Soo, the other day the College Republicans, a group I have thoroughly offended numerous times in a very public forum, decided to plan a stereotypical trip to the local shooting range in Virginia. As I am on their listserv and have admittedly never fired a handgun before I thought it could be fun to tag along so I signed up. I figured there would be a dozen or so people who would carpool out to this place, rent handguns, and “kill some paper.” So I get up nice and early last Sunday morning and went out to the meeting place where I met 47 other Reps who also had had a similar thought to my own. This was a rather interesting cross section of humanity too, not the stereotypical Republican, gun-loving hunters as one might think. There were big guys and very little guys, tiny blond chicks and even a nerdy looking asian kid with glasses…not the group I would have envisioned. Anyway, we were waiting for a while when a big yellow school bus pulls up and stops in front of us. We all look at each other thinking “no. this couldn’t possibly be how we are getting to a gun range!” but sure enough, it was $100 cheaper to get a school bus than a coach…so school bus it was (Reagan-nomics at its finest). Thinking this was ironic and wrong on a couple levels that I couldn’t really express to anyone around me, we headed off. Not to delve into a discussion of the idiot driver who took us to Virginia via downtown Maryland turning a 30 minute drive into an hour long scenic trek, we finally made it there. They asked who had shot before and I raised my hand (cause on a technicality I have shot before…just not a hand gun) and they put me in there first. So there I am with 5 other kids, in front of God any everyone, there with my Sig Saure 290 (I think) 9mm and 50 rounds staring down the sights at my paper target a whopping 15 feet away. It turns out I wasn’t that bad at it though I must say that the things that surprised me sound pretty stupid looking back. The sound, not surprisingly, is really loud. But I don’t just mean loud like gun-shot loud, I mean if I played the sound for someone who couldn’t see what it was, they might have guessed it was a civil war cannon firing. It was startlingly loud, even with ear plugs in! Also, the muzzle flash is actually this foot long fireball that shoots out the front of the gun. Also a little unsettling. Anyway, in the end, it turned out to be rather exhilarating. A hand gun is a shit ton of power in a very small package. Bottom line, I was God for 10 minutes declaring Jihad on that paper target (I'm going to hell for that).
Deep Breath.
Another observation. Tiny blond girls who have never shot guns will surprise you. We had the choice of 3 gun types: a 22 (the smallest gun with little recoil, smaller bullets, and less noise), a 9mm (a powerful gun with a decent kick and a nice big bullet that makes a nice big bang), and a 357 magnum revolver (a big, mean looking gun that fired a big bullet, made a loud noise, and had a shit ton of kick as there is no slide to absorb any of it). As to be expected, the smaller guys among us picked the 22, still an intimidating gun, nothing wrong with it. Most of us picked the 9mm as it is the typical gun you see on television and in movies. Very generic. However, most of the girls, including one tiny blond chick who I was very excited to see fire any gun, picked the 357 magnum! What the fuck?! I couldn’t believe it. She walked confidently into the range, loaded the 6 rounds into the revolver, cocked the hammer, aimed at the target (all of 10 ft away) fired, nearly hit herself in the face and then seemingly screamed, put the gun down, and jumped all at the same time. It was possibly one of the best things I'd seen in a while. The long lead up to that moment definitely didn’t disappoint. To her credit, however, she then stepped back up and fired the remaining 5 shots nearish to the target without screaming or jumping. I think I'm in love.
Breath.
Last observation. Outside the range in the store area there was a poster made clearly by very young children saying: “Dear Mr. Gilbert, The children at Beth Sholom Early Childhood Center thank you for donating all the bullet casings to their school. As you can see from the pictures, we used them to make beautiful menorahs to celebrate Chanuah.” (Check it) It was then signed by 20ish very young children (Dana, one of the children , wrote her name in all capital letters and wrote the N backwards). Attached to the poster were 3 pictures of makeshift menorahs made by creating 9 blocks of colored clay with brass bullet casings pressed in used as candle holders. Now, upon seeing this I commented out loud to anyone who was listening “wow. Something seems wrong with that.” As it turns out, people were listening…so much so that I almost started a riot. About half of the CR’s agreed that yes, something about that poster was wrong on some level and about half were adamant that no, nothing was wrong with that. These people, I theorize, grew up with guns. They have fond memories of hunting with their fathers when they were younger. They grew up with guns in their houses. I have no problem with this. However, there seems to be a symbolism issue with combining a religious symbol (especially a religion often wrapped up in violent conflict) with a symbol of violence…and then add in there the fact that these are very very young children and you seem to have three things that really shouldn’t mix (religion, young kids, and guns). I mean, lets not kid ourselves, I'm all for the second amendment, but this seems a bit excessive. Not sure that there is a better way to put it other than that it just rubbed me the wrong way, but it was entertaining to watch the rest of the CR’s duke it out amongst themselves INSIDE A GUN RANGE! Haha
As always…please no one read this…
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Welcome to my "blog," I "work" for the man, please, no one read this...
Welcome to my blog. Ya know, I vowed that I would never write one of these…mostly because there is really only harm that can come from them. I mean lets face it, the title speaks for itself…no one is going to read this anyway…but assuming someone does, how could that possibly help me? As the description says, I’m an aspiring politician. That means that someday someone will go over everything I've written since the 4th grade with a fine-tooth comb searching for things to use against me in a campaign. In creating a blog I am basically saying “if you want to find incriminating shit on me, here it is…all in one place with my name on it wrapped up in a pretty little bow for ya.” I mean, as it is I can't keep my mouth shut long enough to not get myself in trouble on a daily basis but here on the interwebs the shit I say will live forever. That’s a long time in case anyone was unsure. But…my mentor starts and stops a new blog every other day and a few other friends of mine have created blogs…I always just think its so pretentious though…that’s why all the stuff I have written previously has been on my facebook “notes.” I mean, creating a blog is like saying, “I think that the stuff I have to say is so good, so much better than the stuff real writers say, than I'm going to post it on the internet and pretend that someone’s reading it.” As if anyone cares. As if anyone reads it. No one does. Some crazy-large percentage of the blogs on the internet today go unread for the entirety of their sad, pathetic existence…and yet every day people get up and write on their blog as if its their business. At political events now they have a whole section cornered off called “bloggers ally” where people come with their laptops and “live blog” the event. This is basically just an excuse to be on your computer during an event…but the premise here is that this is akin to the media. No it isn’t. There are tons of columnists that write every day and it actually is there job. Bloggers are just regular people. And all regular people have opinions that no one cares about. Opinions are like assholes, someone smarter than me once said, everyone has one and they all stink. In this case it’s all about the severity of that stink, to continue this rather unnecessary metaphor, and whether or not you are willing to endure to stink due to the experience of the…wow, alright, well, moving on.
Deep breath.
Where was I? Well, obviously I have decided to write this blog, mostly out of boredom, so what the hell hu, might as well write something down. Alright well, lets start with where I is…I’m at work. Productive use of work time? Hmm, well, the way I justify it is if they gave me work, I'd do it. Honestly, me and my job are what’s wrong with the government in a nutshell. You, the nonexistent people who aren’t reading this, you pay my salary. That’s right…I’m a government employee, a civil servant and I do nothing. Well, that’s not even true. I do a lot of things…its just that none of them have anything to do with civilly servicing the American people in any way…and yet they continue to pay me a sickening amount of money in my decently large office with a window and two desks and two computers and all the office supplies I want. Does anyone but me see a problem with this?! You liberals out there who want bigger government, am I what you’re envisioning as you dream off in your 100% hemp sheets at night?! Cause that’s what you'd get. More me’s! lots more me’s! The way I see it there are only two choices (don’t even start with a middle ground…cause there isn’t one). We can either cut down the size of government (which would really be a loss because the DMV, post office, and IRS are such pleasant government agencies) and risk losing a couple (million) people in the public sector to the big bad privet sector (ya know, that one that makes the world go round) OR we could expand the government possibly offer more serves to the people of this great nation and have thousands upon thousands more of me. In other words you have smaller and inefficient or bigger and inefficient. As I mentioned before, there is no middle ground. So which is it? I mean, its pretty cut and dry to me…but what do I know, I only work for “the man.”
Example: here in my office on 22nd St. in NW Washington DC (come find me, I dare you) we take lunch every day. There is, however, no set time to take lunch, only the rough parameters of “be back in an hour-ish.” So, because of this, people start taking lunch around 11am and don’t stop taking lunch until around 3:30pm. So say I actually had some work I had to get done (crazy I know). Say I needed to draft a memo and send it out. I would start my drafting around 10:30 (because in this hypothetical it’s a Tuesday and I watch last night’s episode of House when I come in on Tuesday mornings). I draft from 10:30 to 11:30. At 11:45 I realize that I need help so I go to the most experience memo-writer it the office for some advice…but much to my dismay she is at lunch. I decide to catch up on The Big Bang Theory (another show I like to watch) until she gets back. At 1:00 I take my lunch…during which time Ms. Memo-writer returns from lunch fashionably late. I return at 2ish and stop in to get my question answered. At 2:20 I feel the memo is complete and go to my boss to get her signature before I send it out…but much to my dismay, she’s at lunch. At 3:30ish I notice she has returned and ask for her signature. Now all I have to do take it to our supply guy to get it stamped addressed and sealed but you’ll never guess where he is. This sounds farfetched but I swear this happens all the time. Now a project that really needed to take an hour or two tops has taken all damn day and maybe/often into the next day because why? Because people needed to take lunch at different times all day long? Really?! That’s YOUR federal government hard at work (or at lunch)! And you want it bigger?! You want more people to be apart of that madness?! You want more people at lunch?! Why? Are they doing such a great job now that we figure we should reward their efforts?! Ill give you a hint, the answer rhymes with foe!
Deep breath.
Well, that’s enough for this first blog. Btw I included some of my older notes in here as well so check the archive. Wait, who am I talking to? No one’s reading this anyway. Whatever.
As always please, no one read this…
Deep breath.
Where was I? Well, obviously I have decided to write this blog, mostly out of boredom, so what the hell hu, might as well write something down. Alright well, lets start with where I is…I’m at work. Productive use of work time? Hmm, well, the way I justify it is if they gave me work, I'd do it. Honestly, me and my job are what’s wrong with the government in a nutshell. You, the nonexistent people who aren’t reading this, you pay my salary. That’s right…I’m a government employee, a civil servant and I do nothing. Well, that’s not even true. I do a lot of things…its just that none of them have anything to do with civilly servicing the American people in any way…and yet they continue to pay me a sickening amount of money in my decently large office with a window and two desks and two computers and all the office supplies I want. Does anyone but me see a problem with this?! You liberals out there who want bigger government, am I what you’re envisioning as you dream off in your 100% hemp sheets at night?! Cause that’s what you'd get. More me’s! lots more me’s! The way I see it there are only two choices (don’t even start with a middle ground…cause there isn’t one). We can either cut down the size of government (which would really be a loss because the DMV, post office, and IRS are such pleasant government agencies) and risk losing a couple (million) people in the public sector to the big bad privet sector (ya know, that one that makes the world go round) OR we could expand the government possibly offer more serves to the people of this great nation and have thousands upon thousands more of me. In other words you have smaller and inefficient or bigger and inefficient. As I mentioned before, there is no middle ground. So which is it? I mean, its pretty cut and dry to me…but what do I know, I only work for “the man.”
Example: here in my office on 22nd St. in NW Washington DC (come find me, I dare you) we take lunch every day. There is, however, no set time to take lunch, only the rough parameters of “be back in an hour-ish.” So, because of this, people start taking lunch around 11am and don’t stop taking lunch until around 3:30pm. So say I actually had some work I had to get done (crazy I know). Say I needed to draft a memo and send it out. I would start my drafting around 10:30 (because in this hypothetical it’s a Tuesday and I watch last night’s episode of House when I come in on Tuesday mornings). I draft from 10:30 to 11:30. At 11:45 I realize that I need help so I go to the most experience memo-writer it the office for some advice…but much to my dismay she is at lunch. I decide to catch up on The Big Bang Theory (another show I like to watch) until she gets back. At 1:00 I take my lunch…during which time Ms. Memo-writer returns from lunch fashionably late. I return at 2ish and stop in to get my question answered. At 2:20 I feel the memo is complete and go to my boss to get her signature before I send it out…but much to my dismay, she’s at lunch. At 3:30ish I notice she has returned and ask for her signature. Now all I have to do take it to our supply guy to get it stamped addressed and sealed but you’ll never guess where he is. This sounds farfetched but I swear this happens all the time. Now a project that really needed to take an hour or two tops has taken all damn day and maybe/often into the next day because why? Because people needed to take lunch at different times all day long? Really?! That’s YOUR federal government hard at work (or at lunch)! And you want it bigger?! You want more people to be apart of that madness?! You want more people at lunch?! Why? Are they doing such a great job now that we figure we should reward their efforts?! Ill give you a hint, the answer rhymes with foe!
Deep breath.
Well, that’s enough for this first blog. Btw I included some of my older notes in here as well so check the archive. Wait, who am I talking to? No one’s reading this anyway. Whatever.
As always please, no one read this…
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Professless Professors
There are things in education that I don’t understand. Before delving in, I guess I have to look at the bigger question which is why it is that people who are simply bad at teaching become teachers. This is evident in primary education as I remember a teacher back in grade school who simply didn’t like children. One would have to wonder why, if you didn’t enjoy the presents of small children, you would get into a field where you were forced to interact with them on a daily basis. This continues through high school and now, I'm realizing, right into college. Why do professors who are simply bad at “professing” becomes professors?
I can understand that sometimes this has to do with going into academia, teaching sometimes just comes with the territory. Not that I really appreciate someone coming to a university to do research and having to, begrudgingly, teach knowledge-hungry undergraduates, but I do understand. That’s not, however, what I'm talking about. I’m talking about the professor of, say, business ethics who is simply unable to adequately convey the apparent oxy moron of business ethics.
The handout I was given on day one of this class said the words “Ethics vs. Etiquette.” To which my professor explained that faults in etiquette rarely if ever lead to ethical problems. Alright. I understand. Probably could have gone without saying, but I get it. Moving on. But then he begins on an example, if you shake someone’s hand from another culture that don’t typically do that, you probably wont be acting unethically. Alright, that example was totally unnecessary, but again, in an effort to be extremely thorough I can understand. He then says, if you were at a formal dinner party, and used the wrong fork for your salad, no one will thing you are unethical. Alright, enough already! The whole class knew what he meant in the beginning and really knew after the first example but two examples?! Really?! And then, to put a finishing touch on his redundancy he asked, does everyone understand? No. No I don’t. Can you please give me another example to waste more time? Thanks.
He then moves on to the second thing on his hand out. The paper reads Ethics vs. Morality. After reading this out loud he says, we need to discuss the differences between ethics and morality…..long contemplative pause…..I don’t believe there is any difference between those two terms. What?! Than why the hell do we need to discuss the differences between them? There aren't any. And why did you write it down on this list of terms in need of discussion? He then goes on to discuss why everyone in his field agrees with him.
Day Two: Ethics needs to be based on fairness. If you are cutting the birthday cake at a child’s birthday party and you cut the pieces different sizes, what happens? The kids get upset because someone ends up with the small piece and says that’s not fair. If there are monkeys at the zoo and they reward some with grapes and others with cucumbers, the ones with cucumbers will get upset because they believe they were treated unfairly. If you sell 5 grams of cocaine and get arrested and sent to prison for 5 years and then you find out that someone else got caught selling 2 kilos of cocaine and is sentenced to one year in prison, what would you think? No, not that they’re Paris Hilton. You would think that it was not fair. I swear on my life, he actually used all of those examples, in succession, just like that! I get it! I understand! I know what fairness is!!! Leave me alone!
The Bill of Rights he says very dramatically. Who knows what that is? Really?! REALLY?!! You’re really going to ask an entire class of sophomores, juniors and seniors living and going to school in Washington DC, the capital of our freaking country, what the Bill of Rights is?
I just don’t get it. I just can’t fathom where this human being went so horribly wrong in life. I’m sure he is a very nice man, but he has no business in a college classroom; arguably not even in a high school class. And he’s got to know. He has to understand by the looks on people’s faces as he talks at them that they have gone a step beyond bored into the realm of thinking, “I’m paying how much money to go to this school and listen to you lecture me for an hour and 15 minutes twice a week at the end of which I leave feeling not only as though I've learned nothing but that you may have stolen an IQ point or two?” ….Fuck!
I can understand that sometimes this has to do with going into academia, teaching sometimes just comes with the territory. Not that I really appreciate someone coming to a university to do research and having to, begrudgingly, teach knowledge-hungry undergraduates, but I do understand. That’s not, however, what I'm talking about. I’m talking about the professor of, say, business ethics who is simply unable to adequately convey the apparent oxy moron of business ethics.
The handout I was given on day one of this class said the words “Ethics vs. Etiquette.” To which my professor explained that faults in etiquette rarely if ever lead to ethical problems. Alright. I understand. Probably could have gone without saying, but I get it. Moving on. But then he begins on an example, if you shake someone’s hand from another culture that don’t typically do that, you probably wont be acting unethically. Alright, that example was totally unnecessary, but again, in an effort to be extremely thorough I can understand. He then says, if you were at a formal dinner party, and used the wrong fork for your salad, no one will thing you are unethical. Alright, enough already! The whole class knew what he meant in the beginning and really knew after the first example but two examples?! Really?! And then, to put a finishing touch on his redundancy he asked, does everyone understand? No. No I don’t. Can you please give me another example to waste more time? Thanks.
He then moves on to the second thing on his hand out. The paper reads Ethics vs. Morality. After reading this out loud he says, we need to discuss the differences between ethics and morality…..long contemplative pause…..I don’t believe there is any difference between those two terms. What?! Than why the hell do we need to discuss the differences between them? There aren't any. And why did you write it down on this list of terms in need of discussion? He then goes on to discuss why everyone in his field agrees with him.
Day Two: Ethics needs to be based on fairness. If you are cutting the birthday cake at a child’s birthday party and you cut the pieces different sizes, what happens? The kids get upset because someone ends up with the small piece and says that’s not fair. If there are monkeys at the zoo and they reward some with grapes and others with cucumbers, the ones with cucumbers will get upset because they believe they were treated unfairly. If you sell 5 grams of cocaine and get arrested and sent to prison for 5 years and then you find out that someone else got caught selling 2 kilos of cocaine and is sentenced to one year in prison, what would you think? No, not that they’re Paris Hilton. You would think that it was not fair. I swear on my life, he actually used all of those examples, in succession, just like that! I get it! I understand! I know what fairness is!!! Leave me alone!
The Bill of Rights he says very dramatically. Who knows what that is? Really?! REALLY?!! You’re really going to ask an entire class of sophomores, juniors and seniors living and going to school in Washington DC, the capital of our freaking country, what the Bill of Rights is?
I just don’t get it. I just can’t fathom where this human being went so horribly wrong in life. I’m sure he is a very nice man, but he has no business in a college classroom; arguably not even in a high school class. And he’s got to know. He has to understand by the looks on people’s faces as he talks at them that they have gone a step beyond bored into the realm of thinking, “I’m paying how much money to go to this school and listen to you lecture me for an hour and 15 minutes twice a week at the end of which I leave feeling not only as though I've learned nothing but that you may have stolen an IQ point or two?” ….Fuck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)