Who wins when your sentimentality fights your desires, when you keep doing something that once served a purpsoe for you, but has now become a waste of time. What does one do when the place one goes to escape becomes a prison?
Sure leaving is the obvious choice, but what if the prison still has a few things holding you back, be it from sentimental value or something else?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The value of something?
What decides the value of something? Is it societal pressure as we see with diamonds and gold, or is it increase in living condition as with a new house? Is it set by supply and demand, as in the cornerstone of a market system, or is it purely sentimental and arbitrary? Maybe its a bit of all of them.
I value some family pictures, a few gifts, and trinkets more than things that hold a much higher monetary value. On the other hand I have things I valued a lot in a different time. When I first purchased my Zippo lighter, an original not a knock off I felt like it was the coolest thing ever, now it mostly collects dust. Not because its a bad lighter but because its just so much easier and more practical to buy disposable.
Anyway with values attached to everything, we've kind of blocked out when it comes to ourselves. It's considered a faux pas to show or say anything that gives the impression that you see people as having a value just like a watch or book. It is quite true though, for me anyway. You see while most people tend to pretend like they don't notice, they distance themselves from people who have low value to them, and gravitate towards people who have high value. If you have a person in your life that just takes from you, or that you don't enjoy spending time with, you tend to not spend time with that person. There can be other reasons, I don't go to visit my grandfather in the home much because;
1. He is senile so he doesn't remember if I was there, or even who I am when I go there, and when I do he sleeps most of the time.
2. It's excruciating to watch a person you look up to, who has been a person you saw more or less every day of your life until you were 18, turn into a shell of his or her former self. Watching a person become just a body, like their personality being ripped away is more painful than them being dead before hitting the floor.
Sorry for the short tour through sobville, I wrote that because it illustrates that sometimes you avoid a person not because of a lack of love for them, but to take a path of least pain. Now if you have a person who is improving the quality of your life in it, then you tend to want to keep them. Now the value of a person is relative, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. It can be having the newest shoes and clothes in a subgroup of fashionistas or the Sheen brother without a rap-sheet when they need to explain the dead hooker.
Regardless of that, we all assign values to people. I am honest about doing so and while it does sometimes lead to regretful situations and probably a result of our development.
Among a species the goal is to survive and reproduce, any successful species has to do this. In a world where I am programmed by nature to get my DNA to survive, or to use the literal term "blood" as its used in historical texts, assigning values makes sense. The closest thing to my DNA is the DNA of my siblings, my cousins, and so on. So in order to make my families DNA survive it does make sense to protect them, and to help them. Now a single family isn't much of a force and doesn't offer diverse enough DNA so add a few more families and you have a small community. Now the people of this community will value a member of their community over an outsider unless that outsider offers them something more worth than their members.
Sacrifices to the Gods in ancient and to a degree modern times is an example of a social group valuing the goodwill of their God(s) over members of other groups and in some cases even their own group.
I value some family pictures, a few gifts, and trinkets more than things that hold a much higher monetary value. On the other hand I have things I valued a lot in a different time. When I first purchased my Zippo lighter, an original not a knock off I felt like it was the coolest thing ever, now it mostly collects dust. Not because its a bad lighter but because its just so much easier and more practical to buy disposable.
Anyway with values attached to everything, we've kind of blocked out when it comes to ourselves. It's considered a faux pas to show or say anything that gives the impression that you see people as having a value just like a watch or book. It is quite true though, for me anyway. You see while most people tend to pretend like they don't notice, they distance themselves from people who have low value to them, and gravitate towards people who have high value. If you have a person in your life that just takes from you, or that you don't enjoy spending time with, you tend to not spend time with that person. There can be other reasons, I don't go to visit my grandfather in the home much because;
1. He is senile so he doesn't remember if I was there, or even who I am when I go there, and when I do he sleeps most of the time.
2. It's excruciating to watch a person you look up to, who has been a person you saw more or less every day of your life until you were 18, turn into a shell of his or her former self. Watching a person become just a body, like their personality being ripped away is more painful than them being dead before hitting the floor.
Sorry for the short tour through sobville, I wrote that because it illustrates that sometimes you avoid a person not because of a lack of love for them, but to take a path of least pain. Now if you have a person who is improving the quality of your life in it, then you tend to want to keep them. Now the value of a person is relative, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. It can be having the newest shoes and clothes in a subgroup of fashionistas or the Sheen brother without a rap-sheet when they need to explain the dead hooker.
Regardless of that, we all assign values to people. I am honest about doing so and while it does sometimes lead to regretful situations and probably a result of our development.
Among a species the goal is to survive and reproduce, any successful species has to do this. In a world where I am programmed by nature to get my DNA to survive, or to use the literal term "blood" as its used in historical texts, assigning values makes sense. The closest thing to my DNA is the DNA of my siblings, my cousins, and so on. So in order to make my families DNA survive it does make sense to protect them, and to help them. Now a single family isn't much of a force and doesn't offer diverse enough DNA so add a few more families and you have a small community. Now the people of this community will value a member of their community over an outsider unless that outsider offers them something more worth than their members.
Sacrifices to the Gods in ancient and to a degree modern times is an example of a social group valuing the goodwill of their God(s) over members of other groups and in some cases even their own group.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The bad thing about democracy.. it doesn't work.
Who are we kidding, no country is truly democratic at best our civilized western "democracies" are ruled by special interest groups and agendas. In a not so distant future more people will die from obesity than from smoking, why has so little preemptive work been done? Shouldn't "Gutfillers" have labels on them? I see no reason why products high in carbohydrates, sugars, high-fructose corn syrup and other unhealthy sweeteners shouldn't have big white labels on them with warnings.
The thing is the sugar industry and corn industry make lots and lots of money, and want to keep making lots and lots of money, preferably so much more that stock prices go up year after year even if the companies are doing extremely well already. So the sugar and corn industry grease a few pockets, use their connections and so on to oppose bills that would hurt their income. Let's take a senator or congressman from Nebraska one of the biggest corn states in the US, would such a man want to work for things that hurt his or her voters? The answer is obvious isn't it?
Renewable Energy is a field we need to do a lot more work in as a species. Countries like China and India are slumbering giants, China is already a big name in global business as a manufacturing nations, but they also have a huge market for goods in their own country due to a huge population more and more becoming consumers. So a need for more energy will be needed as more and more of the world become developed and needs to fuel industry and population. Unless something of biblical proportions happen the population of the world won't go down, the supply of oil will dwindle. People will want things like electricity, plumbing, air-condition, good heating, and the nice things that goes with a higher standard of living. Which it is reasonable that we will see as more of the world become industrialized.
So the need for energy goes up and the supply of a lot of traditional energy is running out, even with improved efficiency in all parts of the chain. So solar energy, wave energy, wind energy and water energy are all renewable sources that can provide a lot of energy cheaper and more green friendly. The second line of defense is something like nuclear power, which isn't as dangerous as it used to be since there has been technological improvements since it was placed in the doghouse.
Anyway the Oil business which is huge today, since most cars require it, all planes require it, has a lot of money gambling on the future of energy. Now they don't want to stop the research into alternative technologies completely, they just want to slow it down. Mainly until they have phased their assets into the new technologies, and have liquidated the obsolete assets. So they have their lobbyists working.
The media has the power, but they abuse it as they see fit. Can anyway disagree with that Elliot Spitzer was a much better governor than David Paterson and even if he had a relationship with a $1,000 in hour hooker was probably significantly better at the job. So who benefits from Ellitot Spitzer having to resign? The other party, the media who made money off the news about the scandal, I don't think the people benefit by having a less qualified official in office, but that's where we end up. If I was overly focused on politicians relationships, I'd be much more concerned with Dick Cheney's relationship with Hallie-Burton, than any sexual relationship politicians have. That is if you're watching their job performance, money is a much more effective motivator than sex,
Now democracy is meant as a system where the people control the country to a degree at the very least. Now the problem is that the people have to go through so many middlemen. Every middleman has his or her agenda, so does every aide, every secretary, every congressman, every senator, every lobbyist. So who wins out the people or the system?
What people forget is that democracy just like totalitarianism, communism and so on all end up with the same result when taken to an extreme. You end up with an elite who has the majority of wealth, influence and every other currency and a gradually worse off middle and lower class. This is exactly what we see in the US today, about 2% of the population has the influence, the money, and the power, while the rest are somewhat tag-alongs. When you take into account that the 2% have control over the media, the politicians, the lobbyists and so on how can that be a fair system?
You see there is no real difference between Stalin's elite and his purges and the various political elites that snipe at each other through the media. The only difference is that Stalin literally killed you, while the democratic elite prefer character assassination.
So in the end the only way a real democracy would work is that every single person eligible to vote has a button on their phone to vote yes or no on laws. However this brings up another problem, most people in a democracy do not know the democracy well enough. You see people tend to vote against their own best interest and vote with their gut rather than brain. I mean looking at what the 2 American parties say they want, most American's would be better off voting democratic instead of Republican. However the Republicans are better at bullshit. You see here is the thing, guns, religion, abortion and so on are non-issues. They are not important in the long run but they win elections.
The thing is the sugar industry and corn industry make lots and lots of money, and want to keep making lots and lots of money, preferably so much more that stock prices go up year after year even if the companies are doing extremely well already. So the sugar and corn industry grease a few pockets, use their connections and so on to oppose bills that would hurt their income. Let's take a senator or congressman from Nebraska one of the biggest corn states in the US, would such a man want to work for things that hurt his or her voters? The answer is obvious isn't it?
Renewable Energy is a field we need to do a lot more work in as a species. Countries like China and India are slumbering giants, China is already a big name in global business as a manufacturing nations, but they also have a huge market for goods in their own country due to a huge population more and more becoming consumers. So a need for more energy will be needed as more and more of the world become developed and needs to fuel industry and population. Unless something of biblical proportions happen the population of the world won't go down, the supply of oil will dwindle. People will want things like electricity, plumbing, air-condition, good heating, and the nice things that goes with a higher standard of living. Which it is reasonable that we will see as more of the world become industrialized.
So the need for energy goes up and the supply of a lot of traditional energy is running out, even with improved efficiency in all parts of the chain. So solar energy, wave energy, wind energy and water energy are all renewable sources that can provide a lot of energy cheaper and more green friendly. The second line of defense is something like nuclear power, which isn't as dangerous as it used to be since there has been technological improvements since it was placed in the doghouse.
Anyway the Oil business which is huge today, since most cars require it, all planes require it, has a lot of money gambling on the future of energy. Now they don't want to stop the research into alternative technologies completely, they just want to slow it down. Mainly until they have phased their assets into the new technologies, and have liquidated the obsolete assets. So they have their lobbyists working.
The media has the power, but they abuse it as they see fit. Can anyway disagree with that Elliot Spitzer was a much better governor than David Paterson and even if he had a relationship with a $1,000 in hour hooker was probably significantly better at the job. So who benefits from Ellitot Spitzer having to resign? The other party, the media who made money off the news about the scandal, I don't think the people benefit by having a less qualified official in office, but that's where we end up. If I was overly focused on politicians relationships, I'd be much more concerned with Dick Cheney's relationship with Hallie-Burton, than any sexual relationship politicians have. That is if you're watching their job performance, money is a much more effective motivator than sex,
Now democracy is meant as a system where the people control the country to a degree at the very least. Now the problem is that the people have to go through so many middlemen. Every middleman has his or her agenda, so does every aide, every secretary, every congressman, every senator, every lobbyist. So who wins out the people or the system?
What people forget is that democracy just like totalitarianism, communism and so on all end up with the same result when taken to an extreme. You end up with an elite who has the majority of wealth, influence and every other currency and a gradually worse off middle and lower class. This is exactly what we see in the US today, about 2% of the population has the influence, the money, and the power, while the rest are somewhat tag-alongs. When you take into account that the 2% have control over the media, the politicians, the lobbyists and so on how can that be a fair system?
You see there is no real difference between Stalin's elite and his purges and the various political elites that snipe at each other through the media. The only difference is that Stalin literally killed you, while the democratic elite prefer character assassination.
So in the end the only way a real democracy would work is that every single person eligible to vote has a button on their phone to vote yes or no on laws. However this brings up another problem, most people in a democracy do not know the democracy well enough. You see people tend to vote against their own best interest and vote with their gut rather than brain. I mean looking at what the 2 American parties say they want, most American's would be better off voting democratic instead of Republican. However the Republicans are better at bullshit. You see here is the thing, guns, religion, abortion and so on are non-issues. They are not important in the long run but they win elections.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Reality
We might not like to see it, to some its the one thing they would love to see and at the same time love to never see again. We have split emotions about it, sometimes its better to ignore it, other times one needs to take a long hard look at it. Reality is different from person to person, some let it pass by and some of us analyze, dissect and try to put it in system.
One thing stays a constant regardless of what you do, Occam's Razor. It's a fun principle and goes nicely in hand with When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" from Sherlock Holmes. If you first apply Occam's Razor to a problem, and then Holmesian deduction most questions and problems will be solved or at the very least understood better.
However once you add Illusory superiority into the mix we lack the needed objectivity in most cases to judge ourselves. People tend to come in 2 categories, the ones who judge themselves too lightly and the ones who do it too harshly. Very few people if any of the ones I've met tend to be on the mark with every aspect of themselves.
*This wasn't ready to be posted, but I decided to post a work in progress because a friend might need to read this right now*
One thing stays a constant regardless of what you do, Occam's Razor. It's a fun principle and goes nicely in hand with When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" from Sherlock Holmes. If you first apply Occam's Razor to a problem, and then Holmesian deduction most questions and problems will be solved or at the very least understood better.
However once you add Illusory superiority into the mix we lack the needed objectivity in most cases to judge ourselves. People tend to come in 2 categories, the ones who judge themselves too lightly and the ones who do it too harshly. Very few people if any of the ones I've met tend to be on the mark with every aspect of themselves.
*This wasn't ready to be posted, but I decided to post a work in progress because a friend might need to read this right now*
Monday, March 8, 2010
Happy International women's day
I am happy to see so many great women walking in support of their gender all across the world. I am glad that we, by having an arbitrary day where "women come first" we can help bring women as a gender forward in the world. The 8th of March is to thank for so many important things, the abolishment of suppression of women in the middle east, abolishment of arranged and forced marriages. Oh wait it does none of those things.
I'm Norwegian born and bred, I still live in Norway actually and here the 8th of March seems to be yet another day where feminine values are boasted as better than male values. While I am in complete support of "equal pay for equal work", that discrimination based on gender is wrong and so on, I feel like my gender has come under attack.
Not to the degree of "damn you women who have had your boot on the neck of men for centuries" but I feel like my values are marginalized by increasing pressure from certain groups. The women's right movement as it started, to bring women from being second class citizens to full citizens I understand, it was a great things and it needed to happen. However can we stop this fullscale attack on everything testosterone driven?
Of course if you look to countries like Spain, Greece, Italy and France where the male values are seen in a different light the women's rights movement and subsequent assault on male values is less severe but in cultures with less clear male role models and patterns the man is slowly being etched out.
Of course in "The Honeymooners" the line "Straight to the moon Alice" was a bit over the line, domestic abuse is not funny, unless the wife dressed up as a clown is beating the crap out the husband. On the other hand the lame, feminized, empty ballbag of subservience and groveling done by Doug Heffernan on the king of queens, Ray in Everybody loves Raymond, Alan on Two and a half men, and so on isn't fine either.
Nobody ever draws a line, that's the problem and nobody seems to be willing to say "Ok we've gotten what we came for, now pull out!" At the start it was rights to vote, which I and most of the men I know agree with, then it was no discrimination against women when it comes to jobs, then it was equal pay for equal work all of which are very reasonable.
Just like the Republican Party, the various interest groups for races, and groups Feminism got hijacked somewhere in the late 70s early 80s by extremists. While most women are reasonable you always have the "PETA" people of an organization that just takes the ball and runs with it without looking back. As I see it, if someone truly wants to be an equal they are willing to give up privileges in exchange for rights.
I have never seen a bar or nightclub have a "Men's night" but "Ladies night" where women drink for half off and get in for free is a pretty common occurrence around here. When looking at apartment listings I frequently see "Women only" and when I look at job listings I often see "Women are encouraged to apply" I have never seen the same for men.
I have never seen campaigns to get more men into what has been considered "female" professions. Male children would be better off with more male employees in kindergarten and in school, mostly because I think its unhealthy for a male child to grow up without male role models. Why aren't men quoted into jobs that are largely female professions?
Yes I wrote most of this to provoke to a degree, but to be honest the women's lib movement, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, they are all about the same thing; Choice. Am I wrong? It's not about every woman having to get a college eduction and have a career, but having the choice to do so. If a woman chooses to be a wife and mother instead of hunting for a career its her choice.
It's the same basic right we all want right? To choose and enjoy our own path in life rather than one set out by society? To have the choice to decide what we enjoy and value not what everyone else does. However this choice is rapidly being driven to hell in a pink Prius.
So men do want to get married and have kids, some don't. Some women don't want kids and a husband, some do.
So lets just let everyone be who they want to be as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else ok?
I'm Norwegian born and bred, I still live in Norway actually and here the 8th of March seems to be yet another day where feminine values are boasted as better than male values. While I am in complete support of "equal pay for equal work", that discrimination based on gender is wrong and so on, I feel like my gender has come under attack.
Not to the degree of "damn you women who have had your boot on the neck of men for centuries" but I feel like my values are marginalized by increasing pressure from certain groups. The women's right movement as it started, to bring women from being second class citizens to full citizens I understand, it was a great things and it needed to happen. However can we stop this fullscale attack on everything testosterone driven?
Of course if you look to countries like Spain, Greece, Italy and France where the male values are seen in a different light the women's rights movement and subsequent assault on male values is less severe but in cultures with less clear male role models and patterns the man is slowly being etched out.
Of course in "The Honeymooners" the line "Straight to the moon Alice" was a bit over the line, domestic abuse is not funny, unless the wife dressed up as a clown is beating the crap out the husband. On the other hand the lame, feminized, empty ballbag of subservience and groveling done by Doug Heffernan on the king of queens, Ray in Everybody loves Raymond, Alan on Two and a half men, and so on isn't fine either.
Nobody ever draws a line, that's the problem and nobody seems to be willing to say "Ok we've gotten what we came for, now pull out!" At the start it was rights to vote, which I and most of the men I know agree with, then it was no discrimination against women when it comes to jobs, then it was equal pay for equal work all of which are very reasonable.
Just like the Republican Party, the various interest groups for races, and groups Feminism got hijacked somewhere in the late 70s early 80s by extremists. While most women are reasonable you always have the "PETA" people of an organization that just takes the ball and runs with it without looking back. As I see it, if someone truly wants to be an equal they are willing to give up privileges in exchange for rights.
I have never seen a bar or nightclub have a "Men's night" but "Ladies night" where women drink for half off and get in for free is a pretty common occurrence around here. When looking at apartment listings I frequently see "Women only" and when I look at job listings I often see "Women are encouraged to apply" I have never seen the same for men.
I have never seen campaigns to get more men into what has been considered "female" professions. Male children would be better off with more male employees in kindergarten and in school, mostly because I think its unhealthy for a male child to grow up without male role models. Why aren't men quoted into jobs that are largely female professions?
Yes I wrote most of this to provoke to a degree, but to be honest the women's lib movement, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, they are all about the same thing; Choice. Am I wrong? It's not about every woman having to get a college eduction and have a career, but having the choice to do so. If a woman chooses to be a wife and mother instead of hunting for a career its her choice.
It's the same basic right we all want right? To choose and enjoy our own path in life rather than one set out by society? To have the choice to decide what we enjoy and value not what everyone else does. However this choice is rapidly being driven to hell in a pink Prius.
So men do want to get married and have kids, some don't. Some women don't want kids and a husband, some do.
So lets just let everyone be who they want to be as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else ok?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Productivity
I watched the new show "Undercover Boss" where the boss goes undercover in his operation to see what his employees work and live like. Most of the time these bosses seem shocked that their employees are treated the way they are, have low morale etc.
This isn't a huge shock to be honest, after working similar jobs as the people on the show, low morale is the least of their problems. I had this job at one point where we were clocked every minute of a 7 hour workday. Breaks were lined up by the minute which is fine, if we had more out time than the allotted breaks we had to fill out a report as to why. Half the workers smoked and yet we had to smoke outside in very cold weather. The tools at our disposal were totally inadequate, we didn't have internet and the about 7 times I got suicide callers I wasn't even allowed to contact them later or to contact the police and send them to the address.
Yes I totally love to know that 7 people out there were desperate and depressed enough to tell a random guy that they were going to kill themselves. Entertain me with their sad stories, how it feels to be 15, pregnant and kicked out by parents, how it feels when your 4 year old son dies and not even know what happened to these people.
Some might be cold enough to ignore this, I am not.
At the end of the show the CEO brings the employees who have been hurt by slaveownerish policies by these companies and presents them with some arbitrary gift without changing the policies. The funny part of this is that it shows the divide in thinking between the CEO and the employee. If the CEO put in place policies that improved how the people felt about the company they work for productivity would go up, slacking off, stealing from the company and not giving a shit would go down.
I don't screw over a company that treats me fairly, and like a person as opposed to employee 281. Of course stock prices have to go up every year, so where does a company that is already streamlined and effective go? They have to push the margins, on the product, on the production of the product and in every line, except well the CEO salaries. You see those also seem to go up, stock options, bonuses, golden parachutes and so on. So with a limited amount of money to cover salaries, benefits, and so on, the company has to make a choice.
You can't really squeeze the top dogs at a company because they are the guys who "keep it running" sure every employee helps a company keep afloat, but the top guys are the people who keeps it afloat the most. They are the guys making the big deals, the faces of the company and so on.
They are also hard to replace, a guy flipping burgers, answering phones, delivering lunch and so on can easily be replaced, especially in todays jobmarket where the unemployment seems to go up every month.
Think about it, like a Donald Duck cartoon. Scrooge has all the money, Donald is in debt to him, so Donald is forced to work at a slave wage doing menial tasks exactly the way Scrooge wants him to. Now you can't fire Scrooge, but you can find someone to do Donald's job of polishing coins. Scrooge has the money, he has the connections, he makes the big deals happen, Donald shines coins.
So when you have a CEO making 300x as much as a regular worker, there is a slight distribution problem. I'm a capitalist but I also think some things are obscene. Communism can't really work but I do think taxing the shit out of luxury items might. Let's be honest nobody needs 40 room mansions, nobody needs a huge boat, 20 cars etc. So how about this;
Cars that cost over a certain amount has a high tax, maybe as much as 50% on them.
Mansions have a similar tax, lets make it a % of the sales value, to prevent people just hiking the price of them.
Now these taxes would go towards things like universal health care, Increasing the minimum wage, and generally improving the standard of living for Lower and middle class. One could even give tax breaks on normal house, home loans and so on.
What this would do is to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom, yeah sure it may be against what all the people who've recently read and started masturbating to "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand but it would help. You see I am of the belief that a lot of things are like the high end audio cables most audiophiles orgasm in their pants about. Sure they look pretty and saying how much better they are makes you feel good, but the human ear can't tell the difference.
Sure some things are nice to have but why do they matter? That's the problem, we've moved away from a culture that cares about character, integrity and knowledge and onto what a person owns. We don't need most of the things we want. I don't need a TV in the bedroom, I don't need a fridge that makes ice-cubes, I don't need a coffee maker with a self timer, I don't need a million different knives in my kitchen, or sun-dried tomatoes from the Sicilian cost marinated in extra extra virgin olive oil.
My body doesn't know the difference between a slice of bread and pure sugar, my body can't tell the difference between a prime cut and a crap cut of beef. I still enjoy the nice stuff but I don't need it to live. That's the problem we indulge, and indulge and indulge, until there is nothing left to indulge in. We're a culture of overindulgers, going from one lust to another.
It's not just sex, drugs and food. It's religion, Television, videogames. Religion has gone from spirituality to commence, Television has gone from something you watched once in a while not the whole day. Video-games are made to be as addictive as possible.
We're a world of people who have strayed from our path, we don't get the adrenaline and stimulant rushes from our brains that we used to in our lives so we have to mass produce them. From bungy-jumping to sex addiction to emo's cutting themselves and people pouring pure high fructose corn syrup down their throats. It's all a hunt for rewards from your brain.
This isn't a huge shock to be honest, after working similar jobs as the people on the show, low morale is the least of their problems. I had this job at one point where we were clocked every minute of a 7 hour workday. Breaks were lined up by the minute which is fine, if we had more out time than the allotted breaks we had to fill out a report as to why. Half the workers smoked and yet we had to smoke outside in very cold weather. The tools at our disposal were totally inadequate, we didn't have internet and the about 7 times I got suicide callers I wasn't even allowed to contact them later or to contact the police and send them to the address.
Yes I totally love to know that 7 people out there were desperate and depressed enough to tell a random guy that they were going to kill themselves. Entertain me with their sad stories, how it feels to be 15, pregnant and kicked out by parents, how it feels when your 4 year old son dies and not even know what happened to these people.
Some might be cold enough to ignore this, I am not.
At the end of the show the CEO brings the employees who have been hurt by slaveownerish policies by these companies and presents them with some arbitrary gift without changing the policies. The funny part of this is that it shows the divide in thinking between the CEO and the employee. If the CEO put in place policies that improved how the people felt about the company they work for productivity would go up, slacking off, stealing from the company and not giving a shit would go down.
I don't screw over a company that treats me fairly, and like a person as opposed to employee 281. Of course stock prices have to go up every year, so where does a company that is already streamlined and effective go? They have to push the margins, on the product, on the production of the product and in every line, except well the CEO salaries. You see those also seem to go up, stock options, bonuses, golden parachutes and so on. So with a limited amount of money to cover salaries, benefits, and so on, the company has to make a choice.
You can't really squeeze the top dogs at a company because they are the guys who "keep it running" sure every employee helps a company keep afloat, but the top guys are the people who keeps it afloat the most. They are the guys making the big deals, the faces of the company and so on.
They are also hard to replace, a guy flipping burgers, answering phones, delivering lunch and so on can easily be replaced, especially in todays jobmarket where the unemployment seems to go up every month.
Think about it, like a Donald Duck cartoon. Scrooge has all the money, Donald is in debt to him, so Donald is forced to work at a slave wage doing menial tasks exactly the way Scrooge wants him to. Now you can't fire Scrooge, but you can find someone to do Donald's job of polishing coins. Scrooge has the money, he has the connections, he makes the big deals happen, Donald shines coins.
So when you have a CEO making 300x as much as a regular worker, there is a slight distribution problem. I'm a capitalist but I also think some things are obscene. Communism can't really work but I do think taxing the shit out of luxury items might. Let's be honest nobody needs 40 room mansions, nobody needs a huge boat, 20 cars etc. So how about this;
Cars that cost over a certain amount has a high tax, maybe as much as 50% on them.
Mansions have a similar tax, lets make it a % of the sales value, to prevent people just hiking the price of them.
Now these taxes would go towards things like universal health care, Increasing the minimum wage, and generally improving the standard of living for Lower and middle class. One could even give tax breaks on normal house, home loans and so on.
What this would do is to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom, yeah sure it may be against what all the people who've recently read and started masturbating to "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand but it would help. You see I am of the belief that a lot of things are like the high end audio cables most audiophiles orgasm in their pants about. Sure they look pretty and saying how much better they are makes you feel good, but the human ear can't tell the difference.
Sure some things are nice to have but why do they matter? That's the problem, we've moved away from a culture that cares about character, integrity and knowledge and onto what a person owns. We don't need most of the things we want. I don't need a TV in the bedroom, I don't need a fridge that makes ice-cubes, I don't need a coffee maker with a self timer, I don't need a million different knives in my kitchen, or sun-dried tomatoes from the Sicilian cost marinated in extra extra virgin olive oil.
My body doesn't know the difference between a slice of bread and pure sugar, my body can't tell the difference between a prime cut and a crap cut of beef. I still enjoy the nice stuff but I don't need it to live. That's the problem we indulge, and indulge and indulge, until there is nothing left to indulge in. We're a culture of overindulgers, going from one lust to another.
It's not just sex, drugs and food. It's religion, Television, videogames. Religion has gone from spirituality to commence, Television has gone from something you watched once in a while not the whole day. Video-games are made to be as addictive as possible.
We're a world of people who have strayed from our path, we don't get the adrenaline and stimulant rushes from our brains that we used to in our lives so we have to mass produce them. From bungy-jumping to sex addiction to emo's cutting themselves and people pouring pure high fructose corn syrup down their throats. It's all a hunt for rewards from your brain.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Procrastination
We all procrastinate at some point, the question is at what point does it become damaging? Is it at the point where you realize that some deadline is looming at the end of the week, end of the day? Maybe its when you realize that you've spent your whole life wondering, instead of experiencing? At age 26 I know more than most people, I could hold lectures on psychology, history, social-anthropology, social dynamics, computers, literature, art.
I've written 2 full length novels, a myriad of short stories, I speak several languages, yet I feel very unfulfilled because one aspect of my life lay unexplored and I have no idea how to proceed with it. Most topics have a set curriculum, read the basics, then move on to more advanced stuff, then move on to the expert part. As you learn a topic it expands and becomes more interesting as a whole. Read about WW2, and you tend to develop an interest for fascism, Nazis, concentration camps, then you may dip into reading about fascism in Italy, then you start to wonder how such a policy could ever get support. So you start to read up on the pre-nazi years in Germany and you realize that the Versailles treaty was a bit harsh and as a result Germany was plunged into a despair where a lot of people couldn't even afford to buy food.
Anyway, I've spent a lot of my life reading and observing, but I've always procrastinated on certain subjects, like human interaction because I felt it was unimportant at first, then as I grew older however the task of learning became more and more daunting and as a result I chose to procrastinate it further.
I've written 2 full length novels, a myriad of short stories, I speak several languages, yet I feel very unfulfilled because one aspect of my life lay unexplored and I have no idea how to proceed with it. Most topics have a set curriculum, read the basics, then move on to more advanced stuff, then move on to the expert part. As you learn a topic it expands and becomes more interesting as a whole. Read about WW2, and you tend to develop an interest for fascism, Nazis, concentration camps, then you may dip into reading about fascism in Italy, then you start to wonder how such a policy could ever get support. So you start to read up on the pre-nazi years in Germany and you realize that the Versailles treaty was a bit harsh and as a result Germany was plunged into a despair where a lot of people couldn't even afford to buy food.
Anyway, I've spent a lot of my life reading and observing, but I've always procrastinated on certain subjects, like human interaction because I felt it was unimportant at first, then as I grew older however the task of learning became more and more daunting and as a result I chose to procrastinate it further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)