Like most words, the plural of “sign” is formed by adding an “s” on the end, not by adding “age.”
Someone must have figured out that “signage” sounds more impressive to the clientele.
“That’s a lot of money just to put up some signs.”
“We’re not putting up signs, we’re putting up signage.”
I’m burned out on the high school gun “experts” for a couple of reasons:
I heard one of the kids raising an obscure point about record-keeping requirements at the ATF. Most gun control advocates are not even familiar with the basic mechanisms and terminology of guns, let alone with ATF policy minutiae. That’s something a gun control lobbyist would know about, but it’s not something a high school kid knows about, unless it’s scripted out for him.
I don’t object to the anti-gun message, although I disagree with most of it . . . I object to being treated like the kind of rube who can’t tell when a high school student is plagiarizing someone else’s ideas.
Also: these kids have a platform, not based on their own merits, but because 17 other people died and they didn’t. They’re not policy experts. Under the circumstances, maybe tone down the arrogance and be respectful.
There are answers which, in turning away wrath, only send it to the other end of the room, and to have a discussion coolly waived when you feel that justice is all on your own side is even more exasperating in marriage than in philosophy.
Chapter XXII of George Eliot’s Middlemarch starts with an epigraph from Alfred de Musset:
Nous câusames longtemps; elle était simple et bonne.
Ne sachant pas le mal, elle faisait le bien;
Des richesses du coeur elle me fit l’aumône,
Et tout en écoutant comme le coeur se donne,
Sans oser y penser je lui donnai le mien;
Elle emporta ma vie, et n’en sut jamais rien.
Some editions of Middlemarch provide a translation in a footnote:
We talked for a long time; she was simple and kind.
Knowing no evil, she did only good:
She gave me alms from the riches of her heart,
And listening intently as she poured out her heart,
Scarcely daring to think, I gave her mine;
Thus she carried off my life, and never even knew it.
The title of this post would make a good title for a blog, I think. Feel free to use it as I already have a blog title.
I like the sodas at Chevron . . . they’re not restaurant quality, but they’re better than the flat, tasteless sodas you get at most other gas stations.
On the downside, Chevron as often as not has some donate-a-buck-to-charity shakedown going on at the register.
“Would you like to donate a dollar to CHOC?” the clerk asks as he rings up my soda.
“No, but if Chevron wants to take a dollar out of the price of that soda and donate it, I’m okay with that.”
If I want to donate to CHOC, I’ll donate to CHOC. If Chevron wants to donate to CHOC, let Chevron donate their own money to CHOC.
Don’t strong-arm the customers into donating, then pat yourself on the back for your charitable activities.
From tonight’s hockey recap:
“. . . he beat Bobrovsky between his legs.”
Ouch!
[And That’s the Truth is a feature by our guest blogger, Sojourner Truth– PE]
I heard a gal talking about being snubbed in a social setting where she was the only woman. She says it was “modern-day sexism.”
I guess “old-fashioned sexism” was you can’t vote. Modern-day sexism is “unconscious bias,” which means I ain’t gonna ask you why you did that, because you don’t even know why you did it, but I know why you did it, and that is because you are sexist.
These gals are all a bunch of voodoo mind readers. They got one explanation for everything that happens in the world.
If I had me a dollar for every time someone just knowed why I did something without asking me and they was dead wrong, I could quit blogging and retire.
And that’s the Truth!
A man in the men’s room at work this morning pulled out a comb and started combing his hair.
No, it wasn’t Edd “Kookie” Burns.
I mentioned this to a couple of co-workers, neither of whom found it striking, but I haven’t seen a man comb his hair in public since Happy Days went off the air . . .
[See You in Hell is a feature by our guest blogger, Satan — PE]
Greetings from the Lake of Fire!
I was perusing the FBI data on murder weapons in the U.S. For 2016, what do you think was the most frequently employed murder weapon?
Survey SAYS — handguns! The weapon of choice in 7,105 murders. I blame the NRA!
Ha ha, just messing with you there. The NRA has nothing to do with the existence of evil in the world. That’s my department.
That handgun number is actually a little low, because the FBI also reports more than 3,000 gun murders where the type of firearm is not specified — and it’s almost always a handgun.
Running a distant second behind guns: knives, used to end the life of 1,604 Americans in 2016.
Now here’s a surprising one: 656 people killed by “personal weapons,” which essentially means beating someone to death with your bare hands. Kicking is also allowed in this category, as is pushing someone to their death — off a cliff, in front of a bus, etc.
More people were killed by personal weapons (656) than by blunt objects (472), i.e., beating someone to death with a hammer or a bat. Why are more people not using a weapon? I guess they like a challenge.
Now let’s talk about rifles. Rifles have an undeservedly bad reputation in my opinion. Rifles can be used for sporting purposes and for self-defense, but they can also be used as a murder weapon.
In 2016, 374 Americans were murdered with a rifle.
Everyone wants to ban rifles! No one wants to ban knives, hammers or fists, which can also be used as murder weapons, but everyone wants to ban rifles. People are crazy.
P.S. Some approaches to murder are far more common in popular entertainments than in real life. Poisoning is common in murder mysteries but only 11 Americans were killed with poison in 2016. Only 1 person was killed with explosives, even though I can’t remember the last movie I saw that didn’t have at least one explosion.
Finally, let me say a word about inclusiveness. We don’t care who you are or how you get here. There are no special privileges in Hell.
You may have been an underrepresented minority on Earth. You may be one of the misfits who manages to get themselves poisoned. Rest assured that we treat everyone the same: abominably.
See you in Hell!
George Eliot is a transgender author whose work was previously unfamiliar to this reviewer.
Ha, kidding! It’s hard to think of new things to say about old books, but if you appreciate the novel as an art form, or you think you might appreciate the novel as an art form if you gave it a chance, you should read Middlemarch.
What it is about? At 800+ pages, it’s about a lot of things: life in rural England in the 1830s, the status of women, the bonds of matrimony, idealism, self-interest, religion, hypocrisy and politics.
It’s about the heroism of ordinary lives.
It’s about, in the character of Dorothea Brooke, “the mixed result of young and noble impulse struggling amidst the conditions of an imperfect social state, in which great feelings will often take the aspect of error, and great faith the aspect of illusion.”
Here’s the conclusion of the novel, in which the narrator is looking back from several decades later at the main characters. Admittedly it loses some power out of context but you’ll get the idea. Googling the Cyrus reference might help.
(Mild spoiler alert, insofar as spoilers can exist for a well-known book from the 19th century.)
Sir James never ceased to regard Dorothea’s second marriage as a mistake; and indeed this remained the tradition concerning it in Middlemarch, where she was spoken of to a younger generation as a fine girl who married a sickly clergyman, old enough to be her father, and in little more than a year after his death gave up her estate to marry his cousin—young enough to have been his son, with no property, and not well-born. Those who had not seen anything of Dorothea usually observed that she could not have been “a nice woman,” else she would not have married either the one or the other.
Certainly those determining acts of her life were not ideally beautiful. . . . Her finely touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.
Rating: 
The big question is whether the present wave of revelations, often consisting of unsubstantiated allegations from decades ago, will aid women’s ambitions in the long run or whether it is already creating further problems by reviving ancient stereotypes of women as hysterical, volatile and vindictive.
My philosophy of equity feminism demands removal of all barriers to women’s advancement in the political and professional realms. However, I oppose special protections for women in the workplace. Treating women as more vulnerable, virtuous or credible than men is reactionary, regressive and ultimately counterproductive.
Complaints to the Human Resources department after the fact are no substitute for women themselves drawing the line against offensive behavior — on the spot and in the moment. Working-class women are often so dependent on their jobs that they cannot fight back, but there is no excuse for well-educated, middle-class women to elevate career advantage or fear of social embarrassment over their own dignity and self-respect as human beings. Speak up now, or shut up later! Modern democracy is predicated on principles of due process and the presumption of innocence. . . .
For all its idealistic good intentions, today’s #MeToo movement, with its indiscriminate catalog of victims, is taking us back to the Victorian archetypes of early silent film, where mustache-twirling villains tied damsels in distress to railroad tracks.
If Bill Gates really believed that, he could decide how much he “should” pay, subtract what he’s required to pay, and send Uncle Sam a check for the difference. Which he doesn’t do.
Gates was talking about taxes in the context of the recent tax bill not being progressive enough for his liking.
“People who are wealthier tended to get dramatically more benefits than the middle class or those who are poor,” he said.
Bill Gates is as smart as anyone I can think of, so I think his remarks are disingenuous rather than uninformed.
People who are “wealthier” (“people with higher incomes” would be more accurate) benefit more from income tax cuts because they pay dramatically more in taxes to begin with (see chart).
For example, the top 1 percent of earners pay almost as much into the federal income tax pool (38 percent) as the bottom 95 percent combined (41 percent).
That may not bother you a great deal if you’re not in the top 1 percent (neither am I) but it’s something to consider when we talk about people paying their “fair share.”
I’ve heard Warren Buffett say the same thing about paying more taxes, but he doesn’t cut Uncle Sam a bonus check either. In fact, Buffett is giving most of his money to Bill Gates.
This is a real thing I just read:
I tasked my 5-year-old with cleaning up the blocks from the floor, after he was done playing. A few times, he did not do it, and I ended up doing it for him. Later on, I realized that when I did it for him I was not empowering him to do the task and be accountable for it. This situation can be easily improved by exhibiting Empowerment and Accountability.
For a 5-year-old? You’re overthinking it.
Even with adults, “empowerment” and “accountability” are overused: I’m empowering you to complete this task. I’m not giving any of the resources you need but I’m empowering you.
And as with the 5-year-old, when he doesn’t pick up the blocks despite being “empowered,” you’ll soon realize there’s no “accountability” without consent.
Are you a good listener? Find out (Quiz)
Psychology Today, “Listening Skills Test.”
Are you a good listener? Find out (Quiz)
Mind Tools, “How Good are Your Listening Skills? Understanding Someone’s Entire Message.”
Active listening and attending behaviors (Video)
“Active Listening: Katie Owens at TEDxYouth@Conejo,” YouTube video, posted by “TEDx Talks,” 3:18, January 21, 2013.
Getting past roadblocks to effective listening (Video)
“Listening and Its Enemies: Avi Kluger: TEDxLaçador,” YouTube video, posted by “TEDx Talks,” 17:20, May 29, 2015.
Good leaders ask questions and listen thoroughly (Article)
Chris Baréz-Brown, “3 Habits of Humble Yet Effective Leaders,” Fast Company, October 26, 2015.
Six stories from StoryCorps, where people share stories from their lives (Video)
The Rauch Brothers, “Listening Is an Act of Love,” StoryCorps via POV video, 22:36, November 28, 2013.
I am at a loss for what to say right now. But I am here . . .
Busting myths on gender differences in the brain (Article)
Nora Caplan-Bricker, “The Idea of a ‘Male Brain’ and a ‘Female Brain’ Is Likely a Myth,” Slate, November 2, 2015.
Challenges and strategies for creating safe communication spaces at work (Article)
James R. Detert and Ethan R. Burris, “Can Your Employees Really Speak Freely?,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 94, no. 1 (January/February 2016): p. 80-87.
Communication comes in all shapes and sizes (Video)
Nancy Lublin, “Texting That Saves Lives,” TEDvideo, 5:24, February 2012.
Do men and women communicate differently? (Article)
Deborah Cameron, “What Language Barrier?,” The Guardian, October 1, 2007.
Find out the meaning behind emojis (Website)
“Emojipedia.”
Game-changing communication developments (Article)
Amber Leigh Turner, “5 Trends Disrupting Communication,” TNW News.
How the medium of communications can change what we say (Article)
“Tweets From Mobile Devices Are More Likely to Be Egocentric,” International Communications Association press release, October 1, 2015.
Leaders can change their power cues to open up discussions (Article)
James R. Detert and Ethan R. Burris, “Nonverbal Cues Get Employees to Open Up—or Shut Down,” Harvard Business Review, December 11, 2015.
Parent/adult child bond increased with number of communication tools (Article)
Heidi Stevens, “Tech-Savvy Parents Communicate Better with Adult Kids: Study,” Chicago Tribune, November 3, 2014.
Solid teams require people who can talk and organize (Video)
“Nike Academy: Communication and Leadership,” YouTube video, 2:47, posted by “Nike Football,” Oct 2, 2014.
Tools to streamline internal work communications (Article)
Catherine Lawson, “Online Chatting at Work Gets the Thumbs Up From Bosses,” BBC News, November 27, 2015.
When language perpetuates discrimination (Article)
Tory Paez, “Goodbye Chatty Kathy,” Catalyzing, January 26, 2016.
Research behind the flexibility stigma (Article)
Tara Siegel Bernard, “The Unspoken Stigma of Workplace Flexibility,” New York Times, June 14, 2013.
Don’t become addicted to busy-ness (Article)
Christine Carter, “Achieve More by Doing Less,” Mindful, September 14, 2015.
Research about dual-centric workers (Report)
Families and Work Institute, Catalyst, and the Boston College Center for Work & Family, Leaders in a Global Economy: A Study of Executive Women and Men (2008).
Work-life integration (Video)
Stew Friedman, “How to Integrate Work, Home, Community and Self,” YouTube video, 19:53, posted by “KnowledgeAtWharton,” May 28, 2008.
Managing your life outside of work (Article)
Stew Friedman, “Keep Your Home Life Sane when Work Gets Crazy,” Harvard Business Review, February 23, 2015.
Research supports benefits of flex work (Article)
Adi Gaskell, “Why A Flexible Worker Is A Happy And Productive Worker,” Forbes, January 15, 2016.
Five simple tips to reduce the distraction and temptation of checking email all the time (Article)
Lily Herman, “How to Actually Stop Checking Your Email All the Time,” The Muse.
Does guilt have to be a part of flexible working? (Article)
Georgina Kenyon, “The Curse of Flexible Work,” BBC, September 9, 2016.
Work stress: cultivate resilience (Article)
Judy Martin, “5 Daily Rituals to Manage Work Stress,” Forbes, December 26, 2012.
Making the most of your time (Article)
John Rampton, “15 Ways to Increase Productivity at Work,” Inc., February 4, 2015.
Unplugging: Tips on setting boundaries on work communication (Article)
Alison G. Walton, “Feeling Overconnected? 5 Reasons To Unplug From Technology After Work,” Forbes, February 6, 2013.
I’m volunteering a couple mornings a week at a local high school, helping out with computer science classes.
The way the classes are taught, via an online curriculum, provides a great temptation to kids to get off-task, which they do, usually by entertaining themselves with their phones.
They get off-task in other ways too — web surfing, doing homework for other classes — but the main distractor is the phones . . .
“As I mentioned before, I worked with another CS class a couple years ago. No phones allowed in the classroom.
“I remember one day the assistant principal was in class observing . . . a student had a phone out, looking at it . . . he was holding it under the table so no one could see it, but this guy, the assistant principal, he did see it.
“Oh man, did he hit the roof! If a student had pulled out a gun, there couldn’t have been any more excitement in the room.
“I thought that was overkill at the time. But I have to tell you that those kids kicked ass on the AP exam. Can I say that? That was the CS A test. Hard test.
“Most of the students got a 5. Most of the students who didn’t get a 5 got a 4. Nobody got a 3, one student got a 2 and, out of about 35 students, 6 of them got a 1, including the guy who spent 47 hours playing video games instead of studying. What did you expect, right?
“Now you guys may crush it on the AP test too. We don’t know yet.
“A lot of programmers have a phone in view when they’re working . . . a lot of programmers listen to music, sometimes through their phone . . . but nobody has the phone in their hand looking at it every minute, you’d never get anything done.
“So it depends what your goals are. If your goal is to get a top score on an AP exam, I don’t think you’re helping yourself with the phones.”
