In recent months as I have followed the news, politics, economics, and even observed my own peers, I have noticed class envy as I have never seen it before. Pursuit of wealth is one of the building blocks of a capitalistic society, but there is a growing sentiment that a certain amount of wealth can be too much.
How much is too much? One blogger I read wanted to tax 100% of earnings above $75,000. Politicians throw around ideas of higher taxes for the "wealthiest" which they quantify as people making over $200 - $250 thousand a year. Other news talks about capping CEO salaries and benefits at $500,000 a year. Is there such a thing as making too much money?
Well, first of all, before someone on the outside can sit and declare a salary as "too high" they need to determine the circumstances. While I would LOVE to be paid $75,000 a year, if I lived in New York City or California, I would be pretty upset about that wage and might even find myself barely scraping by, due to the high cost of living. In addition, what if you are a father of several children with a stay at home wife? Would $75,000 cut it?
Many people make it on less, and I applaud them. I am a huge proponent of living within your means, whatever those are. But I am not against bettering your situation either. Sure, making $250 grand a year would allow pretty much anyone anywhere to live comfortably. But does that justify capping salaries and taxing high earners?
I'd like to look at two points. First of all, why are these people paid so much? And secondly, why does it bother the rest of us that they make so much? The answer to the second question will help explain why we justify out attitudes against these people.
I have seen the business world. I have seen the "fast track." And I got off of it. Having seen the fast track, I can tell you exactly why people who make so much are paid so well. It is because they have worked hard for it. Imagine for a minute the jobs that would pay six figures. What do you think about? Doctors, lawyers, CEO's, accountants and wall street financiers, small (but successful) small business owners.
What do these people have in common? They have all worked hard to be where they are. Doctors go through years and years of medical school and come out the other side with high debts. In addition, many work long hours and are often on call. The same is true for lawyers and businessmen. Small business owners often work seven days a week and work years before they start to see a payoff, and many fail.
I have seen how you can jump on the "fast track" to the top. I was in public accounting for a few years. If you are willing to work 60-100 hours a week for five or six years, you, too, can make six figures. If you are willing to work them for 15, you can be a partner and make LOTS of six figures. You can be a millionaire by the time you are 40, if you are smart.
But then what? Well, you continue to make your huge salary as a partner in a large firm, or you become an officer at a corporation. Either way, you work long hours and weekends and holidays. You rarely see your family. You have a huge house you rarely enjoy. You can hire a nanny and a cook and a maid because you have no time to do household chores yourself.
Further, in these careers, putting hours in at work is not the least of your sacrifices. You are a face - an important money making machine for your company. You are expected to stay fit, to look good, to dress nice, to drive a great car, and to attend banquets and parties. You donate your money to charity and you donate your time (or find people who work for you who will donate theirs).
And you go through a wife or two or three, as each one tires of waiting up at night. Unable to commit time to work on a relationship which was not built solidly to begin with, you are one of the lucky few if you never experience a divorce. And these days, if you marry before you are in your forties, you are also one of the lucky few.
And that is why these people make so much money. If the anticipated reward was not so high, they would not sacrifice so much. Companies need someone to run them, and these people need to be experienced and well trained. How much more experience can they get other than putting in 80 hour weeks for 20 years?
And now to why people are so envious. I admit, I sometimes wish I had the "easy" life. I, too, look at large houses and dream about what it would be like to come home to them. It would be nice to do something without budgeting for it. It would be great to travel on a private jet to exotic locations and attend balls. But I walked away from that life, because ultimately I can be happier with simple things.
So why are we so envious? Well I think in a way we are hard on ourselves. We all made a decision to give up that life in one way or another. We decided the hours were too long. We decided we weren't interested in being a doctor. We decided not to go to college. We didn't want to take a risk of opening our own business.
Being envious of high-earners is similar to being envious to someone who found a great sweater 80% off. We both had the potential to get the bargain, but only one of us went out hunting for it.
True, money is necessary for survival, but there are other things that are good and necessary. We all need water to drink and air to breathe, but if you throw me into a pool of fresh water, I will probably focus on getting air and not stop to take a drink. The same is true of all of us. As we go through life, we will have to make decisions based on our circumstances that often result in giving up someting else.
Many choose not to go to college - they save time and money by jumping into the workforce. There are jobs that do not require a college degree that pay enough to make a decent living, just as there are college degrees that will not get you a decent job anywhere.
Is that why we are envious? Because we know that we are ultimately the ones to blame for our economic state?
In addition, class envy transcends classes. Those who make $75,000 envy those who make six figures, and those who make six figures envy those who make seven. I think the reason we envy them is because it is easier. We all know how hard it is to make that kind of money. Someone who says that "no one deserves" to make more than $75,000 would jump at the chance to have an $80,000 job. However, if I said they had to work 75 hours a week for it, they might not be so quick to jump.
One final point - although you sometimes hear it with sports figures, I almost never hear people complain about the salaries that celebrities make. Being a movie or rock star is a hard life, too - it also requires long hours, lots of hours, and the paparazzi hounding you day in and day out. And yet, I almost never hear someone say, "They paid him $22 million to be in that movie?! No one should ever make that much!"
Why is it that the hard working Americans who make millions are hated while the Americans who bring home a load of dough from making one movie are idolized? I often see celebrities as getting paid oodles to do something they love, but a lawyer working late nights all alone is probably working hard to desperately hold on to his dream. What is the difference?
Many, I think, believe that if a lawyer's pay were cut in half, they might see a raise somehow. They see a company go through layoffs while the executives still make six figures or more. However, put things in perspective. Depending on the number of layoffs, a company could probably pay their CEO nothing and still not make up for the money they are trying to save by laying off their workforce. In addition, as mentioned before, the CEO makes such a high salary because he has to make the hard choices. Does anyone think the President laughs with glee when he sends troops out to a war zone? So do they really think CEO's enjoy announcing layoffs? No, they look at all the options and try to do what is best for the company.
Like it or not, money motivates people. If you had invested a large amount of money in a company, and the board came to you and said, "We have to hire a new CEO. We can hire a young man who just graduated from community college with a liberal arts degree and pay him $50,000 a year or we can hire the man who took Big Company X from the bring of bankruptcy and turned it into a profitable company in just five years, but he wants us to pay him $5 million a year." What would you say? (Believe me, if you split that $5 million among all the shareholders, you'd probably get back less than a dime). That salary is an investment - and it's an investment being made for you. This is what happens with companies all the time.
Class envy is completely out of place in America today. While we all have the potential to realize our dreams, many choose not to because they look for an easier route. I do not envy high earners, but I do respect them. And I know that this country could not run without these people - and that these people would not be motivated to go out and run the country if there were not a high motivation attached.
I'm not saying to go out and hug your doctor or send a thank you note to a local CEO. But we should all be more aware of what America would be like without these people. Because a country where there are no high earners - well, that's Communist Russia, and is that what we really want?
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Fatima
One of the great tragedies that resulted from the Protestant revolution in the 16th century was the splitting of Christianity not just between Protetstant and Catholic, but into two cultures. today all Christians share certain key cultural aspects, such as the celebration of Easter, and vary on others, such as the celebration of Lent (which is actually becoming more popular among Protestants). We share teh same moral code devoted to family service and charity, but there are some disagreements on certain details.
Another sad result of the culture clash is that we no longer share a history. I recently came across an astounding bit of history so recent that some witnesses may still be alive, taken as a matter of fact, not faith, by most Catholics but never even heard of by most Protestants - the visions of "Our Lady of Fatima."
Of course, therein lies the silence. One of the biggest cultural differences between Catholics and Protestants is the treatment of Mary. Most Protestants see reports of Mary sightings as laughable hogwash, but so does the Catholic Church. In general, all reports of "miracles" are investigated with a skepticism bordering cynicism. And it is this very cynicism that makes "approved" sightings of Mary that much more spectacular. Rather than encouraging mass hysteria, the Catholic Church has only approved 15 of 265 supposed Mary sightings as being considered legitimate, and many of these approved only after years or centuries of investigation.
In 1916 and 1917, three Portuguese children claimed to see visions of angel and Mary on a hillside. The angel taught them to pray. When Mary appeared, she toled them she would return on the 13th of the month for six months. When word of the visions (spread by the excitable youngest child) got out, the children were told to be silent by their parents, their priest, and by the local authorities (the Portuguese government severely restricted the role of the church at the time). But even upon threat of torture or death, the children would not recant.
Each month they returned to the hillside where they saw "the Lady." A large crowd began to gather. Some claimed to see lights when the lady was present. Many said the sun dimmed or a cloud appeared.
The lady told the children that she would bring them all to heaven - the youngest two very soon. She also showed them three visions, called secrets: a vision of Hell, a prophesy that World War I would end and be followed by an even more terrible war, and a vision of persecutions of Christians. In addition, she predicted that Russia would soon become a threat to the entire world.
So far I am sure most people are not impressed. Visions may be imaginations. Prophecy may be lucky or only as authentic as any other non-religious prophecy (like Nostradamus). But what happened nexte is what makes me consider these events remarkable. It made many people believe the children who had not before. Now, remember the year was 1917 - a far cry from ancient Israel or the Dark Ages where superstition was compounded by a lack of scientific knowledge. Nor was the story passed down orally for years before finally being recorded.
On October 13, 1917, the children reported that there would be a miracle, so that those who could not see "the Lady" would believe. The hillside was crowded with somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 people. As they looked on, the sun dimmed so they could see it without hurting their eyes. Then it began to spin and change colors - all colors of the rainbow. Most astonishing of all, it turned bright red and rushed towards the earth. After the display, the clothes of the people which had been soaked with rain, were left completely dry. Of all the thousands there that day, no one has ever contracdicted this story, and hundreds or thousands were personally interviewed about what they saw.
Scientists have offered explanations, but are mostly baffled. Some say the crowd's eyes were playing tricks on them from staring at the sun. Others compare it to events in China, but the conditions and location would not fit a mirage of sorts. All explanations lack something. Further, a miracle can easily have a scientific explanation, but it may be the timing or results that make it miraculous (an environmental phenomenon that just happened to occur that day).
Personally, I see power displayed on a scale only God could pull off - commanding the sun or, perhaps, giving each of the thousands of attendees the same vision. Either way, the scale is grand. Imagine if instead, all the attendees had died of...something. That would be in our history books it would be so huge. And yet, for a large group of people, these events are unknown. Most Protestants can't decide what to make of the events becuase they don't even know they happened.
One final note. Even to Protestants the Pope is an important figure who can't be ignored. Many Protestants sneer at the concept of a pope. And yet, especially under John Paul II, the pope is as important as any world leader. Although I cannot speak for all Protestants, I think we all applaud him when he stands up for the Christian faith and morals. The issues he addresses are those we all face to some extent. We judge him if he says something we consider preposterous.
And so now I see that Catholics and Protestants are united on the subject. While Protestants decided which papal declarations and actions are legitimate, Catholics try to influence the pope. For over 50 years, Catholics around the globe have been begging the popes to perform an act of consecration of Russia which was requested by the Lady of Fatima. This simple request went mostly unheeded until 1984. Subsequently, Communism fell in 1989. Am I saying the pope miraculously cused this - not necessarily.
I guess what I'm stunned by is the deeper meaning and pain that the Cold War must have had to devout Catholics, who have been praying for Russia for decades. A large piece of our history was, for some, a spiritual battle that Protestants don't even know about.
Call it what you will, the spiritual culture of Catholics, with their stories of saints and miracles, their devotions and holy dyas, is rich and deept and connected to all Christians' heritage. It is a shame that Protestants have to miss out on it.
Another sad result of the culture clash is that we no longer share a history. I recently came across an astounding bit of history so recent that some witnesses may still be alive, taken as a matter of fact, not faith, by most Catholics but never even heard of by most Protestants - the visions of "Our Lady of Fatima."
Of course, therein lies the silence. One of the biggest cultural differences between Catholics and Protestants is the treatment of Mary. Most Protestants see reports of Mary sightings as laughable hogwash, but so does the Catholic Church. In general, all reports of "miracles" are investigated with a skepticism bordering cynicism. And it is this very cynicism that makes "approved" sightings of Mary that much more spectacular. Rather than encouraging mass hysteria, the Catholic Church has only approved 15 of 265 supposed Mary sightings as being considered legitimate, and many of these approved only after years or centuries of investigation.
In 1916 and 1917, three Portuguese children claimed to see visions of angel and Mary on a hillside. The angel taught them to pray. When Mary appeared, she toled them she would return on the 13th of the month for six months. When word of the visions (spread by the excitable youngest child) got out, the children were told to be silent by their parents, their priest, and by the local authorities (the Portuguese government severely restricted the role of the church at the time). But even upon threat of torture or death, the children would not recant.
Each month they returned to the hillside where they saw "the Lady." A large crowd began to gather. Some claimed to see lights when the lady was present. Many said the sun dimmed or a cloud appeared.
The lady told the children that she would bring them all to heaven - the youngest two very soon. She also showed them three visions, called secrets: a vision of Hell, a prophesy that World War I would end and be followed by an even more terrible war, and a vision of persecutions of Christians. In addition, she predicted that Russia would soon become a threat to the entire world.
So far I am sure most people are not impressed. Visions may be imaginations. Prophecy may be lucky or only as authentic as any other non-religious prophecy (like Nostradamus). But what happened nexte is what makes me consider these events remarkable. It made many people believe the children who had not before. Now, remember the year was 1917 - a far cry from ancient Israel or the Dark Ages where superstition was compounded by a lack of scientific knowledge. Nor was the story passed down orally for years before finally being recorded.
On October 13, 1917, the children reported that there would be a miracle, so that those who could not see "the Lady" would believe. The hillside was crowded with somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 people. As they looked on, the sun dimmed so they could see it without hurting their eyes. Then it began to spin and change colors - all colors of the rainbow. Most astonishing of all, it turned bright red and rushed towards the earth. After the display, the clothes of the people which had been soaked with rain, were left completely dry. Of all the thousands there that day, no one has ever contracdicted this story, and hundreds or thousands were personally interviewed about what they saw.
Scientists have offered explanations, but are mostly baffled. Some say the crowd's eyes were playing tricks on them from staring at the sun. Others compare it to events in China, but the conditions and location would not fit a mirage of sorts. All explanations lack something. Further, a miracle can easily have a scientific explanation, but it may be the timing or results that make it miraculous (an environmental phenomenon that just happened to occur that day).
Personally, I see power displayed on a scale only God could pull off - commanding the sun or, perhaps, giving each of the thousands of attendees the same vision. Either way, the scale is grand. Imagine if instead, all the attendees had died of...something. That would be in our history books it would be so huge. And yet, for a large group of people, these events are unknown. Most Protestants can't decide what to make of the events becuase they don't even know they happened.
One final note. Even to Protestants the Pope is an important figure who can't be ignored. Many Protestants sneer at the concept of a pope. And yet, especially under John Paul II, the pope is as important as any world leader. Although I cannot speak for all Protestants, I think we all applaud him when he stands up for the Christian faith and morals. The issues he addresses are those we all face to some extent. We judge him if he says something we consider preposterous.
And so now I see that Catholics and Protestants are united on the subject. While Protestants decided which papal declarations and actions are legitimate, Catholics try to influence the pope. For over 50 years, Catholics around the globe have been begging the popes to perform an act of consecration of Russia which was requested by the Lady of Fatima. This simple request went mostly unheeded until 1984. Subsequently, Communism fell in 1989. Am I saying the pope miraculously cused this - not necessarily.
I guess what I'm stunned by is the deeper meaning and pain that the Cold War must have had to devout Catholics, who have been praying for Russia for decades. A large piece of our history was, for some, a spiritual battle that Protestants don't even know about.
Call it what you will, the spiritual culture of Catholics, with their stories of saints and miracles, their devotions and holy dyas, is rich and deept and connected to all Christians' heritage. It is a shame that Protestants have to miss out on it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Bill of Not-Rights
When our forefathers founded this country, they did so on the foundation that all of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights such as the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights they codified into the Consitution as the Bill of Rights - ten rights they believed everyone had. Rights that had been trampled on under Britain.
Some of those rights are under attack today. For instance, the right to bear arms. While we have a right to bear arms, we do not have a right to use those weapons to attack anyone at will. People have a right to not be murdered which outweighs any mis-use of weapons. Still, even though their issue is with those who would take advantage of a right, there are people who want to take that right away from everyone.
In the same manner, there are rights that it seems today people think they have when, in fact, they have no such thing. I am going to outline the Bill of Not-Rights - things that people feel they are entitled to, perhaps under the real Bill of Rights, when in fact they are not.
1. You do not have the right to a TV. Earlier this year our congressmen and even our President wasted precious time debating if the switch to High Definition TV should carry on as planned, although many Americans weren't ready for it. It seemed they were preparing for some sort of Apocalypse, should the switch be made too early. Convert boxes were given away to those who could not afford to buy one. Taxpayer money was used to buy devices so people could rot their minds and bodies in front of the tube. (In his defense, President Obaman needed everyone to have TV access so he could interrupt their regularly scheduled programs for his never ending string of speeches).
Another place we see people believing in a "right" to telivision is prison. Prisons have become notorious for changing the word "privilege" into the word "right" all in the name of avoiding "cruel and unusual punishment" (missing Oprah). In fact, the changing of privileges to rights in prison may have impacted the expectations of society to what they are today. "If someone in prison has accrss to free TV, internet, and college courses, so should I!"
2. We do not have a right not to be offended or feel uncomfortable. In protecting freedom of speech means protecting free speech for the very people who offend us the most, knowing that when we speak out, our rights will also be preserved. Free speech is a government protected right. It does necessarily apply to private institutions. You can't insult your boss and not get fired. You can't cuss in front of your mom and not get your mouth washed out with soap. You can't call Jimmy "fatso" on the playground and not get in trouble. What it means is that the government can't arrest you for any of these things. Businesses and institutions have rules for professionalism and how things are to be done.
However, today it seems that the nonexistent "right" to not be insulted or not feel uncomfortable has gone too far. When people are offended they try to claim outlandish reasons for involving the government in silencing the offender. Verbal assault! It seemed they were trying to incite a riot! I didn't feel safe around them!
3. You do not have a right to government money. Frankly, entitlement programs have gone a bit too far in this country, but that's not what I'm talking about right now. I'm talking about the hundreds of not-for-profit organizations that are sponsored by the government. When President Obama took office earlier this year, he reversed a standing policy whereby federal money would not go to fetal stem cell research. Upon signing the new law, he described the former policy as dangerous and said something to the effect that morals shouldn't get in the way of progress. No matter what your view on stem cell research, the President was fundamentally wrong. Before he reserved it, no federal moeny coult go towards this particular research. Private money was available to fund it.
The government has no obligation to fund any non-profit endeavor, whether scientific, social, environmental, or academic. These organizations, many who do good things, do not have a right to taxpayer money. Obama was wrong to assume that witholding federal funds from a cause would automatically force it to deteriorate and end progress as we know it.
First of all, the money is neither the President's nor congress's. It is ours. Ultimately, everyone will have an opinion on the programs that the money goes to, with at least 50% against any one particular program. Second, these entities are subject to the same free market rules as for-profit agencies. Look at the space program - as private investors see a financial interest in getting to space, they have funded private reasearch programs and made considerable progress. Most organizations that the government helps to fund also have their own sources of revenue. The final problem with the perceived "right" to funding is that when private institutions accept government money, they also accept government oversight, which often deteriorates and muddles the whole process.
However, you often hear of the perceived "right" to government funding in academia and art. For instance, I recently heard of a school that refused to stop showing pornographic films because of "freedom of speech." While freedom of speech is a right, what the school didn't seem to understand is that they didn't have a "right" to use state funding for something that offensive to most people. As I said before, we don't have a right not to be offended. But neither do schools, or any government institutions, have a fundamental right to spend our money on projects that are morally wrong or just plain silly.
4. You do not have a right to an easy life. But you do have the right to declare bankruptcy. No one seems to remember that right before the 2008 election, Obama publicly declared that there was no need for a comprehensive overhaul of healthcare that would provide healthcare to all Americans. Don't you remember? It took a few days for it to sink in for me, too. In the last debate, Obama explained that he voted against a bill in Illinois that would require doctors to provide medical treatment to babies that were born as a result of failed abortions. His resonse, "I voted against it because I knew the doctors were going to treat the babies anyway." He was so right.
Doctors are bound by a system of rights that is older than our Bill of Rights. They are bound to treat anyone who comes to them in need of their help, especially if their life is in danger. So, you see, we do have a right to healthcare.
But that's not really what's at issue here. What people perceive is that they have a right to "affordable health care." While this would be nice, it is not a fundamental right. Remember life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Right to healthcare, which we have, is a right to life. The problem is that when good people get sick they may end up with six figure hospital bills that can only be paid in a form such as a second mortgage. If they have no insurance, or sometimes even if they do, a hospital stay can literally bankrupt them. People perceive that they should have a right to healthcare without having to run up such huge debts, but as nice as that would be (and yes, things can be done with the current system to help lower costs) it is not a right. We have the right to pursue happiness. There is no guarantee that we will obtain it!
In ancient days, those who could not repay their debts were sent to prison or sold into slavery to repay them. In America we have a wonderful system that allows us to declare bankruptcy when debt becomes impossible to repay. It is not an "easy out." It makes it very hard to live life following a bankruptcy. And it is not ethical to run up debts just to declare bankruptcy and get out of them. However, we do have that option, instead of being sent to Australia.
Another option is to work hard, to not spend as much money on luxuries, and to pay off a little of the hospital debt each month. Because that is another right that we do have - a right to dignity.
5. The final right we perceive is a touchy subject, but all of the perceived "rights" above culminated in one big mistake. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman had a right to an abortion.
Now, my views on abortion have evolved as I've grown up, but I have always been disturbed by the logic of the court. The ruling was based on a right to privacy. As far as I know, I don't see how pregnancy and privacy are related - unless the plaintiff didn't want anyone to know she was pregnant.
However, I would attempt to take this from a logical viewpoint - let's try to ignore morals for just a moment. We have a right to health. In a situation that threatens the life of a woman or the life of a baby, she should have a right to decide if she is willing to give up her life for that child. That is a right.
But there is no "fundamental" right that says a woman has a right to not have a kid if she gets pregnant. Taking morals out of it, the ruling of the court should have been that the abortion was legal if it was legal and illegal if illegal. The decision effectively legalized abortion for everyone in America, but by creating a "right" that did not actually exist.
Legalizing abortion is one thing, but the perception of many is that by making abortion a "right," then women had a right to a cheap or free abortion, an abortion without barriers - this goes back to the perceived "right" to be financially safe. It gave women the perception that they had a "right" to an easy life - such as the perceived "right" of having TV access all the time. And it gave women the idea that they had the "right" not to be offended - by people judging them for becoming pregnant, by abortion protesters, etc. It means people think that the government has a resonsibility to fund abortion clinics, which have a "right" to run.
I am not trying to throw an emotional and sensitive argument into an otherwise logical debate. I am just trying to show an example of what happens when people confuse "rights" with privileges. Life is hard. We are so lucky to be in a country that allows us to reach our potential. We also have a lot of laws and programs that help to make life easier for us, in whatever way is best for us. Not all these laws or programs are fundamentally bad or wrong. Nor are ideas of loving people and getting along.
However, none of these things should be confused with rights - inalienable rights that no one can, or should, take away. What we can do is use the rights we do have - the Bill of Rights and combine them with rights that were not canonized - such as the right to dignity, the right to hope, the right to a positive outlook, the right to dream. Because if our "rights" ever infringe upon the rights of others, then they cannot be rights at all.
Some of those rights are under attack today. For instance, the right to bear arms. While we have a right to bear arms, we do not have a right to use those weapons to attack anyone at will. People have a right to not be murdered which outweighs any mis-use of weapons. Still, even though their issue is with those who would take advantage of a right, there are people who want to take that right away from everyone.
In the same manner, there are rights that it seems today people think they have when, in fact, they have no such thing. I am going to outline the Bill of Not-Rights - things that people feel they are entitled to, perhaps under the real Bill of Rights, when in fact they are not.
1. You do not have the right to a TV. Earlier this year our congressmen and even our President wasted precious time debating if the switch to High Definition TV should carry on as planned, although many Americans weren't ready for it. It seemed they were preparing for some sort of Apocalypse, should the switch be made too early. Convert boxes were given away to those who could not afford to buy one. Taxpayer money was used to buy devices so people could rot their minds and bodies in front of the tube. (In his defense, President Obaman needed everyone to have TV access so he could interrupt their regularly scheduled programs for his never ending string of speeches).
Another place we see people believing in a "right" to telivision is prison. Prisons have become notorious for changing the word "privilege" into the word "right" all in the name of avoiding "cruel and unusual punishment" (missing Oprah). In fact, the changing of privileges to rights in prison may have impacted the expectations of society to what they are today. "If someone in prison has accrss to free TV, internet, and college courses, so should I!"
2. We do not have a right not to be offended or feel uncomfortable. In protecting freedom of speech means protecting free speech for the very people who offend us the most, knowing that when we speak out, our rights will also be preserved. Free speech is a government protected right. It does necessarily apply to private institutions. You can't insult your boss and not get fired. You can't cuss in front of your mom and not get your mouth washed out with soap. You can't call Jimmy "fatso" on the playground and not get in trouble. What it means is that the government can't arrest you for any of these things. Businesses and institutions have rules for professionalism and how things are to be done.
However, today it seems that the nonexistent "right" to not be insulted or not feel uncomfortable has gone too far. When people are offended they try to claim outlandish reasons for involving the government in silencing the offender. Verbal assault! It seemed they were trying to incite a riot! I didn't feel safe around them!
3. You do not have a right to government money. Frankly, entitlement programs have gone a bit too far in this country, but that's not what I'm talking about right now. I'm talking about the hundreds of not-for-profit organizations that are sponsored by the government. When President Obama took office earlier this year, he reversed a standing policy whereby federal money would not go to fetal stem cell research. Upon signing the new law, he described the former policy as dangerous and said something to the effect that morals shouldn't get in the way of progress. No matter what your view on stem cell research, the President was fundamentally wrong. Before he reserved it, no federal moeny coult go towards this particular research. Private money was available to fund it.
The government has no obligation to fund any non-profit endeavor, whether scientific, social, environmental, or academic. These organizations, many who do good things, do not have a right to taxpayer money. Obama was wrong to assume that witholding federal funds from a cause would automatically force it to deteriorate and end progress as we know it.
First of all, the money is neither the President's nor congress's. It is ours. Ultimately, everyone will have an opinion on the programs that the money goes to, with at least 50% against any one particular program. Second, these entities are subject to the same free market rules as for-profit agencies. Look at the space program - as private investors see a financial interest in getting to space, they have funded private reasearch programs and made considerable progress. Most organizations that the government helps to fund also have their own sources of revenue. The final problem with the perceived "right" to funding is that when private institutions accept government money, they also accept government oversight, which often deteriorates and muddles the whole process.
However, you often hear of the perceived "right" to government funding in academia and art. For instance, I recently heard of a school that refused to stop showing pornographic films because of "freedom of speech." While freedom of speech is a right, what the school didn't seem to understand is that they didn't have a "right" to use state funding for something that offensive to most people. As I said before, we don't have a right not to be offended. But neither do schools, or any government institutions, have a fundamental right to spend our money on projects that are morally wrong or just plain silly.
4. You do not have a right to an easy life. But you do have the right to declare bankruptcy. No one seems to remember that right before the 2008 election, Obama publicly declared that there was no need for a comprehensive overhaul of healthcare that would provide healthcare to all Americans. Don't you remember? It took a few days for it to sink in for me, too. In the last debate, Obama explained that he voted against a bill in Illinois that would require doctors to provide medical treatment to babies that were born as a result of failed abortions. His resonse, "I voted against it because I knew the doctors were going to treat the babies anyway." He was so right.
Doctors are bound by a system of rights that is older than our Bill of Rights. They are bound to treat anyone who comes to them in need of their help, especially if their life is in danger. So, you see, we do have a right to healthcare.
But that's not really what's at issue here. What people perceive is that they have a right to "affordable health care." While this would be nice, it is not a fundamental right. Remember life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Right to healthcare, which we have, is a right to life. The problem is that when good people get sick they may end up with six figure hospital bills that can only be paid in a form such as a second mortgage. If they have no insurance, or sometimes even if they do, a hospital stay can literally bankrupt them. People perceive that they should have a right to healthcare without having to run up such huge debts, but as nice as that would be (and yes, things can be done with the current system to help lower costs) it is not a right. We have the right to pursue happiness. There is no guarantee that we will obtain it!
In ancient days, those who could not repay their debts were sent to prison or sold into slavery to repay them. In America we have a wonderful system that allows us to declare bankruptcy when debt becomes impossible to repay. It is not an "easy out." It makes it very hard to live life following a bankruptcy. And it is not ethical to run up debts just to declare bankruptcy and get out of them. However, we do have that option, instead of being sent to Australia.
Another option is to work hard, to not spend as much money on luxuries, and to pay off a little of the hospital debt each month. Because that is another right that we do have - a right to dignity.
5. The final right we perceive is a touchy subject, but all of the perceived "rights" above culminated in one big mistake. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman had a right to an abortion.
Now, my views on abortion have evolved as I've grown up, but I have always been disturbed by the logic of the court. The ruling was based on a right to privacy. As far as I know, I don't see how pregnancy and privacy are related - unless the plaintiff didn't want anyone to know she was pregnant.
However, I would attempt to take this from a logical viewpoint - let's try to ignore morals for just a moment. We have a right to health. In a situation that threatens the life of a woman or the life of a baby, she should have a right to decide if she is willing to give up her life for that child. That is a right.
But there is no "fundamental" right that says a woman has a right to not have a kid if she gets pregnant. Taking morals out of it, the ruling of the court should have been that the abortion was legal if it was legal and illegal if illegal. The decision effectively legalized abortion for everyone in America, but by creating a "right" that did not actually exist.
Legalizing abortion is one thing, but the perception of many is that by making abortion a "right," then women had a right to a cheap or free abortion, an abortion without barriers - this goes back to the perceived "right" to be financially safe. It gave women the perception that they had a "right" to an easy life - such as the perceived "right" of having TV access all the time. And it gave women the idea that they had the "right" not to be offended - by people judging them for becoming pregnant, by abortion protesters, etc. It means people think that the government has a resonsibility to fund abortion clinics, which have a "right" to run.
I am not trying to throw an emotional and sensitive argument into an otherwise logical debate. I am just trying to show an example of what happens when people confuse "rights" with privileges. Life is hard. We are so lucky to be in a country that allows us to reach our potential. We also have a lot of laws and programs that help to make life easier for us, in whatever way is best for us. Not all these laws or programs are fundamentally bad or wrong. Nor are ideas of loving people and getting along.
However, none of these things should be confused with rights - inalienable rights that no one can, or should, take away. What we can do is use the rights we do have - the Bill of Rights and combine them with rights that were not canonized - such as the right to dignity, the right to hope, the right to a positive outlook, the right to dream. Because if our "rights" ever infringe upon the rights of others, then they cannot be rights at all.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Diet
When I came back from Minneapolis at the end of April and jumped on my Wii, I realized something had to change. My general philosophy for maintaining a healthy weight of “be careful” wasn’t working. Since busy season had started, I had gained 8%, and 13% since I had started my new job a year and a half before. While not overweight, I hovered dangerously close to the top of the healthy BMI category. My other general philosophy of, “I’ll walk it off in the summer when I have more time,” was also obviously not going to work. I had jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire – they made it clear that I would be in busy season throughout the summer (until mid-October, to be exact).
Knowing that I no longer had the luxury of exercising to stay in shape, I decided to resort to something I had never done before – dieting. Ugh.
My sister is a dietician, so I immediately enlisted her help. I already knew that her belief system centered around calorie counting (in addition to a healthy lifestyle). She told me to “exercise” however I could – like parking far away from the building, and to not go below 1200 calories a day. I also went onto MSN health, which told me that to maintain the weight I want I should eat 1500 calories. Essentially, if I continued my current lack of exercise but ate only 1500 calories per day, then over time I would naturally fall back down to my college weight level.
This was much harder than it appeared. My first day I mistakenly believed I could have 1800 calories, so I counted and counted, and by the time I went to bed, I had used them all up. It was painful. I wanted to cry. And then I found out the real number I had to reach – somewhere between 1200 and 1600 calories. Yuck. However, after the first week, I had changed my tune. Part of calorie counting was combating portion distortion. We were ordering all our meals, which made healthy choices hard to come by. So when they ordered Chipotle, I gasped at my 700 calorie burrito. But when I considered that I could fill myself on half of it, I now had two meals. Likewise, I had always dreaded and feared vegetables. But when we ordered sandwiches from Subway, I realized that I could add bulk without changing the calorie count of my sandwich. I drank much more water. The pounds melted off, and I felt better.
Unfortunately, the summer ended relatively flat for total weight loss for me. One reason was that I didn’t count calories on weekends. Self-denial can lead down a slippery road to binging, and my theory was to neither binge nor deny myself on the weekends. Another problem was balancing my diet. I would play with the food pyramid online to find a way to get my full servings of nutrients in my allotted calories. But once I squeezed in my daily pop (reduced to only 12 ounces), I had tipped over the line. Some nutrient was going to have to go, because I could never give up pop. Asking friends to challenge me to stay healthy didn’t work either – they didn’t want to work at it. The last problem was dipping down into the 1200 calorie range. I knew better than to do this. However, during each day I was so cautious about my calories. I dreaded getting up to 1600 by lunchtime – then what? So I overcompensated to some extent. I ate incredibly light throughout the day, and if, at the end of the day, I still had calories, I would indulge in a yummy treat. However, I began to wonder if 1200 was more of an arbitrary number. What if it was actually 1300 calories for me? I had always had a better metabolism than my family. Was I busting mine? Would I permanently damage it so that weight loss in the future would be that much harder?
By August, stress, long hours at work, and anger at not being able to eat yummy goodies set in. I gave up the whole idea, thinking, “I have maintained a healthy weight all my life without paying attention, so who cares?” In addition, I was working long hours and didn’t want to check my weight on my Wii daily. Bad idea.The next time I stepped on, I was over the “healthy weight” BMI and rising. It was only a 4% increase from May, but a 17% increase from college and a 13% increase from a year ago. Add to that my dietician sister telling me that “overweight is overweight” and “healthy is healthy.” Could a few pounds really have thrown me from the healthy to heart disease and cholesterol problems category? Unlikely. However, I renewed my weight-loss goals. This time, due to increased free time, I combined diet with exercise. I made it a goal to meet my 1600 calories a day, at least for the time being, and to adjust down only if I felt like I was leveling off. Things started to look better.
I write this today because I have been told that keeping a food journal and writing about your diet experience helps. It keeps you accountable, for one. It keeps you motivated also – it reminds me how when I just make small lifestyle changes my overall wellness can be improved.
Knowing that I no longer had the luxury of exercising to stay in shape, I decided to resort to something I had never done before – dieting. Ugh.
My sister is a dietician, so I immediately enlisted her help. I already knew that her belief system centered around calorie counting (in addition to a healthy lifestyle). She told me to “exercise” however I could – like parking far away from the building, and to not go below 1200 calories a day. I also went onto MSN health, which told me that to maintain the weight I want I should eat 1500 calories. Essentially, if I continued my current lack of exercise but ate only 1500 calories per day, then over time I would naturally fall back down to my college weight level.
This was much harder than it appeared. My first day I mistakenly believed I could have 1800 calories, so I counted and counted, and by the time I went to bed, I had used them all up. It was painful. I wanted to cry. And then I found out the real number I had to reach – somewhere between 1200 and 1600 calories. Yuck. However, after the first week, I had changed my tune. Part of calorie counting was combating portion distortion. We were ordering all our meals, which made healthy choices hard to come by. So when they ordered Chipotle, I gasped at my 700 calorie burrito. But when I considered that I could fill myself on half of it, I now had two meals. Likewise, I had always dreaded and feared vegetables. But when we ordered sandwiches from Subway, I realized that I could add bulk without changing the calorie count of my sandwich. I drank much more water. The pounds melted off, and I felt better.
Unfortunately, the summer ended relatively flat for total weight loss for me. One reason was that I didn’t count calories on weekends. Self-denial can lead down a slippery road to binging, and my theory was to neither binge nor deny myself on the weekends. Another problem was balancing my diet. I would play with the food pyramid online to find a way to get my full servings of nutrients in my allotted calories. But once I squeezed in my daily pop (reduced to only 12 ounces), I had tipped over the line. Some nutrient was going to have to go, because I could never give up pop. Asking friends to challenge me to stay healthy didn’t work either – they didn’t want to work at it. The last problem was dipping down into the 1200 calorie range. I knew better than to do this. However, during each day I was so cautious about my calories. I dreaded getting up to 1600 by lunchtime – then what? So I overcompensated to some extent. I ate incredibly light throughout the day, and if, at the end of the day, I still had calories, I would indulge in a yummy treat. However, I began to wonder if 1200 was more of an arbitrary number. What if it was actually 1300 calories for me? I had always had a better metabolism than my family. Was I busting mine? Would I permanently damage it so that weight loss in the future would be that much harder?
By August, stress, long hours at work, and anger at not being able to eat yummy goodies set in. I gave up the whole idea, thinking, “I have maintained a healthy weight all my life without paying attention, so who cares?” In addition, I was working long hours and didn’t want to check my weight on my Wii daily. Bad idea.The next time I stepped on, I was over the “healthy weight” BMI and rising. It was only a 4% increase from May, but a 17% increase from college and a 13% increase from a year ago. Add to that my dietician sister telling me that “overweight is overweight” and “healthy is healthy.” Could a few pounds really have thrown me from the healthy to heart disease and cholesterol problems category? Unlikely. However, I renewed my weight-loss goals. This time, due to increased free time, I combined diet with exercise. I made it a goal to meet my 1600 calories a day, at least for the time being, and to adjust down only if I felt like I was leveling off. Things started to look better.
I write this today because I have been told that keeping a food journal and writing about your diet experience helps. It keeps you accountable, for one. It keeps you motivated also – it reminds me how when I just make small lifestyle changes my overall wellness can be improved.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Silver Bells
On my way home from work on November 2nd, I heard the bells. Silver Bells. Apparently it’s Christmas time in the city. The Christmas season seems to start a little earlier every year, but November 2nd seemed a little overboard. Pre-Thanksgiving? Really?
However, the music didn’t really bother me all that much. When it gets dark out at 4:30, and when it’s generally too cold to do anything outside, this time of year, which is beautiful during the day, can become gloomy and strange at night. Hearing Christmas songs as I drove home in the dark didn’t upset me. It cheered me.
I’ve always thought that Christmas was an ill-timed holiday. While the winter solstice means that days will start getting longer again, we spend a month of celebrating only to head in to the coldest dreariest time of the year. I’ve always wanted to move the Holiday back so that we have something to celebrate in the awfully cold months, rather than the nice fall months.
But I can take moving it earlier, too.
People talk about a danger of too much Christmas. That if we start it too early, it will take the magic away. I suppose that’s true. We can only be charitable and cheery for so long. Christmas stresses people out and can be challenging to our finances.
However, there is something I like about hearing Christmas music on the radio. An all-Christmas radio station simply cannot avoid throwing a few religious songs into a normally secular mix. No matter if it’s music, movies, or people shouting, “Merry Christmas!” the season has stood strong in an otherwise secular atheist world. (By the way, the commercialization of Christmas is not a bad thing when combined with the knowledge of the purpose for why we celebrate. Commercialization is a way to make it fun. Gift giving is an extension of other acts of charity performed throughout the season. Showing love to people and giving gifts can never inherently be bad – it is only bad when it loses it’s meaning. Whether you are an atheist or Christian, the gift-giving of Christmas is a great tradition).
No wonder people want to tear Christmas apart. Even a non-religious Christmas song still talks about Christmas (Christ) and “good cheer.” And if you listen to the religious or semi-religious carols, you will be amazed at how much more than just the nativity they tell. Some provide a biography of Jesus, others talk about how he came down to save us all, and others talk about the love of God to do all this for us. Quite different from just “Silent Night, Holy Night.”
For this reason alone, I think that playing Christmas music early is just fine! Maybe the music can remind us all about our heritage and our faith. It may bring others closer to Christ. For others, it may just make them feel warm and fuzzy in the dark nights. (By the way, I still find it inappropriate to play in the day time – when the sun is out, it is still just fall…It could be early October for all I know, so I try to avoid those Christmas stations until after sundown).
Finally, I'd like to address the argument that we can ruin the Christmas spirit by extending the Holiday. This is too true, based on history. There was a time when the Christmas spirit abounded. It was Christmas every day. Back in the days of the early church, people got excited about Jesus all year long. Early Christians shared all they had – which we don’t even do at Christmas. They were experts in turning the other cheek, and they followed their beliefs to the death. We tear down our nativity scenes when someone complains. Does our apathy to our great Christian heritage come from too much exposure? While I don’t think that’s the main reason at all, it could be a factor.
Yes, we should celebrate Christmas all year round. Maybe not in the secular sense, or even in the sense of being giving in the material sense. But we should be making a big deal, a big fuss, and a big party out of the fact that our Lord would come down to earth to save us all. Now that is something worth celebrating early.
However, the music didn’t really bother me all that much. When it gets dark out at 4:30, and when it’s generally too cold to do anything outside, this time of year, which is beautiful during the day, can become gloomy and strange at night. Hearing Christmas songs as I drove home in the dark didn’t upset me. It cheered me.
I’ve always thought that Christmas was an ill-timed holiday. While the winter solstice means that days will start getting longer again, we spend a month of celebrating only to head in to the coldest dreariest time of the year. I’ve always wanted to move the Holiday back so that we have something to celebrate in the awfully cold months, rather than the nice fall months.
But I can take moving it earlier, too.
People talk about a danger of too much Christmas. That if we start it too early, it will take the magic away. I suppose that’s true. We can only be charitable and cheery for so long. Christmas stresses people out and can be challenging to our finances.
However, there is something I like about hearing Christmas music on the radio. An all-Christmas radio station simply cannot avoid throwing a few religious songs into a normally secular mix. No matter if it’s music, movies, or people shouting, “Merry Christmas!” the season has stood strong in an otherwise secular atheist world. (By the way, the commercialization of Christmas is not a bad thing when combined with the knowledge of the purpose for why we celebrate. Commercialization is a way to make it fun. Gift giving is an extension of other acts of charity performed throughout the season. Showing love to people and giving gifts can never inherently be bad – it is only bad when it loses it’s meaning. Whether you are an atheist or Christian, the gift-giving of Christmas is a great tradition).
No wonder people want to tear Christmas apart. Even a non-religious Christmas song still talks about Christmas (Christ) and “good cheer.” And if you listen to the religious or semi-religious carols, you will be amazed at how much more than just the nativity they tell. Some provide a biography of Jesus, others talk about how he came down to save us all, and others talk about the love of God to do all this for us. Quite different from just “Silent Night, Holy Night.”
For this reason alone, I think that playing Christmas music early is just fine! Maybe the music can remind us all about our heritage and our faith. It may bring others closer to Christ. For others, it may just make them feel warm and fuzzy in the dark nights. (By the way, I still find it inappropriate to play in the day time – when the sun is out, it is still just fall…It could be early October for all I know, so I try to avoid those Christmas stations until after sundown).
Finally, I'd like to address the argument that we can ruin the Christmas spirit by extending the Holiday. This is too true, based on history. There was a time when the Christmas spirit abounded. It was Christmas every day. Back in the days of the early church, people got excited about Jesus all year long. Early Christians shared all they had – which we don’t even do at Christmas. They were experts in turning the other cheek, and they followed their beliefs to the death. We tear down our nativity scenes when someone complains. Does our apathy to our great Christian heritage come from too much exposure? While I don’t think that’s the main reason at all, it could be a factor.
Yes, we should celebrate Christmas all year round. Maybe not in the secular sense, or even in the sense of being giving in the material sense. But we should be making a big deal, a big fuss, and a big party out of the fact that our Lord would come down to earth to save us all. Now that is something worth celebrating early.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Lunchtime
I want to try to be more positive. That’s why I gave a shout out to Quik Trip in my last post, and that’s why I plan to honor another establishment for their business model today: Quizno’s.
Quizno’s. Yuck. My traditional response to the deli has been, “Their bread cuts your mouth!” Somewhere between gourmet and stale, their food has just never appealed to me. But I’m not here to talk about the past. I’m here to talk about the present. And the future.
In using a time honored marketing scheme, Quiznos has won me over, and I do not forsee myself turning up my nose to them in the near future. The change came in the form of a coupon sitting in the break room at work. Two coupons actually. Buy a soft drink get a free sub (drink and meal for $2!) and buy a soft drink and get half off the Pick Two selections (which turned out to be about $5 for the meal). My accountant’s brain buzzed with these offers…you can get a hamburger at most fast food restaurants for $1. If you pack lunch, the ingredients probably run you somewhere from $0.50 to $2.
So…technically the offer was still more expensive than packing my own lunch. But still, the brightly colored coupons stared up at me from my desk, begging me to dig deeper. So I did. I read what they offered. It had been a long time since I had been to Quizno’s.
They have a cheesesteak sandwich – something I never used to order but order habitually now at other establishments. They also have an au jus sandwich! Both have basically the same components, beef and cheese. How could anyone go wrong with that?
They also have new types of sandwiches. Something called a torpedo which sounds intriguing. And they have sandwiches called “sammies” which are on pita. YUM! Not to mention chili, tomato soup, and broccoli cheddar soup, all of which I love!
By the time I had finished looking over the coupons and the online menu, I had decided to eat lunch at Quizno’s for the rest of the week! There was certainly enough variety to draw me back over and over – I couldn’t choose! (Besides, it offered me a chance to go outside and warm up and take a nice walk and ask my dad what he thought about the latest news of the day).
So today I toddled on down to Quizno’s (the “beautiful walk” took me by a building being demolished that cracked ominously with each step I took). When I reached the restaurant, I was not disappointed. In fact, I felt frustrated at having to limit my selection and had already formulated my next order in my head before I left.
Honestly, the food wasn’t extraordinary. The deal wasn’t saving me any money. The service was on the slow side. And the Dr. Pepper tasted funny. But yet, somehow I left more than satisfied. I think it was the satisfaction of knowing that a restaurant that had been dead to me before was now open for business. That not only could I eat something off the Quizno’s menu, I would have fun picking it! And knowing that I could look forward to trying a new and interesting creation the next day.
Yes, Quizno’s, your coupon marketing campaign has succeeded. You have made a friend!
Quizno’s. Yuck. My traditional response to the deli has been, “Their bread cuts your mouth!” Somewhere between gourmet and stale, their food has just never appealed to me. But I’m not here to talk about the past. I’m here to talk about the present. And the future.
In using a time honored marketing scheme, Quiznos has won me over, and I do not forsee myself turning up my nose to them in the near future. The change came in the form of a coupon sitting in the break room at work. Two coupons actually. Buy a soft drink get a free sub (drink and meal for $2!) and buy a soft drink and get half off the Pick Two selections (which turned out to be about $5 for the meal). My accountant’s brain buzzed with these offers…you can get a hamburger at most fast food restaurants for $1. If you pack lunch, the ingredients probably run you somewhere from $0.50 to $2.
So…technically the offer was still more expensive than packing my own lunch. But still, the brightly colored coupons stared up at me from my desk, begging me to dig deeper. So I did. I read what they offered. It had been a long time since I had been to Quizno’s.
They have a cheesesteak sandwich – something I never used to order but order habitually now at other establishments. They also have an au jus sandwich! Both have basically the same components, beef and cheese. How could anyone go wrong with that?
They also have new types of sandwiches. Something called a torpedo which sounds intriguing. And they have sandwiches called “sammies” which are on pita. YUM! Not to mention chili, tomato soup, and broccoli cheddar soup, all of which I love!
By the time I had finished looking over the coupons and the online menu, I had decided to eat lunch at Quizno’s for the rest of the week! There was certainly enough variety to draw me back over and over – I couldn’t choose! (Besides, it offered me a chance to go outside and warm up and take a nice walk and ask my dad what he thought about the latest news of the day).
So today I toddled on down to Quizno’s (the “beautiful walk” took me by a building being demolished that cracked ominously with each step I took). When I reached the restaurant, I was not disappointed. In fact, I felt frustrated at having to limit my selection and had already formulated my next order in my head before I left.
Honestly, the food wasn’t extraordinary. The deal wasn’t saving me any money. The service was on the slow side. And the Dr. Pepper tasted funny. But yet, somehow I left more than satisfied. I think it was the satisfaction of knowing that a restaurant that had been dead to me before was now open for business. That not only could I eat something off the Quizno’s menu, I would have fun picking it! And knowing that I could look forward to trying a new and interesting creation the next day.
Yes, Quizno’s, your coupon marketing campaign has succeeded. You have made a friend!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Female Problems
It's that time of the month. The time of the month when women go crazy and start shouting, "Discrimination!" And the topic this month is the hot topic everywhere - healthcare.
Today's headlines were all about how insurance companies are "unfairly" charging higher premiums on women. As both a woman and an accountant (which is pretty close to an actuary in some ways), I didn't even need to read the articles. Of course they charge more!
For a quick summary of why this is so obvious, just think about the healthcare needs particular to women. Even if we take pregnancy out of the picture (because not every woman is even in a position to become pregnant, and some become pregnant multiple times), women's healthcare costs are much higher than men's. We have annual mamograms and pap smears. The articles stated that women's risks for female related cancers such as ovarian cancer and breast cancer are much higher and at much younger ages than other types of cancer. Women take more drugs than men (in addition to most regular drugs, women take birth control pills, anti-depression, and anti-anxiety medications). Finally, there is the personality difference between men and women in that women are more likely to visit a doctor when they become sick, as opposed to men who try to "tough it up."
Insurance companies, when calculating the cost of premiums for their customers (your employer) look at the mix of employees. The larger the group of employees, the better the rates, because risks are spread out. (For insance, I, as a healthy twenty-something, help to mitigate the cost of insurance for a coworker who might be overweight and in her late 50's). Small companies can be hit especially hard by high risk individuals on their payrolls. These individuals include smokers, overweight individuals, and women. Therefore, the outcry is that companies that employ a disproportionate amount of women are being penalized in their insurance premiums. And sometimes they pass that cost on to the employees, who are women.
First of all, let me point out that smoking and obseity are both lifestyle choices. Companies and insurance providers both try to battle the costly effects of insuring smokers and overweight individuals without being prejudiced or unjust. However, being a woman is not a lifestyle choice, and therefore I can see how, on the surface, some people might see the extra costs as unfair.
But the fact is, they're not. They are the result of years and years of research and statistics. People at the insurance companies are paid (fairly well I believe) to aggregate data on how much healthcare costs, who it goes to, and how much they need to charge companies to make the business worthwhile. If the insurance companies were to stop considering the effect of gender on costs, then premiums would rise for men. Some companies would see no difference, but other companies, would feel the brunt of the change. Suddenly men would be penalized - but this time for no reason, as opposed to women who are actually using the services. Further, a more likely scenario is that, if women's and men's premiums are the same for fairness sake, insurance companies would simply increase rates all around the board. This would be great for their profits, but would hurt everyone equally.
Here's another fact to consider - I have always wondered which is more expensive, being a man or a woman. For instance, men have to shave. They have to have haircuts much more often than women. Historically they have been expected to pay for dates.
Women choose to buy lots of clothes and makeup, but that's not a necessary expense. But what about necessary expenses? We will always have male and female only expenses in our lives to deal with. Do women rise up in protest because they have to pay for their monthly feminine products? Using the same logic as the unhappy women in the news today, it would be unfair for them to have to pay for these products every month, just because they use them. It doesn't matter that they are necessary. They should be free. In fact, we should make men pay for them.
Or what about shampoo? Due to the (typically) longer hair worn by women, we consume more hair products than men. We should get bottles that are 33% bigger than the bottles men buy. That way they will last the same length of time and cost the same.
What about other female only products, whether necessary or unecessary? It's the same concept of healthcare. The more you use, the more you pay for it. Take gender out of it. If I want 100 apples, I have to pay for 100 apples. If I want one apple, I pay for one apple. If I buy 100 apples, I can't complain because the guy in the line behind me bought one apple and paid less.
Women, it's time to grow up. We are women. We are proud of it. And we all know, even if it's buried way deep down inside of us, that we would much rather deal with the additional cost of being female than be a man any day.
Now, excuse me, please, I have a doctor's appointment to go to...
Today's headlines were all about how insurance companies are "unfairly" charging higher premiums on women. As both a woman and an accountant (which is pretty close to an actuary in some ways), I didn't even need to read the articles. Of course they charge more!
For a quick summary of why this is so obvious, just think about the healthcare needs particular to women. Even if we take pregnancy out of the picture (because not every woman is even in a position to become pregnant, and some become pregnant multiple times), women's healthcare costs are much higher than men's. We have annual mamograms and pap smears. The articles stated that women's risks for female related cancers such as ovarian cancer and breast cancer are much higher and at much younger ages than other types of cancer. Women take more drugs than men (in addition to most regular drugs, women take birth control pills, anti-depression, and anti-anxiety medications). Finally, there is the personality difference between men and women in that women are more likely to visit a doctor when they become sick, as opposed to men who try to "tough it up."
Insurance companies, when calculating the cost of premiums for their customers (your employer) look at the mix of employees. The larger the group of employees, the better the rates, because risks are spread out. (For insance, I, as a healthy twenty-something, help to mitigate the cost of insurance for a coworker who might be overweight and in her late 50's). Small companies can be hit especially hard by high risk individuals on their payrolls. These individuals include smokers, overweight individuals, and women. Therefore, the outcry is that companies that employ a disproportionate amount of women are being penalized in their insurance premiums. And sometimes they pass that cost on to the employees, who are women.
First of all, let me point out that smoking and obseity are both lifestyle choices. Companies and insurance providers both try to battle the costly effects of insuring smokers and overweight individuals without being prejudiced or unjust. However, being a woman is not a lifestyle choice, and therefore I can see how, on the surface, some people might see the extra costs as unfair.
But the fact is, they're not. They are the result of years and years of research and statistics. People at the insurance companies are paid (fairly well I believe) to aggregate data on how much healthcare costs, who it goes to, and how much they need to charge companies to make the business worthwhile. If the insurance companies were to stop considering the effect of gender on costs, then premiums would rise for men. Some companies would see no difference, but other companies, would feel the brunt of the change. Suddenly men would be penalized - but this time for no reason, as opposed to women who are actually using the services. Further, a more likely scenario is that, if women's and men's premiums are the same for fairness sake, insurance companies would simply increase rates all around the board. This would be great for their profits, but would hurt everyone equally.
Here's another fact to consider - I have always wondered which is more expensive, being a man or a woman. For instance, men have to shave. They have to have haircuts much more often than women. Historically they have been expected to pay for dates.
Women choose to buy lots of clothes and makeup, but that's not a necessary expense. But what about necessary expenses? We will always have male and female only expenses in our lives to deal with. Do women rise up in protest because they have to pay for their monthly feminine products? Using the same logic as the unhappy women in the news today, it would be unfair for them to have to pay for these products every month, just because they use them. It doesn't matter that they are necessary. They should be free. In fact, we should make men pay for them.
Or what about shampoo? Due to the (typically) longer hair worn by women, we consume more hair products than men. We should get bottles that are 33% bigger than the bottles men buy. That way they will last the same length of time and cost the same.
What about other female only products, whether necessary or unecessary? It's the same concept of healthcare. The more you use, the more you pay for it. Take gender out of it. If I want 100 apples, I have to pay for 100 apples. If I want one apple, I pay for one apple. If I buy 100 apples, I can't complain because the guy in the line behind me bought one apple and paid less.
Women, it's time to grow up. We are women. We are proud of it. And we all know, even if it's buried way deep down inside of us, that we would much rather deal with the additional cost of being female than be a man any day.
Now, excuse me, please, I have a doctor's appointment to go to...
Saturday, October 17, 2009
A Shout Out to My Favorite Gas Station
If I won the lottery - or any sum of money that would allow me to pursue my whims - one thing I would like to do would be to buy a gas station - and to clean it. Yes, I would clean this gas station - from sweeping and mopping the floors regularly, to keeping the bathrooms clean.
I have grown tired of running into gas stations along the highway only to wonder if I am going to get a disease from the restrooms in it and to trip over doubtful looking garbage all the way to the front door. (By the way - when I discussed this problem with my dad, who travels about 90% of teh time, he suggested that I only use gas stations for bathroom breaks as a last resort. His first choice is a hotel, which makes sense. The bathroom in the lobby is open to everyone and will be clean to attract visitors. The next choice would be a restaurant of any kind - the fancier the restaurant, the better kept the restroom). Back to my dream...
Some gas stations are small and crowded. Others have candy covered in dust.
And from a business perspective you may ask what could I possibly get out of owning a gas station? Gasoline has probably the lowest margin of any product that we can buy. As much as we complain about gas prices, the gas stations aren't the ones that are making much money off it. In recent years they have been able to earn a little more money by letting gas prices lag behind oil prices, thereby creating a higher return before they are forced to drop prices down. Pay at the pump gas stations have, for the most part, gone under because, even though they have a lower day to day cost (no employees for one), the margin is too low to sustain the business by itself.
That's why gas stations have convenient stores attached. In fact, what we call a "gas station" is your gas pumps plus convenience store. The store charges much higher margin on little items because they are "convenient," and they use the gas pumps to draw people to the store. This is also why some grocery stores and Sam's Clubs attach gas stations to their stores, hoping to draw more customers inside, as the gas business is not that luctrative.
Back to my gas station - even though it is probably not the easiest business to start off in, I made my decision to "buy" a gas station in my fantasy because I wanted to clean it up. But I wasn't considering the fact that there is already a clean gas station (two actually).
Quik Trip is a local gas station chain. I know for sure that it operates in Kansas but not Illinois. I don't know how far it reaches or in what directions. However, it seems that the marketing strategy of Quik Trip has been quality. Although price competition is tough (and I don't know that Quik Trip's prices are any higher than other gas stations), the chain operates on providing quality gas, clean stores, and good customer service (I have met with a kind of creepy employee, but no HR department is perfect in their screening).
This is the kind of gas station you go in just to go in. They have high quality baked goods, lots of food choices other than candy and snacks, and amazing drink specials in the summer. Before BP, I remember Quik Trip always advertising on their guaranteed gasoline. If your car broke down and it was traced to Quik Trip gas, they would cover the cost.
The success of Quik Trip has spawned another luxury gas station (if you could call it that), Kwik Shop. This shop is owned by Kroger / Dillons. They offer discounts on gas for those who have the Kroger shoppers card. However, I still prefer to patronize Quik Trip over Kwik Shop because of Quik Trip's cake donuts! (Kwik Shop uses Krispy Kreme donuts for the most part).
As I mentioned before, both gas stations run clean operations without seeming to increase prices (even discounted gas for Kwik Shop regular customers). How much better could it be?
So I want to give a shout out to two businesses who are doing things right. Way to go Quik Trip in leading the trend in clean gas stations!
I have grown tired of running into gas stations along the highway only to wonder if I am going to get a disease from the restrooms in it and to trip over doubtful looking garbage all the way to the front door. (By the way - when I discussed this problem with my dad, who travels about 90% of teh time, he suggested that I only use gas stations for bathroom breaks as a last resort. His first choice is a hotel, which makes sense. The bathroom in the lobby is open to everyone and will be clean to attract visitors. The next choice would be a restaurant of any kind - the fancier the restaurant, the better kept the restroom). Back to my dream...
Some gas stations are small and crowded. Others have candy covered in dust.
And from a business perspective you may ask what could I possibly get out of owning a gas station? Gasoline has probably the lowest margin of any product that we can buy. As much as we complain about gas prices, the gas stations aren't the ones that are making much money off it. In recent years they have been able to earn a little more money by letting gas prices lag behind oil prices, thereby creating a higher return before they are forced to drop prices down. Pay at the pump gas stations have, for the most part, gone under because, even though they have a lower day to day cost (no employees for one), the margin is too low to sustain the business by itself.
That's why gas stations have convenient stores attached. In fact, what we call a "gas station" is your gas pumps plus convenience store. The store charges much higher margin on little items because they are "convenient," and they use the gas pumps to draw people to the store. This is also why some grocery stores and Sam's Clubs attach gas stations to their stores, hoping to draw more customers inside, as the gas business is not that luctrative.
Back to my gas station - even though it is probably not the easiest business to start off in, I made my decision to "buy" a gas station in my fantasy because I wanted to clean it up. But I wasn't considering the fact that there is already a clean gas station (two actually).
Quik Trip is a local gas station chain. I know for sure that it operates in Kansas but not Illinois. I don't know how far it reaches or in what directions. However, it seems that the marketing strategy of Quik Trip has been quality. Although price competition is tough (and I don't know that Quik Trip's prices are any higher than other gas stations), the chain operates on providing quality gas, clean stores, and good customer service (I have met with a kind of creepy employee, but no HR department is perfect in their screening).
This is the kind of gas station you go in just to go in. They have high quality baked goods, lots of food choices other than candy and snacks, and amazing drink specials in the summer. Before BP, I remember Quik Trip always advertising on their guaranteed gasoline. If your car broke down and it was traced to Quik Trip gas, they would cover the cost.
The success of Quik Trip has spawned another luxury gas station (if you could call it that), Kwik Shop. This shop is owned by Kroger / Dillons. They offer discounts on gas for those who have the Kroger shoppers card. However, I still prefer to patronize Quik Trip over Kwik Shop because of Quik Trip's cake donuts! (Kwik Shop uses Krispy Kreme donuts for the most part).
As I mentioned before, both gas stations run clean operations without seeming to increase prices (even discounted gas for Kwik Shop regular customers). How much better could it be?
So I want to give a shout out to two businesses who are doing things right. Way to go Quik Trip in leading the trend in clean gas stations!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Goin' Parkin'
I have noticed a new phenomenon pop up in the form of signs in parking lots. They are getting common these days, and I see them everywhere! In addition to the legally mandated handicap parking, many parking lots now have signs designating parking for senior citizens and / or mothers or expecting mothers. While I appreciate what stores are trying to do with these signs, I also think there are a lot of problems with them.
First of all, let me point out that these signs are not legal designations. To park in a handicap parking spot you have to have a sticker. These signs are put up by well meaning store owners.
The second problem is similar to the legal issue. These signs attempt to allow prime spots to people who might have difficulty getting into and out of the store. Much like the handicap signs, they are closer to the store and give preference to certain populations. But the problem is that these populations aren't actually handicapped.
Being a senior citizen by name doesn't necessarily make someone disabled or even slow. In fact, many people driving around with handicap parking stickers happen to also be senior citizens. Being one doesn't make you the other.
Similarly, I am not so sure that being an expecting mother or even a new mother makes one in need of a better parking spot. To be sure, sometimes pregnancies require women to take it easy. However, simple exertion such as walking is usually allowable. Shopping carts level the playing field.
In fact, the additional walk from the parking lot to the store can be healthy for anyone involved.
However, the real reason that these signs are well intentioned but missing the point is that they are trying to force kindness.
This forcing of kindness never works. It just makes people bitter. One of the best examples of forcing of kindness is taxes. Who likes to see their taxes go up? Who sees their taxes go up and gets inspired to go out and do something charitable? In the same way, forcing those of us who are "less well" than others to park farther away takes from us a very important choice.
I have a great friend who tries to park far away from the store on purpose. My own personal law is to never drive around in circles to find a close spot (but to find the closest I can on my first pass). I have (before these signs popped up) tried to remember to park farther away, but I make a personal exception for when I am making a quick trip in, and when it is cold. (I think that if there is Senior Citizen or Expectant Mother parking, then 10 or 15 minute parking should be allowable...why not give the best spots to the fastest turnaround? Why should my trip into the store take as long as the entire time I am in the store?)
Now that these signs are up, the choice is gone. If I park far from the store it cannot be out of goodwill for those who may be less healthy than me. By default, I park far from the store because I have to.
And where does it end? Once we healthy people move back to accomodate the handicap, senior citizens, and new and expectant mothers, what new category is going to pop up? 10-15 Minute parking? Cold and flu parking? Should parking lots be sectioned off according to age and remedy?
The point is, there is a reason that for as long as there have been parking lots there have been handicap sections. And only handicap sections. As much as we would like to see everyone park according to need (healthy people in the back), that doesn't happen, and we can't force good behavior on people. It has to come from the heart, or it doesn't mean anything.
First of all, let me point out that these signs are not legal designations. To park in a handicap parking spot you have to have a sticker. These signs are put up by well meaning store owners.
The second problem is similar to the legal issue. These signs attempt to allow prime spots to people who might have difficulty getting into and out of the store. Much like the handicap signs, they are closer to the store and give preference to certain populations. But the problem is that these populations aren't actually handicapped.
Being a senior citizen by name doesn't necessarily make someone disabled or even slow. In fact, many people driving around with handicap parking stickers happen to also be senior citizens. Being one doesn't make you the other.
Similarly, I am not so sure that being an expecting mother or even a new mother makes one in need of a better parking spot. To be sure, sometimes pregnancies require women to take it easy. However, simple exertion such as walking is usually allowable. Shopping carts level the playing field.
In fact, the additional walk from the parking lot to the store can be healthy for anyone involved.
However, the real reason that these signs are well intentioned but missing the point is that they are trying to force kindness.
This forcing of kindness never works. It just makes people bitter. One of the best examples of forcing of kindness is taxes. Who likes to see their taxes go up? Who sees their taxes go up and gets inspired to go out and do something charitable? In the same way, forcing those of us who are "less well" than others to park farther away takes from us a very important choice.
I have a great friend who tries to park far away from the store on purpose. My own personal law is to never drive around in circles to find a close spot (but to find the closest I can on my first pass). I have (before these signs popped up) tried to remember to park farther away, but I make a personal exception for when I am making a quick trip in, and when it is cold. (I think that if there is Senior Citizen or Expectant Mother parking, then 10 or 15 minute parking should be allowable...why not give the best spots to the fastest turnaround? Why should my trip into the store take as long as the entire time I am in the store?)
Now that these signs are up, the choice is gone. If I park far from the store it cannot be out of goodwill for those who may be less healthy than me. By default, I park far from the store because I have to.
And where does it end? Once we healthy people move back to accomodate the handicap, senior citizens, and new and expectant mothers, what new category is going to pop up? 10-15 Minute parking? Cold and flu parking? Should parking lots be sectioned off according to age and remedy?
The point is, there is a reason that for as long as there have been parking lots there have been handicap sections. And only handicap sections. As much as we would like to see everyone park according to need (healthy people in the back), that doesn't happen, and we can't force good behavior on people. It has to come from the heart, or it doesn't mean anything.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Opportunity Cost
There is a cost to everything we do in life. Everything. Try to think of the least expensive way to spend your time - sitting on a bench in the park - and there is a cost. It's called opportunity cost, and it's an economic term.
To explain, say you work at a job where you make $10 / hour. You have a 4-hour shift on Saturday. After work, you are going to a movie with your friends - it costs $10. Your boss asks if you would like to stay an extra two hours to fill in. You decide to go to the movie instead.
The actual cost of going to the movie is $10. That is the accounting cost. The opportunity cost is $20 - $10 / hour for the two hours you could have been working. You never actually paid $20 to go see the movie, but you lost out on the opportunity to earn it.
In the same way, sitting on a bench in the park has a cost because you could be doing something else. The opportunity cost of sitting on a park bench is missing out on reading a book or watching a TV program or talking to your friend.
I have recently encountered the consequences of opportunity cost in a bad way - on my radio. First of all, let me explain how I have my car radio set up. I have six stations saved. On my way to work, I like to hear talking - I think music puts me to sleep. On the way home, I like music to sing along to. If none of my six stations have something I am interested in hearing, I scan the other stations - usually looking for one particular Sugarland song in particular (the opportunity cost of not listening to country stations is that if the one song you like is country, you won't hear it)!
My stations are as follows:
1. Mixed rock. The morning show is fun with lots of prizes, people calling in, laughs, jokes, and more. It makes you feel like you're with a popular crowd just to listen to it.
2. The Lawrence Station. This station plays some good songs every now and then, but then you have to put up with the sickening feeling you get in your stomach from the constant Jayhawk propoganda. Yuck. In the morning there is a show called the Bob and Sheri chatroom - people call in and talk about a subject. I have heard some crazy stories on it!
3. This is my favorite station both for music and talk. The morning show is two guys that crack me up and have fun games and informational tidbits. I usually can hear a good song on this station.
4. Christian station. Now that the dysfunctional married couple is no longer hosting the morning show, it's actually interesting sometimes, but the music is not varied at all. Even songs I like are overplayed.
5 & 6. These are both light rock stations. They have morning shows, but they play a larger percentage of music in the morning. The only difference I know between the two is that at night 5 plays Delilah and 6 plays John Tesh. Also 6 plays Christian music on Sunday mornings.
Now that you know what my choices are, I will tell you my problem. Chances are you've had the same problem. When I get in my car (usually to go home after work) I hear an advertisement. So I switch to the next station: advertisement. Then the next three are songs I don't like, and then one more advertisement. :(
I try again, hoping that either one of the advertisements or songs will have just ended, and a great new song will start. Still nothing. Out of desperation, I settle on one station (say #5) and listen to a song I only halfway like. When that's over, I start my channel surf again, only to discover that station 1 was playing my song! You know - that song that's fairly new and you just can't get enough of it? And by the time I get back to station 1, it's over.
That is opportunity cost at its finest. If I had kept channel surfing for just a few seconds I would have heard a five-star song, instead of a three-star song. Now I've had to waste 3 minutes of my drive home on a song I barely like, and I didn't get to hear the good song.
The crux of the matter is that once you catch the tail end of your song on a station, you know it's going to be a while before they play it again. Your only hope to hear the song now is to go to another station. (This is the problem with my Sugarland song - whenever I hit a country station, they are playing a Sugarland song, but it's the wrong one).
As of right now, I have no idea how to fix this problem. If I stay on one station, I am essentially multiplying this effect five-fold by never listening to the other stations. I suppose I could just buy the song on iTunes and listen to my iPod in the car. But you miss out on some of the fun by not listening to the radio in the car.
And once again, we're back to opportunity cost.
To explain, say you work at a job where you make $10 / hour. You have a 4-hour shift on Saturday. After work, you are going to a movie with your friends - it costs $10. Your boss asks if you would like to stay an extra two hours to fill in. You decide to go to the movie instead.
The actual cost of going to the movie is $10. That is the accounting cost. The opportunity cost is $20 - $10 / hour for the two hours you could have been working. You never actually paid $20 to go see the movie, but you lost out on the opportunity to earn it.
In the same way, sitting on a bench in the park has a cost because you could be doing something else. The opportunity cost of sitting on a park bench is missing out on reading a book or watching a TV program or talking to your friend.
I have recently encountered the consequences of opportunity cost in a bad way - on my radio. First of all, let me explain how I have my car radio set up. I have six stations saved. On my way to work, I like to hear talking - I think music puts me to sleep. On the way home, I like music to sing along to. If none of my six stations have something I am interested in hearing, I scan the other stations - usually looking for one particular Sugarland song in particular (the opportunity cost of not listening to country stations is that if the one song you like is country, you won't hear it)!
My stations are as follows:
1. Mixed rock. The morning show is fun with lots of prizes, people calling in, laughs, jokes, and more. It makes you feel like you're with a popular crowd just to listen to it.
2. The Lawrence Station. This station plays some good songs every now and then, but then you have to put up with the sickening feeling you get in your stomach from the constant Jayhawk propoganda. Yuck. In the morning there is a show called the Bob and Sheri chatroom - people call in and talk about a subject. I have heard some crazy stories on it!
3. This is my favorite station both for music and talk. The morning show is two guys that crack me up and have fun games and informational tidbits. I usually can hear a good song on this station.
4. Christian station. Now that the dysfunctional married couple is no longer hosting the morning show, it's actually interesting sometimes, but the music is not varied at all. Even songs I like are overplayed.
5 & 6. These are both light rock stations. They have morning shows, but they play a larger percentage of music in the morning. The only difference I know between the two is that at night 5 plays Delilah and 6 plays John Tesh. Also 6 plays Christian music on Sunday mornings.
Now that you know what my choices are, I will tell you my problem. Chances are you've had the same problem. When I get in my car (usually to go home after work) I hear an advertisement. So I switch to the next station: advertisement. Then the next three are songs I don't like, and then one more advertisement. :(
I try again, hoping that either one of the advertisements or songs will have just ended, and a great new song will start. Still nothing. Out of desperation, I settle on one station (say #5) and listen to a song I only halfway like. When that's over, I start my channel surf again, only to discover that station 1 was playing my song! You know - that song that's fairly new and you just can't get enough of it? And by the time I get back to station 1, it's over.
That is opportunity cost at its finest. If I had kept channel surfing for just a few seconds I would have heard a five-star song, instead of a three-star song. Now I've had to waste 3 minutes of my drive home on a song I barely like, and I didn't get to hear the good song.
The crux of the matter is that once you catch the tail end of your song on a station, you know it's going to be a while before they play it again. Your only hope to hear the song now is to go to another station. (This is the problem with my Sugarland song - whenever I hit a country station, they are playing a Sugarland song, but it's the wrong one).
As of right now, I have no idea how to fix this problem. If I stay on one station, I am essentially multiplying this effect five-fold by never listening to the other stations. I suppose I could just buy the song on iTunes and listen to my iPod in the car. But you miss out on some of the fun by not listening to the radio in the car.
And once again, we're back to opportunity cost.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Pitfalls of Brand Loyalty
I stand in line at a ticket counter. The attendant is talking to a friend on the phone and glaring at me as though my presence is somehow interfering with her job. I get on the airplane – they hold us on the runway for two hours for a one hour flight because the air conditioner doesn’t work. There is no apology. There is no getting off the plane. You are expected to deal with it. I ask for help at a store. The lady at customer service says she can’t help me, shrugs her shoulders and moves on to the next customer.
Whatever happened to customer service?
I’m not that old, but in the world I was raised, the customer is always right. If the person behind the desk promises me points for my hotel stay, I should get them. I don’t want the company telling me that it’s against policy to award them. It’s not my fault that one of their employees got the message wrong. I’m the customer. I’m right.
And what about deals? What happened to the world where companies try to match their competitor’s deals? I know not all companies can afford to do this. However, there are situations where a little customer service would go a long way. Recently we were at a craft store where the item we wanted (which was on sale) was sold out. We asked if we could get a similar item at a discount. The store said no. Absolutely not. They didn’t even offer us a rain check on the sale. Instead, we found a similar item on sale for twice the discount at a competitor. The craft store lost its sale because it wasn’t willing to deal.
And when a company can’t bargain, at least they can provide good customer service. I have been going to the grocery store by my house for a year. No one has ever smiled at me. If they wish me good day it is heartless. This lack of service really gets to me because I used to be the one working at the checkout counter. And I loved my job! Even when I didn’t feel like it, I grinned at customers and was polite, and that forced smiling rubbed off and made me happy! And when a customer asked me for help, I got them help! I accompanied them around the store, and if I didn’t know the answer, I stayed with them until I could drop them off with another associate who really could help them. I didn’t just shrug their question off.
I write this little rant because I feel like the service in the world around me is collapsing at an alarming rate. I would think that people would try extra hard at their jobs in these times because of fear of losing them. How many laid off workers would love to have a job in customer service? I would imagine that a company that noticed poor service among their employees would trade those employees out for new ones that could actually retain customers.
And therein lies the problem. Customer retention.
There is a certain loyalty in all of us that brings us back to the same brands over and over again – usually some perceived benefit. That benefit should be perceived quality – which includes service. However, sometimes we find ourselves returning again and again to brands where service is poor. Like a person in an abusive relationship, we take the poor service over and over again expecting it to end someday. Why?
The number one reason is money. For instance, I will take a flight on the cheapest airline I can find, even if I know that they will be late, that they will be rude, and that the entire experience will stress me out. Fortunately, the only airline that even pretends to show customer service, Southwest, usually also has the most competitive prices – and no extra fees. I would have thought other airlines would have tried to benchmark Southwest’s models. But why should they? If they can undercut their competitor’s price – even by a fraction – people will fly with them. I do.
Another reason is convenience. I go to the grocery store near my house because I can walk to it. If I have a lot of shopping to do, I prefer go to Wal-Mart – service is better, selection is just as good, prices are lower, and the store is clean. But I enjoy a walk now and then, so I keep going back.
What about other offers? The reason that I stay at the hotel chain I do is because of points and rewards. Because I’m the highest level of customer they have, I usually have a great stay. My loyalty has been purchased by great treatment in the past. But what happens when that treatment fails, as it has recently? For some unknown reason service dropped off, and without a check on the faulty hotel by the chain itself, it will continue to fail. But what do I do? I still go to that chain because I want to maintain my high status – and because I can get points (to use at future stays where inevitably I will be treated rudely).
And finally, sometimes we use a vendor because we have no choice. I have to shop at the store with bad service because I am buying a specialty item for a friend I can’t get anywhere else. I go to the dirty gas station because I am out of gas and it is there. I go to the restaurant that has proven to have bad service time and time again because that is where my friends are going (and they won’t listen to me)!
What I’m trying to say is – there is a sense of helplessness in dealing with companies today. I can write letters and talk to the manager all I want. But in the end – it’s sometimes impossible to follow through on threats to quit using them. (And sometimes it is a manager or a corporate help line who is the offender). Every time I fly a certain airline I promise myself it is the last time. But my credit card gets points through them – I’ll have to use those sometime – which means, at a minimum, one more flight. And then I book yet another flight with this carrier because it saves money.
We are often told that we should do the right thing even if it’s hard to do. This is usually in reference to being kind to others. But perhaps doing the right thing means doing the right thing for ourselves. I can save my health by cutting back on stress, and that means avoiding stores that provide horrible service.
In addition, I can offer a service to the company as a whole – “So and so was incredibly rude. As such I can promise you that I will not shop in this store ever again.” And make good on the promise! And companies will respond. (You have to let someone know about the poor service you are receiving or it won’t change – a company may not notice your exit, but they will take note that you left. For fear of it happening over and over again, they will do something about the situation. If you just leave, the rude service will continue – it will just be addressed toward someone else).
So what does this take? Am I ready to threaten to switch hotel chains – and make good on it? Am I ready to pay up to $100 extra per ticket to fly on a plane that will treat me right? Am I ready to cancel my credit card so I no longer get points through a faulty service? Or do I continue to aid and abet the system that gets away with treating the customer poorly?
It’s hard – but maybe somebody has to do it.
Whatever happened to customer service?
I’m not that old, but in the world I was raised, the customer is always right. If the person behind the desk promises me points for my hotel stay, I should get them. I don’t want the company telling me that it’s against policy to award them. It’s not my fault that one of their employees got the message wrong. I’m the customer. I’m right.
And what about deals? What happened to the world where companies try to match their competitor’s deals? I know not all companies can afford to do this. However, there are situations where a little customer service would go a long way. Recently we were at a craft store where the item we wanted (which was on sale) was sold out. We asked if we could get a similar item at a discount. The store said no. Absolutely not. They didn’t even offer us a rain check on the sale. Instead, we found a similar item on sale for twice the discount at a competitor. The craft store lost its sale because it wasn’t willing to deal.
And when a company can’t bargain, at least they can provide good customer service. I have been going to the grocery store by my house for a year. No one has ever smiled at me. If they wish me good day it is heartless. This lack of service really gets to me because I used to be the one working at the checkout counter. And I loved my job! Even when I didn’t feel like it, I grinned at customers and was polite, and that forced smiling rubbed off and made me happy! And when a customer asked me for help, I got them help! I accompanied them around the store, and if I didn’t know the answer, I stayed with them until I could drop them off with another associate who really could help them. I didn’t just shrug their question off.
I write this little rant because I feel like the service in the world around me is collapsing at an alarming rate. I would think that people would try extra hard at their jobs in these times because of fear of losing them. How many laid off workers would love to have a job in customer service? I would imagine that a company that noticed poor service among their employees would trade those employees out for new ones that could actually retain customers.
And therein lies the problem. Customer retention.
There is a certain loyalty in all of us that brings us back to the same brands over and over again – usually some perceived benefit. That benefit should be perceived quality – which includes service. However, sometimes we find ourselves returning again and again to brands where service is poor. Like a person in an abusive relationship, we take the poor service over and over again expecting it to end someday. Why?
The number one reason is money. For instance, I will take a flight on the cheapest airline I can find, even if I know that they will be late, that they will be rude, and that the entire experience will stress me out. Fortunately, the only airline that even pretends to show customer service, Southwest, usually also has the most competitive prices – and no extra fees. I would have thought other airlines would have tried to benchmark Southwest’s models. But why should they? If they can undercut their competitor’s price – even by a fraction – people will fly with them. I do.
Another reason is convenience. I go to the grocery store near my house because I can walk to it. If I have a lot of shopping to do, I prefer go to Wal-Mart – service is better, selection is just as good, prices are lower, and the store is clean. But I enjoy a walk now and then, so I keep going back.
What about other offers? The reason that I stay at the hotel chain I do is because of points and rewards. Because I’m the highest level of customer they have, I usually have a great stay. My loyalty has been purchased by great treatment in the past. But what happens when that treatment fails, as it has recently? For some unknown reason service dropped off, and without a check on the faulty hotel by the chain itself, it will continue to fail. But what do I do? I still go to that chain because I want to maintain my high status – and because I can get points (to use at future stays where inevitably I will be treated rudely).
And finally, sometimes we use a vendor because we have no choice. I have to shop at the store with bad service because I am buying a specialty item for a friend I can’t get anywhere else. I go to the dirty gas station because I am out of gas and it is there. I go to the restaurant that has proven to have bad service time and time again because that is where my friends are going (and they won’t listen to me)!
What I’m trying to say is – there is a sense of helplessness in dealing with companies today. I can write letters and talk to the manager all I want. But in the end – it’s sometimes impossible to follow through on threats to quit using them. (And sometimes it is a manager or a corporate help line who is the offender). Every time I fly a certain airline I promise myself it is the last time. But my credit card gets points through them – I’ll have to use those sometime – which means, at a minimum, one more flight. And then I book yet another flight with this carrier because it saves money.
We are often told that we should do the right thing even if it’s hard to do. This is usually in reference to being kind to others. But perhaps doing the right thing means doing the right thing for ourselves. I can save my health by cutting back on stress, and that means avoiding stores that provide horrible service.
In addition, I can offer a service to the company as a whole – “So and so was incredibly rude. As such I can promise you that I will not shop in this store ever again.” And make good on the promise! And companies will respond. (You have to let someone know about the poor service you are receiving or it won’t change – a company may not notice your exit, but they will take note that you left. For fear of it happening over and over again, they will do something about the situation. If you just leave, the rude service will continue – it will just be addressed toward someone else).
So what does this take? Am I ready to threaten to switch hotel chains – and make good on it? Am I ready to pay up to $100 extra per ticket to fly on a plane that will treat me right? Am I ready to cancel my credit card so I no longer get points through a faulty service? Or do I continue to aid and abet the system that gets away with treating the customer poorly?
It’s hard – but maybe somebody has to do it.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Ergonomics
I realize that sometimes, especially as a girl, and especially as me, talking about my thoughts, feelings, and experiences can probably sound like complaining. However, something has been on my mind for a while now, and that is ergonomics.
I am short. Anyone who knows me knows that is probably an understatement. My own personal observation tells me that there are lots of girls my height in the world - but we don't get much shorter than this!
Anyway, I have recently become aware of a problem with my height functioning in the world at large. The problem has been there all my life, but only recently have I been able to diagnose the problem.
The problem is that my legs do not reach the floor. In almost any given standard chair, my legs kind of dangle a few inches above the floor. In high school, I would swing my legs gaily. In college I was able to hook my feet onto the bars beneath the chairs. But in the real world, these options are noticeably missing.
For all you tall people out there, let me just say that having feet that won't reach the floor is quite uncomfortable. It completely destroys posture, for one. During the work day I tend to resort to sitting in odd, and most likely unprofessional, positions. My favorite is to sit cross-legged at my desk.
Sometimes I end up finding an adjustable chair. This can be almost worse. Once the chair is adjusted so that my feet fit flat on the floor, my head reaches barely three feet above the ground. The desk, which is not adjustable, reaches to my sternum.
Now, in the spirit of not complaining, I admit that ergonomics is a tough field. Otherwise there wouldn't be an entire field of science devoted to studying how we work. On the other hand, if they have been able to create adjustable chairs, why can't they go the extra mile and create adjustable desks?
To that point, I would like to propose an alternative to all this adjusting. That is - standing. I am actually working at a client now that has a few high cubicles with barstool sized chairs. I don't know the purpose of these special cubicles, but I would like to see more options like them in the workplace. When I worked in a pharmacy, I rarely felt uncomfortable although I stood all day. Here are some advatages to standing:
I am short. Anyone who knows me knows that is probably an understatement. My own personal observation tells me that there are lots of girls my height in the world - but we don't get much shorter than this!
Anyway, I have recently become aware of a problem with my height functioning in the world at large. The problem has been there all my life, but only recently have I been able to diagnose the problem.
The problem is that my legs do not reach the floor. In almost any given standard chair, my legs kind of dangle a few inches above the floor. In high school, I would swing my legs gaily. In college I was able to hook my feet onto the bars beneath the chairs. But in the real world, these options are noticeably missing.
For all you tall people out there, let me just say that having feet that won't reach the floor is quite uncomfortable. It completely destroys posture, for one. During the work day I tend to resort to sitting in odd, and most likely unprofessional, positions. My favorite is to sit cross-legged at my desk.
Sometimes I end up finding an adjustable chair. This can be almost worse. Once the chair is adjusted so that my feet fit flat on the floor, my head reaches barely three feet above the ground. The desk, which is not adjustable, reaches to my sternum.
Now, in the spirit of not complaining, I admit that ergonomics is a tough field. Otherwise there wouldn't be an entire field of science devoted to studying how we work. On the other hand, if they have been able to create adjustable chairs, why can't they go the extra mile and create adjustable desks?
To that point, I would like to propose an alternative to all this adjusting. That is - standing. I am actually working at a client now that has a few high cubicles with barstool sized chairs. I don't know the purpose of these special cubicles, but I would like to see more options like them in the workplace. When I worked in a pharmacy, I rarely felt uncomfortable although I stood all day. Here are some advatages to standing:
- You burn more calories
- Your circulation is better, and so you are generally warmer (for all us ladies who freeze in the office)
- You are more likely to "go" do something - when I am sitting and comfortable and bundled up, I rarely want to get up and go do, well, my job. But if I were standing, coming and going could be a normal business. Indeed, when standing, walking helps to take some of the pressure off the knees
- To the point - in my experience at least, standing desks offer a much more universal view of the world. Taller people have longer arms to reach down, and shorter people are closer to the desk to begin with. This results in practically everyone achieving the right angle to the keyboard (elbows a few inches above), and posture is better. Sure, feet and knees will have to get used to the situation, but in a few weeks, you will probably experience a healthier, happier, you!
I would like to see some willing company take up my proposal. I suggest they allow workers to choose between tall, standing desks and the traditional cube. They should run the trial for a few months and see which group of employees has a higher job satisfaction, is healthier, and is most productive. I would truly be interested in the results of the experiment.
Until then, I suppose I'll just continue to practice my chair calisthenics.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Revolutionary Thoughts
I have been thinking revolting thoughts. Well, revolutionary thoughts actually. I’ve been thinking about countries that have been trying their hand at democracy, but it’s just not catching on. Ever since the French and American revolutions, there have been a string of revolutions across the globe. Some of these have been peaceful. More often than not, they have not. How is it that some revolutions have successfully instituted democracy in their nations, while other countries still struggle with the concept of a free and peaceful election? And when democracy fails, when is it appropriate to pursue democratic goals through violent means?
As for the first question, I believe the answer is difficult. Let’s look first at America. Although those against instituting a national language are quick to point out that only about 1/3 of the citizens of the original 13 colonies spoke English, the colonies did belong to the English, the founding fathers were wealthy English citizens. And despite their opposition to King George, they set up a government that reeked of Englishness. Why?
Because they knew what worked and what didn’t. The English monarchy had been losing its real power for 500 years, since the Magna Carta was signed. The Englishmen who established America had, for their example a government setup that had been working for centuries. All they had to do was tweak it to fit their own American style.
For the last 300 years the Western world has been touting Democracy to the rest of the world much in the same way that the missionaries pushed Christianity. One has come to be known as unacceptable, while the other is still acceptable and continues to be pushed. However, much as changing the religion of a different culture has implications, changing the political structure of an established country has implications that could potentially be destructive.
While I personally believe that democracy is the form of government that gives people the greatest freedoms and honors the rights of individuals, the transition may be long and hard. Consider that our present form of democracy in America was slowly developed for 500 years before placed in action by citizens who were already used a similar political setup.
Other cultures transition to democracy from different political systems. If a country was recently in a monarchy setup, then suspicion and violence would be the norm. Kings solidify their claim to rule by exterminating anyone who threatens their supremacy. If a country recently was ruled in this way, then whoever they elect, even in a democracy, may be prone to similar means to guarantee that they will be “elected” continually in the future.
In a monarchy, when the people get fed-up with the regime, they revolt and set in place a new regime. Certainly, if an election doesn’t go the way half the nation wants, then violence is anticipated. Our frustration with a world that is not at peace may be the result of trying to institute political systems that really should evolve at the natural pace of the culture.
This brings me to a second question – when is it appropriate to use violence to further political means?
When a regime is tyrannical and fails to recognize basic rights entitled to all people, and there is no other way to change the regime, then violence may be acceptable for the greater good. As an American, who gained my freedom due to those who came before me who were able to defend it, I cannot think otherwise.
However, where democracy is working smoothly, then social change can be brought about through non-violent means – writing our legislators, voting, and the courts. My favorite example of how to bring about change in a democracy is the civil rights movements – specifically Rosa Parks. We celebrate today how this amazing woman changed history by breaking a law that was unethical to begin with.
Another example – when cities outlaw Christmas caroling because it is potentially offensive, citizens may protect their right to freedom of speech by simply caroling.
However, other laws cannot be changed by breaking them. For instance, taxes. Although it was common in the early days of the income tax, we cannot just not pay taxes these days. They are already taken out of our paychecks. However, we can change the tax code by voting for our leaders, by sending letters to those already in power, and perhaps by using the courts to protest tax laws.
Sometimes I get frustrated that these methods move too slowly. However, that’s the beauty of our system. As long as regular elections are held, the power remains with the people. Violence is not necessary. As much as I dislike certain laws, I must accept the fact that the laws were put in place by people that my fellow countrymen elected. Therefore, any issues I have with the government must be settled within the means the government put in place so that we the people can govern ourselves.
As for the first question, I believe the answer is difficult. Let’s look first at America. Although those against instituting a national language are quick to point out that only about 1/3 of the citizens of the original 13 colonies spoke English, the colonies did belong to the English, the founding fathers were wealthy English citizens. And despite their opposition to King George, they set up a government that reeked of Englishness. Why?
Because they knew what worked and what didn’t. The English monarchy had been losing its real power for 500 years, since the Magna Carta was signed. The Englishmen who established America had, for their example a government setup that had been working for centuries. All they had to do was tweak it to fit their own American style.
For the last 300 years the Western world has been touting Democracy to the rest of the world much in the same way that the missionaries pushed Christianity. One has come to be known as unacceptable, while the other is still acceptable and continues to be pushed. However, much as changing the religion of a different culture has implications, changing the political structure of an established country has implications that could potentially be destructive.
While I personally believe that democracy is the form of government that gives people the greatest freedoms and honors the rights of individuals, the transition may be long and hard. Consider that our present form of democracy in America was slowly developed for 500 years before placed in action by citizens who were already used a similar political setup.
Other cultures transition to democracy from different political systems. If a country was recently in a monarchy setup, then suspicion and violence would be the norm. Kings solidify their claim to rule by exterminating anyone who threatens their supremacy. If a country recently was ruled in this way, then whoever they elect, even in a democracy, may be prone to similar means to guarantee that they will be “elected” continually in the future.
In a monarchy, when the people get fed-up with the regime, they revolt and set in place a new regime. Certainly, if an election doesn’t go the way half the nation wants, then violence is anticipated. Our frustration with a world that is not at peace may be the result of trying to institute political systems that really should evolve at the natural pace of the culture.
This brings me to a second question – when is it appropriate to use violence to further political means?
When a regime is tyrannical and fails to recognize basic rights entitled to all people, and there is no other way to change the regime, then violence may be acceptable for the greater good. As an American, who gained my freedom due to those who came before me who were able to defend it, I cannot think otherwise.
However, where democracy is working smoothly, then social change can be brought about through non-violent means – writing our legislators, voting, and the courts. My favorite example of how to bring about change in a democracy is the civil rights movements – specifically Rosa Parks. We celebrate today how this amazing woman changed history by breaking a law that was unethical to begin with.
Another example – when cities outlaw Christmas caroling because it is potentially offensive, citizens may protect their right to freedom of speech by simply caroling.
However, other laws cannot be changed by breaking them. For instance, taxes. Although it was common in the early days of the income tax, we cannot just not pay taxes these days. They are already taken out of our paychecks. However, we can change the tax code by voting for our leaders, by sending letters to those already in power, and perhaps by using the courts to protest tax laws.
Sometimes I get frustrated that these methods move too slowly. However, that’s the beauty of our system. As long as regular elections are held, the power remains with the people. Violence is not necessary. As much as I dislike certain laws, I must accept the fact that the laws were put in place by people that my fellow countrymen elected. Therefore, any issues I have with the government must be settled within the means the government put in place so that we the people can govern ourselves.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Duck Soup
I can no longer keep my silence about what I have been up to these last few months. Comedy. It is comedy. There are two new forms of comedy in my life that I have been taking part in these last few weeks.
The first is the TV show, "The Big Bang Theory." I could go on more about that, but let's just put it this way - I was, and always shall be, a nerd. This show throws me back to my high school days. I get jokes I never should get. And it makes me think, "Why does the world have a certain standard about how we should behave and what should interest us?" I wish there were more nerds in my life.
But the other comedy I have been viewing is the Marx Brothers. I will not lie, I had never had any interest in the Marx brothers for my first 24 years. First of all, I got Groucho Marx confused with Karl Marx, and I'm no communist. But also, like many things, nothing had ever caused me to question a world without Marx brothers.
In late April I worked a 32-hour day. I kid you not - I went to work at 11:00 am on Sunday and didn't go home until 8:00 PM the next day (with the exception of a two-hour nap). That Thursday mornign I flew home and, as I was getting ready for a good, long needed, nap, I opened up "Duck Soup" on Netflix.
I guess I also opened up a can of worms. The comedy of the Marx brothers was something that I was not prepared for. I suppose I compare it to a 1930's Monty Python...a movie where little comedy skits were loosely strung together with a "plot." It was adorable. I became an instant fan!
After my first Marx movie, I had decided that my all time favorite brother was Chico. From later research, I learned that Chico was the oldest of the performing brothers (there were six, but really only the three became famous). He also had a gambling problem in real life. For our younger generation fans, his character was that of an Italian immigrant who struggled with words. His plays on words were quaint and yet still amusing in the movie setting. As the Brothers started as a vaudeville act, Chico would perform on the piano in many movies. As a pianist myself, I wish I could play a few of his songs!
A close second was Harpo. I had long known Harpo from an "I Love Lucy" episode. The episode I had always found funny, however I had never really fallen in love with the Harpo character. However, after three Marx movies, I now see why he seems to be one of the favorites among those who know the brothers.
Bulging eyes, a curly wig, and an outfit that looks like a hobo. Harpo Marx never spoke in film. Early in his career he learned to pantomime his lines because he had difficulty delivering them. Harpo also chases women around and plays, you guessed it, the harp. In his personal life, he married late and adopted four children. He was always very happy.
Groucho Marx is perhaps the postor boy for the brothers. He is the youngest of the famous three and also the first to get started in show business. In my first encounter with Groucho, I wasn't impressed. To be honest, his oversized grease-pencil mustache almost made me sick. He appeared in the movie delivering lines that made no sense - it was a strange mix of jokes that came one after another, too fast to really understand.
However, since then Groucho has become a favorite for me. His sense of humor is much like my own. I find that is why I have trouble getting people to laugh at my jokes - my style is from the 1930's. Groucho is the voice and character of the team. He was the one who carried on in show business long after the brothers stopped performing together in public. I have come to love his fiendish eyebrow wiggles and 1930's style innuendo, his way of being insulting and loveable at the same time.
Apparently Groucho was also loveable off the screen. He was a simple man who wanted to be a good father to his children and stay at home. However, he had a tendency to marry alchoholics, and spent three marriages in this way. This inevitably led to a more depressing home life than perhaps he deserved.
However, I think one of the greatest appeals of the Marx brothers is the very fact that they are brothers. (There were six in all - one died, two others left show business as Groucho, Harpo, and Chico developed stronger characters). I imagine growing up for them was a fun experience - even if they were poor. They learned to entertain - to play instruments.
In their movies I see four (or three) brothers who have fun together. They work, they enjoy each other's company, and they goof off...how much better can life get? I can tell this is a comedy team that thrives on improv. Although I've never had a brother, I cannot imagine a more fulfilling day than going to work and giving your brother a hard time all day. Every scene I watch screams "brothers!" to me. And this makes the movies all the more enjoyable.
The first is the TV show, "The Big Bang Theory." I could go on more about that, but let's just put it this way - I was, and always shall be, a nerd. This show throws me back to my high school days. I get jokes I never should get. And it makes me think, "Why does the world have a certain standard about how we should behave and what should interest us?" I wish there were more nerds in my life.
But the other comedy I have been viewing is the Marx Brothers. I will not lie, I had never had any interest in the Marx brothers for my first 24 years. First of all, I got Groucho Marx confused with Karl Marx, and I'm no communist. But also, like many things, nothing had ever caused me to question a world without Marx brothers.
In late April I worked a 32-hour day. I kid you not - I went to work at 11:00 am on Sunday and didn't go home until 8:00 PM the next day (with the exception of a two-hour nap). That Thursday mornign I flew home and, as I was getting ready for a good, long needed, nap, I opened up "Duck Soup" on Netflix.
I guess I also opened up a can of worms. The comedy of the Marx brothers was something that I was not prepared for. I suppose I compare it to a 1930's Monty Python...a movie where little comedy skits were loosely strung together with a "plot." It was adorable. I became an instant fan!
After my first Marx movie, I had decided that my all time favorite brother was Chico. From later research, I learned that Chico was the oldest of the performing brothers (there were six, but really only the three became famous). He also had a gambling problem in real life. For our younger generation fans, his character was that of an Italian immigrant who struggled with words. His plays on words were quaint and yet still amusing in the movie setting. As the Brothers started as a vaudeville act, Chico would perform on the piano in many movies. As a pianist myself, I wish I could play a few of his songs!
A close second was Harpo. I had long known Harpo from an "I Love Lucy" episode. The episode I had always found funny, however I had never really fallen in love with the Harpo character. However, after three Marx movies, I now see why he seems to be one of the favorites among those who know the brothers.
Bulging eyes, a curly wig, and an outfit that looks like a hobo. Harpo Marx never spoke in film. Early in his career he learned to pantomime his lines because he had difficulty delivering them. Harpo also chases women around and plays, you guessed it, the harp. In his personal life, he married late and adopted four children. He was always very happy.
Groucho Marx is perhaps the postor boy for the brothers. He is the youngest of the famous three and also the first to get started in show business. In my first encounter with Groucho, I wasn't impressed. To be honest, his oversized grease-pencil mustache almost made me sick. He appeared in the movie delivering lines that made no sense - it was a strange mix of jokes that came one after another, too fast to really understand.
However, since then Groucho has become a favorite for me. His sense of humor is much like my own. I find that is why I have trouble getting people to laugh at my jokes - my style is from the 1930's. Groucho is the voice and character of the team. He was the one who carried on in show business long after the brothers stopped performing together in public. I have come to love his fiendish eyebrow wiggles and 1930's style innuendo, his way of being insulting and loveable at the same time.
Apparently Groucho was also loveable off the screen. He was a simple man who wanted to be a good father to his children and stay at home. However, he had a tendency to marry alchoholics, and spent three marriages in this way. This inevitably led to a more depressing home life than perhaps he deserved.
However, I think one of the greatest appeals of the Marx brothers is the very fact that they are brothers. (There were six in all - one died, two others left show business as Groucho, Harpo, and Chico developed stronger characters). I imagine growing up for them was a fun experience - even if they were poor. They learned to entertain - to play instruments.
In their movies I see four (or three) brothers who have fun together. They work, they enjoy each other's company, and they goof off...how much better can life get? I can tell this is a comedy team that thrives on improv. Although I've never had a brother, I cannot imagine a more fulfilling day than going to work and giving your brother a hard time all day. Every scene I watch screams "brothers!" to me. And this makes the movies all the more enjoyable.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Economy Got You Down?
This recession is depressing. I’m not talking about the daily news – it’s good, it’s bad, it’s not so bad, it’ worse, it’s great – that has us constantly wondering when it will be over (2010?). And I’m not talking about how we can’t spend anything because we’re worried about losing a job and not being able to pay necessary expenses (because I always try to be a light spender, recession or no).
The trouble is work. I actually first noticed this problem in a friend of mine. She is looking for a new job (and it’s a long process go figure). One day I was talking to her after she had just had an interview, and she was telling me that every time she had an interview, she had a good day at the job she was currently at, and that she wasn’t sure if she really wanted to leave. See, people at her job were making it difficult, but when it was busy and she didn’t have to think about the office politics, she loved her job.
When it was busy.
That is why the recession is depressing. Let’s face it, we are people who like to work! And if you have a job, it should not be about the money, it should be because you like it! I cannot imagine working in any sort of retail or customer service function where business was slow. Even if I had my job, I’d go crazy!
And that leads me to the other depressing part of the recession – fear of layoff. I said earlier that saving for a layoff didn’t make the recession bad. But fear of layoff is different. For months on end we would go into work saying, “What’s going to happen? Are we having layoffs? How many? Are there going to be salary cuts? Raises at all this year? If I’m not staffed all summer, is that a sign of impending doom?”
This kind of talk makes work depressing. You work as hard as you can because you don’t want to be the one laid off. And then, right when the pink slips are coming out, you are burnt out, and your performance sinks. Then you wonder if all the hard work you do will even be rewarded with a raise this year…even a small one.
Which is the last thing that makes the recession depressing. For professionals and salary folks, the recession means more work. Companies layoff key salaried employees to cut costs and then expect the rest to make up the work. As accountants, we work long hours during busy season, and this year we are experiencing a longer busy season (if you’re not charging 50 hours a week, it’s not worth it to the company to employ you). But I have found that people in other professions who are salaried are experiencing the same problem.
More and more I hear the term, "At least I have a job!" Now, while this sounds like a way to say positive, it it is really a negative remark. It essentially means, "I am miserable at my job. I used to like it, but I don't anymore. All I do is work all the time, but I can't get a new job because there are no jobs to be had." And what's worse is that corporations take advantage of this feeling. We are supposed to love our jobs! Not just work to bring in a paycheck! If we are going to spend 1/4 - 1/3 of our lives working, then we need to love what we do, not feel like trapped slaves.
There is good news, though! The recession is over! My friend Kristen officially ended it in January. She wrote me an email about how depressed it was making her and decided that it was over. She ended it – because literally the day after she wrote the email, the stock market went up for three months in a row. Housing prices leveled out, and people started buying homes again.
I guess the point is, this recession is what you make of it. It’s a good time for learning and growth, for those of us who are bad with money. For those of us who are always prepared, it’s a time to discover what’s really important in life. It’s a time to learn just what it is about your job that’s got you down before hopping over to a new one. But most of all, it’s a time when it is very important to keep a positive attitude and not let the recession turn into a depression!
The trouble is work. I actually first noticed this problem in a friend of mine. She is looking for a new job (and it’s a long process go figure). One day I was talking to her after she had just had an interview, and she was telling me that every time she had an interview, she had a good day at the job she was currently at, and that she wasn’t sure if she really wanted to leave. See, people at her job were making it difficult, but when it was busy and she didn’t have to think about the office politics, she loved her job.
When it was busy.
That is why the recession is depressing. Let’s face it, we are people who like to work! And if you have a job, it should not be about the money, it should be because you like it! I cannot imagine working in any sort of retail or customer service function where business was slow. Even if I had my job, I’d go crazy!
And that leads me to the other depressing part of the recession – fear of layoff. I said earlier that saving for a layoff didn’t make the recession bad. But fear of layoff is different. For months on end we would go into work saying, “What’s going to happen? Are we having layoffs? How many? Are there going to be salary cuts? Raises at all this year? If I’m not staffed all summer, is that a sign of impending doom?”
This kind of talk makes work depressing. You work as hard as you can because you don’t want to be the one laid off. And then, right when the pink slips are coming out, you are burnt out, and your performance sinks. Then you wonder if all the hard work you do will even be rewarded with a raise this year…even a small one.
Which is the last thing that makes the recession depressing. For professionals and salary folks, the recession means more work. Companies layoff key salaried employees to cut costs and then expect the rest to make up the work. As accountants, we work long hours during busy season, and this year we are experiencing a longer busy season (if you’re not charging 50 hours a week, it’s not worth it to the company to employ you). But I have found that people in other professions who are salaried are experiencing the same problem.
More and more I hear the term, "At least I have a job!" Now, while this sounds like a way to say positive, it it is really a negative remark. It essentially means, "I am miserable at my job. I used to like it, but I don't anymore. All I do is work all the time, but I can't get a new job because there are no jobs to be had." And what's worse is that corporations take advantage of this feeling. We are supposed to love our jobs! Not just work to bring in a paycheck! If we are going to spend 1/4 - 1/3 of our lives working, then we need to love what we do, not feel like trapped slaves.
There is good news, though! The recession is over! My friend Kristen officially ended it in January. She wrote me an email about how depressed it was making her and decided that it was over. She ended it – because literally the day after she wrote the email, the stock market went up for three months in a row. Housing prices leveled out, and people started buying homes again.
I guess the point is, this recession is what you make of it. It’s a good time for learning and growth, for those of us who are bad with money. For those of us who are always prepared, it’s a time to discover what’s really important in life. It’s a time to learn just what it is about your job that’s got you down before hopping over to a new one. But most of all, it’s a time when it is very important to keep a positive attitude and not let the recession turn into a depression!
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
An Undefiled Legacy
I feel a sensation somewhat like relief as George W. Bush slowly fades out of the public limelight and into whatever history will make of him. It’s not because I feel that the country is “on the right track” now, or that our future is somehow better or safer without our former president. It’s the opposite.
I feel relief because the poor guy needs a break. For the last eight years, he has had to deal with the kind of media attention that drives celebrities crazy on a good day, increasingly negative remarks about him, and all this while running a country that was first under attack, then in a war, and finally in a recession.
It’s no wonder Mr. Bush has retreated back Texas, not speaking out about the current administration. Not making waves. Even now there are still those in politics or the media who want to put a final death blow in his legacy – for political gain, perhaps. And yet, George W. Bush doesn’t strike me as someone who cares about what his legacy is. But I do! Because the man does not deserve to be vilified in this way.
I admit, I was a Bush supporter from Day 1 – sort of. Right after his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination in 2000, I signed on to his general philosophy. He hit the ground running in 2001, and in his first 100 days accomplished leaps and bounds, ending up with the same approval rating our current president had in his first 100 days.
I remember Bush dealing with the American airplane that crashed in China. He managed to get our people and our plane back without causing a war. I was only 16, but I was impressed.
Then, in September, disaster hit. We all remember. And once again the president leaped into action. For comparison purposes, I wonder, if a similar disaster occurred today, how safe we’d feel with the current president. Bush’s ratings soared, and the whole country got behind him to make sure we felt safe.
Slowly those actions spiraled downhill…as time distanced us from the disaster of September 11th, we began to question, “Did we overreact?” And yet, whether the answer is yes or no, the question is still much like Monday morning quarterbacking. Or perhaps we should say, “If we had not taken those measures, where would we be today?” I think that question is a lot more revealing. I don’t think there would be the same level of security, or materialistic questions about the economy. We’d still be afraid to fly.
And there was the inevitable Iraq war – no weapons of mass destruction. At the time, Bush did the best he could with the information he had. Remember (how soon we forget), Sadaam was not behaving like an innocent man. To this day, I would say he either was hiding something, or that he just knew that the war would eventually tear our country apart. Either way – an enemy was eradicated.
We knew it would be a long road going in. The famous, “Mission Accomplished” speech – well, it really was all about how we were only halfway there…perhaps less than halfway. But that’s not what gets remembered.
I remember how we were all so supportive of our soldiers and would do anything for them. There are still fundraisers, drives for supplies, and thank-yous sent out. But the vivacity has toned down almost to the Clinton-era levels. Soldiers will always be honored wherever they go. But was it our guilt that caused us to turn on Bush and the war? As Americans, we felt guilty for going on with our lives, for feeling about other things? And so, in order to make those guilty feelings disappear, those of us who were not hot or cold became lukewarm. And the lukewarm people became anti-war, until slowly the concept of a longer project to bring about a free Iraq disappeared.
I was always a fan of President Bush’s social agenda, and I will be frank. He never accomplished the one thing I wanted him to do – social security reform. So if anyone should be complaining about his legacy, it should be me. But I know the truth. The war and our security bought Bush a second term in office (in a near-landslide election). But by the time he was able to turn back to the domestic agenda, congress had filled up with partisan Democrats. For months, dragging into years, they prevented real, meaningful legislation from being passed. And what did pass was always watered down from its original intent. Both sides piled bills high with pork.
If the public became upset that President Bush was “lame duck” or that the Republican congress wasn’t doing anything valuable, it was only because the “Republican congress” was nothing of the sort. Having two parties and branches to the government has been one of our strengths in America – checks and balances. But if things are too balanced well…have you ever seen a balanced scale? It doesn’t move. Nothing happens!
And finally, in salvaging Bush’s legacy, let’s think about the barrage of negative media he had to deal with. I remember how he handled difficult press conferences (Donald Rumsfeld even more so) – catching reporter spin to answer the “real” question, and telling things like they were. Even so, when the press hates you, when congress hates you, when the world hates you, and when even your own countrymen start to hate you, there is a little bit of psychological warfare going on.
I think that if President Bush’s approval rating had been 3% for his entire time in office, he still would have behaved the same way. He was not the type to really care what people thought about him, or let that get in the way of getting things done.
So what will history make of Bush? Well, it depends on who writes it, really.
But then, what will history make of Obama, or Clinton, or George H.W. Bush? None of these men will ever be a George Washington or an Abe Lincoln. Time will tell if Obama will become a Truman, Roosevelt , or Reagan. The events of September 11th ensured that George W. Bush’s presidency will be mentioned, and how he responded to it. And we will see if the Iraq war is still in full swing in 400 years.
Ultimately, I think any of these recent president will go the way of so many presidents. The events of their presidency that are important to the nation will be remembered. But their day to day lives, their smaller initiatives (No Child Left Behind) will be left for trivia buffs and special research projects. My comparison would be President Taft. When I went to his museum in Ohio this fall, I was amazed by the man! He was smart, he was accomplished (lawyer, teacher, president, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and he built up the Philippines! But he will always be remembered as the president who couldn’t fit in the White House bathtub.
So will it be with George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
But in the near history? Looking back at all eight years, at everything that happened and at everything he did…I say, “Well done George Bush! You did the best that you could with what you had. You always did what you thought was the right thing. And you put this country ahead of yourself for eight long years!”
He deserves a break.
But more than that, he deserves a round of applause.
I feel relief because the poor guy needs a break. For the last eight years, he has had to deal with the kind of media attention that drives celebrities crazy on a good day, increasingly negative remarks about him, and all this while running a country that was first under attack, then in a war, and finally in a recession.
It’s no wonder Mr. Bush has retreated back Texas, not speaking out about the current administration. Not making waves. Even now there are still those in politics or the media who want to put a final death blow in his legacy – for political gain, perhaps. And yet, George W. Bush doesn’t strike me as someone who cares about what his legacy is. But I do! Because the man does not deserve to be vilified in this way.
I admit, I was a Bush supporter from Day 1 – sort of. Right after his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination in 2000, I signed on to his general philosophy. He hit the ground running in 2001, and in his first 100 days accomplished leaps and bounds, ending up with the same approval rating our current president had in his first 100 days.
I remember Bush dealing with the American airplane that crashed in China. He managed to get our people and our plane back without causing a war. I was only 16, but I was impressed.
Then, in September, disaster hit. We all remember. And once again the president leaped into action. For comparison purposes, I wonder, if a similar disaster occurred today, how safe we’d feel with the current president. Bush’s ratings soared, and the whole country got behind him to make sure we felt safe.
Slowly those actions spiraled downhill…as time distanced us from the disaster of September 11th, we began to question, “Did we overreact?” And yet, whether the answer is yes or no, the question is still much like Monday morning quarterbacking. Or perhaps we should say, “If we had not taken those measures, where would we be today?” I think that question is a lot more revealing. I don’t think there would be the same level of security, or materialistic questions about the economy. We’d still be afraid to fly.
And there was the inevitable Iraq war – no weapons of mass destruction. At the time, Bush did the best he could with the information he had. Remember (how soon we forget), Sadaam was not behaving like an innocent man. To this day, I would say he either was hiding something, or that he just knew that the war would eventually tear our country apart. Either way – an enemy was eradicated.
We knew it would be a long road going in. The famous, “Mission Accomplished” speech – well, it really was all about how we were only halfway there…perhaps less than halfway. But that’s not what gets remembered.
I remember how we were all so supportive of our soldiers and would do anything for them. There are still fundraisers, drives for supplies, and thank-yous sent out. But the vivacity has toned down almost to the Clinton-era levels. Soldiers will always be honored wherever they go. But was it our guilt that caused us to turn on Bush and the war? As Americans, we felt guilty for going on with our lives, for feeling about other things? And so, in order to make those guilty feelings disappear, those of us who were not hot or cold became lukewarm. And the lukewarm people became anti-war, until slowly the concept of a longer project to bring about a free Iraq disappeared.
I was always a fan of President Bush’s social agenda, and I will be frank. He never accomplished the one thing I wanted him to do – social security reform. So if anyone should be complaining about his legacy, it should be me. But I know the truth. The war and our security bought Bush a second term in office (in a near-landslide election). But by the time he was able to turn back to the domestic agenda, congress had filled up with partisan Democrats. For months, dragging into years, they prevented real, meaningful legislation from being passed. And what did pass was always watered down from its original intent. Both sides piled bills high with pork.
If the public became upset that President Bush was “lame duck” or that the Republican congress wasn’t doing anything valuable, it was only because the “Republican congress” was nothing of the sort. Having two parties and branches to the government has been one of our strengths in America – checks and balances. But if things are too balanced well…have you ever seen a balanced scale? It doesn’t move. Nothing happens!
And finally, in salvaging Bush’s legacy, let’s think about the barrage of negative media he had to deal with. I remember how he handled difficult press conferences (Donald Rumsfeld even more so) – catching reporter spin to answer the “real” question, and telling things like they were. Even so, when the press hates you, when congress hates you, when the world hates you, and when even your own countrymen start to hate you, there is a little bit of psychological warfare going on.
I think that if President Bush’s approval rating had been 3% for his entire time in office, he still would have behaved the same way. He was not the type to really care what people thought about him, or let that get in the way of getting things done.
So what will history make of Bush? Well, it depends on who writes it, really.
But then, what will history make of Obama, or Clinton, or George H.W. Bush? None of these men will ever be a George Washington or an Abe Lincoln. Time will tell if Obama will become a Truman, Roosevelt , or Reagan. The events of September 11th ensured that George W. Bush’s presidency will be mentioned, and how he responded to it. And we will see if the Iraq war is still in full swing in 400 years.
Ultimately, I think any of these recent president will go the way of so many presidents. The events of their presidency that are important to the nation will be remembered. But their day to day lives, their smaller initiatives (No Child Left Behind) will be left for trivia buffs and special research projects. My comparison would be President Taft. When I went to his museum in Ohio this fall, I was amazed by the man! He was smart, he was accomplished (lawyer, teacher, president, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and he built up the Philippines! But he will always be remembered as the president who couldn’t fit in the White House bathtub.
So will it be with George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
But in the near history? Looking back at all eight years, at everything that happened and at everything he did…I say, “Well done George Bush! You did the best that you could with what you had. You always did what you thought was the right thing. And you put this country ahead of yourself for eight long years!”
He deserves a break.
But more than that, he deserves a round of applause.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Mornings...bleh
So I have decided to start waking up earlier to blog. I never cease to be amazed that I can sleep in until 7:30 on a weekday and still get to work by 8:30. In fact, I can sleep in until 7:45 if I wanted to…and that includes eating breakfast. I suppose it helps that my commute does not have a lot of traffic to contend with, and that my client isn’t very far away. It definitely helps that we don’t work until 1:00 AM; otherwise I would need every second of sleep.
On the other hand, morning blogging doesn’t suit me. Sure, I can check my favorite websites for inspiration. I may have even had dreams. But my mind hasn’t reached the point yet where it is racing – thinking of all sorts of random thoughts that I just need to get out.
And topics I have been wanting to talk about, just seem to disappear. Do I blog about the swine flu? About the priest who wants to get married? About finances? Or about my job? All of these have affected me, and more, and yet, at 7:50 AM, I feel a little exhausted just thinking about “getting into” any of these topics.
Another problem is research. So far, my blog has just been my thoughts. I have not used fact or figures to back up any of my opinions, because they are just that – opinions. On the one hand, you can make a fact or statistic say anything you want. On the other hand, can I really stand up and state my belief in something unless I have some evidence for it? All in all, I like to write like C.S. Lewis. He seemed to use man’s internal logic for his writing – rarely if ever have I ever come across him say something like, “According to a recent survey…”
My final obstacle? J My new computer. I cannot explain it, but ever since I got this new computer, typing has become a chore. This is sad, because I thoroughly enjoy typing! I could sit and type all day and have nothing to actually type! But either the keyboard or the programming does something weird. If I start to typing too fast (and I type fast), then suddenly I’m accessing menu options left and right! And it’s not good…sometimes my entire document is erased…I zoom in and out uncontrollably….I had to start composing my blogs in Word because a) there’s an undo button for when I erase everything and b) I can save it. Has anyone else had this problem? Is it Vista?
So there you have it – you can expect more from me in the future. Now that all my excuses are on the table, if you don’t hear from me, you’ll know why. (And just so you know – I really was going to blog about the priest who wanted to marry this morning, but the fog over my brain prevented me from getting a good start at it).
On the other hand, morning blogging doesn’t suit me. Sure, I can check my favorite websites for inspiration. I may have even had dreams. But my mind hasn’t reached the point yet where it is racing – thinking of all sorts of random thoughts that I just need to get out.
And topics I have been wanting to talk about, just seem to disappear. Do I blog about the swine flu? About the priest who wants to get married? About finances? Or about my job? All of these have affected me, and more, and yet, at 7:50 AM, I feel a little exhausted just thinking about “getting into” any of these topics.
Another problem is research. So far, my blog has just been my thoughts. I have not used fact or figures to back up any of my opinions, because they are just that – opinions. On the one hand, you can make a fact or statistic say anything you want. On the other hand, can I really stand up and state my belief in something unless I have some evidence for it? All in all, I like to write like C.S. Lewis. He seemed to use man’s internal logic for his writing – rarely if ever have I ever come across him say something like, “According to a recent survey…”
My final obstacle? J My new computer. I cannot explain it, but ever since I got this new computer, typing has become a chore. This is sad, because I thoroughly enjoy typing! I could sit and type all day and have nothing to actually type! But either the keyboard or the programming does something weird. If I start to typing too fast (and I type fast), then suddenly I’m accessing menu options left and right! And it’s not good…sometimes my entire document is erased…I zoom in and out uncontrollably….I had to start composing my blogs in Word because a) there’s an undo button for when I erase everything and b) I can save it. Has anyone else had this problem? Is it Vista?
So there you have it – you can expect more from me in the future. Now that all my excuses are on the table, if you don’t hear from me, you’ll know why. (And just so you know – I really was going to blog about the priest who wanted to marry this morning, but the fog over my brain prevented me from getting a good start at it).
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Supersize Yourself
For 12 of the last 24 months I have been on the road. I eat two of my meals a day from restaurants and company cafeterias. I usually skip breakfast. I work about 10-14 hours a day, so I don’t have much time for hitting the treadmill at the hotel after work, but I do what I can. Believe it or not, this is not necessarily the healthiest lifestyle.
I generally get sick of eating out so much after a few weeks. However, when I come back, within a few weeks (maybe even before) I am craving greasy, fatty, fast food! (I strike a balance by eating lunch out with my team at work and then having a home cooked dinner).
I watched Supersize Me today. I had seen a portion of it before, but I decided to watch the entire thing. Unlike the documentary on the Salem witch trials I also watched, nothing in this program surprised me. McDonald’s makes you fat. But this is a really famous documentary!
Although I think the method used was unscientific and the results obtained common sense, the movie was entertaining. However, instead of focusing on the “big bad fast food restaurants”, it should have focused on something it only hinted at: personal responsibility.
If Americans are overweight, it is not because there is some disease going around. Not anything we can catch, anyway. It’s called eating too much and not being active enough.
And, as I mentioned before, I’m an expert at this. Since I started my new job, I have put on weight (won’t tell you how much). However, I have also been monitoring my weight and trying to make choices that will help me to keep from gaining, as my lifestyle continues to be non-accepting of personal health.
1. Portion size – I order kid sized portions or save half of the meal for later. Both are cost effective as well as healthier.
2. Fish – I usually order fish if we are ordering dinner from a fancy restaurant. In addition to being a healthier option, it’s also brain food!
3. Calorie Monitoring – Although I cannot cook a full meal when I am on the road, I try to monitor my calories. I try to eat only one full meal out (which is usually enough to bust any diet anyway) and have healthy low-calorie snacks between meals. A second meal will be a low calorie, easy to prepare meal such as a peanut butter sandwich or a Cup-o-Soup.
I’m not an expert or dietician. These are just tricks I use. And I could probably follow more rules – I’m sure my dietician sister would prefer I track all calories consumed in a day, maybe even just shut off when I hit my limit. Or perhaps I should cut out the pop. Never!
The simple point is – fast food is not the enemy. We are our greatest enemy! By making poor food choices and poor exercise choices (which I think are probably worse) we get ourselves into a big fat mess.
The fast food restaurants responded to the attack of Supersize Me by adding healthy menu options. But I don’t go to McDonald’s for salad. I go for fries! If I want a salad I will go to Panera. Simple as that. And if I develop diabetes when I am older, or if I gain 100 pounds and have a heart problem and low self esteem, I will know it is because of my sugar and fat addiction that I have. On the other hand, if I can work out of town for a year and not have a triple-bypass at the end of it, it is also because I made good decisions.
I generally get sick of eating out so much after a few weeks. However, when I come back, within a few weeks (maybe even before) I am craving greasy, fatty, fast food! (I strike a balance by eating lunch out with my team at work and then having a home cooked dinner).
I watched Supersize Me today. I had seen a portion of it before, but I decided to watch the entire thing. Unlike the documentary on the Salem witch trials I also watched, nothing in this program surprised me. McDonald’s makes you fat. But this is a really famous documentary!
Although I think the method used was unscientific and the results obtained common sense, the movie was entertaining. However, instead of focusing on the “big bad fast food restaurants”, it should have focused on something it only hinted at: personal responsibility.
If Americans are overweight, it is not because there is some disease going around. Not anything we can catch, anyway. It’s called eating too much and not being active enough.
And, as I mentioned before, I’m an expert at this. Since I started my new job, I have put on weight (won’t tell you how much). However, I have also been monitoring my weight and trying to make choices that will help me to keep from gaining, as my lifestyle continues to be non-accepting of personal health.
1. Portion size – I order kid sized portions or save half of the meal for later. Both are cost effective as well as healthier.
2. Fish – I usually order fish if we are ordering dinner from a fancy restaurant. In addition to being a healthier option, it’s also brain food!
3. Calorie Monitoring – Although I cannot cook a full meal when I am on the road, I try to monitor my calories. I try to eat only one full meal out (which is usually enough to bust any diet anyway) and have healthy low-calorie snacks between meals. A second meal will be a low calorie, easy to prepare meal such as a peanut butter sandwich or a Cup-o-Soup.
I’m not an expert or dietician. These are just tricks I use. And I could probably follow more rules – I’m sure my dietician sister would prefer I track all calories consumed in a day, maybe even just shut off when I hit my limit. Or perhaps I should cut out the pop. Never!
The simple point is – fast food is not the enemy. We are our greatest enemy! By making poor food choices and poor exercise choices (which I think are probably worse) we get ourselves into a big fat mess.
The fast food restaurants responded to the attack of Supersize Me by adding healthy menu options. But I don’t go to McDonald’s for salad. I go for fries! If I want a salad I will go to Panera. Simple as that. And if I develop diabetes when I am older, or if I gain 100 pounds and have a heart problem and low self esteem, I will know it is because of my sugar and fat addiction that I have. On the other hand, if I can work out of town for a year and not have a triple-bypass at the end of it, it is also because I made good decisions.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Jiggety Jig
Well I'm back in Kansas City now, for good! (maybe). I am excited this time, as opposed to last year at this time. I was running around thinking that Kansas Citians were crazy for loving their city so much.
But there are good things about Kansas City. For instance, it is very green this time of year. And there are lots of flowers. Also, it is not too big, but it is also large enough to provide ample opportunities. And, it's the city of fountains!
I have learned that there are over 200 fountains in Kansas City, and it is my new goal to visit each one and take a picture of myself in front of it! :)
I plan to get involved with activities in Kansas City and with my church!
I plan to paint the living room (don't know what color yet)!
I plan to take walks and cook my own food!
I plan to write in my blog more!
But seriously - I have discovered a problem with the blog-writing process. I usually have great ideas (in my opinion) for blogging topics when I am on the road and by myself (as I was for the last two months). However, I have no time to sit down and blog them. When my schedule frees up, either I am too busy "relaxing" or I have stated my opinion to someone close to me (whether they want to hear it or not) and subsequently erase it from my head.
So tomorrow the games begin! I can't wait to actually live in my house! Sleep in my bed! Eat food that I prepared! I can'twait to live! :)
But there are good things about Kansas City. For instance, it is very green this time of year. And there are lots of flowers. Also, it is not too big, but it is also large enough to provide ample opportunities. And, it's the city of fountains!
I have learned that there are over 200 fountains in Kansas City, and it is my new goal to visit each one and take a picture of myself in front of it! :)
I plan to get involved with activities in Kansas City and with my church!
I plan to paint the living room (don't know what color yet)!
I plan to take walks and cook my own food!
I plan to write in my blog more!
But seriously - I have discovered a problem with the blog-writing process. I usually have great ideas (in my opinion) for blogging topics when I am on the road and by myself (as I was for the last two months). However, I have no time to sit down and blog them. When my schedule frees up, either I am too busy "relaxing" or I have stated my opinion to someone close to me (whether they want to hear it or not) and subsequently erase it from my head.
So tomorrow the games begin! I can't wait to actually live in my house! Sleep in my bed! Eat food that I prepared! I can'twait to live! :)
Saturday, March 28, 2009
How to Win the Lottery
Is life a gamble? See, I'm an accountant, and I've been running some numbers in my head. I think it kind of is. Not in the typical gambling way or anything, but, yes, a gamble. Let me explain:
I've been driving around listening to the radio. One day I was listening to a song about living life. You know the type of song, "I'm not going to live forever, so I'm goind to do whatever I want to do right now!" And it is implied that "whatever I want" is - well, whatever! Drugs, sex, spending money like it's going out of style...
Now, I switched over to the Christian radio station, and they had the same song on! Only instead, it went, "I'm not going to live forever, so I'm going to love people and help people and draw close to God." I'm not going to lie - I feel this is a more appropriate interpretation of life. But let's run the numbers.
Let's say you choose song #1. You do whatever you want. Will this make you happy? I don't know - I suppose there are a few multi-millionaires out there who take the "live for today" approach and enjoy it. But for the average person - and even the average multi-millionaire - it's just not going to work. You will be lonely. You will be a mess - drugs and alchohol will require increasingly stronger doeses to make you happy. And who knows what "free love" will get you - kids you aren't prepared to take care of? Disease? Or just a plain old broken heart? The prognosis doesn't look good.
Add to that the Christian concept summarized in the TobyMac song, "I don't want to gain the whole world and lose my soul!" Even if you are one of the select few who can live an entirely self-centered life and be happy still, will you gain heaven? Or will you spend 70-100 happy years on earth only to spend eternity in a much less happy place.
We have to remember that what we experience here is not the best of all possible worlds. There is hope for something better, and that to waste our life for temporary gain is, well...foolish.
So then there's song #2. According to those who live by Song #1, the Song #2 livers are missing out on a lot of fun. They are probably not as rich - and if they are, they spend a lot of money helping people. Their fun is innocent. They always seem to be putting off pleasure because it's "wrong" (not participating in drugs or sex outside of marriage).
But does it pay off? In my life I see a lot of Song #2 working well - I mean, people who settle down and live a good life (even if they are not specifically Christians, but want to be good people) tend to do well. They have families who love them. They are not short on money (not having pawned their last possession for a new high). They don't get unwanted diseases.
But then, there are those who follow Song #2 and still have rotten lives. I mean, just because you are a good person and try to help people, just because you are a Christian, does not guarantee you a life of bliss. All you can do is do the best with what you have and live strong in your faith and hope that you will go to a better place in 70-100 years.
This is why it is a gamble. I think statistically Song #2 pays off - you have a chance of being happy in this world and the next!
And yet, faith seems to be a gamble for some people anyway. If you live by Song #1 - whether you are happy or not - and someone tells you to change your life because you may not go to heaven? What kind of argument is that? Isn't it just easier to believe that there is no God and continue on in your ways? And if you do believe, won't that just turn you off? People forget about forgiveness and redemption.
But to talk about the faith gamble is in essence to determine how to win at the gamble of life.
If there is no God, then the way to win the life lottery is to be one of the truly happy Song #1-ers. You can be a fairly happy Song #2-er. But like anything, it's all about risk and reward - you can lead a stable life or risk everything on the chance that you might be happy following Song #1. It doesn't matter which song you follow in the long run, though - just pick a song to follow because you only have 70-100 years.
But if there is a God, then Song #2 is definately the key to winning the lottery. And unlike Song #1, everyone who sings song #2 wins! Suddenly the risk is gone! You may be a little unhappy in this life, but you will be happy in eternity.
So what's the lesson? Well, after running the numbers (I know I'm a little biased) I think that Song #2 is the best way to live - both if you consider God or pretend He doesn't exist. So the question then becomes, why do so many people live Song #1? Why isn't the world a better place if the smart thing to do is to love each other, love God, and help each other out?
Other than the cliche, "Sin" answer, I can't tell you. Perhaps it is because life is such a gamble. Perhaps there are so many Song #1 people out there trying to actually be happy, that being a Song #2 person becomes harder and harder to do.
And yet, I speak of the lottery. I truly don't know of anyone who has been able to lead a completely selfish life and still be happy. I honestly don't know if it has happened - I just spoke of it because I thought statistically it might have. You don't really find any religion in the world that speaks of gaining inner peace through selfish acts. There is wisdom in that!
If everyone just lived out the faith they did beleive, and if people stopped trying to squash each other in pursuit of winning Life's Lottery, then the world would be a better place. Living Song #2 wouldn't seem like sacrificing anything at all, because in loving one another, the whole world could be gained! And people could find peace and happiness both in this life and the life to come.
I've been driving around listening to the radio. One day I was listening to a song about living life. You know the type of song, "I'm not going to live forever, so I'm goind to do whatever I want to do right now!" And it is implied that "whatever I want" is - well, whatever! Drugs, sex, spending money like it's going out of style...
Now, I switched over to the Christian radio station, and they had the same song on! Only instead, it went, "I'm not going to live forever, so I'm going to love people and help people and draw close to God." I'm not going to lie - I feel this is a more appropriate interpretation of life. But let's run the numbers.
Let's say you choose song #1. You do whatever you want. Will this make you happy? I don't know - I suppose there are a few multi-millionaires out there who take the "live for today" approach and enjoy it. But for the average person - and even the average multi-millionaire - it's just not going to work. You will be lonely. You will be a mess - drugs and alchohol will require increasingly stronger doeses to make you happy. And who knows what "free love" will get you - kids you aren't prepared to take care of? Disease? Or just a plain old broken heart? The prognosis doesn't look good.
Add to that the Christian concept summarized in the TobyMac song, "I don't want to gain the whole world and lose my soul!" Even if you are one of the select few who can live an entirely self-centered life and be happy still, will you gain heaven? Or will you spend 70-100 happy years on earth only to spend eternity in a much less happy place.
We have to remember that what we experience here is not the best of all possible worlds. There is hope for something better, and that to waste our life for temporary gain is, well...foolish.
So then there's song #2. According to those who live by Song #1, the Song #2 livers are missing out on a lot of fun. They are probably not as rich - and if they are, they spend a lot of money helping people. Their fun is innocent. They always seem to be putting off pleasure because it's "wrong" (not participating in drugs or sex outside of marriage).
But does it pay off? In my life I see a lot of Song #2 working well - I mean, people who settle down and live a good life (even if they are not specifically Christians, but want to be good people) tend to do well. They have families who love them. They are not short on money (not having pawned their last possession for a new high). They don't get unwanted diseases.
But then, there are those who follow Song #2 and still have rotten lives. I mean, just because you are a good person and try to help people, just because you are a Christian, does not guarantee you a life of bliss. All you can do is do the best with what you have and live strong in your faith and hope that you will go to a better place in 70-100 years.
This is why it is a gamble. I think statistically Song #2 pays off - you have a chance of being happy in this world and the next!
And yet, faith seems to be a gamble for some people anyway. If you live by Song #1 - whether you are happy or not - and someone tells you to change your life because you may not go to heaven? What kind of argument is that? Isn't it just easier to believe that there is no God and continue on in your ways? And if you do believe, won't that just turn you off? People forget about forgiveness and redemption.
But to talk about the faith gamble is in essence to determine how to win at the gamble of life.
If there is no God, then the way to win the life lottery is to be one of the truly happy Song #1-ers. You can be a fairly happy Song #2-er. But like anything, it's all about risk and reward - you can lead a stable life or risk everything on the chance that you might be happy following Song #1. It doesn't matter which song you follow in the long run, though - just pick a song to follow because you only have 70-100 years.
But if there is a God, then Song #2 is definately the key to winning the lottery. And unlike Song #1, everyone who sings song #2 wins! Suddenly the risk is gone! You may be a little unhappy in this life, but you will be happy in eternity.
So what's the lesson? Well, after running the numbers (I know I'm a little biased) I think that Song #2 is the best way to live - both if you consider God or pretend He doesn't exist. So the question then becomes, why do so many people live Song #1? Why isn't the world a better place if the smart thing to do is to love each other, love God, and help each other out?
Other than the cliche, "Sin" answer, I can't tell you. Perhaps it is because life is such a gamble. Perhaps there are so many Song #1 people out there trying to actually be happy, that being a Song #2 person becomes harder and harder to do.
And yet, I speak of the lottery. I truly don't know of anyone who has been able to lead a completely selfish life and still be happy. I honestly don't know if it has happened - I just spoke of it because I thought statistically it might have. You don't really find any religion in the world that speaks of gaining inner peace through selfish acts. There is wisdom in that!
If everyone just lived out the faith they did beleive, and if people stopped trying to squash each other in pursuit of winning Life's Lottery, then the world would be a better place. Living Song #2 wouldn't seem like sacrificing anything at all, because in loving one another, the whole world could be gained! And people could find peace and happiness both in this life and the life to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)