WWTBAM Bored

I just had a conversation with someone who, as it happens, vexes me, and... something... about him called to mind the types of jobs that some people have, and that got me to thinking about why/how some people make the job/career choices that they make:

Does anyone really grow up thinking, 'Boy, when I grow up, I wanna be a proctologist!'? And if so, what, exactly, leads them to pursue that career path? and what do they talk about when they get home after a long hard day at work?

wintergreen48 wrote:
Does anyone really grow up thinking, 'Boy, when I grow up, I wanna be a proctologist!'? And if so, what, exactly, leads them to pursue that career path? and what do they talk about when they get home after a long hard day at work?

I remember one of my early dates with Steve he was talking about some of the stuff that had happened that day, and about an anal abcess that ruptured, which of course put me off my feed and I slid my unfinished plate in his direction. This was when he was in third year of medical school, and I'm sure that helped steer him away from proctology. And I obviously went out with him again, so his dinner conversation didn't steer me away from him.

That may have been his way of getting more food, though....

wintergreen48 wrote:I just had a conversation with someone who, as it happens, vexes me, and... something... about him called to mind the types of jobs that some people have, and that got me to thinking about why/how some people make the job/career choices that they make:

Does anyone really grow up thinking, 'Boy, when I grow up, I wanna be a proctologist!'? And if so, what, exactly, leads them to pursue that career path? and what do they talk about when they get home after a long hard day at work?

Few of us choose proctology, but many of us end up working with @ssholes anyway.

wintergreen48 wrote:I just had a conversation with someone who, as it happens, vexes me, and... something... about him called to mind the types of jobs that some people have, and that got me to thinking about why/how some people make the job/career choices that they make:

Does anyone really grow up thinking, 'Boy, when I grow up, I wanna be a proctologist!'? And if so, what, exactly, leads them to pursue that career path? and what do they talk about when they get home after a long hard day at work?

They talk about what we all talk about at the end of the day --

"Man, I had to deal with this a$$hole at work today . . ."


(You were tossing that softball for a reason, right?)

Talking about proctology always reminds me of an 80s SNL skit. Especially after last night's 30 Rock. John Lithgow is eating breakfast with his family and very snippy with his family. Goes to work and is snippy with his co-workers. Goes to the doctor and is snippy with the receptionist. It's a proctologist and eventually the proctologist emerges with maybe an 8" plastic cockroach.

Someone comes on and in a very serious PSA voice says millions of people have a bug up their ass and don't even know it.

Does anyone really grow up thinking, 'Boy, when I grow up, I wanna be a proctologist!'? And if so, what, exactly, leads them to pursue that career path?

I worked at a university that specialized in technology programs. It is truly amazing the number of HIGH-PAYING FIELDS that no one ever enters! For example: packaging, biomedical illustration, printing, imaging science, ergonomic engineering, waste management.

Even though the university is VERY expensive, they could almost guarantee a free ride to any student in those programs because the demand is so high. And some of the students got really interesting jobs: one student in packaging got a job SHIPPING ANIMALS between zoos.

Now THAT would be interesting dinner conversation.

I have never ever ever even considered being a doctor of any sort, mainly because I hate the sight of blood (unless it's made of chocolate syrup and being poured in a black-and-white bathtub by Alfred Hitchcock). That said, if I HAD chosen that path, I'd have much prefered being an OB/GYN than a proctologist. And don't even start in on the urology jokes....

OTOH, I'd assume that the proctologist Richard Gere has on retainer does pretty well for himself.

Did I say that out loud?

http://www.johnspeedie.com/wavs/Seinfeld/assman1.wav

wintergreen48 wrote:I just had a conversation with someone who, as it happens, vexes me, and... something... about him called to mind the types of jobs that some people have, and that got me to thinking about why/how some people make the job/career choices that they make:

Does anyone really grow up thinking, 'Boy, when I grow up, I wanna be a proctologist!'? And if so, what, exactly, leads them to pursue that career path? and what do they talk about when they get home after a long hard day at work?

I think it would be hard to be the butt of jokes all the time.

A kid (OK, college age person) attending college but working here on weekends when they can keeps changing their major at a local industrial design college; I believe "packaging" was the lastest choice. They were originally into interior architecture, but decided they didn't want to get involved with all the building codes, etc. I believe that is a political choice, based on their politics, which are (ahem) like the politics of a lot on the board. However, if they really feel they don't want to be an office-designing architect because they have no use for building codes, its probably best they got out before they got in.

Now they will find what codes the packaging people can lay on them, I guess.

Now they will find what codes the packaging people can lay on them, I guess.

I think the real issue would be the codes from the US Postal Service and UPS, Fed Ex ... I mail stuff for eBay and the post office makes me go ... postal.

dimmzy says:

I think the real issue would be the codes from the US Postal Service and UPS, Fed Ex ... I mail stuff for eBay and the post office makes me go ... postal.

They're going to be designing the packaging (the appearance of the snazzy logos on the boxes, etc) rather than actually sending the packaging. I think & they hope.

ghostjmf wrote:A kid (OK, college age person) attending college but working here on weekends when they can keeps changing their major at a local industrial design college; I believe "packaging" was the lastest choice. They were originally into interior architecture, but decided they didn't want to get involved with all the building codes, etc. I believe that is a political choice, based on their politics, which are (ahem) like the politics of a lot on the board. However, if they really feel they don't want to be an office-designing architect because they have no use for building codes, its probably best they got out before they got in.

Golly, ghost. Was that intended as a sort of funny, or do you really believe that anybody on this board -- no matter what individual political preferences may exist -- wants building codes to be banned, bridges to collapse, and houses and office buildings to fall down on the people inside?

dimmzy wrote:

Now they will find what codes the packaging people can lay on them, I guess.

I think the real issue would be the codes from the US Postal Service and UPS, Fed Ex ... I mail stuff for eBay and the post office makes me go ... postal.

I am the shipping manager for the company I work for and I find it very rewarding.

wintergreen48 wrote:I just had a conversation with someone who, as it happens, vexes me, and... something... about him called to mind the types of jobs that some people have, and that got me to thinking about why/how some people make the job/career choices that they make:

Does anyone really grow up thinking, 'Boy, when I grow up, I wanna be a proctologist!'? And if so, what, exactly, leads them to pursue that career path? and what do they talk about when they get home after a long hard day at work?

You know, the usual shit.

(Cue shit sandwich)

silvercam says:

Golly, ghost. Was that intended as a sort of funny, or do you really believe that anybody on this board -- no matter what individual political preferences may exist -- wants building codes to be banned, bridges to collapse, and houses and office buildings to fall down on the people inside?

I keep meeting (& hearing from, on this board & elsewhere on the net) people who of course say they OF COURSE don't want bridges to fall down, etc. On the other hand, like my acquaintance here at work, they think the codes they have to keep in mind when designing things are just too fussy, & that they're fussy because "liberals want fussy building codes". They will tell you (& me) that the industries involved are quite capable of setting up non-fussy (& presumably non-liberal, although how a bridge staying up or not has a political opinion, I really don't know) codes on their own.

To me, sadly, having recently seen a piece of a new tunnel (as in "the Big Dig") collapse on & kill an occupant of a car on the local news because a corrupt local business (Modern Continental, now conveniently-to-them in bankruptcy) wasn't following the existing building codes, let alone setting up "good, solid right-wing building codes"; they were using too-old cement, as well buying cheaper bolts when the design called for the more-expensive bolts, I have about as much faith in the building industry members setting up solid codes (of any political persuasion) entirely on their own as I have of, say, the investment banking industry policing itself. Which of course it was pretty much allowed to do.

At any rate, the student who also works here wasn't annoyed with structural-code stuff, because they weren't working in that area; they were working (until they changed their major) with designs of interiors, so they had to watch out for meeting the rules for electrical outlet placement, & to leave aisles wide enough for wheelchairs; those sort of codes. Buildings where you ignore the interior building codes are not likely to fall down (unless they catch fire). But they will be "not up to code".

A story, as long as I'm at it:

A long while ago, the person who was then the building manager where I work (they since died young of a heart attack) had put in plans & actually started construction of the remodeling of the bathrooms here before someone somewhere, affiliated with the city of Cambridge & reading the plans, said "hey, you don't have handicapped stalls!".

The whole project had to be re-architected (if that's a word) with one handicapped stall in each bathroom. But with ripping up as little of the work that had already been done in the process. I'm sure the design would have been different, & maybe had more stalls per bathroom (the original design called for a total of 3 in the bathroom on my floor, not 2, which we now have). I find it hard to believe that the late building manager really "just hadn't remembered" about handicapped stalls. Or that the architect they hired didn't bring it up.

Its amazing what people think they can get away with, regarding disregarding building codes, until they get caught.

We do have a handicapped person on this floor who I'd guess is very grateful to be able to use the handicapped stall.

ghostjmf wrote:silvercam says:

Golly, ghost. Was that intended as a sort of funny, or do you really believe that anybody on this board -- no matter what individual political preferences may exist -- wants building codes to be banned, bridges to collapse, and houses and office buildings to fall down on the people inside?

I keep meeting (& hearing from, on this board & elsewhere on the net) people who of course say they OF COURSE don't want bridges to fall down, etc. On the other hand, like my acquaintance here at work, they think the codes they have to keep in mind when designing things are just too fussy, & that they're fussy because "liberals want fussy building codes". They will tell you (& me) that the industries involved are quite capable of setting up non-fussy (& presumably non-liberal, although how a bridge staying up or not has a political opinion, I really don't know) codes on their own.

To me, sadly, having recently seen a piece of a new tunnel (as in "the Big Dig") collapse on & kill an occupant of a car on the local news because a corrupt local business (Modern Continental, now conveniently-to-them in bankruptcy) wasn't following the existing building codes, let alone setting up "good, solid right-wing building codes"; they were using too-old cement, as well buying cheaper bolts when the design called for the more-expensive bolts, I have about as much faith in the building industry members setting up solid codes (of any political persuasion) entirely on their own as I have of, say, the investment banking industry policing itself. Which of course it was pretty much allowed to do.

I will say that the problems that ghost identifies are why coupling massive de-regulation pushes with Republican-style "Tort Reform" is a really bad idea.

This doesn't strike me as an especially right-of-center group of people. Sure, we've got our share, but I think they're outnumbered.

And eventually I'm sure they'll see the light.

"liberals want fussy building codes". They will tell you (& me) that the industries involved are quite capable of setting up non-fussy (& presumably non-liberal, although how a bridge staying up or not has a political opinion, I really don't know) codes on their own.

I think it's more of a case of fussy FEDERAL AND STATE BUREAUCRATS trying to keep their jobs. I come from a family of state bureaucrats and as my brother says, "No bureaucrat ever lost his job by proposing more regulations that mean more bureaucrats need to be appointed. And if you don't understand that, you've never read a regulation."

dimmzy wrote:

"liberals want fussy building codes". They will tell you (& me) that the industries involved are quite capable of setting up non-fussy (& presumably non-liberal, although how a bridge staying up or not has a political opinion, I really don't know) codes on their own.

I think it's more of a case of fussy FEDERAL AND STATE BUREAUCRATS trying to keep their jobs. I come from a family of state bureaucrats and as my brother says, "No bureaucrat ever lost his job by proposing more regulations that mean more bureaucrats need to be appointed. And if you don't understand that, you've never read a regulation."

Dimmzy, you just said a whole mouthful that I've come to believe is the absolute truth. Process will out. It's quite frightening. Bureaucracy is like a mutant flu strain.

ghostjmf wrote: To me, sadly, having recently seen a piece of a new tunnel (as in "the Big Dig") collapse on & kill an occupant of a car on the local news because a corrupt local business (Modern Continental, now conveniently-to-them in bankruptcy) wasn't following the existing building codes, let alone setting up "good, solid right-wing building codes"; they were using too-old cement, as well buying cheaper bolts when the design called for the more-expensive bolts, I have about as much faith in the building industry members setting up solid codes (of any political persuasion) entirely on their own as I have of, say, the investment banking industry policing itself.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but wasn't all that work subject to regular, routine inspections by the City (or State or County, whoever it is who is required by law to perform those government inspections on those government projects) while the work was being done? So everyone assumes that everything is OK, because the government protectors who establish the codes are also out there inspecting the work to make sure that the codes are being followed and the job is being done right... and it's not. Leaving one to wonder, are the government inspectors incompetent, or are they corrupt, or is it some combination? In either event, why are you happier relying upon incompetent and/or corrupt bureaucrats, than with corrupt and/or incompetent private industry types? Either way, it doesn't seem to matter what you do, people get killed, although the killing would probably be a lot more efficient (less expensive) if you removed the bureaucratic overhead.

wintergreen says:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but wasn't all that work subject to regular, routine inspections by the City (or State or County, whoever it is who is required by law to perform those government inspections on those government projects) while the work was being done? So everyone assumes that everything is OK, because the government protectors who establish the codes are also out there inspecting the work to make sure that the codes are being followed and the job is being done right... and it's not. Leaving one to wonder, are the government inspectors incompetent, or are they corrupt, or is it some combination? In either event, why are you happier relying upon incompetent and/or corrupt bureaucrats, than with corrupt and/or incompetent private industry types? Either way, it doesn't seem to matter what you do, people get killed, although the killing would probably be a lot more efficient (less expensive) if you removed the bureaucratic overhead.

(bold-typing of your words mine)

You gave a choice of "government inspectors are incompetent, corrupt or some combination of those two choices".

You left out "honest & competent, but overburdened; not enough of them to go around, too much to inspect".

And then later you interchange "bureaucrat" with "inspector" as though these are actually interchangeable terms, which they are not.

When some entity is corrupt, as Modern Continental is, it really doesn't matter what party they say they belong to; they really belong to "the party of crooks". And the records they will present to inspectors will usually be cooked to cover the corruption. This particular firm was so sloppy, as well as corrupt, that they didn't even cover their tracks on a regular basis, which helped the eventual investigation.