Cheap

Defining a "cheap" person can be a hard thing to do. I think just like a lot of words, cheap is all relative. I am of course using "cheap" in terms of money and people for the sake of this argument. What makes one person cheap and the next, not cheap? It can not be simply how much money one makes, but that number has to be put in a formula to get a "cheapness" value. For instance, If Bill Gates gives his nephew $20 for a birthday gift, and another uncle (avg. joe income) gives the same nephew $20, does that make Bill Gates "cheap" or "cheap compared to the other uncle." I don't think this is enough to make a decision tho. Cheap must relate to how much money one has, the degree to which they want an item, and the final decision to purchase (or not purchase) the item.

Example, a millionaire has to purchase bottled water on a vacation or he/she will die. The bottle of water costs $5. Everyone would agree that if the millionaire did not purchase the water they are being "cheap." However, the same millionaire, same bottle of water, life and death not involved, but extreme thirst. I think everyone would agree the person is again being "cheap" in not purchasing the water, but maybe there is a hint of un-necessity here that would claim some to say "wise-spender" instead of cheap. OK, low income guy, life or death bottle of water, this guy has the money, but it would cost him 80% of what he owns. (He buys it, he is not "cheap.") Low income guy, exteme thirst...same bottle of water, same 20% left in his pocket....I don't think people would consider this guy cheap in this instance if he didn't buy the water. If he did, he would have spent 80% of his total worth on a bottle of water he didn't need. Do you see where I'm going here....it is all comparative, it has multiple factors (amt. of that persons $ worth, necessity level of item, and whether or not the item is bought)

So on this basis, everyone (even Bill Gates or the poorest guy in the world) has the potential to be cheap. But the more $ you have, the more opportunity you will also have to be called "cheap".

Culture

Are tourist traps part of culture? OK, my answer to this is NO. Tourist traps are not part of the culture. I think this is marketing's biggest success ever. Let's take the Bahamas for instance. Everybody knows, even who has never been there, that if a neighbor tells you they are going to the Bahamas on vacation they are going to be drinking cool island drinks (pinneaple daquiri's, etc.) and spending time on the beach. What told us that we had to travel thousands of miles to drink a mai tai, lie on the beach, and tan. We can get a tan in a back yard, everybody in the states is only a 20 hour or less drive to the beach, and we can visit the supermarket for fresh pineapples and kiwis. Culture is the originality of the non manufactured. It extends beyond money. And after all, it is money that creates tourist traps, the Hawaiian flower lai, the Pinacolada, and the endless junket of trinkets found near cruise ships and train stations. And by the way, the US has tried to take it to the next level by incorporating the gift shop as part of the attraction. (We only have so many natural attractions and few years of history) At least when I bought that little pyramid paper weight in Tenochtitlan, it wasn't accompanied with gift wrap.

Wise To Surprise

I am beginning to believe that it takes someone wiser than us to surprise us. Although, maybe "surprise" is not the word I should be using. Let's see....."surprise" - "shock" - "blow your hair back" - is in essence, "revealing" - "mind blowing" - no that's too much, I'm going to say "mind opening." Yes that it's, it takes someone wiser than us to open our minds. Or at least open our minds on a specific matter. Wise people (and I am speaking from the unwise end) can enlighten others to a way of thinking that the person knew deep down was right, but just has not yet thought of it themselves. Wise people can see faults in almost everyone, but have enough understanding to not use it as a thumbscrew. Some people say this is tolerance, but tolerance implies the person disagrees. That is not the case in understanding. The understanding does not have to tolerate.

When my hair gets blown back it is a cross between feeling childish and solving a brain teaser. This feeling happens most times when I read, but it's more powerful coming from a person. And personally......I kind of enjoy the feeling! Later.

Integrity

It seems I'm taking time about once a week to keep this little operation of a journal going...still, in a perfect world it would be more often. Anyways, let's see what's been on my mind.

Integrity. Or more specifically, integrity for the average employee. I relate integrity with honesty, and with self honesty. What are the chances that an employee has of being completely honest with themselves in their job. Society and employers want all employees to act with integrity. Now let me say that again...ACT with INTEGRITY. When an act is nothing more than something fake, because after all why would we need to act if it was natural behavior to us. So really what they are saying is that they want us to to use fake emotions (act) to be honest with ourselves (integrity). Wow! that does not make sense at all. To lay it out on the table, that does not happen. No employee will ever be so suited to a position where they can be completely honest with themselves all the time. Employees do not tell customers what is on their mind or their true feelings. If we did, we would be jobless*. (*There is no line, but certain jobs require more acting than others) Nevertheless, my current position is calling for more acting than I am will to comprise my integrity for. I think there is only one thing left to do......start my own ball showing game. (note: if last sentence does not make sense, rent the DVD "Waiting")

Survivorman

A tribute to Survivorman. Survivorman is a show (Discovery Channel) that depicts what a man must do to survive the harshest conditions alone. He films it himself and usually it lasts seven days. Can you just imagine what this guy was like as a kid...he probably rode his bike somewhere he's never been, doing the voices in his head...."My pedal fell off going down the hill to Mikey's...I'm going to need a juniper bug and 14 blades of tall fescue. Will Survivorkid make it back for the ice cream man?...."

To Educate or Not

To educate or not to educate oneself is a question I have been thinking a lot about lately. (namely Middle-East Conflict) As a rational human being, should we care and learn about what is going on in the rest of the world?

Obviously one argument against knowing is that, there is nothing we can do about it. Which is in itself, narrow-minded. There is something we can do, it is something so difficult and so challenging even if we did do it, there is a good chance it won't make a difference. Another argument is that "I pay taxes, and our leaders are responsible."

Me personally, I need to know. I need to know why they are fighting, what they are fighting for, and what they need to stop fighting. Also, I know I'm not going to do anything, I'm not going to fly there and help rebuild, I'm not going to go preach a non violence speech. I believe all I can do is try to understand, so that in the future, choices I make, decisions that make up my life, will be better. Or at least better than not knowing. It goes back to the idea that "knowledge is power." And if knowledge is power, we are stronger with an education. So I say weigh the time it would take to educate yourself against the time you could be doing something else, and decide for yourself.

Breaking News

MSNBC is taking the fast track to get on my shit list. No wait...they are already there and there is no turning back. My question is this. Why do they put in large bold font, "BREAKING NEWS" Israel is bombing Lebanan, or Hezbollah is attacking Israel. This is not breaking news, Arabs and Jews have been going at it for longer than any one can remember. Even people who don't know what this is about knows that their is confilction in the Middle East. "BREAKING NEWS" would be if one side actually won. "BREAKING NEWS" would be if they came to a permanent agreement. By the way, since I can't seem to get off the subject, Bush commented that the real reason the fighting is going on is that of "terrorism." OH MY GOODNESS! BUSH JUST SOLVED THE PROBLEM! ....bullshit. He needs to ask himself why there is terrorism to get to the real problem. The real problem is debateable...call it religion, call it defining a home, call it anything but simply "terrorism." He is so narrow-minded, these two states will not see peace, fighting happens, it defined our country, it defined our borders and every other border between two nations. The simple fact that our borders were defined in the 18th and 19th century is completely irrelevant. I'm not saying let them fight, but just stop looking at the problem as a terrorist problem. Hezbollah officials won the governed election, that's what they voted for...how can you call that extremist.
Bottom line....religion once again tops reason...a reason that would end wars, and undefine borders...religion is conflict.