Should the media change the way it covers mass tragedies because of how frequently these events have started to occur?
As far as I know, there's no preceded recorded tragedy in American history like what happened at Columbine High School in 1999. But regretfully, after the Columbine shooting so many more of these mass tragedies started to occur: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va., Fort Hood, outside Killeen, Tx., Casas Adobes, Az. and now Century 16 in Aurora, Colo.
Yesterday, I watched part of a round table discussion NBC News' The Cycle where journalist Toure said this:
"Psychologists say that there's a deep-seeded long festering rage that stems from feeling marginalized and feeling powerless; that leads to wanting to do something to get back at the world."
"Also sobering is the way we in the news media may be feeding these people's last wish. They want recognition, they want infamy, the want power after what they feel is a tiny insignificant marginalized, misunderstood life. What happens after they shoot up the school or the multiplex, every news network rips up its plans and sends reporters to the scene and does days of non-stop coverage."
(see the full clip here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/#48263305)
I agree.
This is not to say that we should not have strict gun laws and work tirelessly on figuring out a profile for these kinds of people, but is the endless media attention giving the killer what he wanted? James Holmes' name will go down in history in a wretchedly infamous way, as the "Batman Killer". According to CNN, the shooter "entered the sold-out movie theater dressed in black, wearing a ballistic helmet, a tactical ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, protectors over his throat and his groin, a gas mask and black tactical gloves was wearing full body armor." Police also said that Holmes had colored his hair red and told police that he was "the Joker". The Joker's character didn't fear years in prison or death, but the character was a sociopath who wanted to be infamous for his crimes.
Was Holmes playing a character?
How can we report stories without giving these murders what they want? Just by doing their job, the police learn everything about the suspect and the media has a duty to give this information to the public. I've seen less coverage of the suspect and more coverage of the victim, which may be a solution.
Unfortunately, in 1999, America had to learn how to prepare for mass public murders when Columbine happened. This was a person tragedy for me because I'm from Colorado. And, I grew up in Aurora, Colo.
The Columbine shootings occurred when I was headed to college, but I remember one of the photos in Time magazine showed a picture of teenage girl running out of the building, crying. I recognized her instantly. We took ballet classes together, in fact, she was one of my good friends in class. We stood next to each other at the barre, and always joked and laughed. A few months later, I came home from college and went to the mall to finish up some Christmas shopping and I saw her. She was working at one of the kiosks. I could tell that she recognized me as well, but her demeanor was so different from what I knew of her. It was like, she didn't want me to approach her.
This kinda of trauma changes each person who goes through such tragedy in many different ways but, it does beg questions to be answered about the gun laws here in the US.
Is it reasonable for private citizens to carry automatic weapons. Because the only instance when those weapons are "needed" are when an actor plays a character in a movie - in war too, but is war always necessary? - and the setup is a character seeking something from the world that he/she wasn't given.
What do you think?
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
What's one great thing you've seen in your community today?
It wasn't completely clear to me, and I didn't ask, but I saw a young graduate and his mother and sister in Baltimore city, waiting for a bus. The young man had on a graduation gown and his cap was in his hand. I thought about all the statistics in the news and in magazines explaining that staggering numbers of black male youth graduate from high school and here was this young man, going to/coming from his graduation with his family.
Congrats grads!
Congrats grads!
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Are we doing this to ourselves, people?
This morning, I skimmed through an article on 'The Grio'
(http://www.thegrio.com/entertainment/shonda-rhimes-scandal-presents-blueprint-for-survival-of-blacks-on-network-tv.php) that questioned: "Does Scandal succeed precisely because we never have to deal with Pope's blackness?"
Scandal is a TV show on ABC that's loosely based on the life of the Washington, D.C. insider and crisis management expert Judy Smith, played by Kerry Washington. Washington's character is Olivia Pope the "fixer" when it comes to high profile crisis situations that almost always involve some kind of scandal - think Monica Lewinsky. Rhimes, the creator of Grey's Anatomy and Private Practice also on ABC is the creator of Scandal. Pssst...BTW, Washington and Rhimes are black women.
But does that matter?
As inquisitive as the writer, Kia Miakka Natisse point may seem, why does a show's success have anything to do with some one's race? From Cosby to Scandal, shows succeed because they are good. I don't think we ever dealt with Bill Cosby's 'blackness'.
Natisse's question makes me wonder why she brought it up. What about Pope's blackness do we need to deal with? Should the other characters on the show suddenly turn to Pope and ask, "How are you dealing with being a black woman handling all these scandalous issues?" or "Can I add my expertise to make things less black-- ahem, I mean better ?" It's just as silly as other black leaders questioning whether President Obama was black enough (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-20063860.html). Shall the writer's pose that question to Washington's character in season two? Or make sure that she shows her birth certificate to add to the 'drama' of the show? These kinds of articles suggest that black (and blacks for that matter) women handle things differently because we're black. I handle things as a human being who has compassion, intellect, and decency.
In fact, one of the comments to Natisse's rhetorical question came from Kayla Anderson:
You're right Kia Miakka Natisse. They should address her "blackness" whatever that means. They should have her point out that she's not a regular human being because she's black and then she can break out and sing "I'm Blackity Blackity Black Y'all" and in case that doesn't work she can tell people to kiss her "black" whatever when things go wrong. She can manufacture drama about her hair and follow every stereotype in the book that exists about black people because no one would assume that she's black by looking at her. She has to make sure that she lets people know by making an announcement about it and explaining how hard it is to be black because that's what "blackness" is right. I'll now go back to reading "How to be black in such a way that you will make all the black people happy that you're not somehow hiding your blackness despite the fact that people look at you and assume you're black." Thank you for reassuring me that racialism is a wonderful thing.
What does Natisse mean by 'blackness'?
She has the right to approach an article the way she wants to because she is the writer. But, the real question we need to answer is: Why are we doing this to ourselves, people? It's not just that article in particular or one's like it, but it's comments by black people that make black people uncomfortable and remind us in an ugly way that we're black. An example I mentioned above was the one by Cornel West, Princeton professor who question the president's 'blackness'. We should remind ourselves in a beautiful way that we're black. Everyone else does.
I'm not a psychologist, but I think it has to do with a lack of self-acceptance. We all struggle with it, but we have to find a way to treat it and learn how to love ourselves. One way of doing this might be to accept success. Shonda and Kerry certainly have.
What do you think?
(http://www.thegrio.com/entertainment/shonda-rhimes-scandal-presents-blueprint-for-survival-of-blacks-on-network-tv.php) that questioned: "Does Scandal succeed precisely because we never have to deal with Pope's blackness?"
Scandal is a TV show on ABC that's loosely based on the life of the Washington, D.C. insider and crisis management expert Judy Smith, played by Kerry Washington. Washington's character is Olivia Pope the "fixer" when it comes to high profile crisis situations that almost always involve some kind of scandal - think Monica Lewinsky. Rhimes, the creator of Grey's Anatomy and Private Practice also on ABC is the creator of Scandal. Pssst...BTW, Washington and Rhimes are black women.
But does that matter?
As inquisitive as the writer, Kia Miakka Natisse point may seem, why does a show's success have anything to do with some one's race? From Cosby to Scandal, shows succeed because they are good. I don't think we ever dealt with Bill Cosby's 'blackness'.
Natisse's question makes me wonder why she brought it up. What about Pope's blackness do we need to deal with? Should the other characters on the show suddenly turn to Pope and ask, "How are you dealing with being a black woman handling all these scandalous issues?" or "Can I add my expertise to make things less black-- ahem, I mean better ?" It's just as silly as other black leaders questioning whether President Obama was black enough (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-20063860.html). Shall the writer's pose that question to Washington's character in season two? Or make sure that she shows her birth certificate to add to the 'drama' of the show? These kinds of articles suggest that black (and blacks for that matter) women handle things differently because we're black. I handle things as a human being who has compassion, intellect, and decency.
In fact, one of the comments to Natisse's rhetorical question came from Kayla Anderson:
You're right Kia Miakka Natisse. They should address her "blackness" whatever that means. They should have her point out that she's not a regular human being because she's black and then she can break out and sing "I'm Blackity Blackity Black Y'all" and in case that doesn't work she can tell people to kiss her "black" whatever when things go wrong. She can manufacture drama about her hair and follow every stereotype in the book that exists about black people because no one would assume that she's black by looking at her. She has to make sure that she lets people know by making an announcement about it and explaining how hard it is to be black because that's what "blackness" is right. I'll now go back to reading "How to be black in such a way that you will make all the black people happy that you're not somehow hiding your blackness despite the fact that people look at you and assume you're black." Thank you for reassuring me that racialism is a wonderful thing.
What does Natisse mean by 'blackness'?
She has the right to approach an article the way she wants to because she is the writer. But, the real question we need to answer is: Why are we doing this to ourselves, people? It's not just that article in particular or one's like it, but it's comments by black people that make black people uncomfortable and remind us in an ugly way that we're black. An example I mentioned above was the one by Cornel West, Princeton professor who question the president's 'blackness'. We should remind ourselves in a beautiful way that we're black. Everyone else does.
I'm not a psychologist, but I think it has to do with a lack of self-acceptance. We all struggle with it, but we have to find a way to treat it and learn how to love ourselves. One way of doing this might be to accept success. Shonda and Kerry certainly have.
What do you think?
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Pajama party?
"I'm back in my pj's," a friend of mine told me.
At 2p.m. today, those were not the words I'd expect to come from a licensed attorney. But they did.
They're the new 'dying breed': Lawyers. Highly educated, well-respected, hardworking and unemployed.
It's 2012, and again, I see how the 2008 recession changed everything. I get a glimpse of it from my friend(s) -including myself -who are trained professionals. The legal industry took a hit and earners from that career path (except maybe criminal attorneys) faced a financial challenge.
But for my friend, who was accepted in to law school, graduated, and passed the bar exam before the financial crisis exploded, the question isn't so much about will he make six figures, it's when will he start working again.
The legal market in D.C. is saturated but, being an attorney in the 20005 (or whichever variation) zip code is a better alternative if your not at law firm or in house. Contract attorney work, sometimes called "doc review" is so ubiquitous in D.C. that it's become another career for attorneys who are not in law firms. Document reviewers are licensed attorneys that review one parties' set of documents early in the litigation phase. It's part of the discovery request. A firm will hire an agency to staff a group of lawyers to review documents that they will turn over to the other party. With the amount of work in DC, there are new doc review project that start everyday or even every week. It's incomparable anywhere else in the country. The other great thing about it is that you don't need the D.C. bar to do this kind of work, so an attorney from Florida could come to D.C. and do this kind of work immediately.
Things have changed.
Recently, the D.C. bar issued a rule saying that doc review is "the practice of law". The practice of law requires a license and attorney's must be licensed in that particular jurisdiction. This is important because before the rule was implemented, doc review was done by licensed attorney's from any jurisdiction. When the D.C. bar implemented this rule, all attorney's not licensed in the District were scaled considerably from taking on most of the doc review projects.
Isn't it bad timing to implement a rule such as this one when the nation is struggling to keep people employed?
Heretofore, we have more lawyers in their pajamas sitting on their couches waiting. Not for money to come, but to use their skill set again.
What do you think?
At 2p.m. today, those were not the words I'd expect to come from a licensed attorney. But they did.
They're the new 'dying breed': Lawyers. Highly educated, well-respected, hardworking and unemployed.
It's 2012, and again, I see how the 2008 recession changed everything. I get a glimpse of it from my friend(s) -including myself -who are trained professionals. The legal industry took a hit and earners from that career path (except maybe criminal attorneys) faced a financial challenge.
But for my friend, who was accepted in to law school, graduated, and passed the bar exam before the financial crisis exploded, the question isn't so much about will he make six figures, it's when will he start working again.
The legal market in D.C. is saturated but, being an attorney in the 20005 (or whichever variation) zip code is a better alternative if your not at law firm or in house. Contract attorney work, sometimes called "doc review" is so ubiquitous in D.C. that it's become another career for attorneys who are not in law firms. Document reviewers are licensed attorneys that review one parties' set of documents early in the litigation phase. It's part of the discovery request. A firm will hire an agency to staff a group of lawyers to review documents that they will turn over to the other party. With the amount of work in DC, there are new doc review project that start everyday or even every week. It's incomparable anywhere else in the country. The other great thing about it is that you don't need the D.C. bar to do this kind of work, so an attorney from Florida could come to D.C. and do this kind of work immediately.
Things have changed.
Recently, the D.C. bar issued a rule saying that doc review is "the practice of law". The practice of law requires a license and attorney's must be licensed in that particular jurisdiction. This is important because before the rule was implemented, doc review was done by licensed attorney's from any jurisdiction. When the D.C. bar implemented this rule, all attorney's not licensed in the District were scaled considerably from taking on most of the doc review projects.
Isn't it bad timing to implement a rule such as this one when the nation is struggling to keep people employed?
Heretofore, we have more lawyers in their pajamas sitting on their couches waiting. Not for money to come, but to use their skill set again.
What do you think?
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Polling isn't everything... all the time
It raises a few red flags knowing that the GOP is not settled on a front-runner.
Polling isn't getting us any closer figuring out which candidate will clinch the nomination. In fact, it's making things more and more clear that there is no front-runner. Is that bad? Yes. Is it still too early to put pressure on the electorate to make that decision. No. It hasn't been before.
Early poling gave Romney the thumbs up, and the inevitable nod floated tepidly his way when Nevada came through for the former Massachusetts Governor (in Nevada, Romney swept the vote winning by 48 percent, with Gingrich at 23 percent, and Paul winning 18 percent, according to CNN). But, as CNN's Wolf Blitzer confirmed Romney's win, there was doubt among the voters in one Nevada county. During a town hall in one county, a voter stood up and scolded a crowd of about seventy community members that they shouldn't vote for the person who they think will win the nomination, but the person they know will do the best job with running the country. That county cast most of their votes for Ron Paul.
Are the Republican voters going to elect the person who has the best chance of defeating Obama and not the person who will be the best president for their party? Do the primaries make voters in other states 'give in' and decide who to vote for solely because they want to win? It's calculated in a way that's damning, and we've heard the track played before in the media: The Tea party doesn't like Obama, John Boehner doesn't like Obama, Eric Cantor can't stand him, the Republican House doesn't like him, now Republican voters don't like Obama. In conclusion, we don't like Obama so we'll vote for the man who can take him down, not the man who we want to be president.
If this is true, then the voters are even more divided. Polling shows the numbers, pure and simple, but not the reasoning. It makes me wonder if voters can really be that fed up with Congress -and the others we put in office- when we vote for them for the exact reason we shouldn't vote for them.
Is all this good or bad for Obama?
Not a thing about running for office should include words like 'coast' or any derivative of that word (i.e. coasting). Not that I've overheard Dems saying this, but coffee house jokes (or watercooler jokes, however you see it) have suggested it. President Obama has a lot of work to do to win over the public as well. Democratic voters must also be responsible for who we put in office. I don't think that voters want to be reminded of why they voted for Obama the first time. They want to know why he'd be the best president to run our country.
And in the fall, whoever will challenge President Obama as the Republican nominee, let's hope that we as voters pay less attention to who's ahead in the polls and more attention to who's the best man for the job.
What do you think?
Polling isn't getting us any closer figuring out which candidate will clinch the nomination. In fact, it's making things more and more clear that there is no front-runner. Is that bad? Yes. Is it still too early to put pressure on the electorate to make that decision. No. It hasn't been before.
Early poling gave Romney the thumbs up, and the inevitable nod floated tepidly his way when Nevada came through for the former Massachusetts Governor (in Nevada, Romney swept the vote winning by 48 percent, with Gingrich at 23 percent, and Paul winning 18 percent, according to CNN). But, as CNN's Wolf Blitzer confirmed Romney's win, there was doubt among the voters in one Nevada county. During a town hall in one county, a voter stood up and scolded a crowd of about seventy community members that they shouldn't vote for the person who they think will win the nomination, but the person they know will do the best job with running the country. That county cast most of their votes for Ron Paul.
Are the Republican voters going to elect the person who has the best chance of defeating Obama and not the person who will be the best president for their party? Do the primaries make voters in other states 'give in' and decide who to vote for solely because they want to win? It's calculated in a way that's damning, and we've heard the track played before in the media: The Tea party doesn't like Obama, John Boehner doesn't like Obama, Eric Cantor can't stand him, the Republican House doesn't like him, now Republican voters don't like Obama. In conclusion, we don't like Obama so we'll vote for the man who can take him down, not the man who we want to be president.
If this is true, then the voters are even more divided. Polling shows the numbers, pure and simple, but not the reasoning. It makes me wonder if voters can really be that fed up with Congress -and the others we put in office- when we vote for them for the exact reason we shouldn't vote for them.
Is all this good or bad for Obama?
Not a thing about running for office should include words like 'coast' or any derivative of that word (i.e. coasting). Not that I've overheard Dems saying this, but coffee house jokes (or watercooler jokes, however you see it) have suggested it. President Obama has a lot of work to do to win over the public as well. Democratic voters must also be responsible for who we put in office. I don't think that voters want to be reminded of why they voted for Obama the first time. They want to know why he'd be the best president to run our country.
And in the fall, whoever will challenge President Obama as the Republican nominee, let's hope that we as voters pay less attention to who's ahead in the polls and more attention to who's the best man for the job.
What do you think?
Saturday, January 28, 2012
An Interesting Road
I moved to D.C. from Denver by way of Los Angeles. It's definitely been an interesting road.
But, I am really overwhelmed here by the amount of people who are struggling due to homelessness. Working in the Nation's Capitol, I'm sure that I have passed by a Senator or Congressman or Congresswoman who has seen the same people I have who are struggling. I'll admit, I walk pass 'them' and try not to make eye contact. But, I've also made eye contact, for example, when a woman asked me for some lotion and body wash... I bought it for her, but it made me wonder, does anyone make eye contact? Real, legit, eye contact. The kind of eye contact that says: I want to help you, what can I do for you today? Even if you already passed three people who are asking for something. Do our nation's leaders make eye contact?
The divide among those who have and those who, kinda have something, but not enough to live off the streets is a cry to attention. I'd imagine that there is no bill headed to Congress that says how can we help the people who need our help the most. The most are those who lost their home and are on the streets or those who have been on the streets for years.
This situation is not new. I'm not the first person to think about this nor the last, but how can one not think about it?
When is capitalism not King?
Could the people who say it isn't be the so called 'one percent'?
Anyway, I have to catch a train, so for now I'll digress.
Oh yeah, BTW, what do you think?
But, I am really overwhelmed here by the amount of people who are struggling due to homelessness. Working in the Nation's Capitol, I'm sure that I have passed by a Senator or Congressman or Congresswoman who has seen the same people I have who are struggling. I'll admit, I walk pass 'them' and try not to make eye contact. But, I've also made eye contact, for example, when a woman asked me for some lotion and body wash... I bought it for her, but it made me wonder, does anyone make eye contact? Real, legit, eye contact. The kind of eye contact that says: I want to help you, what can I do for you today? Even if you already passed three people who are asking for something. Do our nation's leaders make eye contact?
The divide among those who have and those who, kinda have something, but not enough to live off the streets is a cry to attention. I'd imagine that there is no bill headed to Congress that says how can we help the people who need our help the most. The most are those who lost their home and are on the streets or those who have been on the streets for years.
This situation is not new. I'm not the first person to think about this nor the last, but how can one not think about it?
When is capitalism not King?
Could the people who say it isn't be the so called 'one percent'?
Anyway, I have to catch a train, so for now I'll digress.
Oh yeah, BTW, what do you think?
Saturday, January 14, 2012
UNTITLED CAB PROJECT, part 5
I usually don't look at who's driving when I get in the cab. I sit down, and mutter 'I'm going to Penn Station' or 'Penn Station, please'. Then, I look for my wallet in my Longchamps bag and take out seven dollars.
"It's a flat rate to Penn Station, six dollars. Ok?"
The wool, light pink coat, looked like it hadn't been cleaned since last winter. Can you imagine a faded- looking light pink coat? Maybe the fabric just looked worn, but why wear a pretty coat like that in a filthy cab. Answer 1: It's not new. Answer 2: she doesn't care. The coat, not her face, was in my direct line of sight. I looked up from my purse and saw her start the engine. We didn't make eye contact. Not even in the rear view mirror, so I was stuck with my second first impression of her. Her hair. It could have been styled, it was combed, but frazzled, like she'd just scratched the back of her scalp and didn't care to finesse it back into place.
There were no colored tree fresheners in the cabin, just the smell with out them - a neutral... funk. A defense mechanism for riders who have the potential to make her job unsafe. If she was at all 'dolled up' or wore perfume to pick up random riders, the tack-less bottom feeders of the world may take it as come-on. "Yeah, you can take me to Chateau de Super 8'; how much will that cost?"
She laughed, "Really?" and said it wasn't dangerous after I told her she was the first woman cabbie I rode with.
An expensive, and the most efficient ride so far. No pun intended (for those bottom-feeders going there...). Just grateful for a cabbie who's no nonsense.
"It's a flat rate to Penn Station, six dollars. Ok?"
The wool, light pink coat, looked like it hadn't been cleaned since last winter. Can you imagine a faded- looking light pink coat? Maybe the fabric just looked worn, but why wear a pretty coat like that in a filthy cab. Answer 1: It's not new. Answer 2: she doesn't care. The coat, not her face, was in my direct line of sight. I looked up from my purse and saw her start the engine. We didn't make eye contact. Not even in the rear view mirror, so I was stuck with my second first impression of her. Her hair. It could have been styled, it was combed, but frazzled, like she'd just scratched the back of her scalp and didn't care to finesse it back into place.
There were no colored tree fresheners in the cabin, just the smell with out them - a neutral... funk. A defense mechanism for riders who have the potential to make her job unsafe. If she was at all 'dolled up' or wore perfume to pick up random riders, the tack-less bottom feeders of the world may take it as come-on. "Yeah, you can take me to Chateau de Super 8'; how much will that cost?"
She laughed, "Really?" and said it wasn't dangerous after I told her she was the first woman cabbie I rode with.
An expensive, and the most efficient ride so far. No pun intended (for those bottom-feeders going there...). Just grateful for a cabbie who's no nonsense.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
UNTITLED CAB PROJECT, part 4
Greg wasn't in the line this morning. So, I had to settle for another driver.
The 'line' is the line of taxi cabs outside of the hotel each morning so it's pure happenstance that I get Greg's cab regularly. But, it usually depends on what train I take that day. If I take the 7:15 a.m. train, I have to be curbside by 7:00 or, 7:02 at the latest. If I take the 7:40, train then I leave the hotel at about 7:20. Greg is usually in line if I take the 7:15 train. It's purely timing. Then again, the concierge told me that some customers have such a repoire with a certain cab driver that they take the cab driver's name and number down and call them when they need a ride. Jim said, "I guess they really trust 'em."
I'm not sure that I want to do that yet. Greg is extremely likeable, but I still question the fact that he NEVER has change. It's definitely a hint at a tip. But, what's the tip for?... I do tip $.40-.60 each time I get in and out of the cab (I don't get my change back from him if I hand him a $10 and the fare is $9.40); I open and close the door; provide half of the conversation...
There is one cabbie that I've taken regularly. Greg would insist that I was cheating on him. An Indian cabbie. An older gentleman who says hello when I get in the cab, asks me where I'm going before I tell him, asks me how my new year was, he always has change, his door isn't broken. In fact, he told me how to get out of his cab - he's got a mini-van and you have to push the top lever to get out of the cab - very polite. If there was a bumper sticker on his cab it would say, "I appreciate your business", oh yeah, it'd have the smiley face too.
-----------------------------------
A few weeks ago, Jim cautioned me about cabbie's taking advantage of her riders. Some drivers "milk it". They drive below the speed limit so that the fare is a few dollars more. Really?
Yes, really. It's happened to me.
After a few weeks in the "game" I've figured out who they are the moment I sit in their cab. They usually ask me three times where I'm going (you've driven the cab long enough to know where the hotel is!). Take seconds longer to make the right turn out of the station -when the light is green - and drive ten miles below the speed limit. I get it. You want to squeeze the most money that you possibly can out of the rider. More money, more nice things for your wife, more things to give your children, more time you can spend with your family, the less likely it'll be that your cab becomes your office, a better shot at leaving the cab gig. Just like everyone else, we want more, better, best.
The 'line' is the line of taxi cabs outside of the hotel each morning so it's pure happenstance that I get Greg's cab regularly. But, it usually depends on what train I take that day. If I take the 7:15 a.m. train, I have to be curbside by 7:00 or, 7:02 at the latest. If I take the 7:40, train then I leave the hotel at about 7:20. Greg is usually in line if I take the 7:15 train. It's purely timing. Then again, the concierge told me that some customers have such a repoire with a certain cab driver that they take the cab driver's name and number down and call them when they need a ride. Jim said, "I guess they really trust 'em."
I'm not sure that I want to do that yet. Greg is extremely likeable, but I still question the fact that he NEVER has change. It's definitely a hint at a tip. But, what's the tip for?... I do tip $.40-.60 each time I get in and out of the cab (I don't get my change back from him if I hand him a $10 and the fare is $9.40); I open and close the door; provide half of the conversation...
There is one cabbie that I've taken regularly. Greg would insist that I was cheating on him. An Indian cabbie. An older gentleman who says hello when I get in the cab, asks me where I'm going before I tell him, asks me how my new year was, he always has change, his door isn't broken. In fact, he told me how to get out of his cab - he's got a mini-van and you have to push the top lever to get out of the cab - very polite. If there was a bumper sticker on his cab it would say, "I appreciate your business", oh yeah, it'd have the smiley face too.
-----------------------------------
A few weeks ago, Jim cautioned me about cabbie's taking advantage of her riders. Some drivers "milk it". They drive below the speed limit so that the fare is a few dollars more. Really?
Yes, really. It's happened to me.
After a few weeks in the "game" I've figured out who they are the moment I sit in their cab. They usually ask me three times where I'm going (you've driven the cab long enough to know where the hotel is!). Take seconds longer to make the right turn out of the station -when the light is green - and drive ten miles below the speed limit. I get it. You want to squeeze the most money that you possibly can out of the rider. More money, more nice things for your wife, more things to give your children, more time you can spend with your family, the less likely it'll be that your cab becomes your office, a better shot at leaving the cab gig. Just like everyone else, we want more, better, best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)