A Wasteful America, Part One

(note: this post is from a journal entry from last year... i am no longer working at the boosktore, as i have moved on to bigger and better things... i thought it would be fun to share this with "y'all" anyway...)

As many of you know, I work part time at a bookstore, in order to supplement my musician’s income. Whereas I have often had many gripes about the disorganization of this particular establishment, I have never really had any ethical problems with the way the company is run (that is, apart from our hourly wage, considering how much profit the store makes in a given day.) At least, not until one day this week.

Recently, I have been temporarily assigned the task of doing returns, which as you can probably guess, is sending overstocked books back to publishers for a refund. The process is quite simple: you scan the book’s barcode with a "PDT" (a fancy name for a REALLY expensive machine that constantly malfunctions), and the machine tells you which publisher the book comes from. You divide and conquer the books, separating them by publisher, then package and send them back. As a result, we not only bring money back into the store, but we also free up space for the relentless barrage of new books sent to us by the company’s home office. (No, really, if wars were fought with books, just think "shock and awe" and you’ll have an idea of how many books they bombard us with. The place really is a disaster area.)

Anyway, on Thursday, I was given the laborious task of returning the "mass market" books, which are generally paperback books printed in large quantities. The process for these returns is slightly different: you scan the book, strip the front cover off, and send all of the covers in a package to the company’s distribution center for the refund.

Passerby: "But, if you only send the covers back, then what happens to all the books?"

Well, passerby, I’m glad that you asked. WE THROW THEM ALL AWAY. Of any and all practices I have been privy to in my entire working life, this is by far the most detestable, primarily for two reasons – environmental and educational.

An Environment Going To Waste

So, let’s talk numbers. Now, I alone stripped and threw away 350 books on Thursday. (No, I did not take my clothes off! If you’re thinking that, then stop skimming and read a little slower, you naughty vixen!) When I returned to work on Friday, I asked the full-time "returns" guy how many books, on average, he throws away. He answered that every year he throws away at least 2000 books.

Are you kidding?

Think about this for just a second – we are talking about only ONE YEAR. This is probably more books than most academic scholars will own over the course of their entire life! One book for each year since the birth of Jesus!

Now think about this. I work for one of the "college division" stores of this company. Since it is a college bookstore, it is one of the smaller stores owned by the parent company. Therefore, it is very likely that the larger, non-collegiate stores are throwing away at least twice as many books per year, if not more than that. But, for simplicity’s sake, and since I haven’t been able to adequately research how many of these stores are part of the college division, we’ll give the parent company the benefit of the doubt and assume that each store is throwing away only 2000 books per year. Minimal research online will confirm that this particular company currently operates right around 800 stores throughout the US. Simple calculations therefore reveal that this company is throwing away a minimum of 1.6 million books per year. Multiply this number by each year the company is in operation and, well, you get the picture. This is not a good use of natural resources.

An Education Going To Waste

Now, let’s talk quality. Sure, many of these "striplist" books simply have not garnered any popular appeal during their short life span (for example, steamy romance novels, diet books, and works of obscure science fiction writers.) If I were only throwing away titles that nobody in their right mind would pay full price for, then I may not be as hesitant to toss them where I feel they belong. (But, then again, isn’t such a feeling entirely subjective in nature? If someone else were doing these returns, might they not keep certain books that I would quickly get rid of?)

However, I was quite astonished to see some of the titles that passed through my hands today. Some of the authors included Carl Jung, Sinclair Lewis, Victor Frankl, George Eliot, Walt Whitman and Umberto Eco. There were books by well-known Hispanic writers (such as Julia Alvarez and Isabella Allende) which might encourage non-English speakers to learn how to read in English. (Wasn’t there some recent debate about this very topic?) There were also books by accomplished African-American writers such as Maya Angelou and Alice Childress (which might somehow be used to encourage minority youths to turn to something other than drugs or gang violence, which seem so prevalent among inner-city populations.)

Some other books that I stripped and threw away:
Aesop’s Fables
SAT and LSAT Practice Tests
Foreign Language Dictionaries
Books on how to get into graduate school
Books on how to get scholarships & grants
Children’s books, including books by Maurice Sendak and Lemony Snicket
Merriam-Webster Vocabulary Building books
Books on World War II History
Health and Fitness books
And of course LOTS of fiction.

I hopefully don’t need to argue why these books belong somewhere OTHER than in a trash can. Wouldn’t these books be better off being donated to low-income school districts? Or to Goodwill Industries, or the public library? Hell, we could even just give them to the street vendors who sell books right down the street from our store!

In America, however, it’s not part of our corporate ethos to think this way. Somebody getting something for free without paying for it was never part of the plan, and will only encourage mass panhandling.

Better to throw away leftover food than give it to someone who is homeless and hungry. That’ll show ‘em.

Ann Coulter, Ratdog, and deadhead Identity

{First set – Ann Coulter and Greek Culture}

Having just gone to see Ratdog at Radio City Music Hall several weeks ago, I started thinking about deadhead identity, which reminded me of a recent interview with Ann Coulter on jambands.com. I just re-read the interview, and wanted to respond to a couple of things… I do need to start off by admitting that, due to how busy (and sometimes lazy) I usually am, I really have not done a great job of keeping up with politics over the last few years – so I do not really know much about Coulter’s political views. However, there seems to be much animosity between her and persons that I have paid attention to and that I respect. Therefore, I am guessing that she and I would tend to disagree on many points….

The point that matters the most here: is Ann Coulter a deadhead? Whereas Taylor Hill, the interviewer, states, "there’s no doubting her tie-dyed credentials," the article does, in fact, leave me doubting her "credentials."
My primary response is to say that she is not really a "true" deadhead. Yet, what ARE the credentials for being a "deadhead?" I personally don’t believe that being able to claim attendance at a bunch of shows and knowing song titles makes one a deadhead. Since she grew up in a "preppie town," tends "to associate the Dead with lacrosse players," and hung out with fraternities, I’m guessing that she was in a sorority. Since she went to Cornell, and would go sailing before concerts, I’m guessing that she also has always had access to money, which often seems part and parcel of those involved in Greek culture (as well as politics).

In my personal experience, those involved in the Greek culture have a very identifiable appearance. Isn’t it quite easy to spot a "frat boy" or a "sorority girl," based on how they dress, talk, and act? Sure, there are folks in these groups who do not so easily fit the mold – but for the most part, there is almost a cookie cutter look to those involved in the Greek scene. Of course the same might be said of "deadheads," (or any group, for that matter) as entering a Dead parking lot is like traveling back in time. However, just as there were a few "true" deadheads who found their way into the Greek scene, it should not have surprised anyone that a few folks from that scene then found their way into the Dead scene. Cross-pollination has occurred – and naturally so, as these two groups need not be mutually exclusive.

However, in my personal opinion, those involved in the Greek scene have always had a tendency to be very fad-oriented. Even their very "uniform" gives them a distinctive look – most notably fraternity guys with their baseball cap turned backwards, the shades resting on the brim of the cap, etc… If I am right about Coulter being in a sorority, then she even displays in the interview this very tendency towards hopping on board with the fad. She says, "Truth be told I hated tie-dye, though I finally broke down and would wear tie-dyed Dead shirts to concerts solely as a tribute to my fellow deadheads." She follows this with several other "we were supposed to" statements, which further illustrate an almost BORG-like mentality about the deadhead subculture: "I even love ‘Alabama Getaway,’ which I gather deadheads are supposed to spurn for being ‘commercially successful.’ (Of course, we were also supposed to say, ‘Phil makes the band.’)" I’m sure there were many deadheads who liked this song. Likewise, I’m sure there were many that hated the song based solely on either the music or the lyrics (after all, don’t we all have certain songs that we love and hate?) And what the hell is this statement about Phil? Where did that come from?

So, is it possible to claim that at some point (probably before I even started going to Dead shows) the Dead became the latest fad for Greek culture? Is there any connection between this claim, the appearance on the top-40 charts and MTV of the hit song, 'Touch of Grey,' and the Dead’s rise to the top of the touring world? Please enlighten me on this, as I was not part of the touring scene before 1990. I heard that even through much of the ‘80s, it was a very relaxed atmosphere, and that much of that disappeared when the Dead started selling out football stadiums. Either way, at some point, it seems that the Dead became a de facto band of choice for Greek culture – not that it was the only band they listened to, but it surely became one of the bands that they ALL listened to. Does this mean that frat boys and sorority girls (including Coulter) are not "true" deadheads, but just folks jumping on the latest Greek craze?

{Set break – just a few visceral reactions to parts of her interview}:

Coulter: "Oddly enough, I like the music. No one believes that I never took drugs at Dead shows (except for the massive clouds of passive marijuana smoke) but I went because I really liked the music." WHAT? Oddly enough, she likes the music? As if the rest of those in attendance took drugs to compensate for the fact that they had to listen to the music? This comment alone convinces me that she really is not in tune with other deadheads.

Coulter: "Also there was a big deadhead Christian group that handed out terrific pamphlets at Dead shows. Admittedly, many of them found God staring into a puddle while high on LSD, but whatever the path, they were very serious Christians." This is just FULL of problems. First of all, MANY deadheads were raised Christian – and many still held some kind of faith in god long before they first experimented with drugs. Plus, the ritualistic feeling of Dead shows (as well as the religious experiences to be possibly found through attendance) was an obvious outlet for those seeking to continue some kind of positive communal experience without the rigid structure and often persecuting nature of churches. And, as Gertner points out in Weiner’s Perspectives on the Grateful Dead, there are also many Jewish deadheads. Coulter makes it sound like we were a bunch of godless heathens who just came to shows to take drugs and not listen to the music.

Coulter: "She might not like "Space", but no one who was not on drugs did." Okay, first of all (and correct me if I’m wrong), didn’t the wharf rats meet at the SET BREAK, and not during space? Second of all, I realized this was an interview, but her language almost suggests that however SHE (and her group of friends) felt about space was the agreed-upon feeling for all deadheads. Did she ask others about this? I guess I should not be surprised that someone with strong political leanings speaks, as just one part, on behalf of the WHOLE. I personally saw the Dead drunk, as well as on all kinds of drugs. But, I also saw them several times completely sober – and enjoyed drums and space at each show. All of these brazen statements, as well as others, lead me to strongly dismiss her "credentials" as a deadhead.

{Second Set – deadhead Identity)

So, at the Ratdog show, I was reminded of one of the things that used to bug me about shows: those persons who feel the need to sing EVERY word to EVERY song as loud as they can. Really, guys, (and it’s usually guys), I didn’t pay my hard earned money to hear YOU sing. I came to hear the band. (Keep in mind this is coming from a professional singer as well – so, maybe I’m also slightly judgmental about these guys because they really can’t sing.)

There was one guy in particular at the Ratdog show who not only did this, but he even sang the "sound bytes" of the songs (those lines that EVERYBODY knows and sings together in chorus) in anticipation BEFORE the musicians. It was as if he was saying, "See how well I know this song? I have memorized ALL the words!" Congratulations. You are in a class all your own.

I’ve often felt that people who sing all the words to all the songs were trying to prove something. Let’s face it – at some point in the history of the deadhead subculture, it became really freaking cool to be a deadhead. If you can gain entrance into a really cool group, and show that you can be as cool (and knowledgeable) as anybody in the group, then that must provide a strong feeling of acceptance and security.

Case in point: set lists. I honestly doubt that there was one particular point in deadhead subculture when one particular deadhead decided, "Hey, I wonder how cool I would look if I started referencing shows and set lists… like, ‘Hey man, remember 6/9/79? What a killer Shakedown that was! And into Scarlet – Fire ta boot!!’" No, I believe that this type of "language" evolved on its own, and became the norm of communication for deadheads to share the experience of the show with those who missed out that night. So, in order to be a "deadhead," hadn’t you better learn the lingo? Shouldn’t you get as many bootlegs as possible and be knowledgeable in what songs were played when? It seems like keeping set lists became more a matter of status than of practicality.

Hadn’t you also better go to as many shows as possible? Let’s face it – the number of shows one attended became a benchmark in the community, did it not? Of course, however, it’s not cool to know exactly how many you went to, as if you were counting. Coulter makes damn sure to make it clear that she does not know. (I, for one, do know how many shows I attended. But I’m not telling.)

So, is Coulter a true deadhead? Who is really qualified to say? I don’t believe that I, or anyone for that matter, regardless of how one feels about her, can truly say for sure, as the term "deadhead" is incredibly vague anyway. So I, for one, will say that it is not my place to say whether or not Coulter, or anyone else, is a deadhead. If she enjoys the music, then she should go to shows. I probably wouldn’t have much to say to her, but we ultimately go to listen to the music anyway, right? (Except, of course, for the majority of those in attendance, who go just for the drugs….)

However, Coulter states: "Apart from Al Gore, Al Franken is the most un-deadhead like person I know of who purports to be a deadhead." Even though we cannot say for sure if Coulter is a deadhead, I would say that as we attempt to label that which possibly could never be labeled, that somebody who thinks it is up for them to decide who is or is not a deadhead is, themselves, NOT a deadhead. (Although, by my own logic, I guess that statement makes me NOT a deadhead, right?)

{Encore – Comes a Time}

Perhaps there comes a time when we need to let go of trying to define what a deadhead is. Perhaps it is not up to anyone but the individual to accept or reject that label for themselves.

Coulter says, "There are various groups I get enthusiastic about for awhile, but of all the music I've listened to over the years, the Grateful Dead is the one band I never grow tired of." My good friend Matthew Hise (check out his work! http://www.matthewhise.com/), who was instrumental in turning me on to the Dead, one time categorized a deadhead as someone who can listen to the Dead at ANY given point… someone who will never grow tired of the Dead’s music. If Coulter wants to call herself a deadhead, then that is fine with me.

However, if folks are going to get into the business of whether or not they want to call themselves deadheads, then they need to recognize that they are part of a community that is greater than themselves. And if they want to take part in that community, I submit that they should adopt – and everyone should be encouraged to follow – Jesus’ mandate about praying found in Matthew 6 (which I strongly suggest for everyone to look up and digest), the gist of which is to do it in private, and not to do it openly to be seen by all. I would add to this that if any particular deadhead is an individual of national stature, then they should be very responsible and careful with what they say about the Dead and deadheads – because all it takes is ONE person who is well known to negatively color the minds and influence the opinions of the general public about this most beloved community of ours.

We can expect this from those outside of the community. The danger lies more with those on the inside who act irresponsibly.

You can re-read Coulter’s interview at:
http://www.jambands.com/Features/content_2006_06_23.06.phtml

Airports and Herd Mentality

Two weeks ago, I traveled to Switzerland to sing the Verdi Requiem under the baton of James Levine. This was an incredible musical experience, as well as a fantastic trip for one such as myself who loves to travel – except where flying is concerned. That is to say, if flying is involved, I love the destination but not the actual journey. Call me a bad Buddhist. I try to apply the ‘in the moment’ approach to the rest of my life, but I sure do hate flying.

Now that I am in my "critique the world" mode, while on this recent trip I couldn’t help but notice something peculiar about human behavior when flying is involved. I cannot think of anywhere else that human beings act more like a herd of cattle (except maybe at a buffet), and it really is a sight to behold. Consider the two following examples…

LINES. In an airport, some waiting must be endured, and the check-in line in the airport lobby (as well as the security checkpoint line) is no exception. This type of line is similar to that found at rock concerts or sporting events, and is mostly unavoidable and necessary. However, while we were waiting at the terminal gate, an announcement was made that all passengers had to present documentation at another desk before boarding commenced. At this point, almost everyone in the terminal hurried to line up and wait to present said documentation.

Now, if you are thinking to yourself, "I’ll be cramped in the steerage compartment of this airplane for the next eight hours, so I’ll take this opportunity to wait in line and stretch my legs," then you are wise. However, I couldn’t help but wonder how many of these people rushed over to the line just because everyone else was rushing over to the line.

Another example of this action that begs scrutiny is the lineup to board the plane. Isn’t it bizarre that as soon as people hear the words, "Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen," they grab their baggage and rush into a line? Listen, people, they are going to board those with special needs and first-class tickets before you, so just sit your economy-class self down and be patient.

As there is a plethora of seats in the waiting area, both of these types of lines are avoidable and unnecessary. In the first case, does it not make more sense to keep an eye on the line and to approach when there are just a few people in line, thereby producing a steadily moving small line? Or, in the second case, to wait until they are actually boarding the row in which you are sitting? If everyone took this approach, we wouldn’t all have to stand around waiting, constantly moving our carry-on baggage a mere 15 inches forward at a time. Alas, our herd mentality has conditioned us to participate in such unnecessary lines.
In itself, these lines are not a problem, save for two exceptions:

1. PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT LINES. If you are standing in a line when you don’t need to and you are the type of person who complains about waiting in lines, then shame on you. Sit down, keep you mouth shut, and wait until the line dies down.

2. The fact that a large group of people with lots of luggage creates a bottleneck in the terminal which is difficult to circumambulate. This is even more noticeable during boarding, as much of the line consists of those with seats in the front of the plane who are just in the way of those who are currently being boarded. This wouldn’t be such a problem if most people weren’t ostensibly oblivious to other people around them.

Personally, I just sat in my seat and complained about the lines (which you are allowed to do if sitting.)

BAGGAGE CLAIM. Why does EVERY passenger feel the need to stand RIGHT in front of the baggage claim conveyorbelt – even before the bags start circulating? The length of the conveyorbelt is not approximate to the number of passengers on a flight. This means that every person on a flight cannot all stand directly in front of the conveyorbelt at the same time. Which means that if EVERY person rushes to stand in front, there is once again a bottleneck, which gets worse with each piece of heavy luggage pulled off the conveyorbelt. Just stand back! You need to allow space for the luggage being pulled off!

This bottleneck also creates sight line issues. It is difficult to see if a bag is yours when there is a mob of people standing in front of you. Actually, it’s difficult to even see any bags! Does this sound familiar to anyone: standing on your tip-toes to see over the shoulders of the people in front of you, or peering through the small space in between two people to see the bags? And then there’s that rushed feeling of jerking up your luggage before it gets away from you, as you have little room to maneuver. I am a fairly laid back person, and don’t rush to get a good spot at the conveyorbelt. As a result, I always have to push through a crowd to get my bag, and then end up bumping into people with my luggage once I get my bag. I guess it serves them right. They should give a little breathing room.

How’s this for an idea… why don’t we all stand back away from the conveyorbelt. Then, EVERYONE will be able to see ALL the bags, and then when you see your bags coming through, you can move forward and easily retrieve them?

Ultimately, the problem is that in airports (and in many other public places), people seem to have the need to be first – first in line, first to get your bags – all at the expense of fluidity and order. This is a problem of either ego or impatience, both of which are problematic when you live in proximity to lots of other people. Maybe we all need to learn to get over ourselves or learn to relax. God forbid we have to wait an extra three minutes for our luggage to come around again.

The Problem of Over-Air Conditioning

For the last few days, the New York Metropolitan area has experienced relatively high temperatures, even setting records in several nearby locations. We have been, according to the local newscasters, in an official heat wave. Now, as a southerner by birth, I do not really find it to be so incredibly unbearable up here. Sure, it’s hot. But that’s what summer is all about, right? After yet another bitterly cold winter, isn’t this heat just wonderful?

Several nights while I was in Stonington, I slept with the windows closed, covered by three blankets. We actually lit a fire in the fireplace one night - in the middle of July! Maine was a bit chilly for my tastes. I could not wait to get back to the extreme summer heat. However, now that I am back, I am already finding myself in an all-too-familiar scenario. Thus, let me introduce you to yet another problem I have noticed in America: The problem of over-air conditioning.

I really just don’t get it. I understand that not everybody shares my tastes for heat. When the temperature passes 85 degrees, I hear wailing and gnashing of teeth. But, honestly, America, do we need to make it that cold indoors? It often seems that the higher the temperature is outside, the more they blast the air inside. I thought I had finally learned my lesson about indoor air-conditioning, so when I went to a musical rehearsal tonight, I wore long pants and also took a long sleeve shirt. And, as many of you know, I have a full head of hair right now. Yet, I was still cold at points during the rehearsal. I’m sorry, but when it is 95 degrees outside, I usually don’t think about bringing a sweater and my winter hat when I walk out the door to go to work. However, my personal comfort temporarily aside, I would like to share two problems I see with air conditioning.

First, this is poor economic planning. Considering our current political and economic climate, it seems that everyone is concerned about finances, individuals and businesses alike. Does it not cost a lot of money to run air conditioning, especially in a large corporate building? The church where I am paid to sing, for instance, recently cut one of the choral services (due to budgetary constraints), causing numerous musicians to have to seek money elsewhere – one of the contributing factors to my current situation. Yet, every time I am in the building, I find it to be colder than necessary. Could they not save valuable economic resources by not blasting the AC? I know that churches are concerned about hell-fire and brimstone, but they really should relay this message through sermons, not through air conditioners.

Secondly, this is poor resource allocation. Right now, we should ALL agree that there is at least the mere possibility that we do NOT live on a planet that has limitless natural resources. (Unfortunately, I think there are probably people in this world who will not even grant that possibility). Considering the recurring power problems in the state of California, not to mention the memorable black out of the entire northeast two years ago, perhaps we should go on the offensive and start figuring out ways to tackle this problem before it gets out of hand. I believe one major way to contribute is to not use so much AC indoors. Let’s give the Power Company a break!

Now, of course, just as we do not all share the same tastes regarding heat, we likewise do not have the same reaction to air-conditioning. In fact, tonight, after mentioning to the guy next to me that I was cold, his response was one I have heard throughout my life: "You need to put some meat on your bones!" Fair enough. I will admit that I have a thin frame, which surely contributes to my being cold. (Which is why I dislike winter up here.) It’s really not my fault, though. I really do eat like a horse. Those of you who have seen me go to town on a buffet can attest. Honestly, if I devoted any more time to eating I would have to quit working altogether! (Which would not help my current financial situation.)

So, I am thin, and suffer through indoor air conditioning as a result. Still, it seems bizarre to me that a culture that is obsessed with health, that encourages personal fitness and places so much emphasis on the need to be thin, basically punishes all the thin people by setting the AC to unbearable levels for them. You’ll see what I mean if you will take notice of who is complaining about the building being cold.

So, ultimately, for those who love the heat of summer (specifically, the daytime heat), it is available for your enjoyment only if you have loads of free time on your hands (a category that I happen to currently fall under.) That being said, I’m glad that this period of under-employment can occur during the summer, as having a full-time job would be tantamount to winter for my skinny butt.

The Problem of Toilet Seat Etiquette in Public Restrooms

So, I wonder… Have any of you males out there ever been chastised for "leaving the seat up" in the bathroom? Surely you have noticed that restroom etiquette, mostly according to females (starting with our mothers), dictates that the toilet seat should always be left down after finishing one’s business. Due to severe conditioning since a very early age, I have almost always blindly followed this feminine mandate like a good little soldier, even when I lived in the men’s dorm in college (well, okay, the boy’s dorm). However, there is an inherent problem with this mandate.

Dear reader, in case you haven’t noticed, in most public restrooms that men use (which encompasses countless establishments that have unisex restrooms), the toilet seats are NASTY. Why? I’ll tell you why: because they are COVERED IN URINE. Why are they covered in urine? Because some men are too stupid to lift the lid before they piss. Most of the time when I use a public restroom, I think that I’m the ONLY man who ever lifts the seat. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here! Didn’t all men learn to lift the seat? Unfortunately, we men did not all grow up with Miss Manners.

Now that I think about it, a lot of men did not grow up with any common sense either. In retrospect, this toilet seat issue has ALWAYS confounded me because men occasionally have to sit down to do a "number two." And as every man (except those with bizarre fetishes) surely feels, it is absolutely disgusting to put your butt cheeks on another man’s urine. Can I get a witness on this one? Surely, we have ALL experienced the process of meticulously wiping off the seat (sometimes not so meticulous because business is calling rapidly) and have realized, in the process, how nasty it is that the seat – OUR seat in the present moment – is covered in human excrement.

SO, I have two pertinent questions:

1. Why in the world do some men NOT lift the seat? Guys, you ALL know that at some point YOU will have to sit for a #2 in a public restroom. So, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING by not lifting the seat for #1? You make me very sad. I try to tell my close female friends that men do not always have sex on the brain. But apparently, even as you are simply walking to the bathroom to do #1, you pass some hot woman, your brain shuts off, and you are unable to think about anything except how to get laid. I can’t think of any other possible explanation as to why you would urinate on a seat that you yourself might have to use in the future.

2. More importantly, why do women not only DEMAND that the seat be left down, but make such a BIG DEAL about it? "Oh my GOD, that’s so nasty – so inconsiderate – that man left the seat up!" Women, it makes me even sadder that your unceasing and unquestioning loyalty to convention, tradition, and standards has blinded your ability to think logically on this matter. I would think that in a culture full of men who urinate on your toilet seats, you would be THRILLED to see a man leave the seat up after using the toilet. You should encourage such behavior.

I would like to propose a solution: let’s make women do the work for a change. Let’s ALL leave the seat UP – let that be its natural resting position. If we can instill this idea nationwide, then we can all put the seat DOWN when we use the restroom (men, for #2 only, please) and it won’t be covered in urine, since the stupid, lazy, sex-always-on-the-brain man will not urinate all over the seat every time he goes to the john.

Pass this one on. Let’s see if this idea catches on. If it does, then it will merely be the first blow (of many) to convention, tradition, and standards that I intend to make over the course of these writings. Cause let’s face it. The world is messed up. It’s time to start fixing it.

Occupational Discrimination, Part I – "The 9 to 5 Breakfast Hierarchy"

Today, I woke up at noon and went to the restaurant downstairs for an egg and cheese sandwich and coffee. It was quite tasty. It’s good to be back in New York – a city that has some advantages over many other places I have either visited or lived in over the course of my life. One such advantage is that in this city, there are numerous eating establishments offering breakfast food 24 hours a day. Due to the nature of the city and its millions of inhabitants (specifically, the countless different types of work of its inhabitants), not everyone works the same schedule. Some people work the so-called "normal" hours of 9 to 5. However, there are MANY persons who work 2nd or 3rd shift. There are even some who work what I will propose to be a 4th shift – that of artisans, musicians, writers, insomniacs, and drunks… those who have absolutely NO fixed schedule, but are always just going with whatever their schedule may be on any given day. So, in NYC, if Arnold the Artist, Mickey the Musician or Ian the Insomniac wakes up at 2pm (or even 6pm) there is always SOMEWHERE to get a bona fide breakfast: eggs, bacon, grits, toast – whatever suits your tastes.

I just finished a month of full-time work in the small coastal town of Stonington, Maine, singing in a world premiere of a new opera. One morning, when it was only 11am (which I, as a musician, still consider to be on the ‘early’ side), the only four eating establishments in town were no longer serving breakfast. "Sorry, we JUST stopped serving breakfast" was the recurring refrain.

Do all the eggs crack and run out the drain at 10:59am? Has the bacon gone bad? (Are pigs robbing banks?) Would it really be THAT difficult to scramble some eggs and toast some friggin’ bread for me before I begin MY workday?

This, my friends, is occupational discrimination. It suggest that the establishments of Stonington, Maine (thereby reflecting the attitude of the people who own, operate, and frequent these establishments) agree unanimously that there is a NORM (which shares the same Latin root as "normal") for when THE work day starts. And thus a norm for when the day ENDS as well – since the whole town shuts down at 9pm. Therefore, if you do not start your workday at the hours dictated by that NORM, then YOU ARE NOT NORMAL.

Stonington is the spitting image of many other places I have visited. In such places, if there is not a 24-hour diner nearby, then the assumption is that you should eat eggs, bacon, and grits when everyone else eats eggs, bacon, and grits. And if you do not agree with the assumption, then tough luck. You must eat eggs, bacon, and grits when everyone else does, or you will have to make your own (which assumes both that you can cook and that you have access to a kitchen, which may not be the case for every individual. Consider, for example, travelers passing through town or those with phobias of cooking.)

It is a shame that discrimination of others stretches this far into the social fabric of places such as that small fishing town full of early risers. Fine with me. If I lived there, I’d say that I would just get a 9 to 5 job and play according to ‘their’ schedule. However, if I can’t get a job in New York City, what kind of chance would I have of getting a job there? Oh well. Now that I’m home, I can get eggs and bacon at whatever time I wake up. So, I might as well sleep in tomorrow.

INTRODUCTORY BLOG: Greetings, cruel world! Now kiss my ass!

hi folks, whoever you are. the time has finally come.

i recently applied for a job as a youth minister at an episcopal church. i was told that i do not meet their qualifications. this means that i have hit rock bottom in terms of my job search. since i have been involved in youth ministry in many different capacities for ALMOST 20 YEARS, let it thus be said:
if I am not qualified - based on my credentials, work experience, intellect, creativity, and passion - to be a youth minister (even after offering a letter of recommendation from the episcopal bishop of west virginia!) then i am not qualified to do ANYTHING.

if i told you the sheer number and scope of diversity of jobs for which i have applied (and been mostly ignored), you would probably stare blankly in disbelief and then break down into tears. it is absolutely amazing that nobody will consider hiring me for a full time job. but i have decided to stop feeling sorry for myself and stop doubting my abilities.

after almost a year and a half of searching for full-time work, with absolutely no luck; after becoming financially despondent as a result of not being able to find substantial gainful employment; after struggling with depression as a result of my financial problems:

i have decided to start writing. for several reasons.

reason #1. just for fun. i recently started "journaling" again, and have found that i not only love writing, but also think that i write pretty interesting stuff. so, i mostly just want to get my ideas "out there" in whatever way possible. i want to share them with people who take me seriously, since the people who do the hiring in New York City do not...

reason #2. perhaps this will help my job situation. IF you enjoy what you read (and i don't really care if you do), then feel free to forward it to your friends, family, or colleagues. especially if they work for a publisher, or can offer me a job as a freelance writer for a newspaper or magazine.

reason #3. life is short, especially in this age of terrorism. you do not know when 'your time' will come. if for any reason, 'my time' is to come soon, then I need to go ahead and start getting some of my ideas out there... out into the world. because, if I DON'T get these ideas out of my overactive and under-utilized brain (thanks so much for nothing, working world), then I AM GOING TO GO ABSOLUTELY CRAZY.

i don't know if anyone will actually read all this crap. this is more for MY benefit anyway. i just need to do something productive with my life after wasting the past year out of sheer boredom. so, enjoy the following entries, whenever they may trickle into the blog. (that sounds like good song lyrics...)