I do some gardening and home maintenance, as most who own a home with any land do. I've reduced the amount of lawn on my acre in favor of landscaping. It looks nicer and cuts down time on mowing. When I first started with it I worked on the popular conception of planting things I bought at local nurseries and weeding out anything else from the landscaping. As time has progressed, I've gone in a different direction.
See, life (living things) is an opportunist. There's no cognizant thought necessary. Life is just carpe diem. Look at the various plants growing in cracks in sidewalks and roads. They're going to get run over. They're going to get weeded or sprayed. If there was intelligence there, it wouldn't pick that spot. And yet, that's what works. Life seizing opportunities is why there is so much life. Plenty of those seized moments result in failure (death), but those that make it through spread life even further.
Sometimes that life seizing life is at the expense of other life, too. Quite often, actually. Kudzu strangles out other plants all across the South. Animals eat plants or other animals. Mammals become dominant over lizards. It's been going on as long as there's been life on Earth, if not longer on some other planet or moon in the universe.
Interestingly, the most succesful of living things on Earth is the only one to try to put the brakes on its seizing of opportunity. Humanity is the only living thing ever to have considered the matter, at least on this planet. Any other life on this planet that was as successful would simply continue to seize its opportunities until there were no more opportunities to be seized and it was so successful as to cause its own end.
But life is merciless. Life doesn't consider other life or inanimate objects. Life grabs what it can take for as long as it can take it. It may look beautiful to our eyes, as does my landscaping that's now a mix of bought plants and wild plants that have joined the fray, but it's not compassionate or in any way loving. Life's a bitch, then it dies.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Tipping
What's going on with tipping? When I was young, my mother the accountant taught me that a standard tip was 15% for good service, with bad service being something less and excellent service being something more. Now, advice columnists espouse 20% and a floor, and tell people that even the business owner should be tipped, at least in the context of a hair stylist.
How's that? The hair stylist is getting all of the money from the cost of the service if the hair stylist owns the business. The point of a tip is to provide more to a low paid employee for being particularly good at the job. It's a sort of incentive program for good service. The employer already has the incentive, to go along with all the money from the basic charge. If the owner doesn't provide good service, the business goes under.
Then there's the issue of mandatory tips. Those are reserved for large groups. It's just that what constitutes a large group seems to be shrinking. When I waited tables about 23 years ago a large group was 10, at least 8. Just a few weeks ago at The Green Turtle it was 6. That mean an 18% tip, without me having any say about it. And the service was maybe 15% on that occasion.
Which brings about my bigger beef. I'm not a fan of tipping in the first place. It allows employers to pay below minimum wage to people who are working hard and takes the management of those employees' performance out of the hand of the employer and puts it into the hands of the customer. I want the employer to be responsible for the employee's behavior. I don't want to have to be the one to regulate it, and indirectly at best. It's not like I can sit down and have a lengthy conversation with the server about performance and goals. I'd much rather the tips were abandoned and a full, living wage be paid to the employee, with commensurate firings for those not performing adequately.
How's that? The hair stylist is getting all of the money from the cost of the service if the hair stylist owns the business. The point of a tip is to provide more to a low paid employee for being particularly good at the job. It's a sort of incentive program for good service. The employer already has the incentive, to go along with all the money from the basic charge. If the owner doesn't provide good service, the business goes under.
Then there's the issue of mandatory tips. Those are reserved for large groups. It's just that what constitutes a large group seems to be shrinking. When I waited tables about 23 years ago a large group was 10, at least 8. Just a few weeks ago at The Green Turtle it was 6. That mean an 18% tip, without me having any say about it. And the service was maybe 15% on that occasion.
Which brings about my bigger beef. I'm not a fan of tipping in the first place. It allows employers to pay below minimum wage to people who are working hard and takes the management of those employees' performance out of the hand of the employer and puts it into the hands of the customer. I want the employer to be responsible for the employee's behavior. I don't want to have to be the one to regulate it, and indirectly at best. It's not like I can sit down and have a lengthy conversation with the server about performance and goals. I'd much rather the tips were abandoned and a full, living wage be paid to the employee, with commensurate firings for those not performing adequately.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Flags and Know Nothings (aka Tea Party)
I like flags. National flags, mostly, with the Maryland flag being an exception to otherwise largely dull field of state flags. I also like historical flags. I always have a US flag flying at my house, whether it's the current flag or a historical one, such as the circular star field of the original 13.
Recently I was shopping for replacement flags. My US flag was sun faded and my orignal 13 flag had gotten torn. I found a current flag easily enough but wasn't so lucky in finding the original 13. However, in the course of my search I did find a historical flag from the Revolutionary period. Actually, I found two that had some similarities, but important differences.
The Join, or Die flag shows clearly that the Revolution would not have succeeded if the 13 colonies hadn't united. In fact, the Articles of Confederation that first governed the 13 colonies also showed that being united had to be more than a European Union sort of unification. There had to be a strong central government to make decisions that affected all 13 colonies, or different numbers of them, because not all government decisions could be made at the state level. The squabbling between the original 13 brought actual governance to a halt, much like the European debt crisis drags on and on without a central decision making authority.
Of course, I bought the Join, or Die flag. There's no time for subtlety when there's this much stupidity running around.
Recently I was shopping for replacement flags. My US flag was sun faded and my orignal 13 flag had gotten torn. I found a current flag easily enough but wasn't so lucky in finding the original 13. However, in the course of my search I did find a historical flag from the Revolutionary period. Actually, I found two that had some similarities, but important differences.
One was the Don't Tread on Me flag depicting the coiled snake. The other is the Join, or Die flag depicting a snake in several pieces, with each piece representing a colony or region. The Know Nothings have seized on the Don't Tread on Me flag as a symbol of their terrible oppresion under the tax code of the United States.
The Join, or Die flag shows clearly that the Revolution would not have succeeded if the 13 colonies hadn't united. In fact, the Articles of Confederation that first governed the 13 colonies also showed that being united had to be more than a European Union sort of unification. There had to be a strong central government to make decisions that affected all 13 colonies, or different numbers of them, because not all government decisions could be made at the state level. The squabbling between the original 13 brought actual governance to a halt, much like the European debt crisis drags on and on without a central decision making authority.
The Know Nothings, as befitting their lack of intellectual heft, use the Don't Tread on Me flag to mean something it didn't mean during the Revolution. The snake on the flag represents the united colonies resisting the crown. They were being stepped on because the crown was imposing taxes in which the colonies had no say, as well as quartering troops in private homes, among other indignities. None of this is what's going on in the US today. The taxes at the federal level are taxes resulting from votes by duly elected representatives of the very people claiming they're being oppressed. They're not being oppressed. They just don't like that they were in the minority in the most recent election.
The Know Nothings totally miss the point of what the Founding Fathers learned. To be free the colonies, later states, needed to be united. They needed to work together to address the problems that crossed state lines. That's precisely why the Constitution was drafted. It was a work of compromise that papered over significant conflicts between the states, but it created the framework for a central government that could evolved over time to address the needs of the people.
We the People. It's right in the first words of the document as to who it's for.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Pandora and Personality
I recently bought an iPhone. To be accurate, I bought iPhones for myself, my wife, and the two kids. Anyway, the three of them give me grief about how few apps I have on the phone that's really a small computer. One of the few I have is Pandora.
Pandora is an internet radio of sorts. You create stations by entering an artist or song, which it plays for you and then cascades from there to other songs and artists who are in the same field of sound and style. It means you don't pick your own songs but go with whatever the algorithm provides.
My wife doesn't like Pandora much because she doesn't have control over what's being played. She wants to pick the song she wants to hear. I like it. I like the new discoveries that result. Besides, I'm seldom in the mood for only one song or artist.
It's a difference in personality. She wants control. I like going with the flow. It works pretty well for us in the marriage, too, as long as we're communicating well about these things. I've seen the same dynamic in vacations, which she likes to schedule. By working a give and take between us, we end up with a vacation that has some structure to it but isn't limned with requirements of being at x place at y time.
Pandora is an internet radio of sorts. You create stations by entering an artist or song, which it plays for you and then cascades from there to other songs and artists who are in the same field of sound and style. It means you don't pick your own songs but go with whatever the algorithm provides.
My wife doesn't like Pandora much because she doesn't have control over what's being played. She wants to pick the song she wants to hear. I like it. I like the new discoveries that result. Besides, I'm seldom in the mood for only one song or artist.
It's a difference in personality. She wants control. I like going with the flow. It works pretty well for us in the marriage, too, as long as we're communicating well about these things. I've seen the same dynamic in vacations, which she likes to schedule. By working a give and take between us, we end up with a vacation that has some structure to it but isn't limned with requirements of being at x place at y time.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Skew the Game
My wife has some Republican tendencies. As a result, she's made a big deal of the fact that Obama recently had the single largest, in terms of money, campaign fundraising event ever, and that Obama spent far more than McCain in '08. The angle of attack is that Obama isn't any representative of the common man but a tool of wealthy interests. I can always tell when she's been watching Faux News.
There are major flaws with this line of thinking. First, Obama's spending in '08 was from large numbers of small donations, not big spenders. Kind of had to be, then, as Citizens United hadn't been decided yet. The campaign money spiggot that's now open was closed then. So nowhere near as much money could even come into the campaigns unless it was from a wider base of sources, which dilutes the influence of the large money donors.
This is the flaw in the thinking behind Citizens United. Well, one of the flaws. By equating money with speech, the Supreme Court decided that the speech of the wealthy is more important than the speech of the non-wealthy. Everyone has an equal right to spend as much money as he or she wishes on campaign electioneering that's not directly controlled by a candidate, but the wealthy easily shout down all those who don't have the disposable cash to spend on TV, radio, and newspaper ad buys, as well as internet ads, come to think of it.
Anyway, back to the point. The fact that Obama raised the most money at one event isn't nearly as significant as how much money is raised over the course of a camaign. Romney is quickly overcoming Obama there with all the unregulated money of wealthy donors, which is another vast difference between the two campaigns. While only something around 16% of Obama's donations come from those making the maximum contributions, Romeny's percentage is around 80%. The huge number of dollars coming in to Obama are from small donators, giving what they can. Obama manages to get a few larger contributors together at one event, but that's nothing compared to the many large donations coming in to Romney.
Who does Faux News think it's kidding (other than the obvious answer of my wife)? They helped lobby for this fucked up system that Citizens United has wrought because it provides diproportionate benefits to the few that their party represents. Now they try to portray this free money system as benefitting the very man they targeted by this effort.
There are major flaws with this line of thinking. First, Obama's spending in '08 was from large numbers of small donations, not big spenders. Kind of had to be, then, as Citizens United hadn't been decided yet. The campaign money spiggot that's now open was closed then. So nowhere near as much money could even come into the campaigns unless it was from a wider base of sources, which dilutes the influence of the large money donors.
This is the flaw in the thinking behind Citizens United. Well, one of the flaws. By equating money with speech, the Supreme Court decided that the speech of the wealthy is more important than the speech of the non-wealthy. Everyone has an equal right to spend as much money as he or she wishes on campaign electioneering that's not directly controlled by a candidate, but the wealthy easily shout down all those who don't have the disposable cash to spend on TV, radio, and newspaper ad buys, as well as internet ads, come to think of it.
Anyway, back to the point. The fact that Obama raised the most money at one event isn't nearly as significant as how much money is raised over the course of a camaign. Romney is quickly overcoming Obama there with all the unregulated money of wealthy donors, which is another vast difference between the two campaigns. While only something around 16% of Obama's donations come from those making the maximum contributions, Romeny's percentage is around 80%. The huge number of dollars coming in to Obama are from small donators, giving what they can. Obama manages to get a few larger contributors together at one event, but that's nothing compared to the many large donations coming in to Romney.
Who does Faux News think it's kidding (other than the obvious answer of my wife)? They helped lobby for this fucked up system that Citizens United has wrought because it provides diproportionate benefits to the few that their party represents. Now they try to portray this free money system as benefitting the very man they targeted by this effort.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Making Decisions
Yesterday I touched on the problem of parents making decisions, and teaching their kids the same. Seems like more than a few kids are led down the path of "I can do it all", which is far from the truth.
It reminded me of how hard it is for decisions to be made in work places. Small businesses are less likely to have this problem, especially if they're so small as to be run by one person, but in a big business like the one I work in, making a decision is a lost skill.
Nothing can be decided of any significance, and what's significant keeps getting smaller and smaller, without three levels of discussion, if not more. And that's just on a simple claim. Don't let there need to be a decision on something broader, like the generality of how to structure the claim handling. That takes years of committees and pilot programs. And the end result is what you'd expect from that many cooks in the soup. All very frustrating.
It reminded me of how hard it is for decisions to be made in work places. Small businesses are less likely to have this problem, especially if they're so small as to be run by one person, but in a big business like the one I work in, making a decision is a lost skill.
Nothing can be decided of any significance, and what's significant keeps getting smaller and smaller, without three levels of discussion, if not more. And that's just on a simple claim. Don't let there need to be a decision on something broader, like the generality of how to structure the claim handling. That takes years of committees and pilot programs. And the end result is what you'd expect from that many cooks in the soup. All very frustrating.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Physics and Childhood
I've read about the over schedulers of the world, and sometimes I feel like I've become one with the dance activities for my daughter, but I've really run into one now.
A friend of my daughter goes to the same dance studio and is on the competition team. She also has been doing cheerleading, lacrosse, field hockey, GT class work, and on and on. Every thing that comes across her path that she finds interesting she wants to do. And her parents go right along with that.
The thing is, there's only so much time in a day and only so many places you can be at one time. In fact, it's 24 hours in a day and only one place that you can be at a given time. This is causing conflicts with the various activities, and the mom wants to try to get the activities to tailor a schedule to the daughter can do everything. But you can't. The space time continuum will win on this everytime.
What needs to be done is the making of decisions. Choices have to be made. "If I'm going to do X, I can't do Y."
We started on that a long time ago. Katya was limited in the number of dance classes she could take, especially if she wanted to do something else, like soccer or Girl Scouts. Over the years she's decided dance is her favorite, and she now takes a lot of dance classes. But, she's not doing anything else, either.
A friend of my daughter goes to the same dance studio and is on the competition team. She also has been doing cheerleading, lacrosse, field hockey, GT class work, and on and on. Every thing that comes across her path that she finds interesting she wants to do. And her parents go right along with that.
The thing is, there's only so much time in a day and only so many places you can be at one time. In fact, it's 24 hours in a day and only one place that you can be at a given time. This is causing conflicts with the various activities, and the mom wants to try to get the activities to tailor a schedule to the daughter can do everything. But you can't. The space time continuum will win on this everytime.
What needs to be done is the making of decisions. Choices have to be made. "If I'm going to do X, I can't do Y."
We started on that a long time ago. Katya was limited in the number of dance classes she could take, especially if she wanted to do something else, like soccer or Girl Scouts. Over the years she's decided dance is her favorite, and she now takes a lot of dance classes. But, she's not doing anything else, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)