In lieu of a rant about Kant and other ethics related issues, today's post will be frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the place of my employment. Those asking the questions are all at least between the ages of 18 and 22 (it's a university campus library).
Q: How many books can I check out?
A: As many as you want! (Unless you're part of a certain group of people that has been known to literally bring laundry baskets to the library with which to hold their books...I mean, really? You need that many books in one trip? You live down the street. Thanks for taking whole shelves of books and leaving none for the rest of us...ok, that's so ridiculous that if you fall into this certain group, you are limited to 15 books.)
Q: What's the most books anyone has ever checked out?
A: I believe the record is 75 books at one time. Of course, there have been higher total counts, but that guy takes the prize for the most books in one trip.
Q: What are your hours?
A: Hours are posted on our front door (you walk right by them on your way in) and on our website (for those who have figured out how to turn on their computers),.
Q: What are the hours for the bookstore?
A: This is the library...not an information kiosk.
Q: (Typical phone call) Can you transfer me to the bookstore?
A: ... the university has a switchboard for a reason... (it even gives you a list of extensions in the event that the receptionist is not available...or you could just look the number up on the university's website....I know, novel concept.)
Q: Am I allowed to bring food in the library?
A: Sure...ignore that sign right in front of you that says "NO Food in the library" (In the person's defense, the sign is only at eye-level on the front door. So if said person managed to use a teleporter device to beam directly into the building, then he would definitely miss the sign)
Q: I'm not planning on eating my food in here, is it ok if I just keep it with me?
A: Well, if it were an issue with you eating your food in here, then we would have phrased the sign differently...like "No eating your food in the library"
Q: Where are the restrooms?
A: Follow the signs.
Q: How do I print?
A: The same way you do on any computer...
Q: Do your student computers have Microsoft Word?
A: Yes.
Q: Ok, I can't find Microsoft Word, what should I do?
A: Did you click the start button, go to all programs, then find the folder marked "Microsoft Office"?
Q: I need a book, can you help me find it?
A: Absolutely! What's the title of the book?
Q: Ok, well I don't actually know the title...or the author...but I know that it's about _____, at least, I think that's what it's about.
A: Maybe you should try using our online catalog to look for it yourself, since that's really vague...
Q: I have the call number for the book, but I think the book is missing.
A: Let me take a look. (I look for the book...and find it...right where it's supposed to be, ironically)
Q: How do I open the door?
A: The door pulls towards you when you enter. You push it to go out.
Ok, no one has actually asked me that last one, but they definitely should. It's amazing how many people don't understand that a handle on the door means you pull, and a horizontal bar across the width of the door means you push. Remember, these are college students we're talking about...it's not like they're still learning how to tie their shoes. Although, in their defense, it has been my observation that the majority of people, who get confused about the door, are women. People who run into that door are usually the highlight of my work day.
~The Piebald Penguin
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
By now, most of you know that Japan was hit by a devastating earthquake last week. In addition to the initial loss of life and the extensive structural damage to the manufacturing plants in the area, there has been significant damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power complex. Now, you're probably wondering why I mention the nuclear (nuclear, not nookulear gosh dang it) power plant. By significant damage, I mean that the nuclear reactor has been damaged to the point that it is now leaking radiation and, at the same, on the verge of a full meltdown. This will mean that more people will become victims of this catastrophe. The damage to the reactor could also be detrimental to the United States. It will give oil companies and environmentalists another weapon to use against those who are trying to promote alternate fuel sources. Americans are easily swayed by their ignorance of the situation. We tend to believe what our news outlets tell us (even if you deny it, it still affects your thinking). Thus, we see a nuclear meltdown and instantly think that they are common day occurrences. So why would we want to have that on our soil? Everyone who lived near it would die. Because, clearly, there is evidence that since there have been three nuclear meltdowns in the last 40 years, it must happen a lot. Of course, we are willing to overlook the horrible alternatives to nuclear power. Like coal mining, for example. It seems that every year or so we here about a mine collapsing somewhere in the world. Even without mines collapsing and trapping the workers, the conditions that miners have to endure are horrendous. Or, do we care that Saddam Hussein (I know, I have poor taste for bringing THAT name back from the dead) invaded a much smaller, weaker country because it had rich oil fields. It is a sad state of affairs, but that's how Americans think. They let the media decide what is important and what is not. But this nuclear power plant's meltdown is important to America. It will undoubtedly affect our drive towards alternate fuel sources.
And that wraps up this week's current event.
~The Piebald Penguin
And that wraps up this week's current event.
~The Piebald Penguin
Monday, March 14, 2011
In honour of Pi Day
Today is 3.14.2011. Which means that it's Pi day. (If you don't get it, look up Pi...or enter it into your calculator...or ask someone who passed 7th grade math)
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Thoughts on Napoleon
DISCLAIMER: Please note that the following "history lesson" is meant to be a personal opinion and commentary on historical knowledge. As such, I will not be citing sources. I do understand that historians do a lot of difficult work attempting to sift through the ashes of the past. I would not like to take credit away from these dedicated individuals. For this particular piece, my inspiration, and perhaps some of my more obscure facts, have come from Edith Saunder's The Hundred Days and Jeremy Black's The Battle of Waterloo. If this style of not citing facts in a blog post bothers you, please email me at breadcrumb124@gmail.com and I will be more than happy to provide you with exact citations...or else I'll admit that I'm simply shooting the breeze and was unable to pull the wool over your eyes (that's right. I did just use two cliche idioms in one sentence. I bet you wish you were this awesome.)
It's a conversation that I'm sure you've had many times. It seems to come up when discussing the grand over-arching history of the world. Or it comes up if you're just plain tired of that accent. Regardless, we, here in America, have a strong distaste for the French. Alright, I'll admit, it's more of a national loathing. Perhaps it's irrational and perhaps not. Inevitably the topic arises that the French love two things: the color pink and running away from a fight. Predictably, the one person in the discussion who has French roots, or just loves French wine, brings up that last ditch effort to save face in light of a history of failures (this is said with a great deal of sarcasm). We all know who saved the French, right? (Hint: it wasn't King John II or Vercingetorix...yeah put that one in your pipe and smoke it...) Obviously the savior of French national pride is none other than Napoleon Bonaparte (it's always been interesting to note that we call him "Napoleon" rather than "Bonaparte". Especially in light of how he refer to men like "Patton", "Hitler", "Wellington"...but I digress). Ok, I said it. We all know that Napoleon made France a great nation; he conquered Europe; he improved the infrastructure of the country (that's a fancy way of saying he had things and stuff built...like roads); Napoleon even worked to codify the laws. Basically, he was a great guy...well, not in stature; everyone knows that he was really short (like 5' 6"). But at least he had a big ego to go with it. At any rate, he saved France from the ignominy of being the most worthless nation on the planet...or did he? Was he really a great conqueror? Was he a military genius?
The truth about Napoleon seems to be that he was an energetic and ambitious man. He made some good decisions, some extremely bad ones, and then a few that were neither good nor bad. It is these latter decisions that concern us. For we know that the good ones were certainly good. Like joining the military in a turbulent time; or reorganizing the army to operate under the corps system; or even in his initial ability to pick subordinates. We also know which decisions were remarkably awful. For example, his decision to invade Russia; or his decision to place family members on the thrones of European nations; or his decision to return from exile when the Coalition leaders were all together in Vienna. But there is one major decision that he made that will be debated by historians for generations to come. That decision, of course, is the one that led to the final battle of his career. Waterloo. We use this term now to refer to someone who has had some success earlier but has now experienced a career ending event (like a nation that tries to hold onto its colonies in Southeast Asia and ends up having its military forces decimated by, supposedly, "primitive" guerrillas. Sorry France, I couldn't resist...). Napoleon's defenders will say that he had no choice in the matter. That he did the best he could with what he had. Or that he would have won the battle if such and such a general had done his job. There's also the defense that his physical ailments finally caught up with him. This event has always interested me because a great general was finally humbled before his adversaries.
If you'd like to know what happened to Napoleon at the infamous Battle of Waterloo, stay tuned. Next week, I will give you my in depth thoughts on what went wrong and why the defenders of French martial history should be ashamed to use Napoleon as their key point. Also, my own defense of the French will be upcoming (I promise I don't hate them.).
~The Piebald Penguin
It's a conversation that I'm sure you've had many times. It seems to come up when discussing the grand over-arching history of the world. Or it comes up if you're just plain tired of that accent. Regardless, we, here in America, have a strong distaste for the French. Alright, I'll admit, it's more of a national loathing. Perhaps it's irrational and perhaps not. Inevitably the topic arises that the French love two things: the color pink and running away from a fight. Predictably, the one person in the discussion who has French roots, or just loves French wine, brings up that last ditch effort to save face in light of a history of failures (this is said with a great deal of sarcasm). We all know who saved the French, right? (Hint: it wasn't King John II or Vercingetorix...yeah put that one in your pipe and smoke it...) Obviously the savior of French national pride is none other than Napoleon Bonaparte (it's always been interesting to note that we call him "Napoleon" rather than "Bonaparte". Especially in light of how he refer to men like "Patton", "Hitler", "Wellington"...but I digress). Ok, I said it. We all know that Napoleon made France a great nation; he conquered Europe; he improved the infrastructure of the country (that's a fancy way of saying he had things and stuff built...like roads); Napoleon even worked to codify the laws. Basically, he was a great guy...well, not in stature; everyone knows that he was really short (like 5' 6"). But at least he had a big ego to go with it. At any rate, he saved France from the ignominy of being the most worthless nation on the planet...or did he? Was he really a great conqueror? Was he a military genius?
The truth about Napoleon seems to be that he was an energetic and ambitious man. He made some good decisions, some extremely bad ones, and then a few that were neither good nor bad. It is these latter decisions that concern us. For we know that the good ones were certainly good. Like joining the military in a turbulent time; or reorganizing the army to operate under the corps system; or even in his initial ability to pick subordinates. We also know which decisions were remarkably awful. For example, his decision to invade Russia; or his decision to place family members on the thrones of European nations; or his decision to return from exile when the Coalition leaders were all together in Vienna. But there is one major decision that he made that will be debated by historians for generations to come. That decision, of course, is the one that led to the final battle of his career. Waterloo. We use this term now to refer to someone who has had some success earlier but has now experienced a career ending event (like a nation that tries to hold onto its colonies in Southeast Asia and ends up having its military forces decimated by, supposedly, "primitive" guerrillas. Sorry France, I couldn't resist...). Napoleon's defenders will say that he had no choice in the matter. That he did the best he could with what he had. Or that he would have won the battle if such and such a general had done his job. There's also the defense that his physical ailments finally caught up with him. This event has always interested me because a great general was finally humbled before his adversaries.
If you'd like to know what happened to Napoleon at the infamous Battle of Waterloo, stay tuned. Next week, I will give you my in depth thoughts on what went wrong and why the defenders of French martial history should be ashamed to use Napoleon as their key point. Also, my own defense of the French will be upcoming (I promise I don't hate them.).
~The Piebald Penguin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)