This week’s fresh hell came via the Town Crier: Yahoo.com’s home page.  In the interest of cutting costs, meat inspectors in Indiana are scheduled to join the throngs collecting unemployment checks.  Anyone so moved to read the entire story may do so by backtracking it via Yahoo.  I feel compelled to add my two cents to this insane decision to cut jobs that directly impact human health and safety.

The duties accompanying the title “meat inspector” are broad and yet precise.  At their most basic, they concern audits of meat processing and meat packing plants.  But those facilities are not confined to producers of red meat.  Included in the “meat” category are chicken, duck, ostrich, pork, and whatever else human carnivores ingest that sport hooves or feathers.   Charged with ensuring that the plants are in full compliance with FDA regulations, inspectors monitor the entire meat-producing process, from receipt of the product to its butchering, packaging, storage/refrigeration, and shipment, including its movement throughout various areas of the plant.   In case you’re not keeping count, each one of those check points is a hot bed for disaster.  At best, disaster comes in the form of nasty digestive reactions; at worst, it spells death.

How on God’s good Earth are we to trust any packaged meat now in any supermarket?

Biblical scripture tells us that animals have been put here to serve us.  Most of us interpret that passage from The Book of Genesis thusly: that animals are here to be served to us.  Is death by meat our karma for having gobbled gobblers and other creatures since time immemorial?  Or does karma have nothing to do with, and our government, everything to do with it?  By firing the meat inspectors, is our government only doing what it does best?   Hint: screwing us out of our inalienable (God-given) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with the word “life” underscored, italicized, and blown up to 72- point type!

The appalling announcement about the soon-to-be state of our meat trotted in on the heels of me discovering, via Prevention magazine, that farmed salmon is not only detrimental to our health, it’s also so disgusting that if you knew the details, it would never pass your lips.  Guess how much farmed salmon has passed my lips in, oh, the last two decades?  An entire school, at least!

Preceding these fish and meat horrors, we had the stuffing scared out of us by way of bagged produce, readily available in any supermarket, claiming to have been “washed three times.”   I won’t tell you what happens to some of that allegedly sanitized produce; you’ll upchuck.  But I will tell you that at least several deaths have resulted from a lack of sanitation at the point of origin.  The same problem has been cited for eggs.  Thank God I’m neurotic, particularly when cooking.  I have always washed all of my fruits and veggies, including bananas and oranges and yup, eggs — even the organic ones — until they sparkle like new dimes.

So.  We can’t trust meat, fish, produce, or eggs.  What’s left to eat?  Wholesome products like Captain Crunch and Twinkies?  Rocks?

In the land of plenty, what is happening to our food supply?  What hath our government wrought?  The same government that jumps to protect us from terrors on foreign soil has no compunction about exposing us to certain death right here within our own borders.  What choices does it leave us?

Will we be reduced to eating that natural super food so chock-loaded with vitamins and minerals that by itself, it is capable of sustaining human life?  No, I’m not talking about the infamous VitaMeataVegamin; I’m talking about seaweed.   I’d rather starve and I mean that.  I’ve tried seaweed, and not just that black papery fishy-smelling stuff wrapped around sushi rolls.  I mean the slimy deep green and purple stuff that undulates in the sea, can be reconstituted immediately from its dried state, and will never slip easily down any sane person’s gullet.  I say this as I have tried putting it in salads as well as cooking it.  Will the starving millions eat seaweed rather than submit to lethal meat or other traditional food products?  And if we don’t eat it, will we indeed become the starving millions?

We’re all so concerned about the sickos in Iran and North Korea playing “mine is bigger than yours” with their nuclear weapons.  Maybe we should be more concerned with expiring from the stuff that passes our lips.  Maybe, in the end, we’ll have no choice whatsoever.   Maybe that’s how we’ll come to our collective end, not by an earthy cataclysm or a giant, otherworldly meteor.  Maybe the “logic” of a twisted government that bails out kings of industry with taxpayer billions, but gives law-abiding taxpayers the boot, will be the cause of our demise.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not eating seaweed.  Ever.  The end is at hand.  As per the anthem in that old R.E.M. sang, “It’s the end of the world as we know it … and I feel fine!”  Hungry, but fine. 

Do you need to safeguard your spouse, family, or business from financial loss associated with your death?  Do you find the myriad types of insurance policies and coverage options available to be confusing?  Is finding the lowest possible premium for your insurance coverage a priority for you?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, it would be beneficial for you to visit the Advantage Term Life (http://www.advantagetermlife.com/) Website.  Don’t be fooled by the name; Advantage Term Life offers rate comparisons on all types of life insurance products from term to universal and whole life.

In addition, Advantage Term Life offers other life-related insurance products.  For consumers, they offer quotes on Mortgage Protect policies that will eliminate the burden on your spouse or family of making mortgage payments in the event of your death.  Joint Life Insurance  coverage can be a more affordable way for a couple to protect assets for children or other heirs.  For those who are concerned that their term premium payments are wasted at the expiration of their policies, Advantage offers Return of Premium Life Insurance products.  For businesses, Advantage offers the best prices on Key Man coverage and Employee Group Life Insurance  products.

By comparing rates from a broad array of carriers, you can secure the best possible coverage at the lowest possible price.  But, perhaps more importantly, the Advantage Website provides clear explanations of the various types of coverage, as well as their benefits and disadvantages.

To get competitive quotes on any of the available insurance products, you need do nothing more than complete the convenient form that you will find on the right side of every page of the Website.  For more immediate, personalized attention, call the number listed (866-923-0806) and speak with a friendly, knowledgeable insurance professional.

For the best rate and coverage options, your clear advantage is to contact Advantage Term Life today! 

According to the legendary ancient Greek epic poet Homer, during the ten-year siege of Troy, the Greeks plotted to invade their enemies by leaving a giant wooden horse at the gates of Troy.  This “gift horse” was carefully timed to coincide with what appeared to be a recession of the Greek fleet.  Assuming that the gargantuan equine was a peace offering, the Trojans opened their gates and rolled the horse inside.  In the dead of night, a team of thirty select Greeks quietly stole out of the horse and reopened the gates to their own armada that destroyed Troy.

Since that time, the term “Trojan Horse” refers to trickery or sleight-of-hand conducted with ill intent.  In the computer world, a “Trojan Horse” refers to malevolent computer programs (“malware”) that appear to be useful or harmless.  They induce the user to install and run them and thereby, seriously compromise, crash, or totally obliterate the user’s system.

Herein lies the crux of this article.  By having a computer system linked to the World Wide Web, have we invited foes into our homes?

I recently heard on the radio that a school in Pennsylvania gave every one of its students a free Apple laptop computer without notifying them that it could reveal what the students were doing at school or home, whenever the school decided to access its video cameras linked to those laptops.  The school’s treachery was revealed when its administrators interrogated one student concerning his use of drugs.  Needless to say, when the student informed his parents of this occurrence, the question arose as to whether or not this constituted a violation of the student’s civil rights.

If this could happen to a student, via a body of adults that he and his parents trusted implicitly, the question arises as to how widespread this problem may be. Legally, the issue impacts not only the unwary user but also the manufacturer(s) of the computer and videocam, the Internet provider, and those who supplied the laptop to the student.   If you think you’re immune to such deception, consider how many times you have agreed to terms of software utilization and access, via the Internet, without actually reading all of the terms.

The PC may be the greatest learning tool in recent history, but at what cost?  Is your personal business at risk? Once the foe has access to your home and its possessions, you are at his mercy.  It’s twenty-six years after George Orwell’s prognostications about “1984″ have come and gone, and it appears that the author was correct.  “Big Brother” is indeed watching!

Our Constitution guarantees us freedom from illegal searches and seizures, but how many times have you heard that someone who has been accused of a crime has had his computer impounded by law enforcement authorities?  If the presumption of “innocent until found guilty” is the basis for our law, and if the Constitution protects us against invasions of this nature, what exactly is going on here, and why is it going on?  Is this part of the Patriot Act now expanding into avenues it was never intended to survey?

Finally, we have a subject into which the ACLU can really sink its sharp little incisors.  If the ACLU is so concerned with safeguarding our inalienable rights, let them examine the legality of cyberspace agreements and malware programs.   Let them then push to institute laws that would protect PC users — nearly every American above the age of two — from pitfalls such as these.

Your files on your PC contain what you are and who you are: your thoughts, your opinions, your desires, the sites you enter, the products you purchase, your banking documents, ad infinitum.  You may consider these aspects of your life to be highly personal and accessible only by the use of a password.  Consider again how private they really are if a Trojan Horse in the guise of a malicious program or an unscrupulous party should be left at your gateway to the Internet. 

Have you ever considered how frequently you complain?  If you are like most people, hardly a day passes without the utterance of some form of complaint.  For some people, conversation would virtually cease, but for the expression of any of a litany of their personal complaints.

Very early in life, humans learn to complain in order to gain attention and achieve fulfillment of needs.  Infants cry to communicate that there is something about which they are discontented.  And, they quickly discover that the louder they cry the more immediate is the response.  Untempered by the corrective actions of parental or other figures of authority in their lives, some of these infants grow into children, adolescents, and ultimately adults whose focus in life is the realization of their every desire – even if such realization is to the significant detriment or expense of others.  Such individuals can be very demanding and do not hesitate to express their displeasure when even their most insignificant whims are not fulfilled.

Over the past several decades, as self-esteem building has gained equal stature with educating children among parents and school officials, we have created a whole generation of individuals who believe that realization of their desires is an entitlement – a generation of narcissists for whom complaining is not merely their standard means of communication, but also a form of negotiation.  Anyone employed in a customer or public service capacity can attest to the fact that complaining by customers and constituents is becoming more frequent and strident.

Of course, complaints differ significantly in their degrees of reasonableness, and there is no expectation on anyone’s part that one should forego making a fully-justified complaint.  Most complaints, however, do not fall within this category.

Realizing the epidemic nature of complaining in our society, the Reverend William Bowen, Pastor of Christ Church Unity in Kansas City, Missouri, initiated a program in 2006 to heighten personal awareness of one’s own culpability in proliferating complaining in our lives and society.  He devised what he calls “the complaint-free bracelet,” a simple purple rubber bracelet similar to those used by various charitable organizations.  The bracelet is used to alert its wearer to the frequency of his own personal complaining.  Each time a wearer utters a complaint, he moves the bracelet from one wrist to the other.  The goal is to maintain the bracelet on one wrist for twenty-one consecutive days.  According to information provided by the Pastor, it takes the average person from four to ten months to accomplish the objective.  Wearing the bracelet, of course, makes one acutely aware of one’s own complaining.  Absent the bracelet as a reminder, one wonders if anyone who is not asleep or comatose ever experiences twenty-one consecutive complaint-free minutes, let alone days.

Complaining, particularly when concerned with matters of little significance, is rarely beneficial to either the complainer or those receiving or listening to the complaint.  It puts one in a negative state of mind and undermines our faith in others.  It is used often as a crutch to explain our own lack of initiative or failure to achieve or perform to the level of our expectations.  It permits us to wallow in self-pity and deters us from advancing our own interests or those of society in general.

The legendary Walter Elias (Walt) Disney articulated the motto, “Let go of the past.  Keep moving forward.”  In a “complaint-free” world, one can only imagine how far forward our redirected energies might take us.

America’s plate is heaped high with terrifying unemployment rates, the issue of national healthcare, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  If this not enough to give us indigestion and worse, we were informed this past week that a portion of the nation would not be able to view The Oscars.   The tug-of-war between ABC (Channel 7) and Cablevision has left us this latest bitter pill to swallow.

At the eleventh hour — as the Oscars ran live, in fact — the nation was told that the warring factions had come to a temporary truce.   This was delivered as a text feed at the bottom of our TV screens, just as Steven Martin and Alec Baldwin were cutting up on stage and preparing to announce the winner of a major category.  The timing of this ceasefire reminds me of the timing of Alex Rodriguez’ allegedly earth-shattering announcement.  Just as the Boston Red Sox were pulling out all the stops in the World Series that year, A-Rod’s agent pontificated over the airwaves that his client had made the decision to remain with the New York Yankees.  The timing of and intent behind both announcements, A-Rod’s and the media giants, was pompous, self-aggrandizing, and designed to make all us think, “Gee, aren’t we the lucky ones!”  Thankfully, not all of us are fooled.

The ploy perpetrated upon viewers during the Oscars was a rehash of a dog and pony show has happened before: denying people the right to watch Hollywood celebrate its best with those little golden statues.  The reason this event was scheduled to be blacked out on certain cable networks is greed, pure and simple.  Cablevision paid Disney, ABC’s parent company, what they claim was a wad of dough for the right to carry the Oscars ceremonies.  Knowing how altruistic the Disney machine is, I don’t doubt it.  The cable company assumed that Disney would pay ABC it’s due and thereby, ensure that its subscriber base could tune in to see Sandra Bullock’s odd kabuki make-up, George Clooney staring daggers at the hosts, and Ben Stiller send his career as a funny man plummeting several notches.

Who’s in the right here?  Clearly, it’s not the American people; we’re the ones getting shafted, again and again.

I can’t see ABC crying poverty.  And God knows, there are enough Disney characters populating the big screen and all manner of merchandise, from lunch pails to kiddy slippers, from plastic dolls that come in boxes to that manufactured live doll known as Hannah Montana.  So, I am not shedding crocodile tears over any, cough, cough, monetary issues that Mickey & Company may claim to have concerning this dispute.

This type of blackmail has been going on for years, with the American public on the losing end.   Do you remember when Major League Baseball went on strike, leaving the post-season games, including the 1994-1995 World Series, not played?  Many disgruntled fans protested by not returning even after the labor dispute was settled.  I am sure that both the players and the owners realized without the fans, the game would not generate a single red cent.

The same is true of the Oscars.  Without viewers tuning in to this increasingly overblown and drawn out affair, there would be no sponsors.  No sponsors would equal a lack of advertising dollars, and as Joel Grey sang in his supporting Oscar role in Cabaret, “Money makes the world go around!”

The Oscars are part of the mystique of Hollywood: a day when producers, screenwriters, musicians, special effects people, costume designers, and actors compete for the coveted honors.  Without the viewing public, the Academy could conduct a private ceremony, or even mail the awards to the recipients and in the process, save a bundle of money on sets, dancers, hosts, ad nauseum.  Such tactics would reduce this gala occasion to a pat on the back for the recipients.

Americans supported Hollywood financially by paying to see the films nominated for awards.  They will pay again, and again, when the movies are distributed in DVD form and Pay-per-View formats.  We don’t deserve to be the victims of a price war between media giants.   My suggestion is that we retaliate for this ill treatment by refusing to watch sporting events, The Oscars, and any other extravaganza where we are held hostage to industry’s greed.  Without the viewers’ buy in, manifested by their time and hard-earned money, none of these events would be successful.

The robber barons of industry would do well to remember the old riddle, “If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise?”  To which the answer is, “Only if there is someone there to hear it.”

The economy troubles me; no doubt about that.  So does this second Vietnam (the war in Iraq and Afghanistan), and the bailout of industries whose heads I’d prefer to see on stakes.  I have a full metal jacket of other issues ripe for baring in a blog whose writers are adults and desirous of exercising their right to free speech in a manner that may enlighten and empower others.  But the one issue that has been tearing at my heart since the mid-1990s is the absence of real music in our lives and at our very fingertips.

I define “real music” as that which moves us to tears, makes us think, makes us feel, and in the end, helps make us better people.  That last phrase of mine is heartfelt; it is not an exaggeration.  I may, in forthcoming articles, expound upon the specific influences that brought our country to the point where it’s impossible to turn on a commercial radio station without hearing the same soulless, boring, and whoring fifteen to twenty songs, churned out by the same soulless, boring, and whoring fifteen to twenty performers day after day, week after week, month after month, ad infinitum.

Like the law of physics that states that matter can never be destroyed, only altered, good music has changed drastically in the way that we are forced to hunt it down and access it.  It is still out there, but much of it is no longer free.  Music is indeed the universal language; like no other art form and no other form of indulgence, its healing properties are instantaneous and far reaching.  It should be freely available at the turn of a radio dial, as it once was, and is no longer.

The American public has been robbed blind of what once uplifted our souls, made us stand up for our fellow man and woman, and got us through a Depression, numerous recessions, and far too many wars.  Indeed, music helped shaped our socio-political mores; it drove the way we approached these issues, voted, and even lived our lives!  To eliminate good music from a non-paid form of access (commercial radio) is, to my mind, akin to denying us the freedom of speech.

Oh.  And if you think the Internet is the great Second Coming poised to deliver you from this nightmare, think again.  The suits are on to us, big time.  Lovers of real music, and the artists who make it, are being hunted like foxes running one step ahead of the hounds.  The suits are waking up to the fact that many music lovers access tunes online.  As a result of that escalating trend, their primary business — the sale of hard CD’s — has dwindled.   Therefore, the suits are working to stamp out as many forms of non-paid music access as they can bag.

Behold their handiwork.  IEEM (formerly on the Web at ieem.com) is dead and buried.  Its funeral has forced the independent artists for whom the site was created to move their music to their individual pages on MySpace.  This move has deprived us all of a central repository for indy work, leaving us scrambling to locate new artists on a burgeoning social networking site that some of us avoid like the plague.  Rhapsody.com?  You have to pay for it if you want to hear more than the five or six songs the site allows you on a trial basis.  And the fee is annual, amortized over your credit card bill month after month.  Just what you always wanted: another credit card bill at exorbitant interest rates, for the privilege of hearing the music of your choice.

Worse, it was announced recently that record industry robber barons, including Clive Davis, have partnered with YouTube to effectively erase the work of all independent artists from this vehicle if said work is not deemed “of the highest quality.”  The standards defining that quality were glaringly absent from a public statement scripted for and presented a month or so ago by, of all people U2’s Bono, in honor of the launch of YouTube’s new initiative. I say “of all people” because U2 in its infancy was the first band in history to copyright their music.  They were savvy enough to know about the wolves howling at the door, and to protect themselves from the beasts, even when commercial radio was still streaming music crafted in the human heart and soul.

To add insult to injury, any indy artist wishing to submit his or her work to YouTube will be “screened” by a back-end process … a process to which no one but the techies on the payroll, and ah yes, the suits, will be privy.

Clive & Co. attempted to peddle this unprecedented theft as a desire to bring YouTube’s audience only the “highest quality music videos.”  Well, those of us with functional brains know that only those artists in Clive & Co.’s stable, and the stables of moguls like them, can afford to produce what the general populace would deem “the highest quality music videos.”  Those of us who love music could give a rat’s hind end about grainy or jumpy videos; it’s all about the music for us!  

Thus, we have the artists (true artists, not no-talent media whores), whose voices — instrumentally, vocally, and songwriting-wise — have been silenced.  The suits at the major labels and their lackeys, including their legal counsel and bean counters, are more concerned with pushing mass-produced product to exceed sales expectations than they are in the quality and integrity of the music they promote to achieve airplay, the music that has made commercial radio a vast wasteland.

In his autobiography published approximately two years ago, Eric Clapton postulated that none of the big labels would be around in ten years.  If Old Slow Hand is correct, the sand in Clive’s hourglass has another eight years to go.  In that time, I shudder to think what further havoc he and his ilk will perpetrate upon the American music-loving audience.

Like the early Christians who went underground to avoid persecution and spread The Word, we music lovers will continue to ferret out the artists who speak most profoundly to us.  We will not stop seeking the channels through which we may enjoy the music, and we will not stop passing the information on to others just as hungry and relentless as we are. 

Letting each other have a little space is an important ingredient in the recipe of any successful relationship, particularly those of the romantic and/or spousal variety.  Some people just don’t grasp this simple concept, so eloquently phrased as the old adage, “Familiarity breeds contempt.”   Technology has now made familiarity a lot more widespread, in the form of constant text messaging, IM’s, PM’s, emails, and cell phones messages.  Even if one half of a couple manages to escape for a few hours, she never really escapes when technology, driven by a jealous, neurotic, or plain ol’ demanding significant other drives it. 

Personally, I enjoy a little downtime when my husband “loosens up the reins.”  I like to go out on my own at times and browse around the malls to my hearts content without interruptions from my bored to tears husband.  After all, women are gatherers, and therefore, must gather merchandise unto ourselves!   Before we tied the knot, my husband and I used to enjoy more time to ourselves.  We also opened our lives to include other people more frequently than we do now.  Although our marriage is secure, it’s good to know that we can each function independently and through that independence, follow safe and enjoyable pursuits.   A little alone time is good for the soul; no one wants to feel like a mouse cornered by a big, salivating cat.

Love and trust must exist in order to sustain a compatible partnership.   On occasion, I have heard some women tittering, saying, “If my man does not straighten up, I will just cut him off in the bedroom!”  Maybe this tactic empowers some women, but in my estimation, it is just borrowing trouble.  Truly, my mental image of situation is laughable, since I don’t understand how or why some men allow themselves be led about as if they are sporting a ring through their nose, or perhaps more accurately, another body part.   I guess some men really do think with their nether regions.   My husband would get a kick out of these withholding tactics; he himself would proceed to just hold out!

But why hold out when it is so much more pleasant to simply enjoy the benefits of time spent apart from each other?  One major advantage is that, when you reunite, there is more excitement in seeing each other.  You bring new experiences into the relationship by sharing your day with the one who was not there firsthand.  Without these new experiences, it is easy to become bored with each other.

If you constantly question your partner about his or her whereabouts, you are setting the stage for jealousy to rear its ugly head.  Fights ensue.  And arguments are never healthy for a relationship if they are driven by one’s need to dominate the other.

Every man and woman in a loving relationship needs a day or night out on the town once in awhile, even if it is just to enjoy lunch with friends, see a movie, or browse the shops in the mall.  The sanctity of a good relationship should not be destroyed by a spouse’s fear and anger engendered by a brief separation from his or her partner.

Being insecure is detrimental to marital or any other type of relational bliss that relies upon trust.   No one wants to feel as if they are prisoners in a relationship.  If one person feels trapped, he or she will often turn to dishonesty for a little respite.  Others will turn to manipulation, misusing the concept of “love” to get their way.   As the Bible says, “Love is not selfish.”   Love does not utilize subterfuge or exploitation; it does not track down the other person as if they are prey to be hunted.  Every sane human being requires his or her own space every now and then.  If you are guilty of smothering you partner, beware, for your conduct may backfire in the worst possible way.  You may wind up killing the relationship for good and finding yourself alone permanently, not just for a few days or an evening. 

I recently had a computer problem that caused me to consider the nature of customer service and of business itself in a technology-driven world.  It is a story of an industry behemoth, a local shopkeeper, and my not so surprising experiences with both.

My story begins with a relatively minor problem experienced at one time or another by many PC users.  In conducting searches for information and clicking on the sought for links, I experienced occasional redirections to sometimes germane, but often completely unrelated websites.  Additionally, sometimes while browsing the Web, a new browser would suddenly pop up for no apparent reason.

Advised that some type of malware was infecting my computer, I was concerned that the privacy of my system might have been compromised and further, wondered how that might have occurred since my system was protected by Symantec Corporation’s Norton Internet Security suite.  Attempting to get to the root of the problem, I ran a full scan of my system.  The scan identified only a low threat level tracking cookie.

Determined to resolve the issue, I accessed the software’s help and support link.  Following the prompts and inputting information as necessary, I ultimately was directed to contact them via a toll-free telephone number.  Following an automated system greeting and a number of minutes on hold, I spoke with a pleasant woman with a distinct accent.  In response to my question regarding her location, she confirmed my suspicions that I was contacting a facility in India.

Now, I don’t want to suggest that I viewed this as a problem.  In fact, it was not.  All eleven people with whom I spoke during my four-day ordeal with Symantec were extremely polite and spoke perfect English.  I only mention this in light of comments I will make further on in this article.

To resume my story, my initial contact in India assured me that the problems I was experiencing were quite common and that they could be resolved in 30 to 45 minutes by a technician who would access my computer remotely, isolate the security threat, and remove it.  And, she indicated that for just $99.99, I would be connected immediately to a technician who would promptly fix my computer.

Clearly, English-speaking Indians have a distinctly different understanding of the meaning of the word “immediate” than do Americans.  After providing my credit card information and waiting on hold for 10 to 15 minutes, I was connected “immediately” to Hanif Pathukalam, the first of a number of technicians with whom I would ultimately speak.

As would all of his successors, Hanif began by asking and reiterating to me my telephone number, email address, and case number – number by number and letter by letter.  For each letter, he would provide a word beginning with that letter – “r as in “ridiculous.”  Even with all the painstaking reiteration, the first person with whom I spoke somehow input the wrong email address.  And so, I could not receive an emailed confirmation, receipt, or any other document.  Apparently the designer of their system was perfect, for any information entered into it could not be changed.

But, Hanif went right to work.  He informed me that he would place me on hold for three to five minutes to research the issue and that upon his return he would access my system and fix the problem in 30 to 45 minutes.  Ten minutes later, Hanif returned and instructed me in connecting my computer with his.  Once connected, our communication was done via messaging on the computer.  Four hours later, I received a message that he had isolated and removed a virus and that I would suffer the pop-ups and redirects no more.  In demonstrating the fix, he did searches on Google and Bing.  The computer operated flawlessly.  I sent a message suggesting that I would like to attempt a search on Yahoo.  When I did so, I was redirected and up popped a new browser.  Undeterred, Hanif informed me that the problem must be with Yahoo.  At that point, I asked for his supervisor.

Following 20 more minutes on hold, I spoke with Ghanashyam Gondhali who indicated that he would assign another technician who would fix the problem.  He did, however, indicate that it might take a couple of hours.  Placed on hold, I next spoke with Rahul Tawde who again asked for and repeated letter by letter and number by number my name, telephone number, email address, and case number.  With that critical, yet incorrect information out of the way, he took control of my computer.  After several hours when I could wait no longer, he informed me that he would call me at 10:00 AM my time the next morning.

At 10:45 AM the next day, I called the Virus Removal Department telephone number.  Following an initial ten minute wait, five minutes going over my critical case information (again, I indicated that the email address as they transcribed it was incorrect), and a 20 minute hold, I spoke again with Rahul.  Several hours later, Rahul informed me that he would be unable to repair the computer, but that he would pass me on to a supervisor.  Putting me on hold for three to five minutes, I sometime later that morning spoke with Mukesh Shivmurti Tiwara who, with an air of confidence, indicated that he would indeed fix my computer.  By this time, I had clients who were scheduled to arrive and would need my computer.  We agreed that Mukesh would call me at 5:00 PM and, since I had a meeting to attend that would take several hours, he could have uninterrupted access for the 5 hours he indicated that he would require to complete the fix.

At 5:25 PM, I called the Virus Removal Department and, after providing and listening to my repeated case information, finally made contact with Mukesh at 5:45 PM.  After quizzing Mukesh on his concept of time, I established contact with his system and left my office.  Unable to answer my phone during the meeting, I received a voicemail from Mukesh at about 9:00 PM indicating that he had done what he could but was unable to resolve the issue.  He promised to call me in the morning at 10:00 AM.

10:15 AM the following morning again found me contacting the Virus Removal Department, going over my case information in detail, and waiting on hold to speak with Mukesh.  I subsequently spoke (following holds of five to ten minutes each) with Gavrav Kumar, Madhu (whose last name I did not take down), and Jenny Jay.  At this point, it was decided that my case would be resolved by a member of their “elite team.”

Enter Irubayaraj John.  John, as he preferred to be called, was perhaps the only person with whom I interacted whom I actually had the inclination could be of assistance.  So much for gut reactions!  John worked on my computer for a number of hours on that day.  When I messaged him that I had to leave, he indicated that he would call me at 10:00 AM on the succeeding morning.  At 10:15, as I was on hold for John, I found out that he actually did call me, but not on the number upon which we had agreed.

When we finally connected, John informed me that we would need to repair MS Windows in order to fix my computer.  He instructed me put the Windows CD into the appropriate drive and provided me step-by-step instructions.  Once the process was underway, John would hang up and call me back to check the progress.  On his second callback, he advised me to start the process again as it had appeared to stall.  On his third callback, he instructed me to terminate that process and restart my computer.  Hearing a tinge of panic and resignation in his voice, I realized that we now had a much more significant issue than that with which we started.  In fact, my computer would no longer boot up.

At this point, I asked him if there was anything more that he or anyone at Symantec could do for me, a query to which he responded in the negative.  Following a relatively short hold, I spoke with an extremely apologetic customer relations manager, Jay Miranda.  Four days after beginning the process, my situation had deteriorated from bad to much worse.  Informing Jay that we could discuss this later, I determined to seek out the local computer technician who had actually built this system to assess damage and suggest a solution.  The only reason I had engaged Symantec in the first place was that their service promised a quick fix for which I would not have to leave my office.  Live and learn!

I called Pritek Technologies, a small computer shop, on Somerset Street in North Plainfield, New Jersey.  Pleasantly surprised that the owner Richie was there, I explained my problem and indicated that it would only take a few minutes for me to traverse the short distance from my office to his shop.

When I got there at about 2:30 PM, Richie immediately dropped what he was doing and began work on my computer.  He indicated that the solution was to recover my data (or as much as he could), do a low-level reformat that would eradicate any infection along with everything else on the drive, and then reinstall Windows, my programs, and the recovered data.  The process, he indicated, would consume a minimum of five to six hours.  Regardless of the time, however, he committed to providing same-day service so that I would have the use of my computer the following business day.

When I called him at about 8:45 PM that evening, he informed me that he had recovered my data, reformatted the drive, and was in the process of reinstalling Windows.  I arrived at his store about an hour later and waited as he completed the “true” fix on the machine.

Leaving with my restored system at 11:45 PM, I reflected on the poor quality of the service that I had received from Symantec, the world’s largest maker of personal computer security software, and the outstanding response of a small, one-plus person business establishment.  David had once again outgunned Goliath.

And, the bottom line is that my business is clearly more meaningful to Richie than to Symantec.  At Pritek, I have personal contact with the owner of the establishment.  At Symantec, I am just a case number and email address (incorrectly entered) to the presumably overworked technical staff.

Additionally, I believe that something is lost when a company like Cupertino, California-based Symantec outsources its technical and customer services to another country.  Would Americans have been more caring, respectful of my time, or resourceful in resolving my technical problems than the Indians with whom I dealt?  Perhaps not.  Yet, whether the difference be cultural or language based, I believe that Americans would have been more fastidious in keeping their callback commitments at the very least.

In the final analysis, the level of customer service received depends upon the knowledge, training, and integrity of the person providing it.  As technology further isolates the customer from those providing the services, the quality of customer service, I believe, will continue to decline, particularly in the case of large corporations for which each customer represents an increasingly insignificant proportion of revenue.  In my future dealings, I will seek out, whenever possible, a small local business with whose owners and representatives I can connect on a personal level and in whom I can have a sense of trust.

An “elephant in the middle of a room” is an English idiom for a subject on the minds of those at a gathering which remains unspoken, usually out of consideration or for the convenience of one or more of those present.  The phrase implies that the subject is one that should be addressed, but is purposefully excluded from conversation because of the sensitivity of the topic.

Sometimes, the decision to exclude a sensitive topic is mandated by the host or one of the attendees of the gathering.  In these instances, the rationale is usually that the nature of the gathering dictates that topics such as those represented by the “elephant” be left for another occasion, an occasion that frequently never arrives.

Sometimes, an entire group communally agrees for the benefit of all present to exclude the “elephant.”  Most often, although there is no formal mention of it, each individual present independently determines to avoid the “offensive” subject matter that the “elephant” represents, as if there is some “unwritten rule” or an “aura” or “something in the air” that compels unanimity of decision-making on this one subject alone.

At some gatherings, there is more than one “elephant,” sometimes an entire herd.  One wonders with so many “elephants” ambling about that more people are not trampled to their figurative deaths.

Frequently, the “elephants” at our gatherings and in our lives serve no real purpose.  Unspoken though they may be, the subjects they represent occupy space in our consciousness and may even haunt our dreams.  Their release, however, can be both liberating and beneficial.

At the next opportunity presented you, do your part for the world and free an “elephant.”  Your candor, although undoubtedly startling to those present, may release forces for positive change.  At the very least, you’ll create more space in the room.

To the average American, the passing of Robert L. Howard went unnoticed but for the family and friends who survived him.  Yet, one of the most decorated soldiers of the Vietnam War compelled the news media to devote a brief commentary to him.  So, who was this man?

Born on July 11, 1939, at the age of 17, the Opelika, Alabama native enlisted in the U.S. Army, in Montgomery, Alabama.  The year was 1956.  By the time Howard had arrived in Vietnam, he had risen through the ranks, attaining status as a Staff Sergeant assigned to the highly classified Military Assistance Command-Studies and Observation Group.

During his brief tour of duty spanning 13 months between 1967 and 1968, he was nominated for the Medal of Honor on no less than three separate occasions.  The first two nominations had to be downgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross, due to the covert nature of the operations in which he was engaged.

On December 30, 1968 in Cambodia, Howard, who by then had become a Sergeant First Class, was second in command of a platoon-sized force.  While searching through the steaming jungle for a missing American soldier named Robert Scherdin, Howard put his life on the line. Outnumbered and wounded so badly by grenade blasts that was unable to walk, he crawled tenaciously through a hail of fire to drag his wounded platoon leader to safety.  Compounding this act of supreme bravery, he insisted upon being the last man to board the helicopter, which evacuated them to a medical facility.  For this action, he was awarded the Medal of Honor.

During those thirteen months in Vietnam, Howard was wounded no less than fourteen times.  Eight Purple Hearts as well as numerous other honors, including the Silver Star and other medals bearing Oak Leaf Clusters, distinguished his uncommon valor.

In 1971, in a private ceremony that took place in The White House, President Richard M. Nixon bestowed the Medal of Honor upon Lieutenant Howard and six other recipients.  Nixon’s motivation for the privacy was his wish that his policies concerning the Vietnam War not be misinterpreted as an attempt to garner sympathy among the general public for the conflict.  Indeed, it was Nixon who ultimately put an end to this very long and bloody battle.

Colonel Robert L. Howard retired after a 36-year career with the Army career.  Upon his retirement, he chose to continue to serve his country by working for The Department of Veteran Affairs. A constant supporter of veterans’ needs who always put his words into action, Howard made several tours of Iraq, to provide his insight on warfare to the men in the field.

On December 23, 2009, America lost another brave son.  Robert L. Howard is survived and remembered by his three children and four grandchildren.  While in Basic Training at Fort Benning, Georgia, his son Robert Junior proclaimed, “I admire [my father] greatly for everything he has done.  My dad is a hero.”  Another family member allowed, “He was a soldier’s soldier, always looking out for his men.”

Colonel Robert L. Howard rests in Arlington National Cemetery, along with the many war heroes who preceded him.