Is my irritation unreasonable?

I made an appointment with a doctor for 7:40 a.m. this morning. This is a short appointment which occurs every one to three months and has for, um, the past eight years or so (I think???). I like the early morning appointments because I don't have to take any time off work.

I got there and waited. Gradually, it became clear that the doctor hadn't arrived, and the 7:00 a.m. and 7:20 a.m. appointment were still waiting, too. The 7:20 a.m. lady called the back office, discovered that the doctor thought his appointments didn't start today until 8:00, decided she couldn't wait any longer, and left in a snit.

I called and checked the home voice mail; yes, the doctor's office had called to confirm that the appointment was TODAY at 7:40 A.M. I decided to wait until the doctor showed up.

8:00 a.m. doctor arrives, along with the person seeing him at 8:00 a.m. He announces, "I don't see patients on Tuesdays before 8:00 a.m.," (like I was supposed to know that?) beckoned forward the 8:00 a.m. patient (rather than the 7:00 a.m. patient or me, who had been waiting longer) and disappeared.

The office manager appeared and fell all over herself to apologize. "It was clearly an error made with front desk scheduling and I am so, so sorry."

My jaw, I'll admit, was still hanging a bit. "Wow. You mean he isn't even going to be seeing us today? Even though we were here first, even though your office confirmed it? We have to come back another day?"

"Yes, I'm sorry." She set up another early morning appointment for me three weeks from now. It turns out I have enough medication to get me through till then ("but call me back if you don't," the office manager said, still groveling, "and I'll take care of it,") but still.

"Please confirm with the doctor," I said with a touch of coldness, "that he'll be there at that time.

"Yes, I'll be sure to go over his schedule with him."

Is it unreasonable for the 7:00 a.m. appointment and me to expect that he would see us first? I guess if we were seen today, his other patients throughout the day would have to wait an extra forty minutes instead of having two of his patients (me and Ms. 7:00 a.m.) wait another three weeks, when we'd been promised an appointment today.

Either way, irritated as I was, I also felt a little sorry for the office manager. What a sucky way to start her day, to have all these patients--and probably the doctor--mad at her before she even arrives at work.

What do you think?

Edited to add: It turns out he had later openings today, and Ms. 7:00 a.m. elected to make an appointment for 11:00 a.m. I declined to come back at 11:20 a.m. because I didn't want to miss yet more work since I've been missing so much work with doctor's appointments for Delia. So they would have worked us in today, but we would have had to come back/miss work. Does this get them off the hook?

Also, Ms. 7:20 a.m. who left was furious, saying she hadn't seen him in four months because they've screwed up her appointment three times.

porphyrin, I'd really like you to weigh in on this situation.

I see Bush is scolding Congress for the economy

It's apparently all Congress's fault, according to that economic genius, Mr. Bush. O rily?

I would like to point people to this eye-opening, jaw-dropping article recently published in Vanity Fair. Really, you must read it. I hate Bush, as you all know, but this gave me new astounding information about the extent of the damage he's brought to this country.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush.

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.

I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven years in office. Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent. Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans with distress: a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich; a national debt that will probably have grown 70 percent by the time this president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of mortgage defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade deficit; oil prices that are higher than they have ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the Yukon—becomes a venture in high finance.

And it gets worse. After almost seven years of this president, the United States is less prepared than ever to face the future. We have not been educating enough engineers and scientists, people with the skills we will need to compete with China and India. We have not been investing in the kinds of basic research that made us the technological powerhouse of the late 20th century. And although the president now understands—or so he says—that we must begin to wean ourselves from oil and coal, we have on his watch become more deeply dependent on both.

Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush. Read more.

And apropos of nothing

I think the Fritzl case is just about the sickest thing I've seen in the news since just about . . . well, ever.

Those poor kids.

Wrock Bands influencing other Wrock Bands

( It's interesting to see the influences going back and forth )

Another Wrock Cover

( Romilda and the Chocolate Cauldrons has just released a downloadable cover of one of my favorite wrock love songs, A Heart Worth Loving )

Speaking of the Fritzl case . . .

I can't help but think that the New York Review of Books may be slightly regretting the rather unfortunate accident of timing that has them releasing an examination of the Rapunzel myth, specifically, the sexual meaning of the imprisoned girl, locked away by a parent, against breaking news of the Fritzl incest scandal.

I'm also thinking of Robin McKinley's Deerskin.

timprov translates Les Miserables into Scandosotan

Gacked from elisem: Folks, I give you timprov's Les Inscrutables. Enjoy!

A quotation worth passing on

From j_austen_quotes:

"Provided that nothing like useful knowledge could be gained from them, provided they were all story and no reflection, she had never any objection to books at all."

Of Catherine's reading habits
Northanger Abbey, volume 1, chapter 1