eateggs.com

So as I was reading The Restaurant At the End of the Universe, and I’ve came upon a rather clever section. It reads:

“I always thought that about the Garden of Eden story,” said Ford.
“Eh?”
“Garden of Eden. Tree. Apple. That bit, remember?”
“Yes, of course I do.”
“Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don’t eat the apple. Surprise, surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting ‘Gotcha.’ It wouldn’t have made any different if they hadn’t eaten it.”
“Why not?”
“Because you’re dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won’t give up. They’ll get you in the end.”
“What are you talking about?”
“Never mind. Eat the fruit.”

This is brillient. Why else would God place the forbidden fruit in the garden, if not to play his “gotcha games?” Doubtless, had Adam & Eve managed to resist the temptation of the forbidden fruit, God would have found something else to trick them with– alas, such is God’s nature, is it not?

As long as I’m thinking of The Hitchhiker’s Guide, I might as well post this:
http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/
I hate to say it… but this doesn’t bode well for the success of the movie.

So I discovered an error in my script today. Comments posted by anonymous users could be deleted by any user who was not logged in. This was brought to my attention when I noticed that all of the anonymously posted story-endings were mysteriously gone. Looking back, it seems that all of the anonymous posts have been deleted. Ug. I think I have a backup of my mysql database at home that I can restore the story endings from (god, I hope) but in the mean time I’ve fixed my code. Whoever you are that capriciously deleted those comments: go to hell. You’re not welcome here.

Edit: I had a backup of my MySQL database, so I was able to put the comments back in. All is well that ends well.

And so here’s what terrifies me:

I guess it didn’t really strike me as much at the time: Bush’s administration finally announced what many of us had known for quite some time: there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

This seems insignificant– but its implications are quite startling. In admitting that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush administration is admitting that there is no justification for the war in Iraq. Again, for many of us, this comes as no surprise. But what of the rest of the country? Of the general populace who meekly accepted that perhaps there was some rational for the war? Where’s the backlash? Where’s the anger that they were deceived? –That tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed, and hundreds of Americans for absolutely no reason. Where’s the care that we’re at war? Where?

So. At 9:37AM I wake up and roll out of bed. I put some clothes on, grabbed my laptop (literally just my laptop– no bag, no books, no pen, etc.), walked to class, sat down, opened up the laptop, talked to Sagar online for 50 minutes, closed my laptop, walked back to my Quad and went to sleep.

Ok, well, that last little bit is something of an embellishment. The real end of the story goes: walk back to my Quad, post on my Blog, take a shower, eat some lunch, THEN go to bed. Just the same. =)

As I was reading Kindred (a dreadfully banal pseudo-science fiction book for my T&C class) I was struck by one of the characters responding “no” when asked “are you alright.” This struck me because, although I’ve heard people say no to that question before, for me it’s not an expected response, and it borders on annoying.

There’s really only one response to “are you alright?” The response, of course, is “yes” or “yeah, I’m fine” or “hurts a bit, but I’ll make it” or any of its thousand positive variants. The only other possibility is to not respond at all, which would indicate that one is, in fact, not alright.

When someone responds, “no, I’m not alright,” it just strikes me as overwhelmingly whiney. Maybe that’s due to my upbringing, or my personal snobbery, or what-have-you, but I guess it just seems like such an exaggeration. “Oh my god. I’m having such a personal crisis. No, I’m not alright.” Of course you are. You’re alive, you’re breathing, and you’re not in imminent peril. How could you not be alright?

So there’s really not any point to this, other than to explore for myself why it is that I’m so caught off guard when someone claims to not be alright. Hmm. What ev’. =)

Well, the results are in for the “I Planned For This” story endings. (See: http://www.eateggs.com/index.php?id=258)

In order of appearance, the authors are:
Myself
Bubien, the real author
Meekyung
Bovard

Thanks for everyone who contributed an ending!

In my T&C class I managed to beat the author– more people thought my ending was the real ending than the real ending. Heh.

In other news, Mr. Ben, my RA, took four naps yesterday. Four.

What a guy. =)

Blog has reached version 2.995. There has been a minor interface revision and the links page is up as well.

JadeRobbins wrote:
Yeah but you sit on your ass and surf the Internet all day for your job. Remember Mark, some people think that money will just appear into people’s hands, but no that doesn’t happen, it would have to come from the people that got rich from Wal-Mart. Do they deserve that much money” YOU BET YOUR ASS THEY DO, Wal-Mart wouldn’t be as successful if it wasn’t for the people at the corporate office thinking up business strategies, etc.

Now for my other rant. You get paid pretty good money to SIT ON YOUR ASS and use a computer. It wouldn’t be that bad of an issue if you all were the worlds most perfect employees and all got up every 5 minutes and pushed in chairs instead of the usual 20. The people at Wal-Mart work way harder than you do, are you willing to get paid less because the job you work is easier?

I’m very deserving of this rant. We all are. You bet we sit on our asses in front of a computer, and are paid rather well to play flash games and do homework. We’re unwilling to work any but the choicest schedules—before 10:00AM? No, that’s too early for me! Every once in a while we get up and push in a few chairs, and that’s really about it. You’re absolutely right that the people at Walmart that stock shelves and check people out and clean the floors and the toilets and push in carts in three degree weather are doing more work in an hour than most USAs do in a week or more. Is it fair that I’m paid better to sit on my ass then they are to work their asses off? I don’t know. Is it fair that one gets paid $5.15/hour to make burgers at McDonalds, which is high pressured, greasy and long work, while a lawyer gets $200/hour to sit in front of his computer and type out briefs? I don’t know. Truthfully, it’s probably not. But life’s not fair, eh, Jade? By merits of desirability of work, corporation executives should make less money than garbage men. But that’s not how it works.

So we get paid handsomely to sit around make tell Michael when the printers break. We don’t have to clean. We don’t have to take out the trash. Even our staples and post-its are even brought to us. I do homework. I send emails. And I get paid for it. I push chairs in every once in a while, but I’m certainly not a model employee.

As long as I’m on this train of thought, let me suggest that maybe we could or should do more. Maybe, on those long weekend shifts or late at night when there’re two USAs, one trainee and two users in the labs, we could close the doors to a room and bust out the vacuum cleaner. Cleaning shifts? Honestly. There’s no shortage of free time, and if a few USAs spent an hour less playing CurveBall and an hour cleaning the labs, not only would they look a lot better, but one could do away with training shifts as well and save the university a little bit of money. Before you decry me for my hypocrisy, stop. I’ve done this once or twice. I cleaned Reid 304 the other night, just to prove that it could easily be done. It took me an hour. But there’s really no incentive to keep doing it, because without the cooperation of others, it’s a lost cause. Yeah, it’s a nice idea, but it’s never going to happen on its own. Perhaps if people were assigned to do it, although there would be quite an outcry (oh my god, we actually need to do something other than sit on our asses), it could be done. Sign me up. I’ll do the first shift.

So should I go out and give all the money I make to poor, impoverished Walmart families? Maybe—lord knows they work a lot harder than I do.

JadeRobbins wrote:
I just think it’s funny for you to sit on your high horse and talk about people being mistreated when you seem to have a pretty cushy lifestyle. If you care so much, why not donate everything to a charity for Wal-Mart workers so that you all can be on an equal living scale? Oh I guess you can’t do that because then you might have to sell your computer and nice little quad over on campus.

Yeah, I do have a very cushy lifestyle. I have everything I need, and most of what I want. What’s more, most of it has just been given to me—I haven’t worked for it or earned it. Here, Mark, have a car. Gee, thanks, Mom & Dad. Here, Mark, have a scholarship. You didn’t even apply for it, but we’ll give it to you anyway. Gee, thanks, MSU. Here Mark, … etc. And for all that, I’m pretty ungrateful. I still find reasons to complain. But why should that stop me from believing that other people should be afforded the same opportunities? Why should that stop me from being an advocate of employee rights and fair pay? Why should having a good life myself stop me from being able to want other people to have what I have or better?

JadeRobbins wrote:
Should [Wal-Mart] audit its business practices in order to make people like you not feel guilty for shopping there?

Oh, don’t worry about me. I certainly don’t shop there, and certainly don’t feel guilty about not supporting Wal-Mart.

JadeRobbins wrote:
Do you go around to local businesses around here and check to see if women advance as much? No you don’t because people seem to think that local small businesses are utopian and perfect, well they aren’t.

Local businesses are owned and run by individuals—bosses, supervisors, owners, managers, etc.—people who have moral obligations and humanity. No, I’m sure that local businesses are far from perfect. But I’ll promise you that a local business cares a whole lot more about its employees than the local Wal-Mart.

JadeRobbins wrote:
One last point, Mark talks about how being a large company that Wal-Mart needs to set a good example, and it is. The purpose of corporations and any business is to make money, and Wal-Mart is setting a great example for other corporations.

From a business standpoint, Walmart is an archetypical corporation—everything a corporation should be. It’s huge, and it’s hugely profitable. As I discussed above, as a corporation it’s expected and required to make money for its stock holders. It has no moral obligations to its employees or to its customers—only to its stockholders. So if that means using underpaid immigrant workers, or if that entails the use of third-world sweat-shop child labor, or if that entails consuming hundreds of mom-and-pop stores, or if that entails the rape and pillage of the environment, then more power to the corporation because its fulfilling its purpose of making money. A corporation has no soul. No conscience. No emotion. It only has a mission statement and a board of directors. It’s a servant to the almighty dollar. And that’s it. And Wal-mart? They’re good. They’re real good. They’ve figured out how to sell more stuff cheaper. How to hire more people for less money. How to lower the bar on low prices and low quality. How to keep profit margins high and overhead low.

Never mind the individuals. Never mind the people that make Wal-Mart run. Forget the truckers that make the goods—hell, forget the 14 year-old Columbian that made the shirts in the first place. Forget the checker. Forget the store clerks. Forget the women and illegal immigrants. They’re all just people. Not money. And we all know what’s important to a corporation.

It’s 8:36AM on a Monday morning. I don’t have any obligations until 9:00AM, and yet I’m up, showered, and have enough free time to post on my blog.

This is terrible.

Well, like I said: it’s Monday morning. It must be a fluke.

So here’s a confession: I didn’t do any homework all weekend. Not that I didn’t have any homework to do, just I … never sat down to do it. I actually brought my stuff downstairs last night, but them somehow I managed to distract myself until, oh, say, around 2:45 this morning, and all without doing any homework. I ROCK!

Well, I’m off to go get some breakfast. Great god– I can’t remember when the last time I ate breakfast was.

Since I frequently include my blog in outside discussions, I figure it’s about time to include an outside discussion in my blog. Just because it’s interesting, here’s a bit of conversation from a work discussion about Walmart closing down a store because it threatened to become unionized:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/09/news/international/walmart_canada/

Walmart is the embodiment of every abuse and error associated with the term “corporation.”

Walmart is quickly becoming notorious for its civil rights abuses. The corporation is facing a class action lawsuit on behalf of 1.6 million female workers for its corporate condoned policies of discriminating against women and advancing male workers over more qualified female employees. Forbes points out that “U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins found that attorneys for the six named class representatives, in a case that started three years ago, “present largely uncontested, descriptive statistics which show that women working in Wal-Mart stores are paid less than men in every region, that pay disparities exist in most job categories, that the salary gap widens over time even for men and women hired into the same jobs at the same time, that women take longer to enter into management positions, and that the higher one looks in the organization, the lower the percentage of women.’”

Additionally, Walmart has come under pressure for hiring illegal immigrants and then refusing to pay them minimum wage due to their non-citizen status (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20041107-9999-8n7jobs.html). Their control over their employees rights is almost unprecedented– no other chain has so thoroughly rebutted attempts at unionization, and it’s doubtful that many have invested more money into countering laws that would require fair and equitable treatment of its employees.

Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman provide a compelling example:

In California, in November, the company was able to stave off by a 51-to 49 percent margin a proposition that would have required every large and medium employer in the state to provide decent healthcare coverage for their workers, with the employer contribution set at a minimum of 80 percent of costs.

Wal-Mart dumped a half million dollars into the anti-Proposition 72 campaign just a week before the vote.

“As one of California’s leading employers, we care about the health of our 60,000 employees here,” said Wal-Mart spokesperson Cynthia Lin, in celebrating the defeat of Proposition 72. “That’s why we provide our employees with affordable, quality health care coverage.”

“Prop. 72 was never about Wal-Mart,” she claimed. “It was about allowing businesses to operate without unreasonable government mandates, it was about the survival of small businesses and it was about consumer choice in healthcare benefits.”[/quote]
An earlier portion of the same article notes that [quote=”Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman”]A February 2004 report issued by Representative George Miller, D-California, encapsulated the ways that Wal-Mart squeezes and cheats its employees, among them: blocking union organizing efforts, paying employees an average $8.23 an hour (as compared to more than $10 for an average supermarket worker), allegedly extracting off-the-clock work, and providing inadequate and unaffordable healthcare packages for employees.

[quote=”JadeRobbins”]This further increases the wage gap because the people who are educated are getting paid well, but the people who aren’t think they should get paid more, so they don’t work.[/quote]
Walmart is clears over $218 billion dollars a year in sales, and yet its average employee makes only $11,000, well below the national average.

[quote=”Anthony”]and if you thinnk about the 200 people that are “working poor” at a Wal-Mart, think about the thousadns of people who benefit from having a wal-mart near thir homes. The presence of a wal-mart will raise the standard of living for the comunity as a whole, not the undereducated employees of said wal-mart.[/quote]
Try 1,300,000 people who are employed by Walmart across its nearly 3,000 stores. Additionally, they still pay for it, just in other ways. When you factor Ben’s cited $420,000 per year per 200 employee store across California’s 44,000 Walmart employees, one finds a net cost of almost $10,000,000 of California taxpayer money to provide for public assistance programs for Walmart employees. Granted, the use of public assistance programs isn’t unique to Walmart, but according to an August 2004 report issued by Arindrajit Dube and Ken Jacobs, “the families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 38 percent more in other (non-health care) public assistance programs (such as food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing) than the average for families of all large retail employees.” The same report notes that “If other large California retailers adopted Wal-Mart’s wage and benefits standards, it would cost taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance to employees.”

I’d better stop. I’ve already invested WAY too much valuable homework time into this post already…