“This Page Intentionally Left Blank” Is Intentionally Ridiculous

I know there are more important things in the world to complain about. But, for some reason, when I see a document with a page that is marked “This Page Intentionally Left Blank”, it annoys me to no end. I frequently see this phrase in legal documents, company annual reports/proxy statements, medical benefit summaries, etc. I understand that they don’t want someone to see a blank page and think that they are missing something, but really now, there has GOT to be a better way to do it other than printing “This Page Intentionally Left Blank” on it. Doing so means the page is now NOT BLANK. It make my head want to explode, the same way it feels when watching sci-fi on television when a paradox is encountered. How can a page be blank and NOT blank at the same time?  It can't - at least not in this universe, unless you are Doctor Who and are using your psychic paper.

Here are my suggestions for pages where one intends no information to be printed on a page (this also applies to the “this space intentionally left blank” statement for sections of a page where no printing is intended):


1. Put a big “X” on it.

2. Put a large “forward slash” on it

3. Substitute the phase “There’s nothing to see here, move along.”

4. Don’t leave it blank if it’s a page in the middle of a large document. Think of all the reams of paper you’d save.

5. Throw caution to the wind and LEAVE IT BLANK!

I understand that people who write legal documents, company annual reports/proxy statements, and medical benefits summaries think that the rest of the world is stupid, but I assure you that 99.99% of the population can understand a blank page. If you’re giving someone a complex document and that person can’t understand the concept of a blank page, that blank page is the least of your worries.






Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

The 1960s: Heroin Kills; 2014: Heroin Still Kills

When I was a young child in the 1960s, heroin use was always depicted in films as being a deadly addiction. Heroin users were shown living in the worst conditions, desperate people who would do anything for their next fix. It was a life that no one in their right mind would want. Those people who were in the entertainment industry who used heroin were shown as pathetic figures who wasted their talents and many times lost their life because they couldn’t resist the pull of the drug. The message was clear: Heroin kills.

In the 1980s, heroin users also had to worry about not only dying from the drug, but there was the new risk: contracting AIDS from shared needles.

Now, fifty years later from my childhood, heroin still kills, yet it seems that many have forgotten this.

It takes the death of well known actor Phillip Seymour Hoffman to brings this point to light.  Sadly,  many non-famous people are dying daily from heroin use but the media suddenly becomes concerned when a famous person dies from it. Likewise, New York City law enforcement promised quick action and again, I am sure many non-famous people have died in New York City from heroin but it isn’t until a high profile person dies does law enforcement promise to move quickly. Addiction can hit anyone, rich or poor, famous or not. We shouldn’t be any more shocked or saddened when a famous person dies from a drug overdose; it is a tragedy no matter who the addict.

In 2014,  as in the 1960s, heroin still kills. Now it is being made even more powerful, sometimes laced with fentanyl to give an even more intense high. Heroin is also cheap and in many places easily available. But the message should be clear: heroin is an indiscriminate killer.

I feel much sympathy for the families of addicts who have lost a loved one to an addiction. One has to remember that while support is needed to help an addict break the cycle, sometimes even doing all you can do will not be enough to keep an addict from their drug of choice. In the case of heroin, it’s the addict who decides to put the needle in his/her arm. But we also must remember that drugs can be a powerful pull and some users may not have the ability to stay away once they start. I view it as a behavioral or psychological disease, which are sometimes hard to fix. It is a sad and tragic situation for everyone involved.

The message I took from my childhood was that heroin is a killer and no one in their right mind should even consider starting to use it. Fifty years later, the simple message still applies: heroin won’t kill you if you never start using.





Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

The JFK Assassination: Memories 50 Years Later

It doesn’t seem like it’s been 50 years; my memories are still as clear as the day it happened. I was 8 years old and in the third grade at a Catholic school in a suburb of Cleveland. An announcement came over the public address system that President Kennedy had been shot, and quickly thereafter, that he was dead. The school closed and all students were sent home.

Despite being only 8 years old, I knew who President Kennedy was. I didn’t have a full understanding of all the political things going on at the time, but I knew he was president of the entire country and a very important man. I also thought he was as a very handsome man with a beautiful wife and lovely kids, and even at that age, I felt like the life of a Kennedy was out of reach for someone like me.

When I got home from school that day with my older sisters, I recall my mother crying. It was upsetting and it made me cry too as I knew she felt sad, and maybe even a little scared. I know I was crying too, partly because I could not believe someone would want to kill a man like him, and partly from fear.. If someone could kill a man like him, could they hurt my own father and mother?

The television set stayed on for 4 days straight.. Over those four days, we and we all watched as the news anchors continued to tell report on the shooting, and later, the swearing in of a new president and his speech. As the days progressed, we watched as Kennedy lay in state, and then saw the cortege as it marched down the streets of Washington D.C. with the constant beating of drums in the background, all the way to Arlington Cemetery. It was hard not to cry, seeing Jackie Kennedy and her two children, who were just a little younger than me.

In the middle of all this, Lee Harvey Oswald, while being held for the assassination at the Dallas police headquarters,  was shot by Jack Ruby. It all happened on live television. It was surreal, even for an 8 year old.

Fifty years later, conspiracy theories abound about Kennedy’s assassination. In this current day and age where every little move someone like the President makes is photographed or is on video,  it’s hard for people to imagine how little footage there is of the Kennedy assassination. And what there is available from that day, people still debate what happened. There’s the lone gunman vs. multiple gunmen (another at the grassy knoll) issues, Oswald being part of a larger conspiracy by organized crime or other governments, and even our own government cover-ups. Even the motive of Oswald’s shooting is still a matter of debate. The Warren Report did not inspire much confidence. I suspect that we may never know the real answer.

I still have the newspapers from those days, and I pulled them out to read the press coverage from that day. It still seems very surreal. All I can hope is that we have learned enough from this tragedy to never let it happen again.



Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

The Plight of Traveling Tea Drinkers: The Tea Tastes Like Coffee

It’s been a few months since I’ve had anything to write about. There’s been nothing of consequence that has bothered me – at least nothing that hasn’t already been overexposed in the media. Something did come up while my husband and I took a short vacation a few weeks ago – it’s the plight of the traveling tea drinker who wants to get a good cup of tea that doesn’t taste like coffee.

For those who take driving trips, while on the road we are often at the mercy of the eateries that are either located within the toll ways or near a freeway exit. Almost all of them have no idea how to deliver a good cup of tea.

Try going into any fast food restaurant and ask for a cup of hot tea. Most times they will serve you a cup full of hot water with a tea bag, the hot water being poured from one of the same pitchers that at one time likely held coffee. The same goes for coffee makers in hotel rooms; even though the hotel sometimes offers tea bags along with coffee, the coffee maker itself and the pot have been permeated with the taste of coffee from repeated coffee uses. Nothing is worse than tasting a cup of tea where the taste is overwhelmed by the taste and smell of coffee. We always bring our own tea bags – we’re partial to Twinings – but even that doesn’t help.

We were very disappointed after a recent stop at a Panera Bread location on the Ohio Turnpike. They seemed to have a very nice coffee and tea station where the tap for hot water appeared separate from the coffee. We were so wrong. The tea tasted more like coffee than it did tea. Worse yet, we were charged $1.99 for one cup of tea which we spilled out after the first taste.

If you’re willing to spend more time to eat at a restaurant like Cracker Barrel, you have a good chance you’ll get a cup of tea that actually tastes like tea. But those types of eateries are not very fast, which is not much help if one wants to get back on the road quick.

Fast food places clearly have a clientele that favors coffee, but it is no excuse for offering an alternate product that is undrinkable. Imagine ordering a Coke or Pepsi and having it taste like coffee? Or ordering coffee that tastes like tea? Why should restaurants have lower standards for tea drinkers? If you run a fast food eatery and you serve tea, try drinking your own product. If you won’t drink what you serve yourself, why should anyone else?



Check out my blog home page for the latest information,The Frequent Critic, here.

Analyzing The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Incident

According to a Florida jury, George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self defense. Needless to say, this verdict has caused an uproar, with the emotional responses running the gamut from calm protest to violence.

I’ve waited a few days before outlining my own opinions, only to bring some calm and reason to my own mind. Something very wrong has happened here, and the wrong started before the actual killing.

Very simply put, this whole matter would have been avoided if George Zimmerman took his role in his neighborhood watch as just that – to WATCH. Instead, he was armed, he took action after being told not to, and in doing so, Trayvon Martin was the one who was dead for doing nothing except walking wearing a hoodie.

Zimmerman was also not arrested quickly for the shooting until several weeks after it happened. The police investigation into the shooting took far too long before Zimmerman was arrested.

The prosecution had to prove that Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon in self defense, which the jury felt it did not do. The prosecution also allowed for a lesser charge of manslaughter to be considered after the case was already in progress, a sign that they didn’t think they could win their own case of murder. Had they gone forward first with a manslaughter charge, they may have a had a better chance in getting their desired verdict. There is also talk that the Feds will research pressing charges against Zimmerman for a hate crime, but the general consensus of the media pundits is there is simply not enough evidence for the Feds to sustain those charges. It’s possible that a civil suit against Zimmerman would be the best recourse to get justice for Trayvon.

Compounding the emotional response, the media has did a good job in fanning the flames. NBC News faces a lawsuit from Zimmerman for editing Zimmerman’s 911 call where they made it sound as if  Zimmerman was commenting on Trayvon's race, when in reality he was simply answering the dispatcher's question.  In delivering the details about this case over the last several months even before the trial, it’s as if the media is trying the case themselves and polarizing viewers before the trial even started. While I know that cases like this could mean bigger ratings for the news media, it seems like the media has forgotten that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Needless to say, things need to change to avoid situations like this in the future.

First and foremost, those working neighborhood watch programs should do only that – WATCH, and then report to law enforcement. Law enforcement should decide which situations should require their involvement. Neighborhood watch people should not be armed with guns. If they are going to protect their neighborhood, they need to watch everyone and not judge people on their color or their clothing. Neighborhood watch programs across the country need to take a very hard look at how they operate and what kinds of people they use as watchers. These programs should be as simple as watch, observe patterns, and report to the authorities.

All laws that allow killing in self defense such as “Stand Your Ground” need further scrutiny to tighten those situations where it is justifiable. If you are in your own home and an intruder enters and you feel your life is in danger, that seems to be a clear situation where self defense would be in order. But, things get murky when a person uses self defense in a situation in which they put themselves. 

The only thing neighborhood watch people should be armed with is a good set of eyes, a good camera, and good sense. In fact, maybe we need to take the people out of that equation – just install video cameras in the neighborhoods to record activity. Video cameras can’t have their lives put in danger and they can’t be armed with a gun.



Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

“Do Not Call” Registry: A Wasted Effort

The National “Do No Call” registry is a good idea, but it’s being ignored by telemarketers and it’s hard to enforce. The “Do Not Call” registry is like a mouth with no teeth. It can’t really put a bite into anything.

Based on my own personal experience, since the registry began in 2004, telemarketing calls to my home dropped off for a short while, but now seem worse than ever. I’m getting tired of the daily calls from various companies wanting to talk about changing my natural gas supplier, or to buy magazines, or from police departments across the state of Ohio asking for money for one of their causes. The latter really gets to me, as I know these aren’t really police officers calling me (as they pretend to be) and the caller always speaks with a slight southern drawl, even when they pretend to be calling from my home area. (Southern drawls are not the norm here in northeast Ohio.) A few weeks ago, I had one alleged officer call me and ask for a donation, and right after I began saying the words, “I’m sorry, but” he hung up on me.

But, back to the Do Not Call registry. I don’t have the time to report every single person that makes a telemarketing call to me. It’s hard to even know sometimes who is calling when you get one of those automated phone calls that hangs up the minute it gets an answering machine. Likewise with those where I want to hang up because I don’t want to waste my time listening variations on the same pointless spiel every day. 

I've also heard from many people who get regular phone calls where they answer the phone and no one is there. I’ve been told these are automated dialers that are simply checking to see when someone is regularly there to answer the phone; they get your patterns down pat and then schedule their real telemarketing call during the time you've been shown to most likely answer. 

Here’s my idea. Why can’t we have a number code that we can dial while listening to a telemarketing call that automatically reports the number to the government? I’m thinking along the lines of the *69 feature that some telephone carriers use for callbacks. A simple * and a number code is all I would need to put their phone number on the list of possible law breakers. It’s a simple way of reporting the offender without me having to write down all the information myself and go to a web site and file the same information.

Better yet, how about if we just make a rule that says unless the company calling has your approval, no one can call you and sell you anything over the phone. I have no objection to companies with whom I already have a relationship calling me in the course of normal business, but I would still draw the line if they want to call me to sell me something.

It goes without saying that automated dialers and recorded messages should just be illegal – regardless of who is calling. (For example, politicians and charities shouldn’t use automated dialers and recorded messages).

With all the technology available these days, there has to be a quick and easy way to report these annoying telemarketers.   And, I still wish that "Do Not Call" would mean "Do Not Call - AT ALL."


All Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted


Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

NSA Surveillance – Should You be Afraid, Very Afraid?

A big news story broke this week by The Guardian (a U.K. news source) about the U.S. NSA surveillance program called “PRISM.” (Don’t ask me if PRISM is an acronym for anything because if it is, I surely can’t find it. ) Apparently, the NSA has been collection phone records of Verizon customers. Later, there were more reports that the NSA also has access to everyone’s emails and Internet activity such as a person’s search history, videos, photos, etc.  As my mind races to think of all the web sites I’ve accessed just in the last week – even accidentally – my initial response to this news is alarm.

What’s happened to privacy, or, as some say, our right to privacy? Technically. The US Constitution’s Bill of Rights does not specifically grant a right to privacy. While the 4th Amendment provides for protection from unreasonable search and seizure, it never mentions privacy. The Bill of Rights does mention “liberty,” which many believe implies a right to privacy. The privacy issue has always been a gray area but some laws are written in keeping with the spirit of a personal privacy.

Should you be worried that the government may be looking over your shoulder? Yes – and no. The argument that if you’re not doing anything wrong you should not be worried is nonsensical; one may not be doing anything wrong but someone who doesn’t know you may think you are, and you may find yourself in trouble over nothing. I’m reminded of a review of a TV show I posted a few years ago (the show was “24”) and afterwards, my site traffic was filled with hits coming from government web sites located in Washington D.C. I suspect that some of the words I used to describe the activity on the show may have set off alarm bells. (As I don’t want the government looking at my blogs, I’ll refrain from repeating those words here. ) Bottom line is that, in my opinion, the government has been looking at Internet activity for a long time. And for good reason. There are people out there who are using the Internet, phones, computers, tablets, and any technology available, to do bad things. While I don’t like the government scanning my every word, I also want them to catch people who DO mean harm BEFORE they actually can do harm. Most people should have nothing to fear by this government surveillance, so stop worrying about what we sites you visited, or about who you called, or what photos you took.

All that said, there should be a right to privacy – with limits. I believe that if the government wants to actually listen to my phone calls or read my emails, they need to get the proper warrants. I can be more flexible on the issue of them seeing what phone numbers I am calling, or what web sites I visit, or even what books I read, in order to thwart terrorism. This is a tough world we live in, and we need to allow the government the ability to do high-level research in order to help zero in on those who do mean harm. We cannot expect the government to protect us when we tie their hands. Search engines like Google and Yahoo, cell phone companies, and web sites like Twitter and Facebook where many post the most boring minutia of their lives are already collecting data on their users, and some people post way too much information to the public on the Internet. The government would be remiss if they didn’t find a way to tap into that hoard of information. The only way to stop the flow of data to the government and to businesses is to stop using all the technology and stop sharing too much information on the Internet – and I don’t see that happening any time soon.


All Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted


Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.