TALKING ABOUT STUFF I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT...

      Since the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza, my Twitter feed has lit up with supporters for Gaza and I think one person for Israel. It's very lopsided. Apparently the United States is the only nation right now supporting Israel in its decision. I'm not sure if that means the United States is on the wrong side of this issue or if it means the United States is the least anti-Semitic country. I mean, there's still a lot of hatred for Jews around the world and in Europe. I guess the guilt over Germany's actions in World War II has worn off?

      Still, I wonder if all this support for the Gazans is real or just lip-service. Do the nations opposed to Israel's incursion aid the West Bank and Gaza strip to the tune of billions of dollars in annual aid? I'm just speaking out my ass right now, but I feel like the supporters for Gaza are related to the pro-life people.

      The pro-life people fight tooth-and-nail to protect the lives of unborn fetuses and put just as much energy into shaming poor, single mothers and fighting the social welfare programs designed to at least give them a leg-up in life. In other words, they don't put their money where their mouth is. They want to force all pregnancies to term but are not interested in making sure those children have a chance in life.

      The Gaza supporters go out of their way to immediately blame Israel for its deeds with no blame-sharing (i.e. how much of this is Israel's fault and how much of this is the Palestinians fault?) but leave it at that. The Gazans have the verbal support of the world, but should not ever expect them to pony up some foreign aid (and not simply humanitarian aid) and/or military support...the kind of support they'd actually need if these protestors were actually interested in helping them.

      Personally, I'm not too interested in what goes on there. I'm not saying Israel should wipe every Gazan off the face of the Earth, but why can't they use their military to bring about a forced relocation of the Palestinians in Gaza to the West Bank and then annex the territory? It's an old-school tactic. Apparently that's wrong now: it has been arbitrarily decided that maps are permanent now.
      Why can't the other countries of the world bring a united force together to oppose Israel? I don't want to hear some bullshit about the United Nations. The United States has veto power: they obviously wouldn't approve a military strike against one of its allies. But why should that stop the Middle Eastern nations from sending a force over? Or the European Union? Or the African Union? Or China? Or whomever? Do they really think the United States would declare war on those who did? The United States is strong, but even it cannot fight a war against, say, sixteen nations at the same time. And it needs those nations for trade/oil anyway so really, what's the United States going to do?
      That's why I feel like all this outpouring of support for Gaza is bullshit.

     Also, when did the deaths of a few hundred or even a few thousand people get to be considered genocide? Whenever I hear that word, I'm picturing the on-purpose deaths of a significant percentage of a people.
     Cambodia's actions under the rule of the Khmer Rouge offer a guideline for what that percentage ought to be. The Khmer Rouge killed a quarter of Cambodia's population and that was considered a genocide. I can go for that. I would consider something a genocide once the death count requires two commas or represents 25% or more of the targeted population, whichever comes first.

      Okay, I'm done talking about shit I know nothing about...

STARTING TO WONDER IF I SHOULD BE TAKING MY OWN ADVICE...

     I am deliriously unhappy at my job or I'm deliriously unhappy about knowing that I still have around thirty-five years to go before I can collect Social Security or both...

     Over a year ago, I listened to Winwood grow ever more unhappy with her job and once I had heard enough conversations about it, began gently encouraging her to quit for her own mental health. Later on, I dropped the "gently" part.
     Eventually Winwood did quit though I can't say my encouragement had anything to do with it or if total burnout had finally occurred.

     Of course I look at her now, still unemployed and no prospects for future employment ahead...I see her falling deeper into despair and wonder if ultimately my advice was sound or if she'd practically, if not literally, be dead by now had she continued. It remains to be seen but the fact remains that she left her job without first securing a new one. I want to believe she will turn out all right but I do worry about her for the time being.

     As for me, I feel like I should quit my job. Again, I don't really know for what reason. I just feel like I've had enough but I don't know what I've had enough of. It's not like the job is physically demanding or even mentally demanding. It just is. I'm a cashier for the majority of my time there. But the fact is, aside from my friend the Security Guard and the occasional old coin I find in my till, I have nothing to say about my job that suggests I should remain there.
      Years ago I would've recommended anyone work for my company. I thought it a fair place and felt treated well. I can't say with certainty what has changed, only my feelings on it, but now I would not recommend getting a job for that company. I just wish I could remember these things for when I fill out my employee satisfaction surveys each year. I always circle the lowest number for morale but I fail to recall good reasons for it in the space provided. It's not like that survey appears the same day each year. I usually just say that I am made to feel more like a number than a person and that I am viewed as an unwanted expense. That in of itself is pretty harsh but barely gets to the root of my dissatisfaction.

      I have felt pangs of hope before. The Security Guard keeps swearing to take me away from that place but every lead he's had so far over the years has not panned out.

      I've been afraid to just quit. Quitting is not in my nature (cf. any entry about Digby) and it's not like it's easy to be fired from my job since I won't steal (neither time nor money...and besides, doing so deliberately would be a form of quitting) and I don't feel like cursing out management (despite the ever-present temptation to do so with my current overnight manager who has lowered considerably my respect for the company seeing as how he still has a job). I wish I could fall victim to some metric that's mostly out of my control or to a layoff but I'm trapped.

      But I wonder if I should resist that fear? Even overcome it...and just do it already.

      I wonder how long it would take me to decompress? You know I wouldn't even consider looking for work right away. It's been so long since I've been free without guilt (I feel I should add that since the weeks I had between jobs living with my Dad were not meant to be enjoyed since I promised I would find work right away). I think my last guiltless free time was the Summer of 1996 while building up residency in New York to go to college there a year later. I remember unplugging my clock and taping over the VCR's time so that I would just do things as I pleased and more importantly, stop when I pleased rather than because The Simpsons was coming on. Eat when I was hungry and not because it was 6 o'clock. Get up because I was rested and not because the alarm went off or I "should" be up by a certain time. It was wonderful.
      And like Winwood, if I did do this, I would be doing so without a job already lined up which could prove dangerous. I would be poised to immediately eat into my savings and I've stated in a previous entry, I have plenty to live for a while without working.
      But then I wonder if I would ever look for work again. From my perspective right now, I would say no definitively. It's not even a question but I do wonder. How long would it take me to get over this mental fatigue from my current job and get to a point where I'd want to work again?

      Based on my savings, I could go at most six or seven years. Three years before I'd have to cash out IRA accounts. So basically three years, but realistically two because I imagine if I did this I would have no choice but to learn to drive at some point.
      Learning to drive might further the delay in a search for work because I imagine a wanderlust would set in. I'd want to visit people I've been unable to see and perhaps make up for the many times I've had to be that guy who made somebody pick me up to go somewhere.

      I don't know. It's an entertaining fantasy but the fact is, it feels like it has already happened...like I've already reached acceptance in my brain. I feel myself weakening mentally. I find it takes longer and longer to talk myself out of quitting each day...even on my days off. My shift has been over for over four hours now and I'm still thinking about it. The cacophony of "leave" is catching up to the shouts of "stay". They feel almost, if not already, equal now...perhaps the leaves are already louder.

      But what would I do?

      One argument I already envision is people chastising me for doing so when, for years, they've never been happy that I've worked there for so long. These same people feel like I could be doing so much better with my mind than working there and I do foresee them being upset that I had left. Ugh...

      Still...would it be worth it? Should I at least take the rest of the year off or would I become desirous of routine long before that? I never liked having to go back to school each year but then I also didn't like the onset of Summer vacation. Perhaps it was the same thing...I had become routinized to the school year and didn't want to see it end and then later I had become routinized to the carefreeness of Summer vacation and didn't want to see that end.
      How long would it take me to miss the ebb and flow of my workweek?

      It would be a bad idea but I think I should do it. I promised Twin I would work for her this coming Monday and Tuesday, my usual nights off so I definitely have to keep it together long enough for that. My coworker is on vacation for another two weeks but then I have reached the point where I don't give a shit about hurting the store.

      I'll have to see how I feel Tuesday.

      Maybe this is none of those instances I should talk it over with my Best Friend first and especially Winwood since this whole scenario is reminiscent of her own...


The Cars: Door to Door, 1st song - "Leave or Stay"

I DON'T WANT YOUR FOOD RELIGION...

     I am fortunate to have friends from all sides of the political divide even if the majority of them fall into the liberal side of the equation. One of the things I see popping up in my Facebook feed is a call for the labeling of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). It's taken me a while, but I have come down decidedly against such labeling, at least so long as it is mandatory.

     First of all, I don't find the proponents of such labeling to be putting forth scientific arguments. They fail to establish how transgenic plants (and presumably one day, animals, but let's stick to plants for this post) are inherently different from plants produced by selective breeding, grafting, cloning, and chemical and radiation-induced mutagenesis (i.e. the deliberate damaging of DNA).
     Calling it unnatural is a non-starter since both grafting exists and bacteria having been trading genes with each other across species for billions of years. Perhaps analogously, it is the bacterial version of sexual reproduction.
      I would need a reason (or reasons) that make the insertion of a gene into a plant's DNA fundamentally different from any of the other mentioned methods. Presently the only difference I can say exists definitively is that the changes wrought by such gene insertions are far more precise than any other form of selective breeding as this chart shows.

(click to enlarge)

      Nextly I've learned that such a label would be redundant. There's already a label for it: organic. In order for a foodstuff to receive the coveted organic label, among its requirements is that the foodstuff cannot have been made using GMO plants.
      Therefore, if you do not want GMO products in your diet, you have the organic label to provide you with that reassurance.
      When I originally made this point I was told that organic products are expensive to which I replied they are expensive because they are not popular. If getting GMOs out of people's diets is the goal of label proponents, they need only begin advertising this fact. If getting GMOs out of diets is truly the will of the people, they would then flock to organic products, having a new reason to do so. More people desiring organic products would put pressure on producers which in turn would increase the amount of such products on the market and drive their price down.  I got no response to that.

      It was with this mentioning of the already-existing organic label that got me believing that GMO labeling proponents are not about creating an informed citizenry. I could argue that it is about fear-mongering (especially the calls/stall tactic for ascertaining its safety when I don't see them eager to have scientifically verified/disproven the legitimacy of their claims about organic foods) and while that may be a component of the push for GMO labeling, I thought of it as something else instead: religion.

      As far as I know, there's no science behind organic food nor its movement. Organic appears to me as a philosophy, perhaps a misguided philosophy but a philosophy nonetheless akin to other values-based, but often pseudoscientific, movements like raw food advocacy and alternative medicine. It's presented in an emotionally persuasive, but not evidentially persuasive, way by practitioners to prospective converts. Logical fallacies like "appeal to nature" are also employed but I'm digressing...

      What I'm getting at is I see anti-GMO movement as an offshoot of the organic movement, though still most definitely under the natural food movement's umbrella. For me, their dietary requirements are akin to religious dietary requirements.
      Take kosher (or halal) for example. There's nothing dangerous or particularly unhealthy about non-kosher foods nor is there necessarily anything better or healthier about kosher ones. People consume non-kosher foods all the time without consequence to their health. Scientifically there's nothing to support keeping kosher either. There's some ret-conning of things like pork saying that trichinosis was common back in ye olde days so avoiding pork was a good idea but that's not why this was done.
      No, the reason why religious dietary restrictions exist is the same reason why cultural idioms exist: it serves as a useful way to solidify membership/express solidarity in an exclusive club (so to speak) and to identify outsiders. There are plenty of war stories about how spies were caught not because of some elaborate operation, but because they looked the wrong way first before crossing the street.

     Organic worshipers (if you will) have a set of values by which they abide and through these values, offer a means to show solidarity with fellow practitioners and like any religion, there's an ever-present need for additional adherents to avoid extinction.

      Anyways, plenty of products exist out there which are naturally kosher but others may fall into a gray area and though I'm not Jewish, my store has a rather large Passover selection when the holiday rolls around. Simple observation shows that Passover has its own requirements, or at least stricter ones, as certain products are labeled as being kosher, but not kosher for Passover and others as kosher always.
      If you want kosher products, you have an easy means for identifying them in the marketplace whether the K in a circle symbol or "parve". You can choose to buy kosher whether you are Jewish or not. There are also no requirements (to my knowledge) that all foods that are kosher be labeled as such. It is a voluntary label for the voluntary adherents of Judaism. It might be good business, but it is not a required business.

      I see the organic label as no different than the kosher label and I view the movement to have GMOs labeled without proper scientific reasoning to back up such a labeling requirement as no different than Jewish leaders petitioning Congress to mandate the labeling of all non-kosher foods in the US marketplace. There's no need to label foods as non-kosher when a kosher label already exists and it would violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution I would assume for the government to mandate such labeling as it would appear to be the sponsoring of a religion.
     There's no science behind kosher, only religious values. There's also no science behind organic labeling, only values. Labeling GMO foods does not educate or inform the consumer, it would only promote ignorance in a manner similar to when people use the lay definition of theory when deriding a scientific theory they disagree with. It is not a safety issue since GMO foods are not substantially different from non-GMO foods nutritionally (and if they are, that would require a label or the modification of an existing one like golden rice for example, the Vitamin A section of the nutrition label would have a different number than ordinary rice). We already happily import non-native plants and animals so it can hardly be considered an environmental issue either.
      The FDA already has a black mark against it because its authorizing act specifically exempted pseudoscience-based homeopathic remedies from scrutiny and Congress has never fixed this. The USDA doesn't need a similar black mark with GMO labeling.

      I guess the point is - assuming I've even been making one - is that if you're promoting your values, advertise the organic label better to both increase your adherents and bring down the cost of organic foodstuffs. But until and unless you have a scientific argument to support GMO labeling, I want you to keep your religion out of my food...

PERHAPS AN EXPLANATION?

      While talking with Winwood the other day, one of her stories reminded me of when Bronx suddenly disappeared from my life. I gave her the quick-version of the story about how we had met online and talked over the phone for close to three years. We had always spoken about meeting but one thing or another would always keep us apart (especially Bronx's lack of money from never having had a job the whole time I had known her) until that one day when we finally did meet and spent an afternoon together in New York City and how then shortly thereafter, she just cast me out of her life.

      I wondered why Bronx had suddenly up and left after that. It was then that Winwood suggested it was because we had met and not that it had anything to do with me but that Bronx had had a notion in her head of what I was supposed to be like and that I didn't meet that expectation. She compared it to reading a novel and having your version of the characters in your head and then seeing them portrayed in a film.

     I have to say that this explanation made a lot of sense to me. Not that I like having lost a friend for so long like that but at least Winwood's logic of why Bronx may have left fit rather well with the scenario.

     I'm still not happy that Bronx is gone. I did like her a lot but I guess I was something to her that I never actually was...

WORKPLACE COMMENTARY...

      My coworker commented the other night that she must have killed someone in a past life in order to explain her luck and predicaments in this life.

      I replied that I must've organized the massacre of a village to explain mine. Not leaving well enough alone, as well as the laugh I got from my friends, I added that I probably had the pregnant women of that village brought forth and ordered my men to cut the babies from their wombs and shown to their respective mothers before having them [the mothers] decapitated.

      It got quiet for a moment; a silence I broke with me saying, "I make statements like that and wonder why girls don't want to talk to me."

      I swear I'm harmless, haha.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY...

     It's Digby's birthday today. It's been a little over three years since I would last see her somewhat regularly hoping for that chance and never getting it. Yeah, I still kinda miss her. I never said I wasn't pathetic...


     This card is so true :-)

NOTHING LEFT...

     A week ago, my job switched to "lane accountability". Management claimed our supermarket was actually in the minority of stores still not practicing it. While it may be entirely unrelated, our supermarket is also the top one in our area so maybe don't fix what ain't broken?

     I've been through lane accountability before. It's where instead of getting an individual till, you share tills with other employees. The lane itself is proven rather than the individual and if the lane is short/over then those cashiers using the lane go on cash control in an effort to discover the likely culprit which...now that I think about it means the method we had been using all along was like being on permanent cash control and it didn't take two steps to identify the problem.
     But like I said, I've been on this before and I thought it made sense for my department. I was in the Prepared Foods section and there was only one till and I usually manned it as I had prior experience as a cashier. The trouble was, when we had individual tills I had to wait for a coworker to get a till to relieve me for breaks which sometimes never happened. When lane accountability was introduced, I always got my breaks.
     That being said, I think lane accountability makes sense for small stores and small departments within larger stores like my own. Prepared Foods, Pharmacy, and Courtesy would benefit from lane accountability I think whereas the Front End would not. It remains to be seen how this experiment pans out because if too many people end up on cash control, it defeats the point of this practice.

     Normally I wouldn't care about this change but then I really don't like my job anymore. It's been going downhill for a long time now, probably as soon as 2004 when the original owner died leaving his sons fully in charge. I think the father kept his sons' selfishness in check because he built up his empire from the ground, starting as just a fruit stand back in the 1950s. His sons inherited an already successful chain.

     Micromanagement started hitting us almost right away and it became rather apparent by the next contract negotiation when the store was very big on shitting on new hires. This trend has continued and I really cannot recommend working for my supermarket anymore as you are in no way cared about.
     Coupled with the "Great Recession" downturn, it only got worse to work there. I really started feeling like an undesired expense rather than a dedicated asset to the company. I used to care about my company and it has since become clear to me that I have cared about my company long after it had stopped caring about me. I've given a lot of my life to that store that I can't ever get back and the only two things I have ever asked for were to have my hard-work/dedication be recognized by being left alone and by giving me Full Time.

     By left alone, I mean trusted to do my duties because they knew I would not slack off and would commit to my tasks at hand and by having that dedication respected when it came to scheduling. For a long time I got that. My schedule was stable enough that it was like getting a salary and management was happy with my performance. I was rarely sick. I've never been injured. I was happy to come to work. They got good value for my wage. And for ten years, I bid for Full Time. And I wanted Full Time simply to guarantee my hours. As a part-timer, technically I could be cut pretty badly if they wanted to. My seniority will only take me so far but it is that seniority that has kept them from cutting too deeply though cut they have. The past two years have seen an average weekly drop of about 1½ to 2 hours.
     It is only now by looking back on it that I realized I had only begun bidding for Full Time after the original owner had died. It's not possible to prove, but had I started bidding back in 2001 or 2002, would I have received my wish?

     So now we all are increasingly micromanaged, the night shift has to deal with a manager whose continued employment probably counts as a verified miracle leaving him only one more to qualify for sainthood, wages have declined to survival level (not that they were ever fantastic to begin with...I'm still drawing a profit but I don't know how much longer I can keep that up. Last year 98% of my earnings were spoken for before they even got home), workers are made to feel like cogs rather than people, we're judged increasingly on ever less relevant statistics, our union grows weaker each negotiation...it sucks.

     And now to top it all off I have had my identity stripped from me. Like I said, if I were happier in my job, lane accountability would not faze me but I'm not: I'm very unhappy at work. I despise having to go there now. My weekends are no longer enough to recharge me for another workweek. I meet each Wednesday night (my Monday) with dread. The only good about a Wednesday is that the shitty manager is off that night so I at least return to some peace. But it's not enough and I can't afford to take three days off.
     But at least I had a till with my name on it. It was mine. I made it my own. I sorted things the way I like sorting them. It was efficient and orderly. Now I have a till. It is not my till. It belongs to the lane I have been assigned. It has been run through by all those who used it before me. I have to sort now according to a prescription that goes against 13 years of habit. Sure, I'll adapt...but it's like the last straw, y'know?

     I have come to feel like a nothing at my job, as though I were no one. Now I am no one. I am a number when I clock in...not a person. I am a number when I sign in...not a person. I am a part of a whole when proven rather than an individual.

     My job has taken away the fun of working there. It has taken away the sense of satisfaction I once derived from working there. It has taken away my dignity by making me into a series of percentages, ratios, and figures. Now it has taken away my identity.

     I don't know why I continue to work for them...

     Oh, that's right. I know why. It's because I don't have a choice. There are no other jobs near me that will pay a living wage, let alone a survival wage. I am bound to them and they know it and the store shows its contempt for all those whom it employs because it can...because it knows we have no place else to go. Why treat employees with respect when your employees are afraid to lose their jobs? Standing up for myself would be a fool's crusade. Yes sir! No sir! Whatever you say sir! Right away sir!

     I hate my job, but I cannot leave my job. My job owns me. There is no escape and it kills me slowly...