Some say the world will end in fire;
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-Robert Frost
Has anyone else noticed how morbid we, and the media, seem to be getting? We can't just blame the media for their fascination with death, destruction and apocalypse, because we buy the products that fill the commercial breaks. Lately, I've been doing a not-so-scientific survey of all the programs that predict, fictionalize or otherwise cover the end of the world.
As for the fictional, we have already been destroyed by weather-control machinery, asteroids, comets, earthquakes, nuclear explosions (though these are rather blasé), global warming, tsunamis, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, black holes and aliens many and sundry. We can add to this space viruses, super-Ebola, biological attacks, terrorism in all its forms and of course, zombies. Never forget the zombies or the killer tomatoes.
As for documentaries, we get entire channels devoted to programs telling us exactly how the world will come to an end. Plate tectonics will destroy us all. We'll alternately boil, freeze, drown, dehydrate or asphyxiate depending on which global climate change program you are viewing. Hurricanes are getting more severe, we have more sunspots and droughts are everywhere. Super-bugs, like H1N1, which I am convinced came from my parents' uncleaned basement, will soon overcome all with floods of mucus-soaked tissues. California, like Atlantis, will sink into the sea or drift off in its own direction. That this has already happened psychologically is irrelevant.
Remember Y2K? The entire world was going to stop because programmers had forgotten to put two additional digits in the year field of databases. I decided to spend the night before the "Y2K event" in Detroit, thinking if any city was going to collapse entirely under badly-constructed computer systems, Detroit was the #1 candidate. I was rather disappointed.
Now we have 2012, some day in December I've heard. I don't mind, because really the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas has always been problematic to me. Students panic at their abysmal grades, people run around looking for the "in" gift for the season and we get yet more warnings about sliding retail sales and credit card debt. It also historically has started a chain reaction of 'cello gigs that keeps me in a tuxedo in my car eating cheeseburgers from one musical religious pageant to another. So that one probably wouldn't bother me that much either.
Even better are the speculative documentaries that attempt to document speculations. Nostradamus, Bible codes, Revelations, Leonardo, Freemasons, Fraggles and prophets using everything from crystal balls to adding machines fill yet another program slot. The Nostradamus Effect is a series entirely devoted to these various prophecies. Frankly, I've always found that it is much easier to read these things and test their veracity after the fact, when you can interpret the code however you want. According to my the dandruff on my cat, we are likely to have a cold, windy winter.
So we have global destruction on fictional, factual and speculative dimensions. But that's not where it ends. We're also incredibly fascinated by individual deaths.
They said it was a "bad summer" for generation X, as we supposedly lost most of our role models, assuming we gained them in the first place from popular culture. I tended to get mine from Gothic romance and historical fiction, but nevermind. Don't you think a hysterically dramatic and romantic death like Madame Bovary's would just be incredibly good entertainment? Damn, VH1 probably already had that idea. Then Andy Cohen from Bravo will interview all the folks with witty comments about their lack of class.
I'm not going to list these notables, not because they aren't worth mourning I suppose, but I hate to be guilty of the random beatification of a particular celebrity. Do I really need to spell out the strange prioritization that occurred with this summer's death toll? How does the media (and the public) determine how long is appropriate for hysterical, media-driven despair to last per celebrity? Is it based on the disease, the scandals, the finances, the drugs, the record sales, the number of movies or programs? Is there a formula somewhere that says we're allowed to mourn pancreatic cancer for longer than breast cancer? Is there another one that allows us to differentiate between journalists of great merit and men who die in sexual-asphyxiation accidents?
So death seems to feature high on our priorities for our viewing pleasure. Whether it's personal, global, national or universal, we will find a way to cover it with suitably-selected computer graphics. I know this sounds cynical, but every time I hear one of the prophecies or new deadly illnesses I think to myself "Yeah, right. Like you're going to get off that easy." I know things can get tough, but does subconscious yearning for the end of the world or our own lives somehow make the present more palatable?
So, will it be fire or ice? Frankly, I'm too busy living to care.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
In the eye of the Beholder
Beauty is a funny thing. We're obsessed with it as a culture. Whether it's art, architecture, music or the human body, we assess and put a value on something that really is impossible to measure. Most of the time we can't even articulate what it is. Yet we still spend out time trying to measure, and even worse, compare one form of beauty to another.
I watched the last season of Celebrity Apprentice. Jesse James, of West Coast Chopper fame, received the backhanded compliment that there must be something that the cast couldn't see, because he was married to Sandra Bullock. In 2003, however, he was named one of People's 50 most beautiful people. So in six years, he went from "beautiful" to "huh?" I was rather angry. Not because I knew that he was "beautiful" in 2003, but that someone would make such a comparison. The fact that Joan Rivers went on to win the season is an irony that I hope is no longer missed by anyone.
We're also obsessed with fat. It's an odd obsession. We can't decide if we're supposed to be compassionate towards, love, loathe or fear fat. Last week was a moment of incredible cognitive dissonance. Did anyone else notice that Biggest Loser's premiere was on at exactly the same time as the finale of More to Love? I admit it. I didn't watch More to Love. I didn't watch it not because I was revolted by the size of the people involved, but instead revolted by the idea of the "True Love Match" occurring in a single season. Did you also notice that Dance Your Ass Off seems to be in a run-off (excusing the pun) with Dancing with the Stars and So You Think You Can Dance? Please don't forget Dating in the Dark, either.
We have Susan Boyle. She became an international sensation when three celebrity judges were surprised that she could sing. Why would that be a surprise? Because of the way she looked? One judge pointed out how shallow they all were. No, really?
Let's not forget America's . . . Next . . . Top . . . Model! This season, Tyra's crusade is to open up the modeling world to the poor unfortunate girls who are under 5'7". Squat, short, ugly little things that they must be. We even had a season where a "Plus Size" model won, in Cycle 10. Hooray for fat people! Oh, never mind, she's between a size 10 and a size 12 and most of the designers didn't have clothes for her. She's still not the average. I hate to beat the drum for unrealistic body images, but let's face it: models are not like normal people. They're taller, between 5'9" - 5'11". They're smaller, between sizes 0-4. Who would make a size numbered 0? Are you nuts? The "average" American woman is 5'4" and a size 14. Even a "Plus Size" model has to be a TALL 10-12. How are we combating unrealistic body images here, exactly?
Fat is beautiful. Fat is unhealthy. We're starving ourselves to death. We're eating ourselves to death. We spend too much on plastic surgery, so why not try this $300 jar of fish egg cream? I'd rather eat it, preferably with a Vodka flight and some blini. We keep going a multi-billion dollar dieting industry. We have charts to tell us how fat we are by height, weight and BMI.
So back to Biggest Loser. One contestant mentioned that she no longer wanted to be "just" a pretty face or a nice personality, codewords in the dating world for "You'd better get out the forklift and blindfold if you're going to date." I can't blame her. I'm a "great smile" with a dose of "really funny," and a heaping portion of "great personality" myself. Try marketing yourself in the gay community with those descriptors. It's hard to articulate those qualities to someone who has nothing but a penis shot on their profile. How does one open up a conversation with a penis? I've always felt uncomfortable with that idea.
So if "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," then we are some of the mostly willfully blind people ever. We have eyes, but we would rather concentrate on flaws. We have minds, but we'd rather not think. So what is beautiful? I can't articulate it clearly either, but I hope I'll know it when I see it.
Beauty is a funny thing. We're obsessed with it as a culture. Whether it's art, architecture, music or the human body, we assess and put a value on something that really is impossible to measure. Most of the time we can't even articulate what it is. Yet we still spend out time trying to measure, and even worse, compare one form of beauty to another.
I watched the last season of Celebrity Apprentice. Jesse James, of West Coast Chopper fame, received the backhanded compliment that there must be something that the cast couldn't see, because he was married to Sandra Bullock. In 2003, however, he was named one of People's 50 most beautiful people. So in six years, he went from "beautiful" to "huh?" I was rather angry. Not because I knew that he was "beautiful" in 2003, but that someone would make such a comparison. The fact that Joan Rivers went on to win the season is an irony that I hope is no longer missed by anyone.
We're also obsessed with fat. It's an odd obsession. We can't decide if we're supposed to be compassionate towards, love, loathe or fear fat. Last week was a moment of incredible cognitive dissonance. Did anyone else notice that Biggest Loser's premiere was on at exactly the same time as the finale of More to Love? I admit it. I didn't watch More to Love. I didn't watch it not because I was revolted by the size of the people involved, but instead revolted by the idea of the "True Love Match" occurring in a single season. Did you also notice that Dance Your Ass Off seems to be in a run-off (excusing the pun) with Dancing with the Stars and So You Think You Can Dance? Please don't forget Dating in the Dark, either.
We have Susan Boyle. She became an international sensation when three celebrity judges were surprised that she could sing. Why would that be a surprise? Because of the way she looked? One judge pointed out how shallow they all were. No, really?
Let's not forget America's . . . Next . . . Top . . . Model! This season, Tyra's crusade is to open up the modeling world to the poor unfortunate girls who are under 5'7". Squat, short, ugly little things that they must be. We even had a season where a "Plus Size" model won, in Cycle 10. Hooray for fat people! Oh, never mind, she's between a size 10 and a size 12 and most of the designers didn't have clothes for her. She's still not the average. I hate to beat the drum for unrealistic body images, but let's face it: models are not like normal people. They're taller, between 5'9" - 5'11". They're smaller, between sizes 0-4. Who would make a size numbered 0? Are you nuts? The "average" American woman is 5'4" and a size 14. Even a "Plus Size" model has to be a TALL 10-12. How are we combating unrealistic body images here, exactly?
Fat is beautiful. Fat is unhealthy. We're starving ourselves to death. We're eating ourselves to death. We spend too much on plastic surgery, so why not try this $300 jar of fish egg cream? I'd rather eat it, preferably with a Vodka flight and some blini. We keep going a multi-billion dollar dieting industry. We have charts to tell us how fat we are by height, weight and BMI.
So back to Biggest Loser. One contestant mentioned that she no longer wanted to be "just" a pretty face or a nice personality, codewords in the dating world for "You'd better get out the forklift and blindfold if you're going to date." I can't blame her. I'm a "great smile" with a dose of "really funny," and a heaping portion of "great personality" myself. Try marketing yourself in the gay community with those descriptors. It's hard to articulate those qualities to someone who has nothing but a penis shot on their profile. How does one open up a conversation with a penis? I've always felt uncomfortable with that idea.
So if "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," then we are some of the mostly willfully blind people ever. We have eyes, but we would rather concentrate on flaws. We have minds, but we'd rather not think. So what is beautiful? I can't articulate it clearly either, but I hope I'll know it when I see it.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Elephant in the Room
You know you're not supposed to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Jimmy Carter called the elephant out and introduced it to us as "Racism." But there are a lot of elephants in the room that go unmentioned. I'd like to introduce you to the mother of all the elephants in the room, prejudice.
prej·u·dice 1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims 2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristic (Mirriam-Webster Online)
Was Joe Wilson being racist? I don't know. Frankly, I don't care. Racism is indeed ugly. But it's just one baby elephant. It certainly has deserved attention, but again, it's just one member of the herd. We've watched two specials on "Black in America," had it implied that Obama called Kanye West "a jackass" as a political artifice. Of course, the fact that Obama is only voicing an opinion that most of the United States probably shares at this time becomes irrelevant. I have to admit I laughed at it all. I particularly found amusing the fact that Kanye is even allowed within 3 miles of a microphone during an awards show. But racism is really only part of the picture, isn't it?
Looking at the definition furnished by our friends at Mirriam-Webster, prejudice is "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge." Simply, it's the ability to believe the worst of something or someone before anything has actually happened. Democrats represent one form of prejudice. Republicans represent another. We have the "birther" movement that somehow cannot accept the fact that Obama was actually born an American citizen on American soil. We see on television people, that for whatever reason, think that Muslims are taking over the country. So much for a country founded on religious freedom. Gays have some hidden agenda, though if you know many gay men the idea of a hidden agenda in the face of a penchant for gossip is rather ludicrous. The Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission are working together with the Papacy. We need to fix "Our Broken Borders," a codeword that always seems to be associated with some form of xenophobia. White people don't care about black people (Sorry, Kanye). We see that the road goes in two directions. Everyone wants to believe the worst of everyone else.
"The great melting pot," an illusion of homogeneity that has been pushed in our culture as trend like molecular gastronomy, has utterly failed to encapsulate the reality that is American culture. It would imply that we were (and are) on the same page. We're not. With homophobia comes heterophobia. Guess what? We don't trust you either. With religion, we get schisms, crusades and jihads. With politics we get blind adherence to a party without sufficient knowledge and trophies made out of the head of whichever party member has managed to embarrass themselves that week. We're not the same, don't think the same and don't act the same.
But the issue, I think, boils down to the simple phrase "before sufficient knowledge." When I still taught college classes, I'd often be asked what I thought about the "War" in Iraq. I would see my military students cringe and brace themselves for what they thought would be a liberal diatribe about the evils of war. My answer was always the same, "I don't know, I haven't been there, I don't necessarily believe what I've been told and I don't have first-hand knowledge, so I can't give you an opinion." One student gave me his deployment coin one term. He gave me that coin, which I will always treasure and keep safe, because he said I refused to voice an opinion before I had sufficient knowledge. I refused, at least in that instance, to give in to prejudice.
I'm not some paragon of tolerance; I have my own predilections (Mirriam-Webster lists predilection as a synonym for prejudice.) I've been part of diversity groups, interest groups, diversity training and every conceivable grouping of people grasping for some shared form of rationality. I must admit, I'm prejudiced against the prejudiced. I keep adding people to that group as my general cynicism grows. I've added a lot of educators to that list. I've added relatives, friends and former friends, colleagues, supervisors, media outlets, journalists, pundits and just about every other type of person. I want to believe the best of everyone. I really do. I desperately fight not to generalize out or categorize from many of the unpleasant experiences I've had. It's getting harder.
But, I'm still going to fight that fight. I'm not going to accuse Joe Wilson of racism. I have to admit, I'll accuse Kanye West of utter and complete tactlessness. I'm not going to accuse Jimmy Carter of oversimplifying the situation. I won't even smack the people who think Muslims are taking over the country. But the one battle I will continue to fight, every day, is the idea of formulating an opinion "before sufficient knowledge." That's all I can do.
So the question is: what do you think you can do?
You know you're not supposed to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Jimmy Carter called the elephant out and introduced it to us as "Racism." But there are a lot of elephants in the room that go unmentioned. I'd like to introduce you to the mother of all the elephants in the room, prejudice.
prej·u·dice 1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims 2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristic (Mirriam-Webster Online)
Was Joe Wilson being racist? I don't know. Frankly, I don't care. Racism is indeed ugly. But it's just one baby elephant. It certainly has deserved attention, but again, it's just one member of the herd. We've watched two specials on "Black in America," had it implied that Obama called Kanye West "a jackass" as a political artifice. Of course, the fact that Obama is only voicing an opinion that most of the United States probably shares at this time becomes irrelevant. I have to admit I laughed at it all. I particularly found amusing the fact that Kanye is even allowed within 3 miles of a microphone during an awards show. But racism is really only part of the picture, isn't it?
Looking at the definition furnished by our friends at Mirriam-Webster, prejudice is "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge." Simply, it's the ability to believe the worst of something or someone before anything has actually happened. Democrats represent one form of prejudice. Republicans represent another. We have the "birther" movement that somehow cannot accept the fact that Obama was actually born an American citizen on American soil. We see on television people, that for whatever reason, think that Muslims are taking over the country. So much for a country founded on religious freedom. Gays have some hidden agenda, though if you know many gay men the idea of a hidden agenda in the face of a penchant for gossip is rather ludicrous. The Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission are working together with the Papacy. We need to fix "Our Broken Borders," a codeword that always seems to be associated with some form of xenophobia. White people don't care about black people (Sorry, Kanye). We see that the road goes in two directions. Everyone wants to believe the worst of everyone else.
"The great melting pot," an illusion of homogeneity that has been pushed in our culture as trend like molecular gastronomy, has utterly failed to encapsulate the reality that is American culture. It would imply that we were (and are) on the same page. We're not. With homophobia comes heterophobia. Guess what? We don't trust you either. With religion, we get schisms, crusades and jihads. With politics we get blind adherence to a party without sufficient knowledge and trophies made out of the head of whichever party member has managed to embarrass themselves that week. We're not the same, don't think the same and don't act the same.
But the issue, I think, boils down to the simple phrase "before sufficient knowledge." When I still taught college classes, I'd often be asked what I thought about the "War" in Iraq. I would see my military students cringe and brace themselves for what they thought would be a liberal diatribe about the evils of war. My answer was always the same, "I don't know, I haven't been there, I don't necessarily believe what I've been told and I don't have first-hand knowledge, so I can't give you an opinion." One student gave me his deployment coin one term. He gave me that coin, which I will always treasure and keep safe, because he said I refused to voice an opinion before I had sufficient knowledge. I refused, at least in that instance, to give in to prejudice.
I'm not some paragon of tolerance; I have my own predilections (Mirriam-Webster lists predilection as a synonym for prejudice.) I've been part of diversity groups, interest groups, diversity training and every conceivable grouping of people grasping for some shared form of rationality. I must admit, I'm prejudiced against the prejudiced. I keep adding people to that group as my general cynicism grows. I've added a lot of educators to that list. I've added relatives, friends and former friends, colleagues, supervisors, media outlets, journalists, pundits and just about every other type of person. I want to believe the best of everyone. I really do. I desperately fight not to generalize out or categorize from many of the unpleasant experiences I've had. It's getting harder.
But, I'm still going to fight that fight. I'm not going to accuse Joe Wilson of racism. I have to admit, I'll accuse Kanye West of utter and complete tactlessness. I'm not going to accuse Jimmy Carter of oversimplifying the situation. I won't even smack the people who think Muslims are taking over the country. But the one battle I will continue to fight, every day, is the idea of formulating an opinion "before sufficient knowledge." That's all I can do.
So the question is: what do you think you can do?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Expression is a Costly Venture
I went to Emerson College. The motto of the college when I attended was "Expression is Necessary to Evolution." This is a laudable concept. But how much does expressing oneself cost? It depends on who you are. I sit here at my computer, unemployed, and "express" my opinions for free. It that sense, I am very cost effective.
We all know now about the poor representative from South Carolina, Joe Wilson who heckled President Obama during his address during a prime-time joint session of Congress. Desperate to fill a twenty-four news cycle, the media immediately latched on the lapse of decorum and then proceeded to connect it to every other instance of rudeness documented during the "summer break," of town hall meetings and mob psychology. Opponents of whatever possible health care reform bill you can think of have immediately distanced themselves from the hapless Wilson, who has reportedly just increased his election war chest by one million dollars. Of course, so has his Democratic opponent. At the same time, proponents have decided to open up a debate on Wilson's rudeness in the House. By now, you're thinking "Oh great, another blog entry about rude people." Nope. Let's talk finances.
Finances? What do finances have to do with Joe Wilson heckling the President? More than you might think. The debate about Wilson's behavior is decried as a waste of time and a distraction. They're right. It's also a waste of money. I did a few calculations trying to figure out how much money it takes Congress to pass non-binding and random resolutions that really don't get anything done but fill space on C-SPAN. These are just rough numbers folks. Finding actual accurate data has been difficult at best.
The "average" representative makes an annual salary of $174,000. In addition to this, a representative is granted at least $1,299,292 for expenses annually. These are just the base numbers. I'm not including the cost of the Capitol, infrastructure or maintenance. This means that per representative we spend $1,473,292 at a minimum annually. Annually, Congress meets approximately 160 days a year. If we estimate a work day of 8 hours, then our representatives cost a minimum of $1151 each per hour (approximately $19/minute) based on dividing the annual cost by the number of session hours. But Congress works more than just in session, right? That's not fair! Well, it was before. In 1789, representatives were paid $6.00 per day that Congress was in session. Between 1815-1817 Congress was on a $1500 annual salary before returning to a per diem of $8.00 per session day until 1855 where the annual salary was reenacted. This is just for one representative. We have 435 "voting" members in the House of Representatives alone.
According to general House rules, co-sponsors of a resolution get 40 minutes of discussion time to allocate, 20 minutes per sponsor. This, again, is a minimum. This means that per resolution we spend an average of $767 on each representative. You multiply this number and you realize that each resolution costs a minimum of $333,792 in representative expenses alone. Again, to be fair, I'm being conservative. I'm not counting the amount of paper, ink, reproduction costs for each of these resolutions.
So discussing Joe Wilson costs the American public $333,792 at a minimum. Since it's obviously beyond the 40 minute mark, it's costing us much more. So this "distraction" is costing us $8,265 every minute that it continues. So yes, it really is a waste. However, neither party has a monopoly on useless, time and money-wasting resolutions. We have designated "Buckle Up America Week," and successfully established that "Yankee Doodle" is from Fort Crailo in Rensselaer, New York. These are examples from the 103rd Congress. Guess which one was sponsored by which party. Does it really matter?
The mind boggles when you begin to multiply these costs by the number of resolutions "expressing," "congratulating," "recognizing," or creating "Awareness." When I searched "expressing" in the same Congress, I got over 202 resolutions. Again, just with the minimum numbers, the 103rd Congress spent at least $67,425,984 dollars "expressing" itself. And they're worried about a budget deficit, paying for health care reform or complaining about "taxing and spending" behavior? I wonder if anyone in the GAO is listening.
I think I'd like to present a bid to aid Congress. To save time, and money, I am willing to sacrifice myself for the mere price of $50,000 per useless resolution, a cost savings of $283,792 per expression. I won't even ask for an office or a staff. You want September 21, 2009 designated as "Official Penguin Dancing Day?" Done. Ka-ching!
Or even better, maybe we all want to express that Congress is wasting a lot of money doing remarkably stupid things. The cost: priceless.
We all know now about the poor representative from South Carolina, Joe Wilson who heckled President Obama during his address during a prime-time joint session of Congress. Desperate to fill a twenty-four news cycle, the media immediately latched on the lapse of decorum and then proceeded to connect it to every other instance of rudeness documented during the "summer break," of town hall meetings and mob psychology. Opponents of whatever possible health care reform bill you can think of have immediately distanced themselves from the hapless Wilson, who has reportedly just increased his election war chest by one million dollars. Of course, so has his Democratic opponent. At the same time, proponents have decided to open up a debate on Wilson's rudeness in the House. By now, you're thinking "Oh great, another blog entry about rude people." Nope. Let's talk finances.
Finances? What do finances have to do with Joe Wilson heckling the President? More than you might think. The debate about Wilson's behavior is decried as a waste of time and a distraction. They're right. It's also a waste of money. I did a few calculations trying to figure out how much money it takes Congress to pass non-binding and random resolutions that really don't get anything done but fill space on C-SPAN. These are just rough numbers folks. Finding actual accurate data has been difficult at best.
The "average" representative makes an annual salary of $174,000. In addition to this, a representative is granted at least $1,299,292 for expenses annually. These are just the base numbers. I'm not including the cost of the Capitol, infrastructure or maintenance. This means that per representative we spend $1,473,292 at a minimum annually. Annually, Congress meets approximately 160 days a year. If we estimate a work day of 8 hours, then our representatives cost a minimum of $1151 each per hour (approximately $19/minute) based on dividing the annual cost by the number of session hours. But Congress works more than just in session, right? That's not fair! Well, it was before. In 1789, representatives were paid $6.00 per day that Congress was in session. Between 1815-1817 Congress was on a $1500 annual salary before returning to a per diem of $8.00 per session day until 1855 where the annual salary was reenacted. This is just for one representative. We have 435 "voting" members in the House of Representatives alone.
According to general House rules, co-sponsors of a resolution get 40 minutes of discussion time to allocate, 20 minutes per sponsor. This, again, is a minimum. This means that per resolution we spend an average of $767 on each representative. You multiply this number and you realize that each resolution costs a minimum of $333,792 in representative expenses alone. Again, to be fair, I'm being conservative. I'm not counting the amount of paper, ink, reproduction costs for each of these resolutions.
So discussing Joe Wilson costs the American public $333,792 at a minimum. Since it's obviously beyond the 40 minute mark, it's costing us much more. So this "distraction" is costing us $8,265 every minute that it continues. So yes, it really is a waste. However, neither party has a monopoly on useless, time and money-wasting resolutions. We have designated "Buckle Up America Week," and successfully established that "Yankee Doodle" is from Fort Crailo in Rensselaer, New York. These are examples from the 103rd Congress. Guess which one was sponsored by which party. Does it really matter?
The mind boggles when you begin to multiply these costs by the number of resolutions "expressing," "congratulating," "recognizing," or creating "Awareness." When I searched "expressing" in the same Congress, I got over 202 resolutions. Again, just with the minimum numbers, the 103rd Congress spent at least $67,425,984 dollars "expressing" itself. And they're worried about a budget deficit, paying for health care reform or complaining about "taxing and spending" behavior? I wonder if anyone in the GAO is listening.
I think I'd like to present a bid to aid Congress. To save time, and money, I am willing to sacrifice myself for the mere price of $50,000 per useless resolution, a cost savings of $283,792 per expression. I won't even ask for an office or a staff. You want September 21, 2009 designated as "Official Penguin Dancing Day?" Done. Ka-ching!
Or even better, maybe we all want to express that Congress is wasting a lot of money doing remarkably stupid things. The cost: priceless.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Celebrating the Disasters of Our Lives
I love the news. It allows me to track the anniversary of every horrific event ever to strike the world over the lifespan of an average generation X-er.
So what are we celebrating now?
We're celebrating the anniversary of the collapse of the financial system, September 14. We just finished celebrating September 11, and I'm sure we'll find another disaster to celebrate within the next week or so. It reminds me of when we used to make up holidays as an excuse to go to the bar, eat chocolate or order pizza. "It's National River Birch Day!"
Maybe like me, you're watching the discussion of President Obama's speech. You're hearing about the fact that "Wall Street," that mysterious financial entity that lives in a world only vaguely parallel to ours, hasn't learned "its" lesson yet. Maybe you saw the blip on adding more regulations, or loosening up credit restrictions so that businesses and people can start spending money again. Maybe, like me, you see the demagogues, the pundits, the talking heads point their fingers and shake their heads like a gag from The Colbert Report. Republicans did it. Democrats did it. The communists in China are responsible. It's a plot for reparations. It's a plot to socialize us. But it all comes down to a group of people saying that we need to spend more money.
Why do we need to spend more money? There seems to be the most odd tension between realizing that being frugal has its own reward and a desire to consume what we can't really afford. Isn't that what credit is? Being able to buy what you can't afford to pay for all at once?
People are learning to cook again. Walmart tells us that we can eat breakfast at home and save money. No, really? Restaurants that serve over-priced pub food are now pushing value meals like McDonald's. The idea of "game night" has becoming a selling point for shops. People are actually (I mean, really!) looking in fliers, newspapers, coupon books and advertisements and going to (shock!) different stores for different items. Smaller grocery chains are learning what they can't make up in economy of scale in selling Pepsi, they can actually compensate through service and local produce that doesn't rot before you get it out of the Big Box Store. We start looking at ways to stretch what we have rather than just toss it out and start over.
I'm "funemployed." I don't know who coined that term. I saw it online. I can't pretend that I'm suffering. I'm not. I was (and am) lucky that for now, at least, I have the money I need to pay my health insurance, buy food, keep a roof over my head, pay utilities and my auto insurance. It may be that things get grim for me before they get better. I lost my credit score years ago in my own conspicuous consumption cycle. I don't have credit cards. I don't have a mortgage. My car, thankfully, is paid off and though a death trap, it's a fuel-efficient death trap. So I put my in applications, cross my fingers and figure out new ways to stretch the time that I now have available so I don't talk to my cats that often. I promised myself not to worry until they started talking back.
So it's back to fundamentals for me. Ordering pizza is a luxury. Comparison shopping not only fills the time but gives me the satisfaction of knowing that I am getting the best value I can. I test generics for flavor. I hit the sales at the various pet stores so my cats aren't being fed Ramen noodles and using an empty litter box. I eat my vegetables. I have more fun chatting with the people at the laundromat than the drunken queens at the bar. Buying a book is cheaper than buying a video game. I've figured out 1,700 recipes to use eggs that are on sale for 88 cents a dozen. I've figured out ways to make leftovers into a new gourmet dish by baking it with something else. I buy the manager's specials. I haven't bought any new clothes since January, but who needs to when everything is now a trend from the 80s? Do I really need harem pants?
The best comment I heard today in the analysis is that companies are going to have to adjust to the fact that people aren't as likely to finance their lives with 200 not-so-easy payments. It's viewed as a problem. Is it really a problem? Does sweating the payments on a room-sized flat screen TV equal the sense of security that you have from knowing you have a buffer for when things go wrong? We stopped leasing and trading cars, a practice I actually never quite understood in the first place (feel free to explain it to me). Does actually owning something not feel better than renting it?
They say frugal is the new black. It's an odd metaphor to compare a perspective on finances to a fashion trend. If the "new black" gets us to stop wasting, start living within our means, sacrificing the convenience of one-stop shopping to the joy of small businesses and relearning "a penny saved is a penny earned," how is this a problem? Okay, for some industries this is going to hurt. But maybe the "new black" will allow us to stay in the black for the long term and luxuries will become special rather than commodities.
So what are we celebrating now?
We're celebrating the anniversary of the collapse of the financial system, September 14. We just finished celebrating September 11, and I'm sure we'll find another disaster to celebrate within the next week or so. It reminds me of when we used to make up holidays as an excuse to go to the bar, eat chocolate or order pizza. "It's National River Birch Day!"
Maybe like me, you're watching the discussion of President Obama's speech. You're hearing about the fact that "Wall Street," that mysterious financial entity that lives in a world only vaguely parallel to ours, hasn't learned "its" lesson yet. Maybe you saw the blip on adding more regulations, or loosening up credit restrictions so that businesses and people can start spending money again. Maybe, like me, you see the demagogues, the pundits, the talking heads point their fingers and shake their heads like a gag from The Colbert Report. Republicans did it. Democrats did it. The communists in China are responsible. It's a plot for reparations. It's a plot to socialize us. But it all comes down to a group of people saying that we need to spend more money.
Why do we need to spend more money? There seems to be the most odd tension between realizing that being frugal has its own reward and a desire to consume what we can't really afford. Isn't that what credit is? Being able to buy what you can't afford to pay for all at once?
People are learning to cook again. Walmart tells us that we can eat breakfast at home and save money. No, really? Restaurants that serve over-priced pub food are now pushing value meals like McDonald's. The idea of "game night" has becoming a selling point for shops. People are actually (I mean, really!) looking in fliers, newspapers, coupon books and advertisements and going to (shock!) different stores for different items. Smaller grocery chains are learning what they can't make up in economy of scale in selling Pepsi, they can actually compensate through service and local produce that doesn't rot before you get it out of the Big Box Store. We start looking at ways to stretch what we have rather than just toss it out and start over.
I'm "funemployed." I don't know who coined that term. I saw it online. I can't pretend that I'm suffering. I'm not. I was (and am) lucky that for now, at least, I have the money I need to pay my health insurance, buy food, keep a roof over my head, pay utilities and my auto insurance. It may be that things get grim for me before they get better. I lost my credit score years ago in my own conspicuous consumption cycle. I don't have credit cards. I don't have a mortgage. My car, thankfully, is paid off and though a death trap, it's a fuel-efficient death trap. So I put my in applications, cross my fingers and figure out new ways to stretch the time that I now have available so I don't talk to my cats that often. I promised myself not to worry until they started talking back.
So it's back to fundamentals for me. Ordering pizza is a luxury. Comparison shopping not only fills the time but gives me the satisfaction of knowing that I am getting the best value I can. I test generics for flavor. I hit the sales at the various pet stores so my cats aren't being fed Ramen noodles and using an empty litter box. I eat my vegetables. I have more fun chatting with the people at the laundromat than the drunken queens at the bar. Buying a book is cheaper than buying a video game. I've figured out 1,700 recipes to use eggs that are on sale for 88 cents a dozen. I've figured out ways to make leftovers into a new gourmet dish by baking it with something else. I buy the manager's specials. I haven't bought any new clothes since January, but who needs to when everything is now a trend from the 80s? Do I really need harem pants?
The best comment I heard today in the analysis is that companies are going to have to adjust to the fact that people aren't as likely to finance their lives with 200 not-so-easy payments. It's viewed as a problem. Is it really a problem? Does sweating the payments on a room-sized flat screen TV equal the sense of security that you have from knowing you have a buffer for when things go wrong? We stopped leasing and trading cars, a practice I actually never quite understood in the first place (feel free to explain it to me). Does actually owning something not feel better than renting it?
They say frugal is the new black. It's an odd metaphor to compare a perspective on finances to a fashion trend. If the "new black" gets us to stop wasting, start living within our means, sacrificing the convenience of one-stop shopping to the joy of small businesses and relearning "a penny saved is a penny earned," how is this a problem? Okay, for some industries this is going to hurt. But maybe the "new black" will allow us to stay in the black for the long term and luxuries will become special rather than commodities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
