I was a tourist in NYC and wanted to learn more about the Upper East Side. I read a multipage Wikipedia entry on it that gave general and historical information and then turned into several pages of lists: the Upper East Side's public schools, private schools, coeducational schools, colleges, art institutes, museums, diplomatic missions, houses of worship, hotels, and finally more than a dozen films about this socially impressive segment of Manhattan. Yet Wikipedia, as it often does, mostly told me what I more or less already knew and added some good if limited details. It duplicated much of what my tourbook of NYC said. Neither one got me to the spirit or heart of the Upper East Side, if it has either one.
Further websearching found a short piece I probably could not find again that said this is where "the New Yorkers that run the world live." It added that gentrification had recently led the Upper East Side to chew off from Spanish Harlem "96th and 97th streets," though it may not have phrased it that well.
In about 20 words of unfootnoted opinion using the literary license of overstatement and wisecracking, this web author had told me more about the Upper East Side than the uncounted minions of Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales had been able to say in 8 or 10 pages of text backed by 58 footnotes, that had surely taken them 1000 hours to write and edit.
I use Wikipedia "all the time" in spite of myself whenever I want basic, hopefully reliable information on a subject with which I'm not that familiar. I'm glad it's there. I've even donated to it twice--once I gave $3 and the second time I moved up to $5. I have never been told by another breathing human that s/he donated to Wikipedia, which probably just tells you I'm in with the Out Crowd.
Yet I'd like to readily find other less-regimented essays on subjects, and may start a website to do just that in areas of my interest. Maybe call it InfoGuy or Knowledge Page or ?? Question: how do you get into the web search results? I see no evidence at all that the content of my blogs are ever considered in web searches, but maybe I need to look below the first 75 hits.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
The respiratory therapy cave
I am an inactive registered respiratory therapist who practiced respiratory care for two decades and taught it in college for three years before being nudged into at least partial retirement by the Great Recession of 2008. I lost two really good part-time RT jobs in the same week of November, 2008. After applying for 65 positions, having done virtually everything therapists do in hospitals, and getting 4 interviews, and being offered 1 of them, for vacation fill-in only, I decided to let it lay a while.
I was wondering if anyone has written a serious book-length history of respiratory therapy. Before I found any such thing, I found the only solidly good blog on respiratory therapy that I've seen on the Net, called "respiratorytherapycave" here on blogspot (which was eaten by blogger, as I understand it). John Bottrell, Rick Frea, Jane Sage and Will Lessons--none of whom I've heard a word about in my life--are cited as those who write there, though my quick search doesn't show what their background is. The way they write, I take it they're therapists. In other words, their content seems very good, their sentence structure and readability--not quite so much. Their stated goal is to "give an accurate, non-politically correct view of" RT. Oh, you mean, as opposed to the politically correct picture of respiratory care consistently sent forth by the AARC, the American Association of Respiratory Care? Works for me.
I have been a member of the AARC. Would be today were I making money in RT. The Association has been largely responsible, along with the diligent on-the-job work of thousands of individual therapists, for building our field into the respectable, valuable thing it is today. Yet the instant I read RT Cave's phrase "non-politically correct view," I laughed and thought of the public relations department view of the field that constant comes from our professional association. Bravo, RT cave!
I'm posting this here because I once before read a couple of essays by Cave, thought they were at least medium good, and then lost track of it. Now if I just don't lose track of this blog again . . .
I was wondering if anyone has written a serious book-length history of respiratory therapy. Before I found any such thing, I found the only solidly good blog on respiratory therapy that I've seen on the Net, called "respiratorytherapycave" here on blogspot (which was eaten by blogger, as I understand it). John Bottrell, Rick Frea, Jane Sage and Will Lessons--none of whom I've heard a word about in my life--are cited as those who write there, though my quick search doesn't show what their background is. The way they write, I take it they're therapists. In other words, their content seems very good, their sentence structure and readability--not quite so much. Their stated goal is to "give an accurate, non-politically correct view of" RT. Oh, you mean, as opposed to the politically correct picture of respiratory care consistently sent forth by the AARC, the American Association of Respiratory Care? Works for me.
I have been a member of the AARC. Would be today were I making money in RT. The Association has been largely responsible, along with the diligent on-the-job work of thousands of individual therapists, for building our field into the respectable, valuable thing it is today. Yet the instant I read RT Cave's phrase "non-politically correct view," I laughed and thought of the public relations department view of the field that constant comes from our professional association. Bravo, RT cave!
I'm posting this here because I once before read a couple of essays by Cave, thought they were at least medium good, and then lost track of it. Now if I just don't lose track of this blog again . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
