Special Parking…Morons

This week I found myself working at a client’s house running new electrical. The homeowner wanted 6 new wall sconces added to the walls in her living room and dining room with three pairs of two lights each controlled by separate dimmer switches. A project made all the more difficult by the cathedral ceilings furnishing her home. As I was unable to crawl up into the attic to run wiring, running electrical would require tearing channels in the walls to run the wiring I needed. Once I graphed it all out and explained that the amount of demo it would take, I got approval to start.

This particular client is also a friend, and as such, we would go out to lunch on the days she worked from home. Heading to an ice cream/yogurt place after lunch, we were driving through the parking lot looking for a place to park. The only available spot was marked “Drive Thru Parking Only”.

What kind of person put the moron in that oxymoron? Parking for a drive-thru? That does not even make sense! I decided we needed to park there in open defiance of the stupidity that necessitated a fast food restaurant requiring parking for their drive-thru.

Of course, I had to ask. The drive-thru parking spots are used for those days that the drive thru line is heavy. You place your order, pay your bill, then go and park to wait for your food. I was so dumbfounded by the thought of parking spots for drive-thru’s that I forgot to ask if the food was delivered or if you had to go pick it up.

Anyone?

What A Waste

RANT DAY!

I’m driving around from one job to another along So Cal’s congested interstate highway system the other day. Semi distracted by the idiot drivers in front of me, I almost missed the CalTrans (California Transportation) sign at the entrance to the exit.

“This exit will be closed intermittently between January 20, 2006 and October 31, 2008.”

Basically, it is stating that in an almost 3 year period, the exit will be closed sometimes. Now I have to ask myself, “How this is useful to drivers? Informative to whom? Why even waste the money to make up the sign?”

I should think making up a sign for the times it will actually be closed would both indicate a more organized CalTrans department and a be a more informative public service announcement. Put it up a month ahead of the closure then close the exit when stated. This way the sign does not become part of the landscape over time.

In another vein of waste not, want not, I was reading the other day about the changes about to be implemented in the No Child Left Behind laws. Schools across the nation were (surprisingly!) fudging the graduation figures. The whole intent of the law was to help improve performance in primary and secondary education. Improvements would be measured by the standardized tests issued throughout the grades, and also by the high school graduation rate.

Besides the controversy stating NCLB doesn’t educate kids, but instead only teaches them to test-take, the formulas the schools themselves were using to calculate graduation rates varied. And were often an inaccurate indicator of what’s going on in the education system today. North Caroline was looking pretty good with a 95% graduation rate, until it was discovered the formula calculated how many enrolled 12^th graders graduated. If they used the new formula, which counts the number of 9^th graders that graduated as 12^th graders, the graduation rate dropped to 68%. Which means 32% of the freshmen are not graduating. While some can be attributed to students relocating to other schools, most are dropouts.

Which brings me to Rant #2.

Why waste the money, the time and the effort of trying to improve education if the results of the efforts are going to be obscured in fudged reports? What is the point of implementing a program to help children, then cover up the fact that it is not helping at all? How do you make informed decisions for changes and improvements?

Whose side is NCLB on?

Whose Fault?

I try to write only when I am in a good mood. It keeps my stories from becoming too cynical, depressing or angry. With the amount of news I consume through TV and various online news sites, it is a wonder I can write “happy” at all.

Such was the cause of my latest hiatus.

In late April, 29-year-old St Louis Cardinals pitcher, Josh Hancock, was killed while driving home from a bar he stopped at after a game. When he ran his SUV into the tow truck assisting a broken down motorist, his blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit, he was speeding, using a cell phone and was not wearing his seat belt. Marijuana also was found in the SUV.

I am not a parent, and as such, never had to suffer the tragedy of losing a child. I am sure that the grief is overwhelming. And grief can make people exhibit strange behavior.

Josh Hancock’s father, Dean, in his grief, has decided to sue. He is suing the bar, the tow truck company and the man whose car broke down.

Lawsuits have their place, especially when trying to get parties to accept responsibility for their actions, but the filing of this lawsuit places the blame on everyone except the responsible party.

In his lawsuit, Mr Hancock is claiming the restaurant provided drinks to his son.

The suit also names the driver of the stalled car, who stalled after spinning out avoiding a car who cut him off. The suit claims he did not maintain his vehicle properly to avoid stalling.

The third party in the lawsuit is the tow truck driver, for failing to get the stalled car out of the way fast enough.

So I guess, in the future, bars should not serve drinks to already drunk, college-educated, adult aged, professional athletes because the road home might not be clear of tow trucks or stalled vehicles for an alcohol drinking, pot smoking, non-seat belt wearing, cell phone talking, speeding, pitcher to get home safely.