It is with mixed emotion that I report that I have recently returned to the world of commerce. After a three year extended sabbatical which was characterized by unpaid unemployment - leisure mornings spent reading the Globe and WSJ, thinking about world affairs, monitoring the status of our nest egg, updating my memoirs, unhurried lunches with friends and delicious afternoon naps - I have reluctantly returned to the workforce. Part time.
What, you ask, would prompt a sane person to leave such an idyllic, free and unsupervised state? Am I seeking material for a new sitcom? Has my wife's recent retirement and increased surveillance put a damper on my freedoms? Has the rising cost of food and fuel impinged upon my available pool of discretionary spending money? Was I bored? Did they make an offer I could not refuse? Am I trying to impress Jody Foster?
Who can say? Even today, as I ponder my own motivation, I am unclear about the forces which have impelled me to seek (and accept) a job which requires me to bathe, dress in clean clothes and to be present in an office at a designated time. Why does any human being do that?
The answer is probably lurking somewhere in that theory of human motivation that is described in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In summary, it says we are never satisfied with our present condition.
So, now I have some new situations and people to mock and deride. Managers, supervisors, co-workers - oh and let us not forget the most deliciously perverse creatures who walk the Earth - Customers! Yes, friends, a whole new world is open before us: let us laugh at it together.
One disclaimer: My advisers have counseled me not to reveal the actual identity of my new workplace or the actual people that infest it. There are at least two good reasons for this:
#1) I don't want to get fired until I am good and ready #2) The jury has not decided if it is a hellhole yet.
I know that you are saying to yourself, "Of course it's a hellhole, you numbnuts!" But I try not to jump to conclusions.
Stay tuned. I need to go now and get ready for work.
8/22/2008
8/16/2008
Why I Don't Get a Charitable Deduction
When clean cut young kids come to the front door asking for donations to help the environment/cure the disease de jour/or to help elect a political candidate, I try to be polite, but I always send them away emptyhanded. Throughout most of my working career, I steadfastly resisted the constant requests for "sponsorship" walks/rides/runs - United Way Nazis - or outright contributions to a coworkers' pet projects (The chief exception is, of course, Girl Scout Cookies - which has always seemed to me to be a worthy cause.)
These refusals to donate may have been seen as the skinflintyness of a cheap bastard, but that is not the case. I do not like people taking advantage of my good will and presumed affluence as a springboard for socialized extortion to support their causes. Also, I am a skeptic who believes that such donations - however well intentioned - are simply a big waste. Some might argue that there is a "feel-good" value to giving $25 to help the starving children in Darfur, but I argue that practically none of that money is spent on food.
In fact, most of the money that is donated to ANY charity goes for overhead - Advertising, Salaries and Lunches for the executives. One exception: The Boston Globe Santa, which collects money to buy gifts for poor kids at Christmas. They promise that 100% of the donations are used to that purpose. The Globe eats the overhead costs. Good for them. These are the only charities that I will give to.
Some people are proud of their political contributions, which mostly go to pay for more attack ads and - of course - funding the campaigns to request more contributions. Or in some cases, to pay-off the gal that the candidate was having an affair with. It seems, John Edwards has emerges as the current leading poster boy for corrupt lying lawyer politicians (Bill Clinton, you are not alone!)
I recall that last year, Edwards had to take the heat for his famous $400 haircut.
This type of excess is typical of non-profit organizations, whose management is not subject to the same scrutiny as public corporations. They prey on the little old ladies from Pasadena who think their $15 is going to cure cancer, or to help a disabled veteran when it is actually going to be dumped into the marketing kitty to fund even more heartfelt requests for donations via junk mail, or worse to pay off the bimbo on the side.
Most of your charity walks and rides are just phony events which have been cleverly designed to fool good-hearted people. Fiendishly clever, the organizers realize that most people want to feel good, so they recruit walkers/runners/riders to go out and solicit sponsorships from their friends and relatives. They count on the fact that many of the participants have a relative or friend who was afflicted by the disease. They will become evangelists.
So, when they come to you in the office asking for a small contribution, you would have to be a hard hearted asshole to say, "You are a dupe. None of this money will go into research; it goes to advertising and executive salaries." Much easier to just give them $20.
Take the 3 day Avon walk for breast cancer as an example. The participants go around to their office colleagues and solicit donations. Most of them must personally invest several hundred dollars for the Tent, food and gear to make them comfortable for two overnights. The event itself is meaningless, except for the participants, who get a great rush from the camaraderie and fun of the 3 day camping trip. What does this have to do with breast cancer? Nothing. Most of the money goes to the organizers of the event. If the participants would just take their tent and gear money and donate it to someone who has breast cancer, the money might just help someone.
As I say, I am a skeptic. I can't prove it but I will bet you that if you look into it you will find that less than ten percent and certainly no more than 30% of donated money actually finds its way to fund the real purpose of the donation, which is research. Prove me wrong.
These refusals to donate may have been seen as the skinflintyness of a cheap bastard, but that is not the case. I do not like people taking advantage of my good will and presumed affluence as a springboard for socialized extortion to support their causes. Also, I am a skeptic who believes that such donations - however well intentioned - are simply a big waste. Some might argue that there is a "feel-good" value to giving $25 to help the starving children in Darfur, but I argue that practically none of that money is spent on food.
In fact, most of the money that is donated to ANY charity goes for overhead - Advertising, Salaries and Lunches for the executives. One exception: The Boston Globe Santa, which collects money to buy gifts for poor kids at Christmas. They promise that 100% of the donations are used to that purpose. The Globe eats the overhead costs. Good for them. These are the only charities that I will give to.
Some people are proud of their political contributions, which mostly go to pay for more attack ads and - of course - funding the campaigns to request more contributions. Or in some cases, to pay-off the gal that the candidate was having an affair with. It seems, John Edwards has emerges as the current leading poster boy for corrupt lying lawyer politicians (Bill Clinton, you are not alone!)
I recall that last year, Edwards had to take the heat for his famous $400 haircut.
This type of excess is typical of non-profit organizations, whose management is not subject to the same scrutiny as public corporations. They prey on the little old ladies from Pasadena who think their $15 is going to cure cancer, or to help a disabled veteran when it is actually going to be dumped into the marketing kitty to fund even more heartfelt requests for donations via junk mail, or worse to pay off the bimbo on the side.
Most of your charity walks and rides are just phony events which have been cleverly designed to fool good-hearted people. Fiendishly clever, the organizers realize that most people want to feel good, so they recruit walkers/runners/riders to go out and solicit sponsorships from their friends and relatives. They count on the fact that many of the participants have a relative or friend who was afflicted by the disease. They will become evangelists.
So, when they come to you in the office asking for a small contribution, you would have to be a hard hearted asshole to say, "You are a dupe. None of this money will go into research; it goes to advertising and executive salaries." Much easier to just give them $20.
Take the 3 day Avon walk for breast cancer as an example. The participants go around to their office colleagues and solicit donations. Most of them must personally invest several hundred dollars for the Tent, food and gear to make them comfortable for two overnights. The event itself is meaningless, except for the participants, who get a great rush from the camaraderie and fun of the 3 day camping trip. What does this have to do with breast cancer? Nothing. Most of the money goes to the organizers of the event. If the participants would just take their tent and gear money and donate it to someone who has breast cancer, the money might just help someone.
As I say, I am a skeptic. I can't prove it but I will bet you that if you look into it you will find that less than ten percent and certainly no more than 30% of donated money actually finds its way to fund the real purpose of the donation, which is research. Prove me wrong.
8/15/2008
Yawn
At the local Starbucks where I do most of my research in human behavior, I notice that some people are yawning as they stand in line. Often they mention that they are tired from staying up watching re-broadcasts of Olympic events from China.
The only event I watched (briefly) was the US girls beach volleyball against the (anatomically challenged) Japanese team. I just cannot get interested in most Olympic sports. Watching the swimming events is even more tedious than the previous most-boring-sports-event on my list: Soccer. Let's face it, most of these athletic competitions are fun to do but a yawn for the spectators who are not relatives of the participants.
You know how I feel about Professional sports workers. I feel that the Olympic games have become the same genre of non-sport. These athletes are not about playing, they are deadly serious about winning, because they are all preparing for their careers! Games shmames! I think its a shame.
In the old days the US had a moral high road by only allowing amateurs to compete; now it's just like an all star game. excuse me, I can't keep from yawning.
The only event I watched (briefly) was the US girls beach volleyball against the (anatomically challenged) Japanese team. I just cannot get interested in most Olympic sports. Watching the swimming events is even more tedious than the previous most-boring-sports-event on my list: Soccer. Let's face it, most of these athletic competitions are fun to do but a yawn for the spectators who are not relatives of the participants.
You know how I feel about Professional sports workers. I feel that the Olympic games have become the same genre of non-sport. These athletes are not about playing, they are deadly serious about winning, because they are all preparing for their careers! Games shmames! I think its a shame.
In the old days the US had a moral high road by only allowing amateurs to compete; now it's just like an all star game.
8/10/2008
More Bothersome News
Many former supporters were disappointed this week to learn that John Edwards now admits that the rumors about him shtupping the photojournalist were in fact true and not trash journalist lies, as he asserted a thousand times. All the little old ladies that sent in their $20 contributions are undoubtedly proud that their money went to pay-off the shtuppee to the tune of more than $100,000 for some home video quality work.
But I'm sure he is now telling the whole Truth. Those among us who believe that he fathered her baby are just wrong. He is totally willing to be tested. Umm, wait a min. It seems he will (conveniently) not be able to prove his new found veracity, since the mom refuses to have the paternity test.
Some of us were gullible enough to think that no one would be so stupid as to think that they could pull a Bill Clinton and get away with it in the kleiglights of the cable TV era; we must humbly acknowledge that such stupidity does exist in politicians.
Drudge and Limbaugh and some of the other neocons were right about this scandal many months ago. How come that mainstream press didn't know about it? Or was it an inconvenient truth?
But I'm sure he is now telling the whole Truth. Those among us who believe that he fathered her baby are just wrong. He is totally willing to be tested. Umm, wait a min. It seems he will (conveniently) not be able to prove his new found veracity, since the mom refuses to have the paternity test.
Some of us were gullible enough to think that no one would be so stupid as to think that they could pull a Bill Clinton and get away with it in the kleiglights of the cable TV era; we must humbly acknowledge that such stupidity does exist in politicians.
Drudge and Limbaugh and some of the other neocons were right about this scandal many months ago. How come that mainstream press didn't know about it? Or was it an inconvenient truth?
8/06/2008
Bothersome News Items
There are a couple of stories in the news lately which are seemingly unrelated but intriguing.
The first story is about a guy who calls himself Clark Rockefeller, and after being in the news for 10 days, no one can figure out who he really is. Rockefeller became news because he allegedly kidnapped his own 7 year old daughter in Boston and sparked an "Amber alert" last week. He was captured in Baltimore a few days ago.
The most intriguing thing about him is the fact that he has managed to maintain a level of anonymity that I would have believed to be impossible in this information intensive society. No drivers license, no social security number, no job, no past.
He "forgets" what happened before 1992, but does not claim clinical amnesia. How do you do that? I know what many of you are thinking: "Lets waterboard the bastard and find out what he knows." Maybe Keifer Sutherland should "interrogate" him? A bullet in the kneecap would undoubtedly bring back a few pertinent memories. Detectives in LA have declared him a person of interest with a potential link to a col murder case in California. Others think he might be the mysterious German Exchange student who dropped oout of sight in Connecticut. Undoubtedly, he will eventually be linked to the Jonbenet Ramsay case. And before long the media circus tent will be both large and noisy.
He has steadfastly refused to provide any explanation about his past or where his money comes from. Reportedly he uses gold coins to fund his activities. (Doesn't that attract attention?)
So far, none of the people in charge can figure out who he is. He says that he cannot remember his past further back than his marriage in 1992. As the SNL church lady would say, "How convenient."
I find it incredible that someone can exist among us without the government's (nor the media's) ability to trace their whereabouts or activities. If he can do it, so can crooks, rapists and terrorists. I find this a bit disturbing.
In the old TV series "The Fugitive" Dr. Kimball was able to exist on the fringes of society, keeping a low profile supporting himself by taking menial jobs. But this guy Rockefeller was no shrinking violet - a Director at the exclusive Algonquin club in Boston, reportedly participated in local theater productions. Yet there are few pictures of him that have come to light. Judging from the newspapers Even his wife could only produce one photo. until the mug shot was released.
The second story is about the Anthrax researcher. The Government lays out the case against Anthrax researcher Dr. Bruce Ivins. They say he (conveniently) committed suicide as the prosecutors were closing-in. Others are questioning whether the feds were targeting the right guy this time After the government's ongoing series of fuck-ups and cover ups, we remain confused, bothered and bewildered by the conflicting stories and our basic distrust of our own security agencies.
I think the bothersome thread of these news items is that the stories remind us of the fragility of our sense of order and safety. If this guy Rockefeller can move untraced in our society, so can a lot of other bad guys. The Anthrax case is equally disturbing not only because of the helplessness we feel to biological attack, but also that it took so long to come up with mainly circumstantial evidence. I'm as much a proponent of the ideals of liberty, right to privacy, etc. as the next guy, but there are some adult realities that need to be acknowledged.
A very small number of individuals can disrupt society in a dramatic way.
witness how a few flat tires and fender benders on the city highways can tie-up traffic for hours. One bad accident on route 95 can ruin the day for thousands of people. Back in September 2001, nineteen bad guys were responsible for over 3000 deaths and the inconvenience to a minimum of 2 million people every day - everyone who has passed through any US airport - since Sept 11. How about the two Washington D.C. area snipers who paralyzed the whole region for weeks, randomly shooting people while they refueled their cars or emerged from grocery stores?
These incidents illustrate how a few malevolent actors can bring mass chaos in a free society. The irony is that each such act tends to make us choose safety over liberty. The citizens of an open society deserve both security and freedom.
The essential problem is that we do not know where to turn for the Truth. Despite all the information that is available to us, we still cannot discern the truth because we cannot trust the source. The traditional source for truth has been scientists and journalists. But not anymore. We don't trust these purveyors of facts these days, unless they are on our philosophical/political wavelength.
The bothersome Reality of modern society: Facts are what you/I agree on. Truth exists in the mind of the beholder.
The first story is about a guy who calls himself Clark Rockefeller, and after being in the news for 10 days, no one can figure out who he really is. Rockefeller became news because he allegedly kidnapped his own 7 year old daughter in Boston and sparked an "Amber alert" last week. He was captured in Baltimore a few days ago.
The most intriguing thing about him is the fact that he has managed to maintain a level of anonymity that I would have believed to be impossible in this information intensive society. No drivers license, no social security number, no job, no past.
He "forgets" what happened before 1992, but does not claim clinical amnesia. How do you do that? I know what many of you are thinking: "Lets waterboard the bastard and find out what he knows." Maybe Keifer Sutherland should "interrogate" him? A bullet in the kneecap would undoubtedly bring back a few pertinent memories. Detectives in LA have declared him a person of interest with a potential link to a col murder case in California. Others think he might be the mysterious German Exchange student who dropped oout of sight in Connecticut. Undoubtedly, he will eventually be linked to the Jonbenet Ramsay case. And before long the media circus tent will be both large and noisy.
He has steadfastly refused to provide any explanation about his past or where his money comes from. Reportedly he uses gold coins to fund his activities. (Doesn't that attract attention?)
So far, none of the people in charge can figure out who he is. He says that he cannot remember his past further back than his marriage in 1992. As the SNL church lady would say, "How convenient."
I find it incredible that someone can exist among us without the government's (nor the media's) ability to trace their whereabouts or activities. If he can do it, so can crooks, rapists and terrorists. I find this a bit disturbing.
In the old TV series "The Fugitive" Dr. Kimball was able to exist on the fringes of society, keeping a low profile supporting himself by taking menial jobs. But this guy Rockefeller was no shrinking violet - a Director at the exclusive Algonquin club in Boston, reportedly participated in local theater productions. Yet there are few pictures of him that have come to light. Judging from the newspapers Even his wife could only produce one photo. until the mug shot was released.
The second story is about the Anthrax researcher. The Government lays out the case against Anthrax researcher Dr. Bruce Ivins. They say he (conveniently) committed suicide as the prosecutors were closing-in. Others are questioning whether the feds were targeting the right guy this time After the government's ongoing series of fuck-ups and cover ups, we remain confused, bothered and bewildered by the conflicting stories and our basic distrust of our own security agencies.
I think the bothersome thread of these news items is that the stories remind us of the fragility of our sense of order and safety. If this guy Rockefeller can move untraced in our society, so can a lot of other bad guys. The Anthrax case is equally disturbing not only because of the helplessness we feel to biological attack, but also that it took so long to come up with mainly circumstantial evidence. I'm as much a proponent of the ideals of liberty, right to privacy, etc. as the next guy, but there are some adult realities that need to be acknowledged.
A very small number of individuals can disrupt society in a dramatic way.
witness how a few flat tires and fender benders on the city highways can tie-up traffic for hours. One bad accident on route 95 can ruin the day for thousands of people. Back in September 2001, nineteen bad guys were responsible for over 3000 deaths and the inconvenience to a minimum of 2 million people every day - everyone who has passed through any US airport - since Sept 11. How about the two Washington D.C. area snipers who paralyzed the whole region for weeks, randomly shooting people while they refueled their cars or emerged from grocery stores?
These incidents illustrate how a few malevolent actors can bring mass chaos in a free society. The irony is that each such act tends to make us choose safety over liberty. The citizens of an open society deserve both security and freedom.
The essential problem is that we do not know where to turn for the Truth. Despite all the information that is available to us, we still cannot discern the truth because we cannot trust the source. The traditional source for truth has been scientists and journalists. But not anymore. We don't trust these purveyors of facts these days, unless they are on our philosophical/political wavelength.
The bothersome Reality of modern society: Facts are what you/I agree on. Truth exists in the mind of the beholder.
Celebrity Presidential Candidates
The "old white dude" used Paris in his Obama attack ad, now she has an ad of her own...
Click here
or go to http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d
This made me laugh out loud.
Click here
or go to http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d
This made me laugh out loud.
8/05/2008
Climbing Molehills Because They are There
One of the front page stories in the news today is about the 11 climbers who were killed by an avalanche on K2 in Pakistan. This may seem a tad cold, but I say "So what"?
I do not take pleasure in the news of any one's death*, but there is a difference between people who are victims of circumstances (disease, wars, violence) and those who risk their lives for thrills.
Of the 11 who died, I do have the most compassion for the two Nepalese who were undoubtedly Sherpa guides and actually working for a living, probably lugging the champagne glasses and photographic equipment.
It is difficult to pretend that it is a tragedy when people who get their kicks from betting against gravity happen to lose the bet. These were self absorbed people who spent their time and inherited money spreading maps on the mahogany decks of their yachts, frivolously preparing to climb mountains. Leaving families and friends because of the spiritual fulfillment one gets getting to the top. By the way, all of the dead had actually made it to the top - they died during the descent.
You may think that I am bitterly envious of those beautiful, rich people who are still alive and can afford to climb mountains and take boat trips to tax free shelters in the Caribbean - instead of being a boat less, overweight pensioner who spends his time chasing rabbits, moles and squirrels away from his garden and surfing the Internets in hopes of finding a cure for chronic NRI (Nagging Rectal Itch).
OK, Guilty as charged. I am capable of being just as useless as the next guy - maybe even useless-er. Just because my current path is to tread upon on those pesky molehills doesn't mean I couldn't be a rich thrill-seeker too if I could afford it. Gravity shmavity! is my motto.
Being at sea level gives one a perspective that mountain climbers do not see. Our horizon is limited by line of sight. But if our safety rope breaks, the fall is generally not fatal.
*Exception: Whoever invented the leaf blower - The noisiest, most annoying contraption on the planet.
I do not take pleasure in the news of any one's death*, but there is a difference between people who are victims of circumstances (disease, wars, violence) and those who risk their lives for thrills.
Of the 11 who died, I do have the most compassion for the two Nepalese who were undoubtedly Sherpa guides and actually working for a living, probably lugging the champagne glasses and photographic equipment.
It is difficult to pretend that it is a tragedy when people who get their kicks from betting against gravity happen to lose the bet. These were self absorbed people who spent their time and inherited money spreading maps on the mahogany decks of their yachts, frivolously preparing to climb mountains. Leaving families and friends because of the spiritual fulfillment one gets getting to the top. By the way, all of the dead had actually made it to the top - they died during the descent.
You may think that I am bitterly envious of those beautiful, rich people who are still alive and can afford to climb mountains and take boat trips to tax free shelters in the Caribbean - instead of being a boat less, overweight pensioner who spends his time chasing rabbits, moles and squirrels away from his garden and surfing the Internets in hopes of finding a cure for chronic NRI (Nagging Rectal Itch).
OK, Guilty as charged. I am capable of being just as useless as the next guy - maybe even useless-er. Just because my current path is to tread upon on those pesky molehills doesn't mean I couldn't be a rich thrill-seeker too if I could afford it. Gravity shmavity! is my motto.
Being at sea level gives one a perspective that mountain climbers do not see. Our horizon is limited by line of sight. But if our safety rope breaks, the fall is generally not fatal.
*Exception: Whoever invented the leaf blower - The noisiest, most annoying contraption on the planet.
8/01/2008
No Farewell Party for Manny
Local baseball fans - among whom I am distinctly of the "fair weather" variety - woke up today to the UN-surprising news that Red Sox employee Manny Ramirez was gone, like a foul ball hit out of the park.
We - who understand that baseball is just a job after all - will miss him. He was a pain in the ass prima donna who could hit clutch home runs and fer goshsakes win games when it counted. He was disruptive and lazy and his fielding abilities were less than big league. He looked more like a rap musician than a baseball worker with his long dreadlocks and baggy clown pants. But darn it, he was entertaining.
We have all worked with people like Manny. We might have had to work a bit harder while our coworker was slacking off. Or we might have felt that someone else was getting more attention for his antics than his performance in the field. The Manny on our team may have been annoying at times but then they would do something marvelous: getting the contract that would mean more revenue for our company or solving a costly problem. Just like Manny with his world series game winning performance in the clutch.
At their farewell parties, we sincerely wish them well and try to remember their deeds of greatness. Then we go home and forget about them.
Manny's singular value to the Red Sox was that he is a great slugger who can save the day. I think we will miss him before this season is over. For a little while.
The fact is (despite our hubris) most of us are quite replaceable. Each of us creates our own legacy in our work life. But regardless of our accomplishments, whether we were Airline CEO's, Hall of Fame sluggers or systems analysts, the mark we make amounts to footprints in the sand: washed away by the next tide - or even the next wave, gone and forgotten.
Like Manny, Nomar, Johnny Damon, Babe Ruth - there comes a time when We have stayed too long at the party and it is time to be moving on down the road, with the fresh opportunity to re-create ourselves on a new team. Too many cliches, you say? Well sorry, they just seemed to be appropriate.
The Red Sox suits may seem smart, letting Manny go after getting the best he had, but we felt that way about Roger Clemens too.
We - who understand that baseball is just a job after all - will miss him. He was a pain in the ass prima donna who could hit clutch home runs and fer goshsakes win games when it counted. He was disruptive and lazy and his fielding abilities were less than big league. He looked more like a rap musician than a baseball worker with his long dreadlocks and baggy clown pants. But darn it, he was entertaining.
We have all worked with people like Manny. We might have had to work a bit harder while our coworker was slacking off. Or we might have felt that someone else was getting more attention for his antics than his performance in the field. The Manny on our team may have been annoying at times but then they would do something marvelous: getting the contract that would mean more revenue for our company or solving a costly problem. Just like Manny with his world series game winning performance in the clutch.
At their farewell parties, we sincerely wish them well and try to remember their deeds of greatness. Then we go home and forget about them.
Manny's singular value to the Red Sox was that he is a great slugger who can save the day. I think we will miss him before this season is over. For a little while.
The fact is (despite our hubris) most of us are quite replaceable. Each of us creates our own legacy in our work life. But regardless of our accomplishments, whether we were Airline CEO's, Hall of Fame sluggers or systems analysts, the mark we make amounts to footprints in the sand: washed away by the next tide - or even the next wave, gone and forgotten.
Like Manny, Nomar, Johnny Damon, Babe Ruth - there comes a time when We have stayed too long at the party and it is time to be moving on down the road, with the fresh opportunity to re-create ourselves on a new team. Too many cliches, you say? Well sorry, they just seemed to be appropriate.
The Red Sox suits may seem smart, letting Manny go after getting the best he had, but we felt that way about Roger Clemens too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)