We ask all Catholics of Minnesota and of the entire nation to join in a day of prayer and fasting that such offenses never happen again.
All Catholics are being asked to fast and pray as an act of reparation because of PZ’s threat/act of desecrating the Holy Eucharist. So, the catholic church is trying to guarantee this doesn’t happen again by requiring all Catholics to have to act in order to offset one non-Catholics actions? It sounds like the Catholic Church is just asking for it’s members to take more action than turning the other cheek should something similar happen in the future.
How about if police said that the next time there is a fatal car accident everyone in the nation will have to observe a day of mourning during which they will not be allowed to eat and they will be required to communicate with an imaginary being? Would anyone like to imagine what the response might be? I can imagine a lot of gung ho wannabe cops out there trying to make sure drivers use turn signals, maintain legal speeds, follow traffic signals, and generally obey all traffic laws. I can also imagine some of those gung ho wannabe cops using force or even violence to ensure drivers follow all the rules. I can even imagine a few gung ho wannabe cops causing problems while trying to prevent problems. In other words, requiring innocent people to pay the price for a strangers actions is like opening a door to violence.
Seriously, folks, if such a simple act is such a huge crime, perhaps the Catholic Church should be doing a better job of protecting the Holy Eucharist. And I don’t mean by attacking, physically or verbally, any person who dares to utter what might be considered as the slightest threat against the Holy Eucharist. I mean by taking care to ensure that those who receive the Holy Eucharist are in the proper frame of mind.
Has anybody else seen the new Batman movie and found Joker a most interesting character?
14 July 2008
But, Isn't that Depressing?
While I was trying to digest the Catholic outrage against Webster Cook, I asked a Catholic acquaintance and coworker her opinion on the matter. She was unaware of the Cook Controversy. Her initial response was that it was extremely rude of Cook to take the Eucharist from Mass. She also thought the death threats and such were unacceptable. I tried to press her on the “turning into the body of Christ” bit and she pressed me on the “don’t believe in anything” bit.
As many people do, she asked me if I really am an atheist. A whole-hearted atheist, not just an agnostic. Yup, I’m an atheist. Through and through. “You really don’t believe in some sort of ‘energy’ in the universe?” Nope, I don’t believe in some controlling, over arching, created everything energy. “Really? Nothing at all?” Nope. Nothing at all. “You don’t believe in some sort of soul? Or a place that the soul goes when you die?” Nope. No soul. We’re dust. We live. We’re dust again. We don’t have a soul that goes somewhere for eternity. We are and then we’re not. That’s all there is. “So, you truly believe that you don’t have any sort of soul, or energy or anything that survives into eternity?” Nope. No soul. Truly, that’s what I believe. “Then what do you think happens when you die?” I die. My physical body rots and disintegrates and that’s all there is. Memories of me are all that survive, and eventually even those will disappear. “But, isn’t that depressing?”
“Isn’t that depressing?” It is a question atheists often receive from non-atheists. For those who live their lives with the belief that their souls will go somewhere fabulous (or otherwise) for eternity, the idea of not going somewhere, not having a soul, is anathema. It’s depressing, and horrible, and enough to make you question your existence. But, really, it isn’t so depressing at all. In some ways it is extremely freeing. I am, in the end, judged only by myself. I don’t have to worry about meeting the standards of some being who supposedly already knows everything about me. I actually find my belief much less depressing. I only have myself to answer to, I don’t have to worry that all my thoughts and actions are recorded by posterity so that I may be finally judged by a supreme being who is all powerful. (It’s nice to know that no one will remember all those times when I embarrassed myself.) The idea that I might be damned to hell for the simplest infraction is hardly heartwarming.
“Then what meaning does your existence have?” is the question that usually follows the “isn’t it depressing?” discussion. Apparently, for those who believe in God, they exist because God created them. Everyone created by God has a reason to exist. They may not know what this reason is, they may not be fulfilling this reason. But, they may remain confident that everything that happens in their lives happens for a reason, probably tied to their reason for existing. For those such believers, the lack of a creator means your existence lacks a reason. There’s one answer to this question: my life has whatever meaning I give it. I exist simply to exist. If I like to eat chocolate and sit on the couch all day watching reruns of M*A*S*H then that is what I exist to do. If I want to spend my day off scooping poop and scrubbing kiddy pools at the humane society, then that is what I exist to do. The meaning of my existence changes daily. I exist simply to exist. There’s no big question, nor is there a big answer. There just is. I enjoy the freedom to form my life however I want. I may not succeed in meeting my goals, but I am free to reevaluate them whenever I want. I am dependent on myself alone to create meaning in my life.
Contrary to popular belief, I am not depressed nor unhappy nor stuck in a meaningless existence. I am, instead, free. And in my freedom, I am happy.
As many people do, she asked me if I really am an atheist. A whole-hearted atheist, not just an agnostic. Yup, I’m an atheist. Through and through. “You really don’t believe in some sort of ‘energy’ in the universe?” Nope, I don’t believe in some controlling, over arching, created everything energy. “Really? Nothing at all?” Nope. Nothing at all. “You don’t believe in some sort of soul? Or a place that the soul goes when you die?” Nope. No soul. We’re dust. We live. We’re dust again. We don’t have a soul that goes somewhere for eternity. We are and then we’re not. That’s all there is. “So, you truly believe that you don’t have any sort of soul, or energy or anything that survives into eternity?” Nope. No soul. Truly, that’s what I believe. “Then what do you think happens when you die?” I die. My physical body rots and disintegrates and that’s all there is. Memories of me are all that survive, and eventually even those will disappear. “But, isn’t that depressing?”
“Isn’t that depressing?” It is a question atheists often receive from non-atheists. For those who live their lives with the belief that their souls will go somewhere fabulous (or otherwise) for eternity, the idea of not going somewhere, not having a soul, is anathema. It’s depressing, and horrible, and enough to make you question your existence. But, really, it isn’t so depressing at all. In some ways it is extremely freeing. I am, in the end, judged only by myself. I don’t have to worry about meeting the standards of some being who supposedly already knows everything about me. I actually find my belief much less depressing. I only have myself to answer to, I don’t have to worry that all my thoughts and actions are recorded by posterity so that I may be finally judged by a supreme being who is all powerful. (It’s nice to know that no one will remember all those times when I embarrassed myself.) The idea that I might be damned to hell for the simplest infraction is hardly heartwarming.
“Then what meaning does your existence have?” is the question that usually follows the “isn’t it depressing?” discussion. Apparently, for those who believe in God, they exist because God created them. Everyone created by God has a reason to exist. They may not know what this reason is, they may not be fulfilling this reason. But, they may remain confident that everything that happens in their lives happens for a reason, probably tied to their reason for existing. For those such believers, the lack of a creator means your existence lacks a reason. There’s one answer to this question: my life has whatever meaning I give it. I exist simply to exist. If I like to eat chocolate and sit on the couch all day watching reruns of M*A*S*H then that is what I exist to do. If I want to spend my day off scooping poop and scrubbing kiddy pools at the humane society, then that is what I exist to do. The meaning of my existence changes daily. I exist simply to exist. There’s no big question, nor is there a big answer. There just is. I enjoy the freedom to form my life however I want. I may not succeed in meeting my goals, but I am free to reevaluate them whenever I want. I am dependent on myself alone to create meaning in my life.
Contrary to popular belief, I am not depressed nor unhappy nor stuck in a meaningless existence. I am, instead, free. And in my freedom, I am happy.
12 July 2008
You're all going to Hell. Here, let me get the door for you
As usual, I’m a day late and a dollar short. I’m sure everybody has heard about this by now, it’s all over the blogosphere. Just google Webster Cook. Then again, maybe you haven’t heard about it, considering I haven’t seen it in the newspaper yet and I didn’t see any major newspapers listed when I googled a couple minutes ago. Surely there is nothing new I can add to this, but I simply must try.
According to the only real article about it I could find, Link, and Cook’s responses, it seems that Cook did not initially intend to “kidnap” or “hold hostage” the Eucharist. He simply intended to delay ingestion long enough to show the Eucharist to his non-Catholic friend. His mission intensified when he was physically accosted by members of the church. When he continued to receive verbal attacks and even death threats, he finally relented and returned the Eucharist.
I find the whole thing sadly amusing. He just tried to show a cracker to his friend. He wasn’t even planning to take the cracker out of the church, he said his friend came to mass with him. As a non-Catholic, a non-Christian to be fully honest, I have only a theoretical understanding of the Eucharist. It’s a holy object to those who believe it is holy. To the rest of us, it’s a cracker. While I can sort of understand how Catholics might become enraged about Cook’s behavior, I fail to see why it is their right to pass anything other than church judgement against him. He “stole” the Eucharist. Or he “kidnapped” it. or whatever other term you want to use. So, he’s going to hell. So he’s excommunicated. So he’s wholely disrespected throughout the Catholic world. That is your prerogative as the leader of the church. It is not, however, your right to negatively impact his education or threaten his life. Asking Catholics worldwide to write letters to the University of Central Florida suggesting that he be brought up on disciplinary charges because of a “crime” he committed against God, is not your prerogative.
If you’re worried about a Catholic mistreating the Eucharist, perhaps the Catholic church should do a better job of vetting it’s members. Perhaps you should do a little more work to make sure those who receive the Eucharist have no criminal thoughts. Then again, if you did that you would surely discover that many (even most) Catholics don’t actually adhere to all the rules of the Catholic Church. I know at least one Catholic who engages in sex outside of marriage and I thought that was very much against Catholic church rules. Really, I’m not sure I understand why other Catholics have any say in the matter in the first place. If mistreating the Eucharist is a sin that will get you sent to hell, then let the guy go to hell. How is it any of your business?
On a tangent, there are so many responses to which I would like to respond, but I think a comment from here gives me my best option. “I think he has every 'right' to protest, but i (sic) think he crossed the line. It's one thing to protest in a peaceful manner and quite another to take an element of a large number of society's belief system and basically spit on it.” Funny thing about our right to Freedom of Speech in our democracy, we actually do get to do this. The same way Catholics and other Christians get to walk around touting their religious beliefs as The Truth, The One And Only Truth, even though that means taking the whole of a belief system and basically spitting on it.
What might be the most annoying part of this whole thing, is the fire PZ Myers has received for his comments essentially supporting Cook. In response to all this outrage against Cook’s actions, Myers promised to “show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare.” Yes, it was outside the bounds of politeness. Yes, it was inflammatory. Yes, it was probably down right rude. But, two wrongs don’t make a right. Calling for his employer to fire him and encouraging others who were offended to contact his employer calling for him to be fired, isn’t right either. That, too, is inflammatory and down right rude.
Lets just get to the heart of this matter, though. At the very center of this whole showdown is the Catholic belief that this little cracker actually becomes Jesus after it has been blessed versus the opposing belief that it is just a bit of flour and water and animal fat mixed together and baked. Catholics are offended by Myers’ comments because he is completely discounting their beliefs. He’s pretty much saying they’re wrong about the whole Eucharist thing. For this offense, he should lose his job. There isn’t, however, anything wrong with Catholics completely discounting his belief that it is nothing but a cracker, which translates to a lack of belief in Jesus, I think. In one case, Person X made a comment completely dismissing the religious beliefs of Person Y. In the other case, Person A made a comment completely dismissing the religious beliefs of Person B. In case one, Person X needs to be severely punished, so as to protect Person Y. In the second case, Person B needs to be severely punished so as to protect person A. *scratches head* Yeah, I’m having a little trouble with that one, too.
According to the only real article about it I could find, Link, and Cook’s responses, it seems that Cook did not initially intend to “kidnap” or “hold hostage” the Eucharist. He simply intended to delay ingestion long enough to show the Eucharist to his non-Catholic friend. His mission intensified when he was physically accosted by members of the church. When he continued to receive verbal attacks and even death threats, he finally relented and returned the Eucharist.
I find the whole thing sadly amusing. He just tried to show a cracker to his friend. He wasn’t even planning to take the cracker out of the church, he said his friend came to mass with him. As a non-Catholic, a non-Christian to be fully honest, I have only a theoretical understanding of the Eucharist. It’s a holy object to those who believe it is holy. To the rest of us, it’s a cracker. While I can sort of understand how Catholics might become enraged about Cook’s behavior, I fail to see why it is their right to pass anything other than church judgement against him. He “stole” the Eucharist. Or he “kidnapped” it. or whatever other term you want to use. So, he’s going to hell. So he’s excommunicated. So he’s wholely disrespected throughout the Catholic world. That is your prerogative as the leader of the church. It is not, however, your right to negatively impact his education or threaten his life. Asking Catholics worldwide to write letters to the University of Central Florida suggesting that he be brought up on disciplinary charges because of a “crime” he committed against God, is not your prerogative.
If you’re worried about a Catholic mistreating the Eucharist, perhaps the Catholic church should do a better job of vetting it’s members. Perhaps you should do a little more work to make sure those who receive the Eucharist have no criminal thoughts. Then again, if you did that you would surely discover that many (even most) Catholics don’t actually adhere to all the rules of the Catholic Church. I know at least one Catholic who engages in sex outside of marriage and I thought that was very much against Catholic church rules. Really, I’m not sure I understand why other Catholics have any say in the matter in the first place. If mistreating the Eucharist is a sin that will get you sent to hell, then let the guy go to hell. How is it any of your business?
On a tangent, there are so many responses to which I would like to respond, but I think a comment from here gives me my best option. “I think he has every 'right' to protest, but i (sic) think he crossed the line. It's one thing to protest in a peaceful manner and quite another to take an element of a large number of society's belief system and basically spit on it.” Funny thing about our right to Freedom of Speech in our democracy, we actually do get to do this. The same way Catholics and other Christians get to walk around touting their religious beliefs as The Truth, The One And Only Truth, even though that means taking the whole of a belief system and basically spitting on it.
What might be the most annoying part of this whole thing, is the fire PZ Myers has received for his comments essentially supporting Cook. In response to all this outrage against Cook’s actions, Myers promised to “show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare.” Yes, it was outside the bounds of politeness. Yes, it was inflammatory. Yes, it was probably down right rude. But, two wrongs don’t make a right. Calling for his employer to fire him and encouraging others who were offended to contact his employer calling for him to be fired, isn’t right either. That, too, is inflammatory and down right rude.
Lets just get to the heart of this matter, though. At the very center of this whole showdown is the Catholic belief that this little cracker actually becomes Jesus after it has been blessed versus the opposing belief that it is just a bit of flour and water and animal fat mixed together and baked. Catholics are offended by Myers’ comments because he is completely discounting their beliefs. He’s pretty much saying they’re wrong about the whole Eucharist thing. For this offense, he should lose his job. There isn’t, however, anything wrong with Catholics completely discounting his belief that it is nothing but a cracker, which translates to a lack of belief in Jesus, I think. In one case, Person X made a comment completely dismissing the religious beliefs of Person Y. In the other case, Person A made a comment completely dismissing the religious beliefs of Person B. In case one, Person X needs to be severely punished, so as to protect Person Y. In the second case, Person B needs to be severely punished so as to protect person A. *scratches head* Yeah, I’m having a little trouble with that one, too.
26 June 2008
Democracy is Under Attack
Capitalism is under attack
June 25, 2008
Rutland Herald
In response to Mr. Zivitz's letter about offshore oil belonging to us, yes, it is socialism, and last time I checked that is a failed system.
Our capitalist system has proved itself far superior. The thought of our government running an oil company — just imagine how screwed up that would be. I could see it now, higher prices at the pump and an unreliable supply.
This country's capitalist system is under attack everywhere you look. What's scary is the attack is from within. Every big company is demonized, and profit is looked at as taking advantage of the people. At this rate, we'll be the People's Republic of the U.S. soon.
DON JACKSON
Dear Mr. Jackson, you suggest that U.S. citizens are more and more often “attacking” capitalism, which you also suggest is the Great Building Block in the foundation of our country. You show proof of these attacks by pointing out how “big” companies are demonized and “profit is looked at as taking advantage of the people.” I believe your ideas stem from confusion regarding whether we are a democratic nation or a capitalist one. Let me help you. We are a democratic nation first and foremost. We have grown into a capitalist nation, but we remain a democracy. And that should always come first.
In a democracy we are encouraged to explore, investigate, question, judge, and voice our opinions about our leaders, representatives and legislatures. When our leaders take and spend our money in ways we consider foolish, we protest. We expect transparency from our democratically elected government. We also expect to be able to change what we perceive as problems.
Capitalism, however, works very differently. Most of these “big” companies work hard to be non-transparent, to hide their inner workings from us. It takes much research to find out what is done with our money, after we give it to a capitalist company. So, when we discover that the CEO of that company is receiving a phenomenally large salary and benefits package, of course we will be annoyed. And of course we will work to change it. That’s what we’re expected to do.
If we’re now realizing we aren’t quite as enamoured of strict capitalism as we thought, then perhaps capitalism needs to change. As I said before, Democracy comes before capitalism, which means capitalism will need to change to fit our Democracy because the Democracy is not going to change to serve capitalism.
June 25, 2008
Rutland Herald
In response to Mr. Zivitz's letter about offshore oil belonging to us, yes, it is socialism, and last time I checked that is a failed system.
Our capitalist system has proved itself far superior. The thought of our government running an oil company — just imagine how screwed up that would be. I could see it now, higher prices at the pump and an unreliable supply.
This country's capitalist system is under attack everywhere you look. What's scary is the attack is from within. Every big company is demonized, and profit is looked at as taking advantage of the people. At this rate, we'll be the People's Republic of the U.S. soon.
DON JACKSON
Dear Mr. Jackson, you suggest that U.S. citizens are more and more often “attacking” capitalism, which you also suggest is the Great Building Block in the foundation of our country. You show proof of these attacks by pointing out how “big” companies are demonized and “profit is looked at as taking advantage of the people.” I believe your ideas stem from confusion regarding whether we are a democratic nation or a capitalist one. Let me help you. We are a democratic nation first and foremost. We have grown into a capitalist nation, but we remain a democracy. And that should always come first.
In a democracy we are encouraged to explore, investigate, question, judge, and voice our opinions about our leaders, representatives and legislatures. When our leaders take and spend our money in ways we consider foolish, we protest. We expect transparency from our democratically elected government. We also expect to be able to change what we perceive as problems.
Capitalism, however, works very differently. Most of these “big” companies work hard to be non-transparent, to hide their inner workings from us. It takes much research to find out what is done with our money, after we give it to a capitalist company. So, when we discover that the CEO of that company is receiving a phenomenally large salary and benefits package, of course we will be annoyed. And of course we will work to change it. That’s what we’re expected to do.
If we’re now realizing we aren’t quite as enamoured of strict capitalism as we thought, then perhaps capitalism needs to change. As I said before, Democracy comes before capitalism, which means capitalism will need to change to fit our Democracy because the Democracy is not going to change to serve capitalism.
06 June 2008
A more rational rebuttal
It is not a question of what that person's life is worth that I don't know, it is a question of whether their life is worth more than mine or my husband's to me? Because that is what it comes down to, do we have to work ourselves into an early death to fund every single need everyone in the country has?
The main problem with this belief is what happens when you extrapolate it out to every single person. What if every person believed this? What if only a simple majority of people believed this? Very simply, it means that you are worth less. As is your husband, and any children you may have. Your parents, your friends, your loved ones. You're all worth less. Worth less than who? Than me and my loved ones, of course. Because if I believed the same as you, the only ones worth my resources are those I love. And I can't possibly love everyone.
Furthermore, if you extrapolate this belief to the other "welfare" programs our taxes cover it means I'm not going to pay for the education of you or your children, nor can you drive on my roads, use my public library, or benefit from my personal police force, fire department or ambulance service. Because I'm working much too hard to have to share my earnings with anybody other than my loved ones. Damn the poor and their ignorant inability to pull themselves up by their boot straps. And I would just like to point out that there are those who "abuse" each of these systems. There are children who are truant more often than not, and yet draw tax payer dollars for that school. There are those who leave smoldering cigarrettes in a trash can or couch and end up burning down the house. Should we let that house burn down simply because the person made a bad decision? Should we ignore all the nearby houses that might also burn down? Do we just chalk it all up to bad decisions and walk away feeling snug in our belief that the same could never happen to us because we're smart enough to have made the good decision to not smoke?
Poor health care drags down more than just the person actually suffering from ill health. It drags down the spouse who shares fiscal responsibilities. It drags down the parents trying to help out. It drags down the children who are then without the many benefits money can bring. Really, it is not that unlike a burning building.
I think we are also failing to consider a "cost" in this whole analysis. What about the "cost" of losing an able bodied person from society? If he/she had been healthy, what contribution might he/she have made? Perhaps tutored a child? Been a big brother/big sister? Donated money to help fund the arts? Might that child whose parents were unable to afford the summer camps for science have found a break through in cancer research? What are we giving up when we give up on that person? There is no way to quantify it except to look around you at all those people who have contributed in meaningful ways to our society and just imagine if one of those people had been stuck with a major health problem and no insurance in our society. What might we have lost?
To me, your statement sort of sounds like these 3rd world countries we hear so much about. You know, those ones we lament about. The places we arrogantly believe would be saved by democracy and a free market. In those countries, the only kids who get an education are those with parents rich enough to afford the private schools. The only places with good infrastructure are where the rich want to be able to go, or need to be able to move their goods. The only folks immune from violence and thievery are those who can afford personal body guards or even a small army.
Let's be honest, it's not as if I'm (or we're) asking you to provide a Wii game for every household, or a new car for every 16 year old. I don't think anybody is begging the gov't for a big screen HD tv, or a brand new laptop. We just want to ensure that every citizen has access to and can afford treatment of health problems. And we'd like to prevent as many of these problems as possible. I truly believe we would have a healthier, more productive and happier society if each person was able to receive treatment for illness in an effective and timely manner.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face
Because that is what it comes down to, do we have to work ourselves into an early death to fund every single need everyone in the country has? The answer to that is no, that person is not worth that much to me and no we will not continue to work at the pace we are to earn what we are in order to pay more taxes to support more welfare programs.
But, it’s ok for me to work myself into an early grave so that I can afford health care for myself? It’s ok for one of my friends to put herself tens of thousands of dollars in debt doing the drug research that is providing you with good health care? (Do you know how much work grad students do in the research field? Practically for free.) See, this is what bugs me about this discussion. The assumption that I’m not working hard and I’m just living off your taxes and your hardwork. Guess what, I work my ass off everyday. And I always have. I don’t want your hand outs. I don’t want your charity. I just want to be able to go to the Dr when I’m sick, and get regular health check ups to make sure I don’t end up with the diabetes that every single person on my father’s side of the family has. (I can promise you that letting me get preventative care now will be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for my care when I’m a diabetic and on a gov’t funded health care system because I’m so sick I can’t work.) I just want to be able to live healthy and happy. And that includes not having to work 10-12 hours a day 6-7 days a week. I have a full time job. I have a BA. I even have a fancy-schmancy title: department Manager. I make well below the living wage. The living wage around here (calculated by me before the hike in fuel prices) is about $12.50 per hour. And when I say living wage, that’s what I mean. That’s the average amount of money a single person needs to earn to be able to live. That’s rent (on an average 1 bedroom apt), heating fuel, electricity, phone, gas, food, car insurance, college loans. You’ll notice I didn’t figure in a car loan (because I’m smart enough to not get a car I can’t afford), nor internet access, nor cable tv, nor going out to eat once a month, or renting a movie, or buying a new pair of shoes, or any of the myriad of things that make a life. Oh, but I did include a pet because the stress relief is key. Guess what I make. $10.60 per hour. In order for me to afford to live, I would need to work my full time job (38 hours per week, with a set, but constantly changing schedule that already eats up 1 weeknight and every other weekend nights) plus another part time job. I’ve done this, and it is not a healthy way to live. I still barely made enough to pay my bills, I was constantly tired, over stressed and permanently sick. And I still couldn’t afford to go to the dr even though I had insurance. How can you possibly consider this a system that works? It doesn’t. It’s a simple fact. This system does not work.
The thing is, nobody has to stay at a low income job. You don't even have to go to school to move up from low income, you just have to keep a job for long enough to move up in your position there. Which brings up why I hate it that they keep raising the minimum wage. The only people this really benefits is the people who skip from menial job to menial job and have no desire to ever do anything better. It hurts small business. But that's another arguement (sic).
I’m sorry, but I find this deeply offensive. You think I’m choosing to stay at a low paying job? Do you think I really have that many other options? Seriously? And to suggest that education is not necessary is the most absurd thing I’ve heard. I guess I shouldn’t have wasted my time going to college. I could have started out as a school janitor and worked my way up to superintendent in no time, right? Because the higher paid positions rarely require further training, education, or skills. As a further example, I did exactly what you’re talking about. I started out as a part-time menial laborer. I helped put together the store I’m currently working in. I helped put in the shelving, set all the displays, put out product. I was lucky enough to be kept on as a peon cashier. Quickly moved up to a part time “titled” position. Then earned a full time “titled” position. Within 10 months of starting with this company I earned the position I currently have. Perhaps you’ll recall what my current wages are. And I’ve had my 1 year anniversary with raise. It was about 3%. That’s right, we’re talking a whopping 43 cents (give or take a penny). But, I’m sure if I just stay with this company long enough I’ll be just fine. Nevermind that they screwed me out of my health insurance.
Or, I could use the example of my previous job. Where I worked for 3 years, starting as a part time phone rep, and working my way up (rather quickly) to a full time full customer service rep. And even though I received glowing reviews, always learned all my tasks quickly and fully, worked hard, had near perfect attendance, and continually sought more responsibilities, management cut me off. Wouldn’t let me move up any further. Never saw my application for a higher position. When I quit that job I was earning a little less than what I’m currently earning. So, yes, the idea that you just have to stay with a company long enough and you’ll work your way up is perfectly valid.
Yes, I have qualms about putting the gov’t in charge of a health care system. Yes, I worry about those who will abuse the system. No, I don’t think we’re going to have a quick fix, or a miraculous cure. But, the status quo isn’t working. It hasn’t been working. It’s not going to start working. Staying with the current system just because you’re scared of the alternative doesn’t make sense.
But, it’s ok for me to work myself into an early grave so that I can afford health care for myself? It’s ok for one of my friends to put herself tens of thousands of dollars in debt doing the drug research that is providing you with good health care? (Do you know how much work grad students do in the research field? Practically for free.) See, this is what bugs me about this discussion. The assumption that I’m not working hard and I’m just living off your taxes and your hardwork. Guess what, I work my ass off everyday. And I always have. I don’t want your hand outs. I don’t want your charity. I just want to be able to go to the Dr when I’m sick, and get regular health check ups to make sure I don’t end up with the diabetes that every single person on my father’s side of the family has. (I can promise you that letting me get preventative care now will be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for my care when I’m a diabetic and on a gov’t funded health care system because I’m so sick I can’t work.) I just want to be able to live healthy and happy. And that includes not having to work 10-12 hours a day 6-7 days a week. I have a full time job. I have a BA. I even have a fancy-schmancy title: department Manager. I make well below the living wage. The living wage around here (calculated by me before the hike in fuel prices) is about $12.50 per hour. And when I say living wage, that’s what I mean. That’s the average amount of money a single person needs to earn to be able to live. That’s rent (on an average 1 bedroom apt), heating fuel, electricity, phone, gas, food, car insurance, college loans. You’ll notice I didn’t figure in a car loan (because I’m smart enough to not get a car I can’t afford), nor internet access, nor cable tv, nor going out to eat once a month, or renting a movie, or buying a new pair of shoes, or any of the myriad of things that make a life. Oh, but I did include a pet because the stress relief is key. Guess what I make. $10.60 per hour. In order for me to afford to live, I would need to work my full time job (38 hours per week, with a set, but constantly changing schedule that already eats up 1 weeknight and every other weekend nights) plus another part time job. I’ve done this, and it is not a healthy way to live. I still barely made enough to pay my bills, I was constantly tired, over stressed and permanently sick. And I still couldn’t afford to go to the dr even though I had insurance. How can you possibly consider this a system that works? It doesn’t. It’s a simple fact. This system does not work.
The thing is, nobody has to stay at a low income job. You don't even have to go to school to move up from low income, you just have to keep a job for long enough to move up in your position there. Which brings up why I hate it that they keep raising the minimum wage. The only people this really benefits is the people who skip from menial job to menial job and have no desire to ever do anything better. It hurts small business. But that's another arguement (sic).
I’m sorry, but I find this deeply offensive. You think I’m choosing to stay at a low paying job? Do you think I really have that many other options? Seriously? And to suggest that education is not necessary is the most absurd thing I’ve heard. I guess I shouldn’t have wasted my time going to college. I could have started out as a school janitor and worked my way up to superintendent in no time, right? Because the higher paid positions rarely require further training, education, or skills. As a further example, I did exactly what you’re talking about. I started out as a part-time menial laborer. I helped put together the store I’m currently working in. I helped put in the shelving, set all the displays, put out product. I was lucky enough to be kept on as a peon cashier. Quickly moved up to a part time “titled” position. Then earned a full time “titled” position. Within 10 months of starting with this company I earned the position I currently have. Perhaps you’ll recall what my current wages are. And I’ve had my 1 year anniversary with raise. It was about 3%. That’s right, we’re talking a whopping 43 cents (give or take a penny). But, I’m sure if I just stay with this company long enough I’ll be just fine. Nevermind that they screwed me out of my health insurance.
Or, I could use the example of my previous job. Where I worked for 3 years, starting as a part time phone rep, and working my way up (rather quickly) to a full time full customer service rep. And even though I received glowing reviews, always learned all my tasks quickly and fully, worked hard, had near perfect attendance, and continually sought more responsibilities, management cut me off. Wouldn’t let me move up any further. Never saw my application for a higher position. When I quit that job I was earning a little less than what I’m currently earning. So, yes, the idea that you just have to stay with a company long enough and you’ll work your way up is perfectly valid.
Yes, I have qualms about putting the gov’t in charge of a health care system. Yes, I worry about those who will abuse the system. No, I don’t think we’re going to have a quick fix, or a miraculous cure. But, the status quo isn’t working. It hasn’t been working. It’s not going to start working. Staying with the current system just because you’re scared of the alternative doesn’t make sense.
03 June 2008
The age old question: Who am I?
I’ve been contemplating my online presence lately. The absolute first thing known about me online is my name. Before a reader can discover I’m a dog loving, people hating, sarcastic cynic, they see my name. Which gives them an immediate clue about me, might even cause them to greet me with some suspicion. That’s what it was intended to do. My online name has stood me well over the years. That’s who I’ve been online almost as long as I’ve been online. Lately, though, I’ve been embracing a new and different name. One with a completely different message. It’s a sad thing. I have a major attachment to my name, a sort of nostalgia about it. I’m not sure I’m ready to give it up.
Aside from my online name, who am I? What is my online presence, and how do people perceive me? More importantly, how easy or difficult is it for someone to put me together, despite my disparate presence. In some ways it is easy to track me down online. I just told you that I’ve used the same name for years. Practically everything I’ve posted online has been under this name. Go ahead, google me, see what comes up. Just by following my comments and postings you can get a pretty good idea of what my interests are. You can’t, however, find out many truly personal details about me. Which is as it should be, as far as I’m concerned. I work hard to keep it that way. As you can guess, I frequently contemplate all this. Because my online presence is so separate from my real life presence, those who know me online more than likely would never know how to find any information if I ever disappeared. I’ve seriously considered, and fully intend to, create a list of websites and appropriate posts for someone to take care of, should anything ever happen to me. By which I don’t mean I die in a car crash this afternoon; I simply mean if I ended up extremely sick, or injured, or yes, in the hospital, there are online communities who should be informed.
What I less often contemplate is what conclusions could be drawn about myself based solely on my online presence. This idea was brought to my attention by a blog I recently read that proposed a very interesting history writing assignment. http://beyond-school.org/2008/05/24/doing-history-with-web-legacies/ As someone who has studied history, and done research with primary documents, I have often lamented the fact that today we so rarely write letters or correspond in ways that can be easily saved for posterity. I have often thought that with our new online world, so much of who we are will be lost because it is ephemeral. I’ve never thought of it from the angle provided in that assignment. It’s quite fascinating.
So, now that you know my entire online history is available at the touch of a button (or click of a mouse), and I’ve gone ahead and told you to google me, perhaps you’d like to fulfill that assignment and help me figure out who I am.
Aside from my online name, who am I? What is my online presence, and how do people perceive me? More importantly, how easy or difficult is it for someone to put me together, despite my disparate presence. In some ways it is easy to track me down online. I just told you that I’ve used the same name for years. Practically everything I’ve posted online has been under this name. Go ahead, google me, see what comes up. Just by following my comments and postings you can get a pretty good idea of what my interests are. You can’t, however, find out many truly personal details about me. Which is as it should be, as far as I’m concerned. I work hard to keep it that way. As you can guess, I frequently contemplate all this. Because my online presence is so separate from my real life presence, those who know me online more than likely would never know how to find any information if I ever disappeared. I’ve seriously considered, and fully intend to, create a list of websites and appropriate posts for someone to take care of, should anything ever happen to me. By which I don’t mean I die in a car crash this afternoon; I simply mean if I ended up extremely sick, or injured, or yes, in the hospital, there are online communities who should be informed.
What I less often contemplate is what conclusions could be drawn about myself based solely on my online presence. This idea was brought to my attention by a blog I recently read that proposed a very interesting history writing assignment. http://beyond-school.org/2008/05/24/doing-history-with-web-legacies/ As someone who has studied history, and done research with primary documents, I have often lamented the fact that today we so rarely write letters or correspond in ways that can be easily saved for posterity. I have often thought that with our new online world, so much of who we are will be lost because it is ephemeral. I’ve never thought of it from the angle provided in that assignment. It’s quite fascinating.
So, now that you know my entire online history is available at the touch of a button (or click of a mouse), and I’ve gone ahead and told you to google me, perhaps you’d like to fulfill that assignment and help me figure out who I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)