Archive for the ‘Fear’ Category

Service of Fear

Monday, October 31st, 2016

It’s Halloween today. I decided that nobody is interested to know about everything that scares me nor would they want to address what scares them—we’ve got too many important things to be nervous about relating to the impending elections.

So I decided to lean on the “treats” side of the celebration and write about scary movies.

But scary movies frighten me so I’m not the one to write knowledgably about them. I loved “Wait Until Dark”– [anything with Audrey Hepburn] –but tend to avoid such flicks. Guess I’m normally nervous and don’t need additional stimulus.

So I asked the people in the office in which I share space. What amazed me is that everyone had a favorite and there is only one duplicate! This is their list: 

     “The Haunting” –Lee A

     “When a Stranger Calls” –Mike S 

     “The Birds,” “Psycho” & “Rear Window” & “Trump TV”—David R

      “The Conjuring” & soon, by DJ  Trump: “When Mexico Attacks” –Pat C 

            “The Gate” –Danny M 

            “The Strangers” —Brandt Z 

            “Halloween II” –Joshua C 

            “The Thing” –Stephen H 

      “The Shining” –James B AND Jeff M           

      “Poltergeist” –Dan M 

       “The House of Wax” –Bambe L

       “Bones” –Kori M 

Do you like to be frightened by movies? What is your favorite scary one? Is there a difference between creepy and scary?

Service of Blowing Smoke

Tuesday, May 31st, 2011

I haven’t smoked in a dog’s age and yet I empathize with New Yorkers who can no longer smoke in Central Park or at city beaches and even in some cooperative apartments if their boards so vote. I could be next: I eat and serve ice cream that could kill me, my family and friends.

Anyway, if someone is smoking near you outdoors, it’s easy enough to move under another shade tree or to a different patch of sand. If smoke seeps from one apartment to the next, isn’t it the fault of shoddy construction and shouldn’t there be rules/laws about this as well or instead?

It can be touchy for one New Yorker to tap another on the shoulder when one of them flaunts the law, whether they don’t pick up after their dog or smoke where they shouldn’t. Years ago a skuzzy looking youngster lit up his cigarette in the subway tunnel between Brooklyn and Manhattan. He looked so angry and fierce that I didn’t dare point out to him that there was only a limited amount of air down there and should the subway stop for a while, we could be asphyxiated by the smoke. Laws don’t make confrontation any easier.

Aren’t there more harmful sources of pollution than cigarettes such as cars? Will NYC soon forbid all of them? The country has done a great job of eliminating harmful fumes from manufacturing since we don’t do much of that anymore.

I remember an instructor in freshman year of college describing an example of an unenforceable and therefore, not a very good law: Contraception, illegal in some states. Imaginations went wild: “Excuse me sir and madam, but…..”

At the same time, the city is making into quiet zones certain places where musicians are known to play. Now they are silenced. Ironically, one of the zones is Strawberry Fields in Central Park, the tribute to singer, songwriter, musician and Beatle, John Lennon. [There must be some very influential neighbors with infants who don’t sleep soundly nearby. Could music from, say, 11:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. be a bother?]

How do you feel about smoking and quiet zone regulations in open spaces– cared for and looked after? Is micro-regulation appropriate in some instances but not in others? What else do you think we should be forbidden to do for the public good?

Service of Forecasts

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

How many days ahead do you start listening to weather forecasts when you’ve planned a beach day, picnic or pool party?

Are you involved with product introductions? Does your company belong to a color forecasting organization so that its bathroom fixtures or towels coordinate with what’s cool in ceramic tile?

Much like people who hope for positive signs or good news from a doctor as they sit by the bedside of a sick friend or relative, I read as many forecasts and prognostications about this economy as I have time for and check out every article that seems to have an answer, looking for inklings of a solid turnaround.

These days, coming to your own conclusions and becoming a forecaster is complicated! Just yesterday, a “Marketplace” headline in The Wall Street Journal screamed, “Maguire Properties Warns of Loan Defaults.” {The article says that Maguire is “one of the largest office building owners in Southern California.”}

The same paper, on the same page, but with a smaller sized, less prominent headline, announced: “Networks Hold Back Selling Ads In Advance.” The reason? They are betting that the economy will improve and are hoping to be able to charge more than now. Before I got too optimistic, I saw in the “Money & Investing” section another bold headline: “Debt Burden to Weigh on Stocks: Consumers’ Inability to Drive Economic Growth Likely to End Big Gains.”

My heart skipped a happy beat when, also yesterday, The New York Times declared: “Seattle Paper is Resurgent as a Solo Act,” and reported that the word “profit” is one that now falls from executive lips at the paper in the Emerald City.

And didn’t we–and President Obama–rejoice just a few days ago over the less-than-expected job loss figures? {Is this equivalent to “the patient’s fever is down to 104°?”}

When Paul Krugman agrees with a bailout, do you sleep better? Or when Alan Greenspan furrows his brow, do you follow suit?

What’s your take on forecasters? Has your faith changed? And what about your antenna for predictions–is it picking up strong signals these days?

Service of Suspicion

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

I appreciate my credit card company for sending me a new card when it suspects that someone has violated its database putting in jeopardy the integrity of my account. This has happened twice in about a year. It rouses my suspicious nature causing all sorts of repercussions in the way I do-or refuse to do–business.

I won’t speak with so-called representatives from Verizon who call the office to tell me they can save me money. I get their phone number and call the Verizon number I have to confirm the legitimacy of the other number and while I’m on the line, to learn if there really is a new program that will save me money. I can’t be the only one. I’ve been getting letters from Verizon lately. [I suppose anyone can mail a fake letter…oh, my.]

E-Z pass and the IRS have sent me emails, or at least that’s what the emails claim. I won’t respond. In the former case, I called E-Z Pass to check if the query was real. In the latter, I passed along the e-mail to my CPA who said don’t touch it and don’t give my banking information to anybody over the Internet. Until there are no other options, I won’t send in my tax forms electronically.

I’m almost the only person I know who refuses to bank or pay bills by email. Everyone who does it says they are thrilled with the savings in time and postage and they boast how green they are, implying that I’m killing trees. They don’t tell me how long it takes them on the phone to right a typo when they’ve meant to pay $300 and instead, they’re in for $3,000 because they hit “send” too soon. I also want to know how long it’s taken them to find a phone number to call in the first place.

Doesn’t everyone get daily fake warnings from banks they’ve never engaged [or heard of], telling them that their online account has been compromised or is about to close? For someone who won’t bank this way, these scams act as yet another red flag. [I’ve written some banks and visited the customer service desks of others with proof of the improper use of their logos. The swindle business must be thriving because regardless, the same email fakes keep coming.]

Speaking of frauds, social networking counterfeits abound. Because I can’t keep up with all the networks I’ve already joined, when invited to connect with a new one, I always ask the sender what the benefits are. Lately, the penalty for joining without asking is embarrassment because the perpetrators scoop up all the names in the mark’s email address book and out goes the invitation to hundreds more. Obviously, if you haven’t heard or read about the network, take care, regardless of who invites you to join.

None of this is new. I follow the path of my ancestors when on the other end of the phone the voice of a so-called policeman asks me to support a fund. To this age-old sting I say, “Mail me something, please. I don’t give money over the phone.” Click.

What are you suspicious of these days? Has your electronic bill-paying always worked for you? Have you been caught by email fraud?

Service of Silence

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009

There are instances when silence is fitting. I’ve been sworn to secrecy by several who were planning to leave a company–well before they’d given notice–and I’ve also been asked for privileged information. In all cases, I’ve remained mum.

On the escape of reporter David Rohde over the weekend, I first heard that Bill Keller, executive editor, The New York Times, had encouraged news organizations to honor a news blackout about Rohde’s capture by the Taliban last November, to help save his life.

I was impressed it had been honored. News organizations’ restraint, based on Keller’s request, the Rohde family’s pleas and recommendations by kidnapping experts, was commendable. But Bob Steele, ethics instructor at the Poynter Institute, brings up the issue of a double standard.

In “Rohde: media face tough choices in kidnap cases,” on the Christian Science Monitor’s Global News blog,  Dan Murphy quotes Steele. [Joe Strupp, Editor & Publisher, also interviewed Steele on this topic.]

Steele told Murphy: “The trick is to make journalistic and ethical decisions in a fashion that is not unduly influenced by, say, pressure from terrorists, the self-interest we have in protecting one of our own, or the potential connections we have with government agencies.”

Murphy continues his quote of Steele, “As to a possible double standard, ‘I think that is a weak spot in the underbelly of the decision making in these cases. We show a preference for one of our own in journalism generally by holding back a story or elements of a story compared to how we might cover the kidnapped oil field worker or diplomat or tourist. In those cases, we might not bring as serious a deliberative process to how we’re going to cover it.'”

What are your thoughts about the press zipping their lips and turning off their computers in this case? Should they do this in all instances–not just for fellow news colleagues? Have you been in a position where you kept silent and were glad of it?

“Get to Know Me” Internet Services

Friday, June 12th, 2009

A former civil servant and a friend, WY, wrote this guest post that was inspired by an e-mail scam. It made him think of the broader implications of online meet and greet sites. [I got the same troublesome offer that he writes about from four people.]

WY submitted this post on the same week I wrote one on social networking  http://flooringtheconsumer.blogspot.com/2009/06/jeanne-byington-on-bridging-new-old.html as it applies to business. It  appeared on Christine Whittemore’s blog, “Flooring the Consumer.”

WY writes:

A few days ago, I received an e-mail from a friend, which when I opened it displayed his picture and a message saying that he’d like me to share in seeing his photo album by clicking an icon and registering to be part of his network.

I didn’t press anything, but I did write him saying that I’d be delighted to see his photos. It turned out to be spam, or a scam, or a virus, or something. We were both embarrassed: I because I had fallen for the “come on,” he because he had also and because whoever dreamed up the thing had high-jacked his e-mail address list.

It got me to thinking. We all know that there are no secrets on the Internet or even inside our own computers. Anybody in the world, if they want to, can collect virtually every kind of detailed information there is about us just by clicking their mouse a few times. But how many of us remember this when we use our computers to send messages, or to buy things, or to do research, or to be entertained? Indeed, I am appalled at what I find each time I “Google” myself!

In light of this, I do not understand why on earth so many people recklessly subscribe to internet services that often publish quite personal data for others to read. I understand loneliness and the need to make new friends or business contacts, and I recognize that the traditional ways that people meet other people are no longer adequate, but is nobody else worried about their privacy?

Even more frightening is the thought that our government could, if it chose to, use all this information for its own purposes — like controlling us if we don’t do what it wants!

Would somebody explain to me why so few of us are not alarmed by all of this?

Attitude Improvement—Good for All?

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

In an article, “From Attitude to Gratitude: This Is No Time for Complaints,” in The Wall Street Journal on March 4, Jeffrey Zaslow wrote: “There may be a positive byproduct of our troubled times: a decrease in the urge to complain. People who still have jobs are finding reasons to be appreciative. (It feels unseemly to complain about not getting a raise when your neighbor is unemployed.) ……….Even if grumbling is only on hiatus, it’s clear that in many quarters, we’re seeing a return to Depression-era stoicism and an appreciation of simpler things.”

I’m all for positive attitudes and appreciation taking the place of whining and complaining. I believe in the Power of Positive Thinking–the title of Norman Vincent Peale’s book and a philosophy I strive to follow.

I know it’s not positive to be cynical but I fear that some employers and/or clients will take advantage of the situation. Well-intentioned critique and evaluation help ensure that clients and products are well-served. Service also benefits from tweaks and revisions.

Do you think in this environment there’s a danger that frazzled nerves will translate into lost ones, affecting more than suggestion box traffic, but valid counsel by staff and consultants as well?

Get This Blog Emailed to You:
Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz