Really Unnecessary

 REALLY UNNECESSARY

Recently, trading in a new knee for an old one, a non-working one, I was asked in each room I entered, my date of birth.  And I am not exaggerating: I  was asked in every room I entered with the possible exception of the actual operating room itself.  I could have been asked there as well, but don't remember much about that particular room.

I have used the same pharmacy for a number of years.  When I sign for the meds at the desk or counter, I'm asked my birthdate.  Now these people in the pharmacy know me.  I am known to them.  They know my name; they know that I am not an imposter picking up someone else's thyroid medication.  The idea that someone would be impersonating me for the purpose of obtaining my thyroid medication, knowing that it was suddenly available for pickup, is ludicrous.  The people that ask this question will tell you that they are required to do so and even they think it a stupid thing to do.

The employees of these establishments are being required to act in this way.  Acting in a stupid manner apparently has some perceived benefit to their employers.  What that benefit is, is hard to discern but there must be one, right?  One would think that the employees of these establishments would object to being required to act in a purposeless, meaningless, and demeaning manner.

On the other side of this purposeless, meaningless, and demeaning matter is me.  This requirement to give my birthdate in every room I enter or to pick up my meds in the pharmacy which I always use is very, and I repeat, very troubling.  First, as I have already stated, it is a worthless effort.  Secondly, it is stupid.  Thirdly, it is demeaning.  What you are being told by the question itself is that you, as the paying customer, are not to be trusted; that you may be an imposter; and because you may be an imposter, you may be getting a service or product for free.  This requirement is clearly based on the belief that we, the customers, are not trustworthy and to protect the income of the establishment we are to be treated as potential thieves and ne'er-do-wells.  How do you like that?  We are not to be trusted; we are potentially there to get something for nothing and by giving our birth date for the umpteenth time will keep that from happening.

Just think, I may have changed my identity moving from one room  in the medical clinic to another to get a new knee I wasn't even signed up for - - but I knew I needed one and somehow I knew which part of the body was going to be mended by surgery that day so I somehow arranged the person for whom the surgery was intended to leave the clinic between rooms without consulting anyone because of some emergency and I became the patient.   In the alternative, you can't keep track of your own patients which is even more troubling, but not my problem.

Or, some person needing thyroid medication knew that I had a prescription for it and their prescription bottle was empty and also knew that the pharmacy had contacted me about the prescription being ready for pickup and that when picking it up no one would recognize the person as an imposter.  

This requirement, of which I speak, is both stupid and demeaning and we the public really should not allow ourselves to be treated as if we are dishonest imbeciles.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

Apes of God II

 APES OF GOD II

I have made several attempts at properly discussing APES OF GOD, especially in the context of Books for Bigots, but am having a rather difficult time of it. My first effort was not satisfactory.  It was a book not easy to read, especially to the very end, where nothing was resolved but the pet, the prop, the toy of Horace Zagreus, Dan Boleyn, receives a get-lost letter from Horace. Dan has been replaced with Margolin.

To get the flavor of the nastiness of the characters in this book, a characteristic that most Bigots might appreciate if they could understand it, Boleyn, sent from Ireland by his parents to London, obviously to be rid of him, is seized upon by Horace as a display prop to show his friends and acquaintances.   Much of the book is set at or around the Lenten Party of the aristocrat Lord Osmund which takes up approximately 250 pages of the book.

Dan is a simpleton, pretty much a vacuum, who is called a genius by Horace, his handler, and, consequently, not only believes himself to be a genius, but also  believes himself a painter without having painted.  Horace, who is the cause of this belief, calls Dan a genius, claims he is a genius when introducing him to his friends and acquaintances but is simply  treated as a prop for display and as a conversation piece.

The world of Lord Osmund, the masquerade costume Lenten Party, is a magnificent piece of absurdity, meanness, and contentlessness, if such a word exists.  If it is your bent to spend a day eating, drinking, making nasty remarks to and about those with whom you dine, Lord Osmund's Lenten Party is for you.

Dan Boleyn, through whose eyes we view the action of the book, is made to display himself nude to be painted by a female painter to whom he was sent, and then put into a dress to finish the book.  The reader is aware of what and how Dan thinks about wearing this dress at the party and comes away, as does Dan, without being sure about what it all means.  There is always the undertone of homosexuality here.

Dan is directed and displayed.  He has no will, no ability to determine his own actions, he is simply directed in all respects for the amusement of others.  When you think about this, it is possible that a Bigot would appreciate this situation and get some decent tips on how to further his Bigotry in his own home and community.  After all, Bigotry consists in the direction and use of other human beings to satisfy one's own beliefs.  Maybe a Bigot could get some tips here.

Consequently, I will maintain that APES OF GOD, if able to get past the title, and actually delve into the book, a Bigot might find some instruction available in how-to Bigotry.  It would take a lot of effort though; too much probably.  Therefore, I will have to say, with some misgivings, that this book can not be recommended to Bigots.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo