The Downfall of the American Economic Society
Despite the heady title, I'm not about to go into an economic lesson/tirade about the good 'ol US of A. In fact, I somehow got through 19 years of schooling without ever taking a course in economics. How the hell did that happen?
It's funny how financially hard times brings out something different in everyone and every situation. I understand that I am hardly qualified to complain like some people out there; but that's not going to stop me from pointing out strange effects these times have had on me personally (Is 'personally' unnecessary in that sentence from a grammatical point of view?).
First off, my job has become, um, strange? Whereas we used to be full all the time and could hardly keep up with all the diners hungry for cheese, now we have too many servers and not enough diners. Two easy solutions might be to fire the lesser workers thereby boosting the workload of those deserving, or playing the seniority card and giving more work to those with the longest (and best) track-record with the company. Instead, the restaurant has become, well, like this:
And that is only a slight exaggeration. We, the servers, were all informed that those who took the initiative to partake in menial tasks not in our job description, followed all the corporate rules to a T (even though they haven't cared up until this point), and basically brown-nosed, would be the servers who got shifts. So an atmosphere of at least semi-happy compatible servers has turned into a power-struggle to see who can outdo who. Since when does my choice to perform a busser's task (of course secretly hoping I'm being watched, otherwise who would care?) at the detriment of my own duties equal being allowed to work?
Secondly, the issue of food has become interesting. I start out the month like normal: make a sandwich for certain meals, cook some burgers for others, eat out occasionally, and snack on whatever's around when hungry in between. Towards the middle of the month I cut out eating out and rely on food from the freezer and fridge plus the occasional snack. By the end of the month (with rent looming) I find myself having conversations with myself like this:
G1: "Let's see, what can I have for dinner?"
G2: "You have no money, so you can't eat out."
G1: "True, and I'm out of sandwich meat and microwave burritos."
G2: *Points at something in back of cabinet* "What's what?"
G1: "A can of refried beans that's been there for 2 years."
G2: "Wrong, it's dinner!"
Third, I start making strange cutbacks that probably aren't making that much of a difference. Case in point: I need to return this movie to the store; but I am running on fumes in my truck. In order to get to the store I will have to fill up my gas tank. So....screw it, I'll return it later when I have gas and hope that I don't get fined thereby negating the savings I just made. But of course, if I were to stop and think, I would realize that I have to buy gas whether or not I go to the store today, and I will have to return the movie whether or not I do it today (unless I really want to own a copy of Baby Geniuses on BlueRay for a mere $25). This probably goes back to my lack of economic teaching; but I somehow convince myself that delayed spending is saving me money!
4, I indubitably make one or more stupid financial decisions. E.g. After adding up rent and utilities, counting how much I have in the bank, counting how much I have in my wallet, coming to the conclusion that since I only work one more day in the month I need to walk with $130 in that next shift or I will not make rent, and realizing that I haven't made that much in a shift in a long time (therefore it will be a long shot to make rent this month), I will wake up the next morning with furrowed eyebrows as to why I spent the night spending money to drink with friends <---This is, most assuredly, the longest sentence in this post, or in any recent post for that matter; which makes me want to go scan the archives to see what the longest sentence I have ever written is.
Times like this make you wish you had been smart with your savings when things were looking up. But nooooo, I needed the duplicate DVD just because it was a special edition with one added feature, the fancy name-brand headache painkillers that are 6x the price of the generics, the new digital camera with twice the megapixels (even though I have never printed anything requiring the max number of magapixels my current camera has), and the fancy foreign bottled water (my Brita filter makes the water taste like carrots!).
Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20 while current vision is like reading the bottom line of an eye exam chart from 100 yard through blue-tinted glass covered in mud.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Evolution of Understanding of Government
I have to admit that I have never been very involved (read: interested) in politics. I know, I know, if I were in some other country that did not allow at least a semblance of democracy (since that's about all we have in the U.S.) I would do anything to have a say. Call me jaded; but at least I'm aware of my condition.
The method by which I vote has gone through three stages, and I think I have finally ended up with something workable:
18 Years Old: The first stage was to go along with whatever my parents told me. I honestly put no thought into voting, registered republican, and voted along with my parents. When your biggest concern is whether your parents will let you stay out 'til 10pm on Saturday night, the next president isn't exactly on the "things I really care about list."
22 Years Old: The second stage was to do some reading, do some thinking, and end up with a totally nihilistic view of my role in voting. My thoughts were: if California will always be a democratic state, it doesn't matter what I vote. If I voted democrat, a democrat would win; if I voted republican, a democrat would win (etc, etc). Due to this 'understanding,' I voted, not really caring or thinking it mattered. Now, there is some truth to this, but it is misguided and it led to my current thought.
26 Years Old: The third stage is to actually care enough to not go with a mob mentality. My mind still can't wrap around the idea that only someone from one of two parties will win. Why the hell is that? Why do people not even consider the other parties? Go ahead, ask someone to name candidates from a party other than the democrats or republicans and they will likely draw a blank (unless it's someone like Ron Paul who would have to be a write-in). What is my solution then? Simply to vote for someone I agree with. Screw the main two candidates, they are both bad choices. Yeah, I know that voting for a third party means that my choice will not win and that my vote will not go towards helping "the lesser of two evils." I'm sick of that phrase. Why does it have to be the lesser of two evils? If more people stopped following the crowd and read into the issues and voted on something other than a big D or R, we actually might get some of the much harped on "change" this country so badly needs.
So what's the end result? I used to think voting for anyone other than D or R would result in a thrown away vote. Now I see that by voting for someone other than the main two, those candidates will look at the states they lost, ask why, and see (hopefully) a good-sized chunk of votes going to some underdog. This will (hopefully) cause them to rethink why they were not voted for and make some changes. It will also (hopefully) give some power to third parties and help the hopelessly insignificant candidates to gain some significance and actually make some change.
Anyway, I'm off my soap-box. I hate politics. I really do. But I guess trying to make something you hate better is better than hating it and doing nothing about it.
I have to admit that I have never been very involved (read: interested) in politics. I know, I know, if I were in some other country that did not allow at least a semblance of democracy (since that's about all we have in the U.S.) I would do anything to have a say. Call me jaded; but at least I'm aware of my condition.
The method by which I vote has gone through three stages, and I think I have finally ended up with something workable:
18 Years Old: The first stage was to go along with whatever my parents told me. I honestly put no thought into voting, registered republican, and voted along with my parents. When your biggest concern is whether your parents will let you stay out 'til 10pm on Saturday night, the next president isn't exactly on the "things I really care about list."
22 Years Old: The second stage was to do some reading, do some thinking, and end up with a totally nihilistic view of my role in voting. My thoughts were: if California will always be a democratic state, it doesn't matter what I vote. If I voted democrat, a democrat would win; if I voted republican, a democrat would win (etc, etc). Due to this 'understanding,' I voted, not really caring or thinking it mattered. Now, there is some truth to this, but it is misguided and it led to my current thought.
26 Years Old: The third stage is to actually care enough to not go with a mob mentality. My mind still can't wrap around the idea that only someone from one of two parties will win. Why the hell is that? Why do people not even consider the other parties? Go ahead, ask someone to name candidates from a party other than the democrats or republicans and they will likely draw a blank (unless it's someone like Ron Paul who would have to be a write-in). What is my solution then? Simply to vote for someone I agree with. Screw the main two candidates, they are both bad choices. Yeah, I know that voting for a third party means that my choice will not win and that my vote will not go towards helping "the lesser of two evils." I'm sick of that phrase. Why does it have to be the lesser of two evils? If more people stopped following the crowd and read into the issues and voted on something other than a big D or R, we actually might get some of the much harped on "change" this country so badly needs.
So what's the end result? I used to think voting for anyone other than D or R would result in a thrown away vote. Now I see that by voting for someone other than the main two, those candidates will look at the states they lost, ask why, and see (hopefully) a good-sized chunk of votes going to some underdog. This will (hopefully) cause them to rethink why they were not voted for and make some changes. It will also (hopefully) give some power to third parties and help the hopelessly insignificant candidates to gain some significance and actually make some change.
Anyway, I'm off my soap-box. I hate politics. I really do. But I guess trying to make something you hate better is better than hating it and doing nothing about it.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Hey, you, stop giving a bad name to things that describe me!
This thought is nothing new, and I have surely talked about it before; but a movie (about to be released) has re-roused my passion for the topic. That movie is Religulous.
I want to explain, right off, that I am not in any way trying to belittle this film, start a boycott, or even say it is wrong in its message. In fact, I find the idea of the film to be a sobering one, especially for those who have faith in more than this mortal coil.
I recently watched an interview with Bill Maher, in which he explained that there are two basic kinds of religious people, 1) those who have hardcore faith, but know next to nothing about what they believe, and 2) those who know everything about what they believe, but exhibit weak faith (or blatantly admit that they're very possibly wrong). This is the common view that anyone who is smart enough will realize the stupidity of faith in the supernatural.
Something like %16 of people do not "have faith" (oh what a wonderfully vague phrase that is) according to the film, and Mr. Maher wants better representation of those people instead of religiosity being an assumed essential part of being in government, being moral, etc.
How can all the religious fanatics, the crazies, the violently zealous be the ones who control laws, set up appropriate behavior for family life, or quite literally get away with murder?
My basic problem is that (and I'll bring this close to home so as not to offend too many people) Christians are making Christianity stupid. No, I don't think that they are making it look stupid for having belief, or desiring a relationship with an invisible being, or anything of the sort. Christians are making Christianity stupid because they will jump headfirst into discussions, political positions, and alienating moral views because "that's what the Bible says." Most Christians have no ethical theory, theological training, hermeneutic understanding, etc, etc, etc.
Christians will jump on any bandwagon their pastor tells them to. They will vote for any presidential candidate who professes "Christian ideals." They will chastise those who go against biblical law, all the while committing secret sins of their own.
My point is that most people of faith are either too ignorant to show that their beliefs are not delusions of grandeur, or are too jaded to exhibit any sort of zeal for faith in something that, if true, is absolutely wonderful. Most people of faith hand people like Bill Maher a bat and say, "hit me."
What I wish (and I know this will never happen) is that people would do one of two things, either 1) actually take an interest in the thing that is supposed to be the most important part of their life, do some studying, and be ready to intelligently explain why they believe what they believe, or 2) simply admit that they are not well studied in the area, but that they have faith anyway, and therefore understand that they should not make sweeping generalizations or become fanatical about topics that they are totally ignorant in.
Don't think those are the only two options? Imagine a scientist who bases all his research on the theoretical hypothesis of string theory; but when you ask him why, he replies, "oh, I just believe it." Then imagine trying to argue that quantum theory is right and string theory is wrong, and this scientist (who has no basis or backing for his theory other than faith) becoming belligerently angry, saying you are wrong (though he can't say why), and accusing you of being ignorant.
Would you take that? No, of course not. Why? Because (despite string theory being a hypothesis) it's science, and saying, "just cuz" isn't good enough. Well the same thing goes for religion. If you are going to tell someone that they are wrong for what they believe, or that they must believe in a certain thing, you had better have some good reasons why you are right (and no, "um, because the Bible says so" is not a good enough answer.
I'm sick and tired of telling people I am a Christian and getting that look that says, "oh, heh, riiiight, let's change the subject before I offend your simple sensibilities." I almost feel like telling people, "I'm a Christian, but not one of the stupid ones."
On a final note, I'm not trying to take all faiths down a peg. I'm simply trying to point out that if you get angry by things like movies mocking your faith, take a look at yourself before accusing others. Also, no, not everyone falls into the categories of stupid with faith or smart without faith. I have, well, faith, that people will start putting a little more effort into their beliefs.
This thought is nothing new, and I have surely talked about it before; but a movie (about to be released) has re-roused my passion for the topic. That movie is Religulous.
I want to explain, right off, that I am not in any way trying to belittle this film, start a boycott, or even say it is wrong in its message. In fact, I find the idea of the film to be a sobering one, especially for those who have faith in more than this mortal coil.
I recently watched an interview with Bill Maher, in which he explained that there are two basic kinds of religious people, 1) those who have hardcore faith, but know next to nothing about what they believe, and 2) those who know everything about what they believe, but exhibit weak faith (or blatantly admit that they're very possibly wrong). This is the common view that anyone who is smart enough will realize the stupidity of faith in the supernatural.
Something like %16 of people do not "have faith" (oh what a wonderfully vague phrase that is) according to the film, and Mr. Maher wants better representation of those people instead of religiosity being an assumed essential part of being in government, being moral, etc.
How can all the religious fanatics, the crazies, the violently zealous be the ones who control laws, set up appropriate behavior for family life, or quite literally get away with murder?
My basic problem is that (and I'll bring this close to home so as not to offend too many people) Christians are making Christianity stupid. No, I don't think that they are making it look stupid for having belief, or desiring a relationship with an invisible being, or anything of the sort. Christians are making Christianity stupid because they will jump headfirst into discussions, political positions, and alienating moral views because "that's what the Bible says." Most Christians have no ethical theory, theological training, hermeneutic understanding, etc, etc, etc.
Christians will jump on any bandwagon their pastor tells them to. They will vote for any presidential candidate who professes "Christian ideals." They will chastise those who go against biblical law, all the while committing secret sins of their own.
My point is that most people of faith are either too ignorant to show that their beliefs are not delusions of grandeur, or are too jaded to exhibit any sort of zeal for faith in something that, if true, is absolutely wonderful. Most people of faith hand people like Bill Maher a bat and say, "hit me."
What I wish (and I know this will never happen) is that people would do one of two things, either 1) actually take an interest in the thing that is supposed to be the most important part of their life, do some studying, and be ready to intelligently explain why they believe what they believe, or 2) simply admit that they are not well studied in the area, but that they have faith anyway, and therefore understand that they should not make sweeping generalizations or become fanatical about topics that they are totally ignorant in.
Don't think those are the only two options? Imagine a scientist who bases all his research on the theoretical hypothesis of string theory; but when you ask him why, he replies, "oh, I just believe it." Then imagine trying to argue that quantum theory is right and string theory is wrong, and this scientist (who has no basis or backing for his theory other than faith) becoming belligerently angry, saying you are wrong (though he can't say why), and accusing you of being ignorant.
Would you take that? No, of course not. Why? Because (despite string theory being a hypothesis) it's science, and saying, "just cuz" isn't good enough. Well the same thing goes for religion. If you are going to tell someone that they are wrong for what they believe, or that they must believe in a certain thing, you had better have some good reasons why you are right (and no, "um, because the Bible says so" is not a good enough answer.
I'm sick and tired of telling people I am a Christian and getting that look that says, "oh, heh, riiiight, let's change the subject before I offend your simple sensibilities." I almost feel like telling people, "I'm a Christian, but not one of the stupid ones."
On a final note, I'm not trying to take all faiths down a peg. I'm simply trying to point out that if you get angry by things like movies mocking your faith, take a look at yourself before accusing others. Also, no, not everyone falls into the categories of stupid with faith or smart without faith. I have, well, faith, that people will start putting a little more effort into their beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
