One thing that bugs me about the Castlevania series is how easy it is to upgrade your whip (for the record, I'm talking about Castlevania, Castlevania III, and Super Castlevania IV).
The rules of the game made it so that you needed four (4) hearts to upgrade from the leather whip you start with to a stronger ball&chain whip of the same length and eight (8) hearts to upgrade to the longer ball&chain whip. The thing is, you start each life with five (5) hearts so it's practically impossible to be stuck with the leather whip for any length of time.
The player may as well have started with the ball&chain whip...
This could've been rectified by having either the player start each life with no hearts or making the upgrades at higher heart levels, say eight (8) for the first upgrade and sixteen (16) for the second one.
Another option could've been to adopt the rule from Game Boy version of Castlevania: if the player gets hit, he loses an upgrade. In that game, you could get a chain whip that launches a fireball after two upgrades. One hit and you're back to the chain whip. A second hit brought you back to your standard leather whip.
Either option would've made the game a little harder. Whether it would've made the game better is a matter of debate. It makes me wish I knew how to ROM hack...
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Monday, October 13, 2014
LINE OF THE DAY, part XXXVII
from Emiscary:
"Being cloned makes an oddly perfect metaphor for birth.
Congratulations, you now exist. Here's a fistful of problems you didn't cause, they're officially yours to fix. Here are the expectations of everyone who existed before you showed up, their desires automatically take precedence over yours because they outnumber you and/or outrank you within an arbitrarily designed pecking order into which you've been inserted against your will.
Oh! And be sure to realize that what you feel is effectively meaningless beyond what it makes you do. And free will is an illusion. Good luck!"
Congratulations, you now exist. Here's a fistful of problems you didn't cause, they're officially yours to fix. Here are the expectations of everyone who existed before you showed up, their desires automatically take precedence over yours because they outnumber you and/or outrank you within an arbitrarily designed pecking order into which you've been inserted against your will.
Oh! And be sure to realize that what you feel is effectively meaningless beyond what it makes you do. And free will is an illusion. Good luck!"
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
METROID II THOUGHTS...
In retrospect, one thing that bugged me about Metroid II: The Return of Samus is why did she start the game with so few items? Now, I don't mean fully powered-up because that would be a weird game. I'm talking about the minimum necessary for her to accomplish her mission.
The story of the game has Samus traveling to the planet SR-388 to eliminate the Metroid species. I guess they have been deemed too dangerous to live. Unfortunately the game manual gives away that the Metroid species moults into successively larger forms when permitted to go through its natural life cycle but that's a God's-eye view for the player.
Samus, as far as I know, is unaware of this creature's capability so one would think she would've landed on SR-388 expecting to encounter the same creatures she found in the Tourian region of the planet Zebes. Those Metroids could only be killed by freezing them with her ice beam and pumping five missiles into their now-hardened gelatinous bodies.
Metroids attacked by grabbing onto Samus and rapidly drawing out her energy. That's how Metroids eat, they draw out the life force of living creatures. If this happened to you, you rolled up into a ball and dropped bombs. The bombs would knock the Metroid off you since you could not freeze them from inside.
Based on these attacks and abilities, one would think Samus would go to SR-388 bearing an ice beam, some missiles, morph ball, and bombs. Instead she begins the game with only a standard beam, the ball form, and 30 missiles.
The game had a chance to set up a HOLY SHIT! moment but missed the opportunity. Let me illustrate.
In the original Samus runs around a fairly open and unprotected cave encountering few enemies. At one dead-end is a pool of corrosive liquid through which she cannot pass and the other dead-end is a flashing Metroid resting on the ground and definitely not pursuing Samus. Get within a defined range and the Metroid's first metamorphosis occurs right before your eyes. An Alpha Metroid appears. Your shots have no effect on it, nor should you expect them to because in the original game only the ice beam would stop their advance. Your missiles, however, hurt the creature and five hits later it is vanquished, an earthquake happens, and the previous dead-end no longer has the corrosive liquid allowing you to advance.
Later on you find bombs and an ice-beam among other new and old items.
What I propose should have happened is Samus begins her adventure appropriately armed for killing the Metroids she expects to find (ice beam, missiles, morph ball, bombs). She travels through the same open cave.
The difference is she encounters an ordinary Metroid below several rock layers that one cannot quickly traverse. I'm thinking a couple layers of narrow corridors. Go all the way left, drop a bit, go all the way right, drop a bit, repeat. This is a set-up for the player. Why the Metroid is flashing would be unknown to the player and even easily dismissed as something the Game Boy's limited graphics were doing to make the enemy appear more interesting.
The Metroid would appear unaware of Samus perhaps because of the many rock layers between them the player might surmise. Either way, since this appears to be the point of the game, the player would give chase and the Metroid would dart out of the room further incentivizing the player.
The player then encounters the floor-resting Metroid like in the actual game and the metamorphosis sequence begins.
The player would fire ice beams only to find they have no effect. This teaches the player that this new, lightly armored version of the Metroid has developed a resistance to cold.
The player would also quickly learn these Alpha Metroids don't draw out life energy by circumcluding their prey like the larval forms do. They instead directly attack prey, perhaps drawing out energy via pokes and prods making the bombs she has brought worthless for keeping these new Metroids at bay.
The player would then find only direct missile strikes in the smaller exposed core have any effect. Five hits would kill the creature resulting in the earthquake as before. Game continues as normal but this time the player gets that shock of finding out Metroids are a lot different from what we've come to know about them.
The manual, if it were especially devious, would give no hints about the various Metroid moults and explain them only in an ending sequence or via log entries like Project AM2R has been doing.
Sometimes I wish manuals wouldn't give crap away. In the original game the manual told you how to kill the Metroids. You would think it would have left that for the player to figure out. Too bad they couldn't just be killed with missiles but freezing them with the ice beam would make it easier. The game had a wave beam and you were pretty screwed if you entered Tourian with it. Hell, if you didn't have the manual, you might have thought the Metroids were invincible :-)
The story of the game has Samus traveling to the planet SR-388 to eliminate the Metroid species. I guess they have been deemed too dangerous to live. Unfortunately the game manual gives away that the Metroid species moults into successively larger forms when permitted to go through its natural life cycle but that's a God's-eye view for the player.
Samus, as far as I know, is unaware of this creature's capability so one would think she would've landed on SR-388 expecting to encounter the same creatures she found in the Tourian region of the planet Zebes. Those Metroids could only be killed by freezing them with her ice beam and pumping five missiles into their now-hardened gelatinous bodies.
Metroids attacked by grabbing onto Samus and rapidly drawing out her energy. That's how Metroids eat, they draw out the life force of living creatures. If this happened to you, you rolled up into a ball and dropped bombs. The bombs would knock the Metroid off you since you could not freeze them from inside.
Based on these attacks and abilities, one would think Samus would go to SR-388 bearing an ice beam, some missiles, morph ball, and bombs. Instead she begins the game with only a standard beam, the ball form, and 30 missiles.
The game had a chance to set up a HOLY SHIT! moment but missed the opportunity. Let me illustrate.
In the original Samus runs around a fairly open and unprotected cave encountering few enemies. At one dead-end is a pool of corrosive liquid through which she cannot pass and the other dead-end is a flashing Metroid resting on the ground and definitely not pursuing Samus. Get within a defined range and the Metroid's first metamorphosis occurs right before your eyes. An Alpha Metroid appears. Your shots have no effect on it, nor should you expect them to because in the original game only the ice beam would stop their advance. Your missiles, however, hurt the creature and five hits later it is vanquished, an earthquake happens, and the previous dead-end no longer has the corrosive liquid allowing you to advance.
Later on you find bombs and an ice-beam among other new and old items.
What I propose should have happened is Samus begins her adventure appropriately armed for killing the Metroids she expects to find (ice beam, missiles, morph ball, bombs). She travels through the same open cave.
The difference is she encounters an ordinary Metroid below several rock layers that one cannot quickly traverse. I'm thinking a couple layers of narrow corridors. Go all the way left, drop a bit, go all the way right, drop a bit, repeat. This is a set-up for the player. Why the Metroid is flashing would be unknown to the player and even easily dismissed as something the Game Boy's limited graphics were doing to make the enemy appear more interesting.
The Metroid would appear unaware of Samus perhaps because of the many rock layers between them the player might surmise. Either way, since this appears to be the point of the game, the player would give chase and the Metroid would dart out of the room further incentivizing the player.
The player then encounters the floor-resting Metroid like in the actual game and the metamorphosis sequence begins.
The player would fire ice beams only to find they have no effect. This teaches the player that this new, lightly armored version of the Metroid has developed a resistance to cold.
The player would also quickly learn these Alpha Metroids don't draw out life energy by circumcluding their prey like the larval forms do. They instead directly attack prey, perhaps drawing out energy via pokes and prods making the bombs she has brought worthless for keeping these new Metroids at bay.
The player would then find only direct missile strikes in the smaller exposed core have any effect. Five hits would kill the creature resulting in the earthquake as before. Game continues as normal but this time the player gets that shock of finding out Metroids are a lot different from what we've come to know about them.
The manual, if it were especially devious, would give no hints about the various Metroid moults and explain them only in an ending sequence or via log entries like Project AM2R has been doing.
Sometimes I wish manuals wouldn't give crap away. In the original game the manual told you how to kill the Metroids. You would think it would have left that for the player to figure out. Too bad they couldn't just be killed with missiles but freezing them with the ice beam would make it easier. The game had a wave beam and you were pretty screwed if you entered Tourian with it. Hell, if you didn't have the manual, you might have thought the Metroids were invincible :-)
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
TOKEN COINS...
I was writing a comment about dollar coins in another blog the other day and it got me thinking, why is it in modern times do coins of all nations have such trivial purchasing power?
I've mentioned before that the cent, nickel, and dime ought to be retired (and the $1, $2, $5, and $10 bills should be replaced with coins) but that's just our country but what about the rest of the world? Since the end of the gold and silver standards, coins have managed increasingly negligible purchasing power.
The Euro I think provides a most recent example of how this trend was continued rather than upended. When the Euro was finally adopted for circulation use, its value was approximately 1 to 1 with the U.S. dollar and the smallest denomination of the Euro was the 1 Eurocent coin. Certain European Union members quickly stopped producing the 1 and 2 Eurocent coins and having only the 5 Eurocent coin as their smallest denomination.
My question is, why did they adopt this particular system? By 1999 (hell, arguably by 1964), the U.S. cent had negligible purchasing power so why would the European Union bring into existence a coinage system with values so low? Why didn't they make the Euro 5 to 1 or even 10 to 1 with the U.S. dollar? That would have given their coins honest purchasing power, something that hasn't been the norm for decades around the world.
A cursory glance at my world coins guide shows the same trend (I do believe) everywhere around the world. The smallest coins cannot buy anything anywhere whereas when the United States was created, its ½ and 1 cent pieces could buy trivial things. Now you practically need a half-dollar to purchase the most trivial of things and that coin is rarely seen yet the production of smaller denominations continues to this day.
My Indonesian friend's currency is approximately 11,900 rupiah to the U.S. dollar (as of this posting) and her country's smallest denomination is the 50 rupiah coin which is slightly less than ½¢ in U.S. dollars.
By contrast, at the start of inflation record-keeping in 1913, the smallest U.S. denomination, the cent, had approximately 24¢ worth of purchasing power in 2014.
Therefore, for comparison, her country would probably do just fine with the smallest denomination being 1,000 rupiah.
The article I was commenting on was wondering about the future of coin collecting. I was reminded of my experiences with younger shoppers at my job and how they care only about the paper currency (my favorite declaration by one girl to her friend when offered the coin part of her change - "I don't want those. They're not real money."). I felt that younger people are not as interested in coins because coins themselves are more of a nuisance than a store of value.
When I was a kid in the 1980s, only quarters were appealing as they were the only denomination which added up significantly quickly enough to be worth the effort of holding on to. Dimes were tolerable but not particularly helpful. But nickels and cents were definitely not worth one's time.
Had dollar coins caught on in the 1980s as intended they would be the quarter for today's youth but they didn't so they have pockets full of change which cannot buy anything except in great numbers.
My parents lived in a time when nickels and dimes were the worthwhile denomination and my grandparents were children when cents and nickels added up like quarters did in the 1980s. I was thinking that if we had $5 and $10 coins, they would be respected by today's youth and that mystique could lead them into a lifetime of collecting. I wonder how the Great Recession would have impacted 2009's mintages if they consisted of $1, $2, $5, and $10 coins? Would they be the rarities for tomorrow's collectors with mintages in the very low millions or even high hundred thousands? Remember, the dimes which had for years been produced to the tune of about 1 billion coins per mint per year fell to 96½ and 49 million pieces for the Philadelphia and Denver mints respectively that year so I think it could've been possible for a modern-day rarity under such inflation-adjusted coinage.
But either way, it's a mystery to me that the world's mints continue to strike coins with no purchasing power. No one has taken the lead to try and make something old new again. I wonder why even the public has accepted this? One would think low-value coins would be a nuisance to businesses and consumers alike but they continue to be tolerated.
Argue as one might about the digitalization of our money, physical coin and currency will not disappear...there's always a use for them so why not make them capable of actually buying things?
I've mentioned before that the cent, nickel, and dime ought to be retired (and the $1, $2, $5, and $10 bills should be replaced with coins) but that's just our country but what about the rest of the world? Since the end of the gold and silver standards, coins have managed increasingly negligible purchasing power.
The Euro I think provides a most recent example of how this trend was continued rather than upended. When the Euro was finally adopted for circulation use, its value was approximately 1 to 1 with the U.S. dollar and the smallest denomination of the Euro was the 1 Eurocent coin. Certain European Union members quickly stopped producing the 1 and 2 Eurocent coins and having only the 5 Eurocent coin as their smallest denomination.
My question is, why did they adopt this particular system? By 1999 (hell, arguably by 1964), the U.S. cent had negligible purchasing power so why would the European Union bring into existence a coinage system with values so low? Why didn't they make the Euro 5 to 1 or even 10 to 1 with the U.S. dollar? That would have given their coins honest purchasing power, something that hasn't been the norm for decades around the world.
A cursory glance at my world coins guide shows the same trend (I do believe) everywhere around the world. The smallest coins cannot buy anything anywhere whereas when the United States was created, its ½ and 1 cent pieces could buy trivial things. Now you practically need a half-dollar to purchase the most trivial of things and that coin is rarely seen yet the production of smaller denominations continues to this day.
My Indonesian friend's currency is approximately 11,900 rupiah to the U.S. dollar (as of this posting) and her country's smallest denomination is the 50 rupiah coin which is slightly less than ½¢ in U.S. dollars.
By contrast, at the start of inflation record-keeping in 1913, the smallest U.S. denomination, the cent, had approximately 24¢ worth of purchasing power in 2014.
Therefore, for comparison, her country would probably do just fine with the smallest denomination being 1,000 rupiah.
The article I was commenting on was wondering about the future of coin collecting. I was reminded of my experiences with younger shoppers at my job and how they care only about the paper currency (my favorite declaration by one girl to her friend when offered the coin part of her change - "I don't want those. They're not real money."). I felt that younger people are not as interested in coins because coins themselves are more of a nuisance than a store of value.
When I was a kid in the 1980s, only quarters were appealing as they were the only denomination which added up significantly quickly enough to be worth the effort of holding on to. Dimes were tolerable but not particularly helpful. But nickels and cents were definitely not worth one's time.
Had dollar coins caught on in the 1980s as intended they would be the quarter for today's youth but they didn't so they have pockets full of change which cannot buy anything except in great numbers.
My parents lived in a time when nickels and dimes were the worthwhile denomination and my grandparents were children when cents and nickels added up like quarters did in the 1980s. I was thinking that if we had $5 and $10 coins, they would be respected by today's youth and that mystique could lead them into a lifetime of collecting. I wonder how the Great Recession would have impacted 2009's mintages if they consisted of $1, $2, $5, and $10 coins? Would they be the rarities for tomorrow's collectors with mintages in the very low millions or even high hundred thousands? Remember, the dimes which had for years been produced to the tune of about 1 billion coins per mint per year fell to 96½ and 49 million pieces for the Philadelphia and Denver mints respectively that year so I think it could've been possible for a modern-day rarity under such inflation-adjusted coinage.
But either way, it's a mystery to me that the world's mints continue to strike coins with no purchasing power. No one has taken the lead to try and make something old new again. I wonder why even the public has accepted this? One would think low-value coins would be a nuisance to businesses and consumers alike but they continue to be tolerated.
Argue as one might about the digitalization of our money, physical coin and currency will not disappear...there's always a use for them so why not make them capable of actually buying things?
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
STUPID LIBRA V
Lane Accountability at work has been going on for a little over a month now and I must admit I've noticed a few positives, though I think they're all selfish.
For one, I've been finding a lot more 1978 dated coins to hoard. I have a water bottle jug I've been filling with coins bearing that date for over ten years now. It was intended to be a one year project but I just kept rolling it over. The idea was to accumulate my birth year coins for a year and then buy myself something with them for my birthday. The trouble was, it was less than $20. The idea of distilling a year's worth of effort into a music CD seemed depressing so I just kept accumulating.
After many years I had enough to warrant using the jug and I claimed that when it was full I'd use its value to go on a vacation or something. I estimate the value of the jug will be between $800 and $1,000 depending on what coins are found. Cents make up a little over half the total number of coins. Just yesterday I hit exactly 5000 of them. And while that number sounds impressive, it means only $50 worth of pennies. The remaining nickels, dimes, quarters, and halves make up the other roughly 5000 coins with 1978 halves being the least represented because that was a low production year.
The thing is, when I had my own till, I was giving out my unwanted half dollars in change which limited how many quarters I could go through. A good week would maybe net me three or four 1978 quarters. Now I get a new till every night. Two in fact because after "till exchange" we need to start on a fresh till. My 1978 quarter haul has been double, sometimes triple, what I've been getting so Lane Accountability is improving the value of my 1978-dated coin jug.
And to be honest, knowing me...the likely thing which will happen when that jug fills is I will end up buying a second one and begin filling that. Actually I'll probably separate the cents from the other coins and wonder which jug will fill up first. I'm assuming the cent is on life-support so it'd also be a race against time :-)
I've already gotten two silver dimes - both out in the open (i.e. not from sealed rolls) and both Roosevelts but at least I know silver is still possible. I've even gotten a 1950-D series $10 Federal Reserve Note from one of my daily tills. I imagine any non-Presidential coins will have to come from sealed rolls because I think even non-collectors tend to hold on to a Buffalo nickel or Mercury dime as a curiosity when they see one.
But then again, the tills are proven not by hand-counting but by weighing them so a buried non-Presidential coin could easily go unnoticed. Same thing with Silver Certificates, United States Notes, and God-willing, a Gold Certificate. Possible bonus...
The other joy of Lane Accountability is that it embodies the Tragedy of the Commons which, when it comes to cashiering, is a godsend. Now when a customer pays me with fifty or more dollar bills, I don't have to manipulate my change-giving to draw them down: that's the next cashier's problem. Messy coupon bag? Fuck it (and I say that while I use the claim of facing the money in a "messy till" as an excuse to search through its coins every day).
Plus I can open change rolls unnecessarily and without guilt on the fresh till because I know the coins will get used up throughout the day.
Basically Lane Accountability has the potential to aid my coin collecting habit. However, I won't be entirely convinced of this until I finally start getting some non-Presidential coins in my daily hauls.
I still find this system to be cumbersome and the timing of till exchange interrupts the flow of the evening. It doesn't help that my panicky, 800 lb. gorilla of a co-worker insists on waiting until after till exchange before I go on lunch even though it is totally unnecessary to wait for that. All it does is make me start my overnight work a half-hour later.
Silver linings to every dark cloud...
For one, I've been finding a lot more 1978 dated coins to hoard. I have a water bottle jug I've been filling with coins bearing that date for over ten years now. It was intended to be a one year project but I just kept rolling it over. The idea was to accumulate my birth year coins for a year and then buy myself something with them for my birthday. The trouble was, it was less than $20. The idea of distilling a year's worth of effort into a music CD seemed depressing so I just kept accumulating.
After many years I had enough to warrant using the jug and I claimed that when it was full I'd use its value to go on a vacation or something. I estimate the value of the jug will be between $800 and $1,000 depending on what coins are found. Cents make up a little over half the total number of coins. Just yesterday I hit exactly 5000 of them. And while that number sounds impressive, it means only $50 worth of pennies. The remaining nickels, dimes, quarters, and halves make up the other roughly 5000 coins with 1978 halves being the least represented because that was a low production year.
The thing is, when I had my own till, I was giving out my unwanted half dollars in change which limited how many quarters I could go through. A good week would maybe net me three or four 1978 quarters. Now I get a new till every night. Two in fact because after "till exchange" we need to start on a fresh till. My 1978 quarter haul has been double, sometimes triple, what I've been getting so Lane Accountability is improving the value of my 1978-dated coin jug.
And to be honest, knowing me...the likely thing which will happen when that jug fills is I will end up buying a second one and begin filling that. Actually I'll probably separate the cents from the other coins and wonder which jug will fill up first. I'm assuming the cent is on life-support so it'd also be a race against time :-)
I've already gotten two silver dimes - both out in the open (i.e. not from sealed rolls) and both Roosevelts but at least I know silver is still possible. I've even gotten a 1950-D series $10 Federal Reserve Note from one of my daily tills. I imagine any non-Presidential coins will have to come from sealed rolls because I think even non-collectors tend to hold on to a Buffalo nickel or Mercury dime as a curiosity when they see one.
But then again, the tills are proven not by hand-counting but by weighing them so a buried non-Presidential coin could easily go unnoticed. Same thing with Silver Certificates, United States Notes, and God-willing, a Gold Certificate. Possible bonus...
The other joy of Lane Accountability is that it embodies the Tragedy of the Commons which, when it comes to cashiering, is a godsend. Now when a customer pays me with fifty or more dollar bills, I don't have to manipulate my change-giving to draw them down: that's the next cashier's problem. Messy coupon bag? Fuck it (and I say that while I use the claim of facing the money in a "messy till" as an excuse to search through its coins every day).
Plus I can open change rolls unnecessarily and without guilt on the fresh till because I know the coins will get used up throughout the day.
Basically Lane Accountability has the potential to aid my coin collecting habit. However, I won't be entirely convinced of this until I finally start getting some non-Presidential coins in my daily hauls.
I still find this system to be cumbersome and the timing of till exchange interrupts the flow of the evening. It doesn't help that my panicky, 800 lb. gorilla of a co-worker insists on waiting until after till exchange before I go on lunch even though it is totally unnecessary to wait for that. All it does is make me start my overnight work a half-hour later.
Silver linings to every dark cloud...
Saturday, July 26, 2014
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...
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...
Friday, July 25, 2014
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"
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"