HP printer the last straw

Hewlett Packard printers are crap.

I took a huge, expensive leap of faith and bought a top of the line HP printer about a month ago and I've had nothing but trouble with it since.

First, it usually doesn't detect the fact that there really is paper in the paper tray. Because of this, my command to print from my computer is often interrupted, and I have to get up and go over to jiggle or reposition the stack of paper so the damn machine will notice its presence.

Then, it likes to tell me it's "off line," effectively ending any printing job I attempt.

I can plug, unplug, replug, shut off, turn on -- and nothing changes.

Today was the last straw. I called HP's customer service and naturally I got a guy whose accent was so thick I could barely understand him. Setting aside this minor irritation, I proceeded to try to explain my problems. He interrupted me to insist that before he could help me, I'd have to set up an account and "register" my printer. So I gave him my name, my contact, information and the printer model number.

Then he asked me for the printer's serial number.

I told him I wasn't where I could see that number at the moment, and couldn't he just listen to my problem and tell me what to do.

Nooooooo.

Had to have that *%$4%^&#&* serial number.

Fine, I said. If that's the way it was gonna be, I'd just take the printer back to the store where I bought it and get my substantial investment back.

The guy didn't blink. He didn't offer a workaround, he didn't offer to transfer me to his supervisor.

He just let me go.

Customer service has all but died, folks. American companies are making money hand over fist and they DO NOT GIVE A GOOD DAMN about the customer at the bottom of the heap. It's profits, image, more profit and if that means outsourcing to foreign countries where we get crappy customer service for crappy products made in other rat-hole countries, then so be it.

I've got other recent examples of bad customer service so while I"m on a roll I'm gonna share:

A good friend of mine bought the wrong workbook for her daughter at a local school supply store. Within 30 minutes of her purchase she realized her mistake and called the store to let them know she was on her way back to exchange or return it. They reminded her of their "no refund" policy on workbooks (fear of someone buying a book, photocopying the whole thing and then returning the original for $$ back) and also refused to allow her to exchange for either another item or store credit.

My friend has spent literally hundreds of dollars at this store over the course of her homeschooling career, as have I. The store's refusal to be reasonable has cost it future business as neither of us will ever shop there again.

Then there's a neighborhood pizza place that from time to time makes crappy pizza when its owner doesn't time the food just right and it emerges from the oven either nearly raw or burnt black.

In general, the food has been good and we've rarely had a problem, but the other night pizzas my husband picked up were just this side of raw and I had to fire up my own oven to finish cooking them. Having to do this after spending $28 for what should have been done right the first time sorta bothered me so I called the shop to let the owner know. I expected an apology, an offer of credit back, maybe a discount or freebie the next time we came in. We've been going there for five years and they know our family. We've done a lot of business with them, so I guess I expected them to actually care.

I know now that although they are idiots for refusing to put a timer on their pizza oven, I am a bigger idiot for thinking they valued our business.

The owner's wife rudely informed me on the phone that night that if we wanted pizza cooked according to a timer, then we ought to start going somewhere else where they use a timer. In short, "we don't care if you never come back."

Nice to know. And we won't go back. Ever.

Within 48 hours of this jaw-dropping experience (aren't we supposed to be in a recession where every customer's dollar counts?) my aforementioned friend had a similar experience at a nearby office supply store. Hey, I'll name names here. It was STAPLES.

My friend went in with a giftcard she'd received and wanted to buy some binders. She found some that sported stickers saying "instant rebate and savings," so she got several and headed to the checkout. When she asked about the "instant" savings, she was told she'd have to go online to fill out a bunch of blah, blah and then she'd get a rebate. "But this says, 'instant,'" she protested. Having to go home and go online and fill out some sort of form is anything but, she noted.

The clerk called the manager over and when my friend pointed out the misleading and frustrating advertisement, the manager essentially told her to go shop the competitor if she didn't like the way Staples did business.

So my friend has vowed to do just that. She'll never set foot in Staples again.

I could also share my story that is the nightmare of Comcast Communications, but I, too, grow weary of ineptitude, stupidity, and downright apathy that has become part and parcel of American retail.

The bottom line is this: The only way major companies are going to break and actually care about what we think is if we simply stop doing business with them. But this has to happen in droves, and they need to know why.

Wish the TEA partiers could figure out a way to persecute corporate America as part of their targeted efforts against government foolishness. That would be the ultimate example of feeding two birds with one crumb -- or obliterating two morons in one fell swoop.

I'm not a child of Haiti

I'm not a child of Haiti,
My skin is not dark brown.
My family is still living,
My house, not fallen down.

My country is still governed,
My pantry is still filled,
My neighbors' homes are standing, too,
And no one has been killed.

I'm not a child of Haiti,
So I cannot understand
What it's like to have your whole wide world
Swallowed up by heaving land.

Call God's name over Haiti,
His youngest are in need.
They have no place to safely sleep,
There's little food to feed.

I'm not a child of Haiti,
But I pray for those who are.
May the power of a million prayers
Bless each one from afar.

Hey kids, that guy's a real soldier

An installer from AT&T came out to our house today to see about setting my mom up with some sort of hotshot all-in-one cable/phone/computer system.

When I went to unlock the side gate so he could get to the phone lines out in the backyard, I noticed he wore a faded blue ballcap with the words, "U.S. Marine" stitched across the brim in red.

"Are you a Marine?" I asked him. Hey, people wear all sorts of insignia and branding that doesn't really apply to them, so I figured my question was a fair one.

"Yes, ma'am, I am," he said.

Turns out this guy, who looked not a day older than 20 or so, is a 28-year-old with two tours of duty in Afghanistan and another in Iraq under his belt. He enlisted in 2000, never expecting, as he put it, "to have guys ram airplanes into tall buildings and turn my life upside down."

For the forgetful or those in denial, that's a reference to Sept. 11, 2001 when Muslim fanatics (yes, yes, I KNOW I used the word "Muslim, so no flaming me for historical accuracy, okay?) hijacked the three passenger jets and set the east coast on fire for the day.

The guy from AT&T was counting on a fairly uneventful military stint. Instead, he had the distinct privilege of surviving the Battle of Fallujah in Iraq and then impressing his stateside superiors so much they sent him to Afghanistan to train officers. Twice.

When I asked him whether he would ever go in again, whether he liked working for the phone company, his reply was swift and sincere. "I love this job. I'm done with the military. There's just something nice about being able to get up, go out and not worry about having your head shot off. I get to wake up in my own bed next to my wife and that's worth a lot."

He volunteered that if he, a three-tour veteran, got called up again it would be for one reason only. "You'd want to get your own gun out," he said, "because if they call me up it means we're being invaded."

After he left, my two oldest children asked me why I'd stayed out on the patio for so long talking to the "phone guy."

I was pleased to report that he was no ordinary "phone guy." He was an American soldier, a Marine, the best and the bravest our country has to offer. And in spite of all he'd seen and done, he still had the courtesy to smile, call me "ma'am" and wish me a nice day.

Same to you, soldier. Same to you and then some.

If you know of someone serving in the U.S. military, take a moment to send them an email, a letter, or call them on the phone. Thank them for putting their hide on the line so the rest of us don't have to. Like the old saying goes, "Freedom isn't free."

Replying to studied ignorance

A fellow homeschooling mother recently shared with me an article by Georgetown University law professor Robin West titled "The Harms of Homeschooling." The piece was published in the Univ. of Maryland's Institute of Philosophy and Public Policy quarterly this past fall.

Rife with generalizations, lack of statistical backup, and downright fantasy (the "homeschoolers who live under tarps in parking lots" remark comes to mind), the article at first left me unfazed. After all, it was obviously just another attempt to stir up a mistrusted and largely misunderstood minority.

But then it dawned on me that said minority included MY family and ME, so I went back and re-read West's piece. I came away with a new appreciation for those who say our legal system is going to hell and fast. If Prof. West's failure to present a reasoned and well-substantiated observation of a cultural phenomenon -- in the era of the internet with its easily accessible data -- is any indication of things to come, our courts might as well shut down now. And to think she actually teaches.

The original article is available online, just Google it.

My original reply to Prof. West is below. Pardon the weird typeface changes. I can't fix them:

Professor West,

I was recently given a copy of an article, "The Harms of Homeschooling" you wrote for the Summer/Fall 2009 edition of the University of Maryland's Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly. After reading your piece thoroughly, I was surprised to find so many statements that did not appear to be supported by facts, at least none that I could discern.

First, you maintain that tighter regulation of homeschooling will do much to prevent cases of child abuse. Your assertion is difficult to reconcile with data readily available via a simple internet search. In 2007, according to federal statistics on child abuse, 75% of child abuse victims who died from their mistreatment were under the age of four. www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm This age group does not include school-age children, thus it would seem incorrect to claim that any significant reduction in child abuse cases would be obtained by more closely regulating homeschooling.

Further, since the overwhelming majority of school-aged children in the U.S. attend traditional public or private schools, it stands to reason that the majority of child abuse cases in the school-age population will not be found among those being homeschooled.

The case of Chandler Grafner, a seven-year-old boy in Colorado, is a prime example of why your argument regarding the need for greater homeschool regulation to prevent child abuse does not hold up. In 2007, Chandler was enrolled in a Denver-area public school when signs of physical abuse were observed by his teachers. Their suspicions were reported to authorities who investigated but took no action. The child was subsequently withdrawn from school and when this was reported to authorities, again they took no action. Shortly after, Chandler was found dead as the result of starvation and physical abuse. He had been kept in a closet, made to sleep in his own excrement, and given virtually nothing to eat or drink in the days before he died.

I am curious to know how his enrollment in public school benefited him in terms of alleviating his suffering or preventing his death. Teachers reported a problem, authorities investigated, nothing happened. The child died.

Now, Chandler's case is just one of many out there and, yes, I'm sure if you dig deep enough you can find instances of parents who homeschooled their children solely for the purpose of being able to abuse them in secrecy. But the fact is that these cases are going to be far and few between simply because the population of homeschooled children is a mere fraction of all the children in the United States, and the vast majority of parents who choose to homeschool their children are also willingly visible in their communities, local civic organizations, and places of worship. In short, they have nothing to hide and no reason to hide it.

Your remarks seem based in part on the myth that homeschooled children spend most of their time isolated from the outside world and subjected to mind-numbing authoritarian rule. Homeschooling and child abuse are two separate issues with no de facto connection between them, and I'm surprised you presented such an unproven relationship as fact in your article.

I'd next like to address your assertion that, "children who attend public schools are required to have immunizations," ergo, children who are homeschooled pose a public health threat because their parents may not vaccinate them. Again, you provide no statistics to back this up. In Texas, where I live, parents whose children attend public school may legally exempt their children from any or all vaccinations and their children may not be prohibited from attending class. These exemptions may be granted for religious, personal philosophical, or medical reasons and all public schools are required to honor them. Texas is in good company. All states except Mississippi and Virginia have religious exemptions from immunizations. Eighteen states also allow exemptions on personal philosophical grounds.

Again, it would seem that since the majority of children in these states are publicly schooled, the majority of vaccination exemptions would be found among that particular population. Homeschoolers are a minority in all states, and within this minority population it is doubtful that most of them are unvaccinated since, as you point out, a preponderance of homeschoolers come from fundamentalist Protestant faiths. Most such faiths do not explicitly discourage parents from seeking conventional medical care, including vaccinations, for their children.

Your third asserted harm -- that children who do not attend traditional schools are somehow inappropriately or incompletely valued as individuals by virtue of being with their families much of the time -- is, quite simply, breathtakingly bizarre.

You write that, "(P)ublic and private schools provide for many children . . . a safe haven in which they are both regarded and respected independently and individually."

A safe haven? Are you sure?

According to the National Center for Children Exposed to Violence, during the 1999-2000 school year approximately 71% of elementary and secondary schools in the U.S. reported at least one violent event. (Violence in U.S. Public Schools: 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety, October 2003)

In May 2003, a Texas newspaper reported on the prevalence of registered sex offenders employed in Texas public schools. More than 500 men and 77 women had been disciplined for infractions related to inappropriate sexual conduct with students and yet many of them were allowed to remain on the job. Most of the victims were in middle school or high school.

The list of abuses against children in public school goes further. Do an internet search for information about special needs children abused by their public school teachers and you'll come away nauseated. The list of horrors includes being tied to a chair, verbal humiliation in front of classmates, beatings, verbal assaults, and confinement to dark, locked rooms.

So much for safe havens full of high regard and respect for children as individuals.

Along these same lines, you describe the "ideal teacher" as someone who "cares about the child as an individual, a learner, an actively curious

person—she doesn’t care about the child because the child is hers."

Why is this type of caring superior to that of a parent? You don't say, but I suspect it is rooted in the notion that the State, rather than the family, is best equipped to raise our children. I find this not only chilling but offensive, seeing as how the State didn't volunteer to carry each of my children for nine months, birth them, feed them, spend countless sleepless nights worrying over every little sniffle or cough, shop for their clothes, books or toys, provide them with a house in which to live, answer their millions of questions, clean up their spills, do their laundry, or pay for their teeth cleanings, medical checkups, speech therapy, or ballet lessons. The State has not spent long hours researching and procuring educational supplies and materials to ensure my children receive a well-rounded education. The State has not chauffered my children to scout meetings, museum trips, music concerts or plays.

No, the State hasn't done any of that for me or for any other homeschooling parent I know. And until it does, it has no right to claim that its authority should take precedence over mine.

I also find it interesting that you dismiss the possibility that parents who educate their own children are incapable of caring about them in a more objective way -- as individuals, learners, actively curious people. On what do you base this? The very nature of homeschooling provides for the coveted opportunity to learn and be taught as an individual rather than as just one of 20+ students in a classroom (or 2000 students in a school). Nowhere is the individuality of children more highly regarded and accommodated than in a homeschool setting where every book, learning tool, and lesson plan can be tailored specifically to each child's learning style and developmental level.

Institutional settings, no matter how well-funded, expertly staffed, or beautifully decked out, cannot possibly honor a student's individuality. How can they, when your child is one in a sea of many, many more?

Your next "harm" has to do with the political ramifications of homeschooling. You write that this model of education sacrifices "some children's knowledge base, literacy, and numeracy."

I guess you haven't kept up with the statistics over the past 20 years that repeatedly show U.S. students underperforming in math and science compared to their peers in other countries. Or what about the 2007 report from the Alliance for Excellent Education that reports just 31% of America's 8th grade students -- and roughly the same number of 12th graders -- meet the National Assessment of Educational Progress standard of reading proficiency for their grade level? The AEE also notes that roughly 23% of high school graduates are not ready for introductory level college writing courses, and that about 40% of high school graduates "lack the literacy skills employers seek."

Here in Texas, nearly half of all college freshmen require remedial courses before they can continue their college careers. Wasn't public school supposed to prepare them before they got to college?

Next, you speak of the lack of exposure homeschooled children have to "diverse ideas, cultures, and ways of being." Exactly how do you know this?

My local homeschool association is just one of many in South Texas. It has about 155 member families from all walks of life. Its members are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, athiest, agnostic, and pagan. They are black, white, Indian, Asian. They span the economic spectrum with some families living quite comfortably while others are struggling or are unemployed. The children are biological and adopted. Some are bi-racial. Some were born in the U.S., others came from various nations overseas. Our association, like many others, hosts various events throughout the year designed specifically to expose member families to a variety of ideas, cultures and traditions. We host our own international festival. (I wish you could have seen our association's children this past fall as they shared their studies of, and personal experiences with, countries as diverse as Ethiopia, Haiti, Poland, Japan, Holland, Kenya, Israel, Egypt, and Madagascar.)

Our children of all ages play together, attend social functions together, participate in scouting together, and learn together in a teaching cooperative run by parents of all races, religions, and countries of origin. They also join together for community service projects to benefit local and global charitable programs including assembling care packages for children in developing countries as well as boxes for our own soldiers stationed in the Middle East. Our children are having rich, meaningful experiences and are learning about life in real-time. This contrasts sharply with the superficial, fabricated, age-segregated world found in the institutional school setting, where children are expected to be quiet and to follow orders, and are generally tolerated rather than deeply valued. (I attended 12 years of public school, so I speak from personal experience.)

Exactly how is it that these homeschooled children are being deprived of the diversity experience?

In conclusion, you note that, "The educational harm is the most immediate, direct risk of unregulated homeschooling. It is also the only one in this litany of possible risks adamantly denied by homeschooling advocates. There is indeed no credible evidence that homeschoolers as a group do worse on standardized tests, but contrary to their claims, there is also no credible evidence that they do better."

Because homeschoolers cannot prove they can do "better" than public schools, they should be regulated? The logic simply doesn't follow. Public schools in America are some of the most highly regulated institutions in the country, yet they are routinely plagued by student violence, drop-outs, illiteracy, and sagging test scores in math and science. How, then, would regulating homeschools ensure greater academic success? You don't say.

Further along you write, "(I)t is clear from both anecdotal accounts, memoirs, and trial transcripts that some homeschoolers are suffering educational harm which would be avoided or minimized were they either in public school or were their homeschool subjected to decent regulation."

The same can be said for public schools, so I have to ask, "What's your point?"

Also, any mention of homeschooling found in trial transcripts is not going to be representative of home education as a whole and is likely there as part of a dispute in a child custody case, an acrimonious divorce, or other aberrant event.

You claim that all homeschooled children and their parents would "not be hurt and would likely be helped by decent state regulation" of homeschooling. Your statement implies that homeschooling is now a free-for-all in all states, but this just isn't true. Many states have reporting and testing requirements. Those that don't, such as my home state, make it clear that parents can find themselves in a lot of trouble should they be asked to provide proof that homeschooling is taking place in a bonafide manner but be unable to do so. Penalizing the many fine homeschooling parents through cumbersome or intrusive reporting practices on the off chance you'll weed out one or two who are homeschooling in name only doesn't make good sense, nor is it economically or logistically practical.

Your call for more regulation of homeschooling is without justification. Greater regulation at a tremendous cost has done little to ensure academic success or student safety in our nation's public schools. There's no empirical evidence to suggest it would be any different for those who choose to teach their children at home.

I have yet to hear back from the professor. Either she's too busy teaching to let facts get in the way of speculation or else she's been so inundated with email from irate homeschoolers seeking only to set the record straight that she just hasn't gotten around to mine.

No matter. The truth is out there and available for anyone who really wants to know.

Justice is supposed to be blind, not the ones charged with teaching about it.

I want my freedom from the Freedom From Religion Foundation

The folks at Freedom From Religion Foundation drive me nuts. It's as if they just sit around thinking up things to bitch about.

Their latest tirade is against the U.S. Postal Service for daring to honor MOTHER TERESA (yeah, THAT Mother Teresa) on a postage stamp this year.

Seems as though the FFRF thinks she was too religious, too sectarian, too -- I don't know -- godly to be put on a stamp, so they're threatening the USPS with a letter writing campaign aimed at stopping the stamp from being issued.

Among the many qualities of the woman who is arguably the greatest representative of charitable deeds this century that the FFRF doesn't like -- she was Catholic and she spoke out against abortion.

Full disclosure: I am not a Catholic, nor have I ever been, nor is anyone in my family. I am, however, smart enough to give thoughtful consideration to all that Mother Teresa did, the many people she helped, and the incredibly difficult and depressing conditions in which she lived and worked, and to realize that she is one of the greatest role models children of any/no denomination could ever have.

The fact that she did all that in the name of God and Jesus Christ shouldn't, for one instant, nullify or de-legitimize its value.

The FFRF is about as stupid a group of folks as I have ever known, and I pray none of them ever need a helping hand. If they do, odds are that hand will be extended to them by a member of the community of faith they so readily malign.

If you want to see Mother Teresa on a postage stamp, go online with USPS and tell them so. Don't let the ignorance of athiests be the only voice the postal service hears.

Hope in a 6" x 9" envelope

Our family decided to do something different this year. We have four children already, but we agreed we could use a couple more so we looked into the program for child sponsorship offered by World Vision and we liked what we learned.

We are delighted to include Suela and Tatevik in our thoughts, prayers, and hopes for a better world for all children.

Suela is 11 and she lives in Albania, one of the poorest countries in the Mediterranean region. Albania is small, mountainous, and largely Muslim. Its greatest child-related problem is an inordinately large population of street children -- all ages, both genders -- and the evils of international child trafficking.

Tatevik is also 11 and lives in a rural region of Armenia, a former Soviet republic and now independent and struggling to pull itself up by the proverbial bootstraps. Its greatest child-related problem is just plain old poverty and a lack of solid educational opportunities in the more remote areas.

My girls refer to Suela and Tatevik as "the girls overseas." This is good. I want my children to think about someone besides themselves, to realize that not everyone in the world lives like we do in America, that not every young girl has a closet of nice clothes, books to read, or toys to enjoy. Nevermind the realities of no indoor plumbing or heating.

Once we got our sponsorship packets from World Vision we began strategizing as to how we can best help these girls. Obviously, our monthly donation (about what we'd spend to eat out as a family of 7) is important. But we also have the opportunity to send them small gifts.

The hitch? They must fit in an envelope no bigger than 6" by 9" -- about the dimensions of a large paperback book.

Other than sending trinkets or small school supplies like pencils and notepads, what else will fit?

You might be surprised. I know we are!

We've discovered that, folded, rolled or positioned just right, we can fit a fleece pullover. Or a bookbag.

The possibilities are endless, and as we go about our regular errands we will now be on the lookout for things that we can send to "the girls overseas."

I am heartened by my daughters' enthusiasm to share. Neither of them balked when I brought home an entire back of girly odds and ends from the store -- the very things my girls love to have -- only to tell them that it was all for Suela and Tatevik. They seemed to understand that no matter what we send to Albania or Armenia, it is but a drop in the bucket compared to what they will always have.

If you, dear readers, have ever enjoyed the challenge of seeing how many football players can fit in a phone booth, how many college students can stuff into a Volkswagon, or how many giggly girls can fit inside one elevator car, consider visiting www.worldvision.org.

For just $35 a month per child, you too can put to use the geometry you learned in school and thought you'd never need.

What can YOU fit in a 6" x 9" envelope? Don't sit there wondering. Go find out!!!!!!!!!