'Nurse Nancy Now Delivers Your Stash'

Which you refer to is in fact the "empirical method" not the "scientific method". The "scientific method" is more complex. For your info. Nancy would be and empirical  conclusion I suppose.

Write for the 'Kansas City Milkman'.

If it's too complex to be understood by the Kansas City Milkman (a mythical creature as bottled milk was hardly even then being delivered except perhaps to the doorsteps or very horny housewives who needed a daily dose of 'spice' . . . ), then it should be rewritten.

I learned that in instructions from 'old timers' who wore suspenders and bow ties (old time journalist dress and maybe eye shades too) my first day as a writer at Associated Press, San Francisco, and it was part of my instructions before I was seated to write my first story (after quitting as photographer hire after seeing Cartier-Bresson's photos and quitting as a photographer).

I became an expert at boiling down things to their essence.

Even the arcane news releases which emanated from Stanford University explaining their faculty's scientific, economic, sociological and other advances were far over the heads of other AP staff members, so it fell to me to decipher them and reduce them to their milky essence, bottle it into stories and distribute it for the doorsteps of 'Kansas City housewives' (and others of not highest education).  

I proved very good at that, right from the start, because I had for AP highest education, some intelligence, and an ability to UNDERSTAND the world's most turgid prose, which came from four years study at undergraduate and graduate courses at Columbia and Barnard.  (Yes, I also went to Barnard).

I also understood that not every concept need be reduced to its exact term where people will not recognize that exact term.  'Empirical' method is a more exact term, but the general 'scientific method' is close enough for readers without throwing them into confusion -- something I learned in those days from Associated Press -- how to write 'low brow' without introducing unnecessary confusion and requiring unnecessary explanations.

Your words may be exactly correct, but mine are 'close enough' that no one is mislead, so if you want to trump me, go ahead, I'm trumped, but not inadvertently.

I understand what I do and write . . . . and I write for almost ALL my readers, not just the named addressee, as I'm conscious that in a thread with 10 to 30 responses, there may be over time a great number of readers, and my goal is to try not to mislead any of them.  

That's one reason why you do not see me use abbreviations such as 'OOF' for 'out of focus' or similar -- too many readers may be new to Photo.net or this craft to recognize that 'OOF' has a meaning, and I don't want to write code that's secret for part of my audience.

I try to write clearly, though I don't always succeed; sometimes I'm hampered by lack of sleep, for instance, or a balky keyboard of operating system.

There's some method to writing here, and even sometimes it's' more economical to write MORE than LESS, when it's more clear to do so just so long as the meaning is conveyed.

john

John (Crosley)

I wrote above that when I was with Associated Press in San Francisco as a new hire writer/newsman, one part of my job duties that no one else could handle as well as I so I got stuck with it (happily) was reading, digesting and then turning into readable news, some of the most convoluted and arcane prose that the Stanford News Bureau sent us by the 'PR New Wire' - reams and reams of copy' describing their latest discoveries and experiment results from faculty, many of whom were world famous.

But their fame did not extend to the art of explaining what they were doing in terms that could be understood in many instances by ordinary peoplle -- it was so abstruse and arcane, even when boiled down by a professional publicity agent and distributed to the press.

But the reams of material that was sent to us, together with interviews on the telephone sometimes, I could turn into interesting prose.  I had a gift of taking hi-brow thoughts and ideas and making them readable and understandable not only by the then-mythical Kansas City Milkman (and the horny housewives he may have visited on his daily rounds), but to millions of newspaper readers worldwide.

It may seem like little top brag about, but it turned out to be a great gift; this ability to turn fancy and complex ideas into their parts -- to break down the complex into simple, understandable components.

When I practiced law, I often dealt with people (claimants, plaintiffs, applicants), many of whom had less than a sixth grade education in a language I could not speak, yet that 'magic'' I had worked for the newspapers, I also was able to work with complex factual situations and legal ideas, then applying the former to the latter in ways that sometimes might choke a second year law student.

But when a six-year old interpreted the interview to his parents and I learned the facts and then applied sometimes very complex law, and explained how it worked to the parents, the parents' questions showed that they almost invariably understood all.  In other words, they understood when I was finished, enough law for their particular situation to choke many able law students . . . . even if they'd forget it soon enough.  They had command enough to understand and them to make informed decisions . . . . which they did.

I had wonderful client relations in most cases . . . . very few clients ever left once they became clients . . . . . if I wanted them to stay.

Many times I found they not only had their initial claims, but in the process of going forth, they had been cheated (often by their own insurance company(ies) along the line, and often I got them settlement(s) for the cheating in addition -- something that I explained at the start I might be able to do.

I think I held some sort of record for sleuthing out cheating behavior by those entrusted with watching over my clients' best interests, but somehow put their own (company's) interests first and succeeded in Hoovering (vacuuming) the pockets or policies of my clients.

That I found was very rewarding . . . . I found it amazing literally how many people, uneducated and seen as helpless, then were cheated by insurers.

The payments to my clients were just a cost of doing business, I think, and nearly every other attorney never delved into such cheating behaviors . . . . and thus the insurers got away with cheating their insureds.

I learned the craft in part from a man who literally invented the art of suing one's own insurance company for cheating and getting million-dollar verdicts.  He did not take these potential cherating victims on as clients, but let them get cheated first, then he took on their cases when they had suffered great hardship.

I never had such a hard heart to let my own clients or those who came to me, endure great hardship so I could seek million or multi-million dollar verdicts.

Instead of 'class actions' I made 'actions of one' where my clients got huge settlements because they had been cheated, and the insurance made sure it was so big I would never seek a 'class'.

I literally gave away the key to millions that way, and intentionally so; I knew there were millions to be had in doing things differently, but my clients would be less well served.

So, I represented them, and if the occasion was seen, even prevented a potential cheating circumstance rather than let it ripen into one that might be worth millions (and a commensurate fee).

If you ever wonder how I can get so close to and establish relationships so readily with people on the street, I had over a decade and a half -- almost two decades, of interviewing and representing people in great distress, and reading their emotions and responses.

I put that to work when I'm out on the street; constantly interacting with people, reading them, viewing their responses to me, cajoling with them, flattering them sometimes, and sometimes 'insulting'' them (for fun), joshing with them, or just sincerely being admiring of them.

It's that sincerity which served me well in representing clients; it serves me well on the street too in establishing relationships fast and intimately.

The result is the photos you see.

Often taken seconds to minutes after meeting.  

Sometimes taken on the fly, with an exchange of remarks (mostly cordial) afterward.

And on the street, I hear my name called on ini neighborhoods I've only been in once or twice 'John!'   

'John!'

I'll hear it called out, and sometimes I have no memory of the person's face or prior meeting, and sometimes I'll get a glimmer in hard cases when they start to remind me of things I told them about myself and things they told me about themselves in a prior conversation, sometimes years ago.

Being photographed it seems was something important to some of the subjects of my photos, and maybe more important, being RECOGNIZED as being worthy of the attention was what was so important -- the high point of that day or week -- maybe sometimes something even to brag about.  

I forget sometimes how important it can be for others to be 'recognized' or be seen to be recognized, and that is part of how I get the cooperation I get.

john

John (Crosley)

Actually "high brow" is synonymous with "intellectual", "elite". Also applies to music and literature but never to science i.e. empirical and scientific methods. Whatever. Doesn't matter. Interesting photo. You realize that Nurse Nancy is an entrepreneur not a social worker as implied above. We are talking here about entepreneurship not "the Great Society". Nancy is like moss on a rock; wherever there is a niche an entrepreneur will come along and fill it.

So noted, with exceptions (as attorneys in certain states withholding points for appeal must note, but not anywhere I've practiced).

We actually have no real assurance other than her advertising and the word on her web site that Nurse Nancy actually is a nurse, or that her two 'sons' really are two real sons and engaged in the business, but I am of a mind to believe them because, frankly, it all has the air of reality and truth to it.

If this were a sign from the mid 2000s, taken and posted here, I'd have a fear it were one big joke.

It's really amazing how times do change, isn't it?

I presume the truth of this all, and would be willing to say 'I believe it' without further investigation based on my gut instincts and my basic senses plus what I've seen so far, rather than thinking I've found some 'hoax' as I might have, if I had seen this in the mid 2000s.

And remember, the web site says (for established customers) free delivery now for customers who order $80 or more, not $100 as stated on the poster.

In a way, I'm sort of a more intellectual 'Forest Gump' -- I've lived and somewhat documented a great deal of the times I've lived in, from the Eisenhower years and before to the present.

I used to listen to Radio Moscow (who couldn't if they listened any bit to shortwave radio because Radio Moscow and its theme 'Moscow Nights' blew away all other broadcasts on shortwave with their powerful broadcasts, and then I had the interesting experience after Communism fell of actually living in Russia, then Ukraine for a while, and then being somewhat known as a street photographic authority on life in at least one of those two countries whose name was widely known in both. 

Radio Moscow didn't lie too much in their North American broadcasts in English; it would have been too apparent, but when I worked for AP and the Izvestia (read that KGB) newsmen would come for private wire transfers of photos to Moscow headquarters, believe me, not one of them showed America in a favorable light.  'Fair and balanced' was not a phrased that Izvestia and 'Novisti Press' or the other press then run by the KGB believed in; AP staff members despised these people, but they were organization members, paid their fees and were entitled to use the services, so what could you do.  There was no reason to pick fights . . . . and beside, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, etc., were blowing the truth through the airwaves putting the truth to all their lies and distortions.

I didn't feel the need to be picking fistfights with these secret police thugs.

Who would have ever thought I'd eventually live in more than one part of the former Soviet Union, and that I'd fall of its own inefficiencies?

Not because the people and country were not great, but because the system was inherently flawed and depended on totalitarianism which worked with the peasantry but failed in a time of communication.

I personally trace the fall of Communism to (1) the Xerox (copy) machine which gave rise to the Samizdat, and (2) the introduction of long distance telephone calls outside the Soviet Union, which gave most citizens the right at times to call distant émigré relatives to find the truth they couldn't find in newspapers in the Soviet Union.

By the way, 'Pill Hill' where this photo was taken in Seattle has some of the best medical care in the world; they saved the life of my Russian wife (the second wife), who was afflicted with such a rare cancer that there are only 500 known cases of this brain cancer worldwide every year, and to that date every one then was believed to be fatal (oligodendroglioma). 

She still lives now over a decade later, and I think still believes I CAUSED her brain cancer, though instead of hating me for that, as she did at one time, she now counts me as a friend (I never thought that ever would happen!!).

All that for getting her to a famous hospital for treatment instead of a recommended local hospital, and driving and staying up all night just to get their services right after the tumor was found.  They held grand rounds for her in the E.R. because of the size and location of her tumor and her lack of symptoms.

That hospital took her cancer as a challenge, and they seemed to have bested it; she's had three new children since being diagnosed and released from treatment.

Handsome, vital, intelligent, good children, all members of your faith.

I saw them one time in my life and never expect to see again; I wish her well.  Turns out on her maternal side she was a member of your faith also, and as you know, that was enough, and that's wonderful with me and not only because she escaped the clutches of the 'born again' Baptist and Pentacostalist crowd who were going to paint her as the newly saved, because they prayed for her life 'in tongues' when she had hemiplegia and she soon again walked for which they claimed credit along with Jesus and those 'tongues'.

I savor the irony that she has ended up a Jewish mom raising Jewish kids in a Jewish family, after being supposedly 'saved' by being prayed for ''in tongues' by the fundamentalist Christians, though so far as I know, there was no 'snake handling' involved.

;~))

Or, for that matter, medical marijuana.

(that I know of.)

I wouldn't have denied her if she needed; but she left when she blamed me for CAUSING her brain cancer.

I still 'go along'.

It's better that way; and avoids discussion.

Soon, in Seattle nobody will need an ''authorization' as noted in the poster, because new rules will allow everyone over 18 to buy the stuff, but the rules are not promulgated yet (that I know of); it all happened so fast no rules were in place, so they're busy making new ones.

It'll no longer be 'medical marijuana', but just 'marijuana'.

For all over 18.

No authorization needed (probably), except age ID.

john

John (Crosley)

Not that I am against legal marijuana (I may or may not be) but the city of Seattle is so fucking left wing that the she has banned the use of the words "citizen" and "brown bag".  So not surprising that Seattle is the first, or one of the firs,t to legalize marijuana in some way or another. What words are next?  City hall is sick.

Seattle changed no laws.

The voters of Washington State did by referendum.

People's choice, statewide.

It ain't just Seattle.

john

John (Crosley)

referendum? those words  were banned by referendum? give me a break. Unless you are saying that marijuana was by referendum in which case you did not read my note. The End

I wrote the above while falling asleep.

The editing window closed, or I would have corrected the spelling error.

The referendum referred to statewide adoption of marijuana as legal.

I am unaware of any 'banning' of the two words you mention, although it may be possible.

Seattle is positively Neanderthal in its governance and citizenry when compared to Portland, Oregon, about 180 miles to the south, which sometimes is called the 'People's Republic of Portland'.

The citizens of Washington just were first in 'legalizing' marijuana, I think for nonmedicinal purposes.

john

John (Crosley)

John, fear not. There is no banning of words going on, other than in the minds of news media outlets and hyperbole-prone conservatives who don't understand the power of language as it's been used against minorities in this country over the years.

What this is about is a memo of recommendation sent out by a state agency to avoid the use of the word "citizen" in government documents which often also apply to non-citizens. Seems eminently sensible to me. And it is suggested to avoid using brown-bagger which has historically been a way of referring to people of color in a sort of coded way.

Here is an article from ABC news, which chose to use "ban" in its headline even though the story contains no evidence of such a ban. Obviously, words DO matter, as we see right here in the use of the word "ban" which is meant to prejudice and inflame rather than to inform.

"City Officials in Seattle are defending an internal memo that questions the use of certain terms such as “brown bag” (as in “brown-bag lunch”) or “citizen” in a government setting.

According to the Seattle Office of Civil Rights, those terms can be deemed offensive or have a history of being offensive and therefore should not be used.

“Luckily, we’ve got options,” Elliott Bronstein of the Office for Civil Rights wrote in the memo. “For ‘citizens,’ how about ‘residents?’”

The Office for Civil Rights contends that city government serves all residents of Seattle whether or not they are citizens.

In addition, the use of “brown bag” could unintentionally bring up racist connotations, according to Bronstein.

“It used to be a way people could judge skin color,” Bronstein said in a phone interview with ABC News affiliate KOMO-TV in Seattle. According to the memo, other options are available to city employees such as “sack lunch” or “lunch-and-learn.

The memo comes after the state legislature voted to remove gender specific words from official records, meaning words such as “freshman” and “journeymen” will be replaced by “first-year” and “journey-level” respectively."

Words are understandably the object of some controversy and suggestions or insistence on changes of terminology over the ages have been seen as political correctness run amok on the one hand and important evolution of language in a culture on the other hand. What I don't necessarily understand is the venom behind some sentiments expressed when a government agency or group of people is simply trying to respect the needs of others. If they've gone astray, perhaps that could be pointed out with some modicum of respect for the results desired even if one disagrees with the methodology.

My own opinion is that our speech has changed for the better along with our acceptance and understanding of groups of people who were previously mistreated by our actions which was often reinforced by our language. We no longer feel comfortable referring to women and black people in certain terms and that mirrors our changing societal attitudes over the decades. The institution of marriage is rapidly changing and so will our vocabulary when it comes to referencing partners solely as "husbands" or "wives." Inevitably some people will resent that as an affront to what has been long standing tradition. Thankfully, traditions change though we know old habits die hard, even bad ones. 

I understand the tendency to think that a few words here and there are harmless and no big deal should be made about them. I think that sentiment, however, is naive, as I think words have great power. I think our changing vocabulary, and an insistence on it especially by groups that have been discriminated against or marginalized in the past, helps our overall awareness of and relationships to such groups of people. 

Language is a wonderful thing in that it LIVES. It has never been fixed or rigid, always adapting to changing needs for communication and subtleties of meaning. This is not about the banning of words. This is about understanding how a word can leave a person OUT who belongs IN and how a simple word can make a person feel LESS THAN when that person deserves to feel PART OF.

Sounds like "white guilt" to me.

Your two comments, or either of them separately, might easily be taken by the Educational Testing Service as the basis for some large variety of questions on how to interpret a point of view of an essay.

Each is a text-book perfect example of an essay, and both are eminently reasonable.  I am thankful for the clarification about Seattle's 'banning' - your explanation makes perfect sense and comports with history.

When I grew up, people of color were referred to by many as 'jigs', 'jigaboos', 'coons', 'Niggers',  and all sorts of other derogatory terms which as a youth made my skin crawl -- terms I never once uttered, Thank God!

I know the power of words, and I respect the reactions they bring forth.  I also know the history of the 'brown paper bag', even among Africa-Americans who used it as a test among themselves, because not only is racial discrimination forbidden in the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution, but also 'Color', and that meant degrees and gradations of color, not just absolutes.

I endorse what you have written, and suggest you rewrite it, copyright it and seek to have it published elsewhere with my endorsement.

john

John (Crosley)

Meir,

Guilt and moreover 'white guilt' is not something to be laughed at.

This nation's treatment of its black population (not even citizens, but 'chattel' at the outset) is abdominal and a stain on an otherwise pretty good human rights record (not perfect, but pretty good).

There is a degree of 'collective white guilt' that is deserved, though it should not be pinned to individuals.  Progress is slow in remediating ills of the past, and some harms are deeply ingrained in the black population and not easily expunged.

What would you say about 'Jewish Guilt' in Germany or other parts of Europe that were vitriolically anti-Semitic during the period between the two World Wars and during World War II, including Switzerland as well as Germany? 

Do Germans (and Swiss) have some reason collectively for some 'guilt' for their treatment of Jews?

Would you call it Jewish guilt?

Remember to be careful before you denigrate the words that are used in one context, less they be turned around.

john

John (Crosley)

I never felt I was "LESS THAN". And I do not recall -as an adult- trying to be a "PART OF" but rather as "GOOD AS".

And stop making yourselves out to be the bad guys.

"I never felt I was "LESS THAN"."

That's nice. It might also be nice if you could muster up the empathy to understand that do.

"And I do not recall -as an adult- trying to be a "PART OF" but rather as "GOOD AS"."

I appreciate your honesty. I think you've struck upon a significant difference between us and am glad you articulated it so clearly.