Dealing with people can be tricky sometimes.
Some people are nice and helpful because they want to be. Some are (pardon the truth) horse's fannies because they can and want to be.
As much as you want to, and as much as you try to be nice at all times you will still sometimes have to be firm--sometimes nasty.
Recently, after an attempt at nice, I had to be firm and nasty.
I had purchased a new cell phone(s) from a company I will not name, but their initials are AT&T. As a retired GM/UAW employee I qualified for a fairly substantial discount. The folks at the phone store looked at my retiree card, agreed, called into the home office, they agreed, and the discount was applied . . .
for a while.
A couple of days later I received an email requiring me to "prove" I merited the discount and giving a phone number to call. I called, spoke to a very nice woman, who spoke to her techies and all agreed I got the discount. . .
for a while.
I receive another email again requesting I "prove" I was eligible. I again called, this time speaking to a nice fellow, and re-explained the problem. He called his techies and they said I didn't qualify. I asked them to check again. Again they said "no." I asked them to check again and they said I needed a letter from GM!
I explained firmly that I wasn't going to even try and get a letter from GM. I qualified for the discount and provided ID, they had approved the discount and sold me the phone(s) under that agreement. Done deal. (We were approaching my, "Gimmie the discount dammit." place.
The young fellow, the middle man between the techies and I, was feeling the heat and clearly didn't know what to do. I told him to tell the techies that I was a tired, old, angry, former UAW negotiator and I wasn't going to argue any longer. We had an agreement. As far as I was concerned it was binding, BUT . . . if they didn't want to honor it I would simply keep the phones and the new pad, call VISA and cancel the charges, and, even though they might ultimately win in an arbitration or court it would cost them one heck of a lot more time, money and trouble than the discount was worth.
I also pointed out that as a retiree I had plenty of time I could use for free and their lawyers/secretaries would require payment, so give it their best.
The young fellow, who remained polite but shaky sounding throughout all this was at a loss. I suggested a supervisor might be in order. He connected me, and in about 45 seconds a bright, reasonable woman said I had the discount. I happily agreed, thanked her, and we parted amicably.
My point of course, is that the horse's fannies who put the young fellow in a no win situation WANTED to be jerks. Others may have caved in, but after 30 years with the UAW, much of it negotiating agreements with GM, I was not in the habit of caving. I once told a personnel director that when he said, "No," I heard "later" and went ahead accordingly.
The pictures at the top of the post demonstrate my point, too. They are all of the same dog, my late, great, boxer Mac. He could be a playful pup, an ass-kicking protection dog, and a friend of children. It all depended on the situation. He's long gone now, but I still miss and love him. I also remember that he was brighter than most of the people he met--a great judge of character.
I'll close with this. Thrice, upon meeting certain unnamed men, each of whom were certified jerks, he simply walked up to them and peed on their leg. Lord how I loved that dog--and O how I wish I had a picture to show you of that!
Don't take no for an answer when you are right--and don't be a jerk when it isn't called for. Make the world a better place!
I am an avid reader of a local blog by Sheila Kennedy. She is extremely well informed on local and national issues, a clear and concise writer and a reformed Republican. Here is a link to today's (Sept. 1st) blog if you would like to see an example: https://www.sheilakennedy.net/2016/09/voting-my-conscience/
By and large her readers are bright, liberal and up on current events. I enjoy their thoughts and comments and occasionally comment myself. Therein is the germ of this post.
One commentator, a teacher in the Indianapolis school system, said he was unable to understand why a black student could hate him simply because he was white. In (what I thought was) a helpful reply I suggested he should read James Cone's A Black Theology of Liberation, Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye, James Baldwin's essay The Fire Next Time and a couple of other titles in the hope that they might help him understand the attitude of the student.
My suggestions didn't make him happy. He basically told me to go jump. He took it all as criticism and not an effort to help. Let me explain why that bothered me so much as it did.
There is a race problem in this country. Blacks don't trust whites. What is more to the point is that they probably shouldn't. Whites have screwed the black population of this country from jump street and, despite the best efforts of a few well meaning folks (count me as one, I hope) prejudice still runs rampant.
Most whites have no clue as to why Blacks are angry. "Slavery ended years ago," they say. "We passed the Civil Rights Act," they say. "We elected a black president," they say. "I never owned slaves," they say, etc., etc., etc..
Those sincere(?) comments mean nothing to African Americans who are still stopped by police, hurt by police, insulted by police and others every day. They mean nothing to the parents of a child who has to be warned "NEVER run through a white neighborhood," or "ALWAYS keep your hands in sight around a policeman." They mean nothing when one in every three black males will eventually do jail time, when the prisons are jammed with blacks sent away for marijuana possession and young white rapists walk after ridiculously short sentences or "affluenza" (read "spoiled white kid") is cited by a judge as sufficient reason for sentencing a white teen to ten years probation after his drunken driving spree (without a license) killed four people and seriously injured others. Here is a link--you really have to watch this to believe it: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/hear-teen-affluenza-drunk-driving-defense-34516612
Did you watch it? Imagine some poor black kid using the defense that "he was raised so poor that he didn't know right from wrong."
Blacks hear, and hate, the phrase, "Black on black" crime. Like there isn't "White on white" crime? Sheesh. We just never hear it phrased that way. Why? Because we are, consciously or unconsciously, racists.
"Wait," you say, Blacks are racist, too." Fair enough. They should be. They have damn good reasons. It isn't up to Blacks to prove to us they are worthy of our trust--it is the other way around. We were never slaves, lynched by mobs, shamed by Jim Crow, harried by police, jailed in ridiculous numbers, and now, victims of voting law changes hell-bent on keeping blacks from voting.
Did you catch my use of "our trust" in the above paragraph? It is there because I'm white. A friend of mine, also white, once said, "It is a tribute to the character of blacks that they haven't all risen up and killed us in our sleep." He was right.
Do you disagree? Well I suggest you read the books/essays suggested above. Others, too. Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Malcolm X's autobiography, Fredrick Douglas' Slave Narratives. Get through those and you will only BEGIN to understand. But at least you will have a start.
It is time we own up to our (read "whitefolks") race problem and got serious about fixing it. We should begin with a heartfelt apology and real repentance. And then it will still take years before we change. But, my friends, it is the right thing, and we just may find it will be well worth the effort.
T(rump). You can't spell it without rump, and he can't open his mouth without reminding you that he is one.
The first election I paid any attention at all was the 1956 race between Eisenhower and Stevenson. There was a mock election at school after which I went home to tell my dad that he should vote for Eisenhower because most of the class did.
Dad asked if that was the only reason I had for choosing Eisenhower, I said, "Yes," and earned a long lecture on how we should choose to cast our ballots. The gist of it was that what others thought shouldn't be the decider. He said we should learn for ourselves what we valued and who best represented those values and then make our decision. I was eight years old. It went in one ear and out the other at the time. I was far more interested in how the Cincinnati Reds (then the Redlegs) were doing and that Frank Robinson was on his way to tieing the rookie home run record.
Now I'm sixty-eight, have seen many elections, and am well able to evaluate candidates for myself. That said, the current Republican nominee is less mature than I was in 1956. My dad, dead since 1961, simply would not believe the GOP could/would nominate such an ass. Neither would mom, who died in 1999. Hell, I can barely believe it myself. I'll describe it (with a little cleaning up) as an old millwright I once knew might have said. "I've been to Maine, Spain and Ft. Wayne, and I've seen goats (breed) in the market place, and I have, never, EVER, EVER, seen a pile of (crap) like this."
Some people are actually going to vote for T-rump. If you are one of them, God help you; you're a fool, a racist, or blinded by misguided hate, and if you work for a living you are committing suicide by ballot. Sorry, but it is true. Yes, I know you don't like Hillary. She wasn't my first choice; Bernie was. But the truth is, Bernie, as much as I love him, couldn't have gotten a damned thing through congress and (despite some polls) wouldn't have kicked T-rump's fanny nearly as thoroughly as Hillary will. The "Socialist" tag would have frightened some people too much. The truly good news of Hillary's candidacy is that she just might (read slightly) have a chance to put both the house and senate in play for the Democrats.
The best part of a Hillary landslide might just be to knock some common sense into the Teapublican right. Okay, I know it isn't likely but it is possible. At the very least it will force some sensible, moderate Republicans to come out of the closet and try and reclaim their party from the Village of the Damned. (Movie reference--look it up, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUBlW5EWnI
Please, please, don't compare T-rump to Goldwater. Goldwater at least had principles and a sense of honor. T-rump has neither principles nor honor. . . Come to think of it he doesn't have sense either. He is simply a spoiled blowhard having an ego trip at the country's expense--and NO he's not self-financing his campaign! He has "loaned" his campaign money and will repay himself with YOUR contributions and those of rich oligarchs who are laughing at you while they prepare to grind you further into the dirt.
One final note--although I suspect you already are aware of it. When T-rump says "Believe me," that is T-rump speak for, "I'm lying again." Don't fall for it. Please. Please.
Hold your nose if you must, but vote for Hillary. Not T-rump, not Johnson and not Stein. Don't shame yourself or your country. Please.
