2012 April

The Indignity of Work

Apr 232012

A few days ago, I was listening to some TV news program (yes, listening, while I was doing something else at the time) and they ran an old clip of Mitt Romney giving a speech. One phrase caught my attention: “the dignity of work.”

In my long experience of almost a dozen types of jobs, I can say there is a nugget of truth about a dignity in work. On the other hand, what is more memorable are the indignities of work. These are the things that Governor Romney probably does not know or care about (see Seamus about his notorious indifference). These are the things working class folk have to put up with for a paycheck.

Romney’s “dignity of work” quote/gaffe has inspired me to try and recall some of the striking examples of the indignity of work that I have experienced.   (Please share some of your indignity stories in the comments section below.) Today’s example is the rigid adherence to an ID for alcohol policy.

For two summers in my youth, I worked as a cashier in the concession stand at a minor league baseball stadium. We had a rule that for any beer sale we had to check the ID of the customer — and they meant every customer. Some fellow employees actually had to ask for ID from their own parents.

If Betty White herself walked up to you, she gets carded. As her wrinkled, arthritic claws go digging through her giant cluttered purse on the epic quest for that tiny plastic rectangle, the line grows longer and longer with everyone becoming a little more agitated subconsciously knowing that our lives will never get back these precious wasted minutes.   Many of said people in line will be stupid jerks who will be mad at you because they think you were holding up the line just goofing off, trying to flirt with someone’s grandma.

The effect of this policy is that employees are required to pretend to be complete idiots. These types of policies hit at the heart of human dignity and remind us of the concept of wage slavery. If you are trapped in this situation I suggest this approach:

“I’m sorry, I know you are older than 21. However, in return for my pitiful hourly wage, I am required to pretend I am an idiot and ask you for identification proving you are over 21. I must choose between my dignity and my job. It is company policy to force us both to waste our precious time for this charade.”

So if you are a customer clearly over 21 and someone asks you for your ID, don’t think they are trying to be nice, cute, or funny. Don’t ever respond “I’m flattered that you think I’m young. Thanks for asking.” Tell them, “I’m sorry they make you do this. It is wrong to force you to pretend to be stupid.” Then be sure to leave a good tip (where appropriate).

Feel free to share some of your “indignity of work” stories in the comments section below. I promise I won’t card you.

How a King Can Save American Democracy

Politics 9 Responses »

Apr 192012

The most important race in the 2012 election might not be the quest for the White House. The control of the Senate appears up for grabs this year, and the effectiveness of the next administration is limited by which party holds the majority.

It is possible that the margin for gaining the Senate majority is one seat. Today, Angus King, the Independent former governor of Maine, is heavily favored to win that state’s open Senate seat. Right now he has not declared whether he will caucus with the Democratic or Republican parties for the sake of determining the majority. I say for the good of the country he should maintain this position through the election. Here’s why.

If the margin in the Senate ends up being exactly one seat, Senator-elect King would be in a great position. King should, on behalf of the American people, demand three things in exchange for his vote to swing the majority:

1. Filibuster reform,

2. A vote on a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, and

3. the Senate Majority leader post.

The third one is primarily a check against any shenanigans to undermine the first two. Just these three items would make it much easier to enact subsequent pro-small-d democratic reforms that would make America’s democratic republic more responsive to its citizens again.

Is King likely to take this bold position? He is aware of and concerned about the defects of the current election process.

For example, he signed off on an amicus brief submitted in a Supreme Court case concerning Arizona’s public financing system which included a plan for triggered matching funds, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett. The brief stated:

Amici believe that a robust public financing system is vital for democracy, so that candidates’ dependence on private funders does not render government beholden to those with the deepest pockets, so that a variety of voices may be heard by the public, and so that public service and participation in public debate do not become inaccessible for all but a privileged few.

Governor King contributed significantly to both his campaigns, funding slightly over 50% of the first. Maine’s Clean Elections Act, which is very similar to Arizona’s, including a matching provision similar to the one challenged here, was passed by referendum during his first term, going into effect during his second. Governor King initially had some concerns about taxpayer-funded public financing. However, having had a close-up view of its effectiveness, and having seen no chilling effect on political speech, he has come to believe that it is one of the most important ways to protect democracy from the power of special interests.

King agrees with policy goal of the bold move, so the question left is: Does he have the guts? Maybe some Mainers out there can give us some insight about King’s intestinal fortitude. If it is still unclear that he would, maybe someone should start an online petition to pressure him to stand up for the rest of us and repair our American form of democracy.

Poll Indicates More Americans Believe in Aliens Than Believe in God

Humor 1 Response »

Apr 162012

I don’t know how I came upon this line of thought today, but some will find it amusing. The reasoning might be more wiseass wordplay than profound epiphany, but here goes.

More Americans believe in aliens than believe in God. I can prove it. Behold:

According to a June 2011 Gallup poll, 92% of Americans believe in God.

I’m going to take the leap and assume that almost all of those people define God as the creator of the universe, of everything, etc., and that “everything” or “etc.” includes the Earth.

Let’s use the common understanding that aliens (extraterrestials, not foreign nationals) are defined as beings that are not from Earth. Putting common definition of “aliens” together with mainstream beliefs about God leads to:

All beings not from Earth = Aliens.
God created Earth = God is not from Earth.
God is, technically, an alien.

So if you believe in God, you must, therefore, believe in aliens, because God was/is not from Earth, hence “alien.” Now that is about 92% of the American population that must believe in aliens.

Since it is likely that at least one person believes in aliens, but not God, we can technically say that more people believe in aliens than God.

Now, I’d like to take a moment to anticipate some reactions to this exercise in linguistic tomfoolery. I could see some militant atheists forwarding this post along saying, “See, I told you so: belief in God is a silly as belief in aliens.” Not so fast. Belief in either is only silly to those arrogant enough to think they know everything there is to know about the entire universe so that they can come to the adamant conclusion about the impossibility of such beings ever existing in the past, present, or future.

On the other end of the spectrum, the more fundamentalist readers (not an oxymoron; don’t be mean) may even shout “blasphemy!” I say putting God in the category of alien is not a demotion. “Alien” is a broad term. It doesn’t mean only mortal aliens, or average aliens, or “Joe the Plumber” aliens. It can include an omnipotent being that just happens to not originate from Earth.

You say God is from Earth? Well, I think it takes an arrogant terracentricity to believe that God is from Earth. The very idea of an omnipotent creator God doesn’t mesh well with the idea that he/she/it is exclusive to Earth. I guess an acceptable “out” could be the theory that God is everywhere, and therefore, from everywhere. This I would rebut with assumptions in our definition of “alien,” that a non-alien must be only from Earth. Yes, I believe a human born on Mars would be an alien, and someday I hope to call such a person an alien directly to their face (of course, this requires some serious advances in space-faring technology and/or human longevity. Both of which would demand a significant upgrade in motivation. Psst, hey, buddy, did you hear there’s oil on Mars?)

This is getting a little to close to birthing a theology for a tounge-in-cheek post, so I’ll leave it at that. Although, if you are impressed, the WiseFather is available to be hired to design your new religion for an immodest fee.

Comments?

A Trial of the 21st Century: Comparing O.J. and Zimmerman

Politics No Responses »

Apr 122012

Now that George Zimmerman will face prosecution for the death of Trayvon Martin, will it become the next “trial of the century?” With Mike Tyson finally sharing his thoughts, I declare the hype machine alive and running at full throttle.

The temperature of the controversy with its racial component naturally leads to a comparison with the Trial of the last Century: the O.J. Simpson case.

(In anticipating the hype, am I adding to it? On the other hand, choosing not to comment won’t stop the avalanche of coverage, so this thought was hardly worth the digression.)

I could see the angry right adopting Zimmerman as their O.J. An inter-racial killing and a gun rights issue should have them fired up. The money will be coming in to pay for Zimmerman’s lawyer. He’ll probably get enough defense cash to hire an all-star team, but the best-of-the-best is not likely to sign on for this kind of publicity. As we know from the O.J. Simpson trial, a lot of money on the defense side makes it easier to build that reasonable doubt.

Another similarity will be the presence of cameras in the courtroom. Florida has Sunshine laws (how fitting for the Sunshine State) so the trial will be televised for the pleasure of obsessed viewers. We will be treated to a new batch of legal stars and the return of old ones. How many days will it be before we get a Judge Ito interview?

As far as outcome goes, not knowing all the facts myself (people need to use more disclaimers like this), I think we face another instance where moral justice and legal justice diverge. The story seems just uncertain enough for a reasonably talented lawyer to sow the seeds of reasonable doubt. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the legal result is “not guilty.”

Verdict day will also resemble the O.J. Simpson case, and the media will be ready for it. TV cameras will be in place wherever there is a large gathering of people watching the verdict together. Unlike the trial of the 20th Century, this verdict will also be covered by thousands of smartphone cameras. Expect several stunning viral videos of reaction to the verdict. If there is an acquittal, we’ll see some gun-waving (if not shooting) celebrations that would make Yosemite Sam proud.

Of course, some idiots will find this a good excuse to do some rioting. However, you can bet on fewer looting-related back injuries, because today’s LCD TVs are much lighter than similarly sized TVs that were liberated in the name of justice last century. Consequently, those idiots will give the police the excuse to be too eager to taser and/or pepper spray the peaceful protesters reacting to the verdict.

Could the Zimmerman trial hype machine rival the Simpson trial?

O.J. had some name recognition and celebrity status. Zimmerman is at best an unknown Batman wannabe. Advantage: O.J.
Simpson trial had two victims and an inter-racial domestic violence issue. Zimmerman trial has one victim and racial profiling, liberal self-defense law, and gun control issues. Advantage: Even.
Simpson case took place in Los Angeles. Zimmerman case took place in Sanford, Florida. Advantage: O.J.
Pre-trial antics: O.J. had the white Bronco chase. Zimmerman awaited the action of an uncertain prosecutor. Advantage (so far): O.J.

In the end, George Zimmerman will not escape some justice, as cameras will follow him for years as he attempts to begin a life of obscurity in Wyoming, Idaho, or Montana. Until then, get your popcorn ready and prepare to be distracted from the issues that really matter. Anyone else wonder what al Qaeda was up to during the O.J. Simpson trial?

Predicting the 2012 Presidential Election: Meh v. Lame

Politics 2 Responses »

Apr 062012

It looks like Romney is the inevitable Republican nominee, so it’s a good time to jump ahead with some thoughts on the Obama-Romney matchup.

Barring a black swan event, Obama wins easily. Romney is just a poor candidate. (It’s not often you get to hear Romney described as “poor.”). In fact, in some black swan scenarios, I can’t even see him beating Biden. Policy positions aside, I’m still getting a Kerry vibe from this guy: Living his whole life in the 1% makes it harder for him give a sense that he connects with the “Average American” and can be a leader of all Americans. He’s been running for president since 2005 and has developed the phony campaign persona that screams “Vote for me, because I really, really want to be president!” You can’t accuse him of being “all sizzle, and no steak,” because he’s got neither.

But let’s step back and look at the last couple of times we’ve had an incumbent president taking on a challenger.

Matchup	Electoral Vote	States	Popular Vote %
2004 Bush43 over Kerry	286-251	31-20	53-47
1996 Clinton over Dole	379-159	32-19	49-41
1992 Clinton over Bush41	370-168	33-18	43-37
1984 Reagan over Mondale	525-13	49-2	58-40
1980 Reagan over Carter	489-49	44-7	50-41

It’s hard to find a similar scenario in the recent past. Bush-Kerry might be closest fit, with a relatively unpopular incumbent against a weak challenger in a two-way race. The storyline will be quite different than eight years ago with the increase in polarization and the unstable economy, so it may not be a useful comparison to predict an outcome.

Some will point to Obama’s job approval rating as an indicator of his likelihood of re-election. I think this is moderately effective at best. Gallup lists a comparison of approval ratings of incumbents seeking re-election at a similar point in the cycle. As of the beginning of April, Obama’s 46% is better than Bush41 (41%), Carter (39%), Truman (36%), and is just below Ford’s 48%. Though the numbers are comparable, I think Obama is in better shape. Bush41 had a popular third party candidate perched on the center-right; Obama has no comparable third party vote siphon. Carter faced Reagan; Obama faces Romney. Truman won. Ford had the cloud of Watergate over his incompetent administration; Obama’s incompetencies are virtually scandal-free.

I don’t think the approval rating offers much an indication in the case of Obama. The assumption the mainstream media and popular pundits want you to make is that the 54% who disapprove of his job performance are going to vote for the Republican nominee. Simply put, many who disapprove of his job performance agree with Obama’s intentions but are disappointed in his execution, and these folks would think Romney administration would be much worse from a policy perspective. Just because people are sour on Obama doesn’t mean that they are going to vote for the Republican nominee. If they vote, they’ll likely hold their noses and touch the screen for Obama (maybe they’ll wear gloves to feel less dirty).

Obama will win, easily but not a landslide somewhere between the 2004 and 2008 margins of victory. If there is a third party entrant on the right, it will be a landslide. Despite the weak opposing candidate, an Obama victory in 2012 will be closer than it should be for a few major reasons.

1. Romney is the candidate of the .01%, and given Citizens United, we’ll see what unlimited funding can do for an otherwise weak campaign.

2. Obama’s base is less enthusiastic than in 2008. It will only cost him a few votes, but a lot fewer hard-working volunteers and small donations will be joining his campaign this time.

3. The historic factor is gone. This assumes the tired Hillary-Biden swap rumor does not happen. Turnout in 2008 was undoubtedly increased by the goal of electing the country’s first black president. Some of these folks won’t show up to vote this time, but I bet the haters will be back.

The wildcard might be the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. Right now they are not showing much enthusiasm for Romney. I’m not sure putting a token Tea Party darling on the ticket in the VP slot will be enough. The traditional Republican base would just fall in line, we’ll see if the Tea Party faction is really any different. In the end, their hatred of Obama might be enough to get them to sell out their beliefs and vote for Romney.

On Pink Slime: Why Are We Surprised?

Humor, Politics No Responses »

Apr 022012

This is an example of an issue that exists without much awareness, but only when the media gets the hype machine rolling do people become justifiably horrified. This is what I mean by ignorance is bliss.

Well, duh, of course they are using cheap filler. That’s why its called “cheap” filler. One of the ways to increase profits is finding less expensive ways to produce your products. Using meat byproducts that used to be put in dog food gives you more pounds of “beef” to sell to the consumer at the same price.

It appears under the current standard if something can be found inside a cow’s hide, it is considered beef. Connective tissue = beef. Grass = beef. Corn = beef. That fly the cow accidentally swallowed = beef. Leather sofa stuffing = beef. Baseball mitt padding = beef.

The scandal might be good for the ground beef producers in the medium- to long-term. (Short-term looks like an epic PR fail.) When they remove the pink slime filler, they have a great excuse for raising the price. Does anyone doubt that they will raise prices beyond what it costs to replace the pink slime with standard beef? They might even sell more because people will think it is now safer with higher quality. Now, I’m not a stock-picker guy, but hint-hint.

When I hear a cheap substitute is being used as filler in a product, I’m not surprised. If they grind up a pink Slimer and put it in my burger, then I might freak out.

Keep Slimer Out of My Burger! From brutishandshort.com.