< PREVIOUS ] [ 1995 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Some people apparently make a career out of finding offense in stuff that most of us don't even notice.
For instance, normal people enjoyed the World Series this year because:
A) There was one.
B) The contestants were the teams with the two best records.
C) The games were reasonably close with the outcomes in doubt until the last out.
But for the Professionally Sensitive, a contest between
teams with names like Braves
and Indians
was
somehow demeaning. Is Braves
offensive in a way that
Cowards
wouldn't be? And would the Cleveland team
offend if its motif were truly Indian, with fans chanting
in Hindi and mascots wearing turbans and riding
elephants?
The Professionally Sensitive have also managed to get upset about maps where north is up. This arrangement makes northern nations literally superior to southern nations, and thus map readers might decide that this cartographic superiority implies superiority in other ways.
To see whether there's any reason for such concern, I took a small survey. Without exception, my respondents preferred a month in Costa Rica to a month in Greenland, and similarly chose Tahiti over Nome. This proves conclusively that map orientation does not create prejudice against Austral locales, and I don't want to hear any more about it.
(However, the Professionally Sensitive might want to
attack the whole concept of orientation,
which
literally means to align to face the east.
Doesn't
this common term slight the other directions? Why isn't
there an occidentation
for west, a
boreantation
for north, or australation
for
south? And what of those other directions like SSW which
are just as valid and have just as much right to be
considered? How can we ever create a pluralistic and
harmonious society when our language contains such arrant
bigotry?)
But as much as I delight in mocking the Professionally Sensitive, I am sorely tempted to join their ranks. Almost daily, I see something offensive to plain common sense.
For instance, the local Wal-Mart has a sign in one of
its cul-de-sacs which announces For your shopping
convenience, please pay for electronics at the electronics
counter.
Excuse me? For whose convenience? As a shopper, I don't find it in any way convenient to be forced to write one check at the electronics counter and another up front for the other stuff.
Further, the Wal-Mart definition of electronics
is rather expansive. A mouse pad is about as electronic as
a woodpile, and yet when I picked one up there the other
day and proceeded elsewhere to get some cheap motor oil for
the car, the clerk came chasing me down the aisle. Sir,
you'll need to pay for that at the electronics counter,
he insisted.
I asked how a slab of foam rubber was electronic,
and he didn't have an answer. I decided that, for my
shopping convenience, I would henceforth avoid the
electronics counter.
Wal-Mart is not the only offender, of course. Our
McDonald's banned smoking a while ago. I can handle that.
The offensive part was the sign on the door: For
everyone's comfort, this restaurant is smoke-free.
Like most nicotine addicts, I get extremely
uncomfortable if I can't light up after a meal. The new
McDonald's policy might improve health and cleanliness, and
it may make the majority of the population more
comfortable. But it certainly isn't for everyone's
comfort.
What would it cost to put up an honest sign, rather than
a dishonest one? For McDonald's to say We don't allow
smoking inside,
rather than giving us a bogus reason
like for everyone's comfort.
For Wal-Mart to say
Much of the merchandise in this section is attractive to
shop-lifters. To keep our costs and prices down, we want
you to pay for it here.
I can't see how honest signs would cost more than
fraudulent signs, just as I can't understand the recent
AT&T ads on TV about technology that sets you
free.
As nearly as I can gather, no matter where you
go, someone will be able to find you via regular telephone,
cellular telephone, fax, modem, pager, etc.
That is, you will never be out of reach of your employer when he needs something done. Process servers, ex-spouses, bill collectors, aluminum siding salesmen -- they'll all be able to reach you at any time in any place.
This is liberating? And on the other end, when you're
trying to reach somebody, well, I don't feel as though I've
been set free
when I've got to stay current on
postal addresses, street addresses, home numbers, office
numbers, fax numbers, pager numbers and e-mail addresses
for dozens of people. As a matter of fact, I feel rather
chained down when I'm trying to keep track of these
things.
Just like the Wal-Mart and McDonald's signs, the
AT&T slogan offends common sense. This technology
doesn't set us free, any more than they're trying to
improve shopping convenience
or everyone's
comfort.
Where are the Professionally Sensitive when we
need them?
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1995 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >