individually bottled water. These dang bottles apparently live forever in dumps and the ocean, and I try not to use them anyway, so I figured I'd sign up for the pledge. I wish they'd make water bottles that are decomposable. We reuse them anyway. Mara has to carry water to school, and I put homemade iced tea and lemonade in those big ones that you get juices and iced tea in.

More on the New American Dream

I got a newsletter from them today promoting carbon offsets, which I understand to mean that you can save in one place and then get a "credit" that will allow you to pollute in a different fashion. It doesn't make sense to me. (The definition on the carbon offsets page says

A carbon offset, in simple terms, is a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions elsewhere to cancel out emissions arising from a particular activity.

I don't want to do the same amount of polluting. I want to reduce my polluting. I find this approach disappointing.

New Economics Foundation

A friend in Britain sent me the link to this site: http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/. If we have anything like it here, I'd like to know about it.
I joined the New American Dream community (http://www.newdream.org/index.php), but I don't see the kind of commitment to a less materialistic ethos in addition to a more sustainable lifestyle that is immediately visible on NEF's home page:

nef is an independent 'think and do' tank. We believe in economics as if people and the planet mattered.

Check out ghost town Britain's succinct statement on the effect of large corporate one-size-fits-all stores on local economies. It's the same here, only nobody seems to find anything wrong with it. (http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/local_ghost.aspx?page=960&folder=148&)

We feel entitled to our vast national riches when we ought to feel blessed and behave like gluttons when we ought to be stewards.

Disappointed in Obama

I was one of many people who emailed Obama to urge him to change his stance on that shameful "let's grant immunity to the telecoms who gave up our data to the NSA" bill. Senator Obama's response was disappointing: that the bill was flawed but we gotta have some defense against the terrorists. I am so sick of being protected out of my constitutional rights by politicians who not only don't represent me, but who are just going to do whatever they want, regardless of their alleged political platform.

Same day, different party. Disappointing.

Movies in movie theaters are not for deaf or blind people

Movies in movie theaters are not for deaf or blind people, according to a judge in federal court in Arizona. More on this poorly reasoned decision can be found here.

This judge said that adding captions or descriptive services for the blind would fundamentally alter the nature of the product, i.e. the movie, and so, the ADA does not require them to be captioned or furnished with descriptive narration for the blind. According to the ruling, since the movie theater premises are accessible to everyone, meaning that anyone can enter them and sit in the presence of the movie, even if they can't hear or see the movie, the ADA requirements are fulfilled.

I can see nothing in this opinion to prevent captions already presented to be withdrawn, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to extend the decision to other areas of deaf/blind accessibility either. By this reasoning, adding captions and providing descriptive narratives for television programs also alter the nature of the product and also do not fall under the ADA provisions either. There go a lot of jobs! Bye-bye broadcast captioners and realtime writers/voicewriters. Deaf and blind people don't need to see movies or TV anyway, do they?

Well, yes. The general public (namely people who are not deaf or blind apparently) get all sorts of vital information via television, from news and emergency updates to information on what kinds of people they're being asked to vote for for public office. Maybe this information is not intended for the deaf or blind either, and providing access for them would fundamentally alter the nature of the product.

This decision opens the door to challenges from all sorts of industries that are currently providing access for the disabled. If movies in theaters don't have to be captioned, why shouldn't other industries petition the courts for exceptions too? We'll take a giant step backward to the days when people in wheelchairs had to drag themselves up several flights of stairs to attend mandatory court proceedings.

The country that I'm proud of is a country that strives to include everyone. I don't want my country to start paring away whole groups of people because including them is inconvenient to some.

Black and Decker = horrible service

I bought a Black and Decker CCS818 electric chainsaw to clean up some trees in my front yard. This purchase has been a nightmare. The thing arrived sometime in May. I called the 888 number to ask about the wrench that was supposed to come with the thing and was told that they were very sorry but they didn't have any more of those so they couldn't send me one. I had an Allen wrench set and found one that fit. I found the instructions, which may be perfectly obvious to someone with power tool experience, to be nearly indecipherable. Nonetheless I finally was able to get the chain on and the screws tightened as instructed.

I used it for 30 minutes after which the chain slipped off. Apparently this happens with chainsaws for the first couple of hours of use; you have to keep putting the chain back on and retightening it. Unfortunately, one of the screws fell out and disappeared. I doubt it's prudent to operate a chainsaw without both screws holding the chain down. Since this happened on a Friday night, after B&D's business hours, I had to wait till after the Memorial Day holiday to get an agent on the phone, who promised to send me the appropriate screws. I was unable to figure out which screw was the one I needed or I'd have ordered them from Service.net, B&D's parts outlet. The agent gave me the part number and offered to send me one free and said it would arrive in 7 to 10 business days. I had written an email and that agent also offered to send me a free screw and that it would arrive in 7 to 10 business days.

10 business days later, I called back and spoke to someone who checked and with no explanation as to what happened, offered to really send me a couple of replacement screws in 7 to 10 business days. 3 days after that, I called the 888 number and spoke to a crisp young woman who said that the order had been placed and that it would arrive in 7 to 14 business days. I explained that 3 other people had said 7 to 10 business days and she said that they were wrong; you only get it in 7 to 10 days if you are buying the parts; it's 7 to 14 for free replacements. I went to Service.net to order the damn screws myself (for $0.66 a screw and nearly TEN DOLLARS shipping). Sheesh. I put 10 of them in my shopping cart and saw the message: backordered until June 28th.

Now, the City of Phoenix has told me I have to get these trees trimmed. I don't think they'll wait 7 to 14 business days following June 28th, so now I'm in a bind. And will not be buying anything from B&D again.

Cronies 'R Us

Golly, I'm so glad to have the Bush administration in charge! Here is a riveting account of how the TSA apparently conducts its day-to-day business, headlined "Security breach at TSA puts thousands of American travelers at risk." It's a tale of how the TSA awarded a no-bid contract to a small firm whose owner formerly employed and regularly socialized with the technical lead at the TSA in charge of awarding the contract. Yay cronyism! Ethics, schmethics.