As a part-time salesperson in a computer store, I have a few pet peeves about dealing with customers and consumer electronics. Just allow me to vent:
1. Customers looking for the perfect product - No matter how long or arduous your search, the perfect product is never to be found. It is amazing how many people pop in to the store with their iPhone or iPod, searching for the perfect case, who subsequently explain to me: "I just want to protect my investment." I desperately want to respond: "I'm sure you'll see a return on that 'investment' very soon." I have opened hundreds of cases for hundreds of finicky customers and none of them are ever totally satisfied with what they inevitably buy. It's a waste of time and energy for them and I.
2. Customers complaining about the cost of iPhone accessories - At the forefront, I am always surprised by people willing to spend $300 on a cell phone (no matter how many functions it has). And yet, after spending half a month's rent on such a device, these are the people who complain about a $15 wall charger. iPhones are expensive. Apple products are expensive. If you aren't prepared to spend liberally, don't buy a consumer product that demands just that.
3. Customers merely looking to spend money - It is absolutely astonishing how many people waltz in and say to me: "What's cool? What can I buy?" I understand that I, as a salesperson, should feel incredibly lucky to have customers like this - and if worked on commission, maybe I would - but it only serves to annoy me. What should you do with your extra money? Buy your wife flowers. Donate to a local charity. It's an entirely judgmental statement, but almost anything would be a better use of money than buying a faster router so that you can watch youtube with less lag time.
There, I've complained enough. Now I feel a little like Peter Griffin from "Family Guy" doing his 'What Grinds My Gears' bit ---
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
A few other cents on sports & sportsmanship
By now, most of you have probably read the recent news story of the Dallas, Texas high school (Covenant) which beat another crosstown rival (Dallas Academy) 100-0 in a horribly mismatched basketball game. The game was 59-0 at the end of the first half and the girls on the Covenant side seemed particularly eager to reach the 100-point mark by the end of the game. Since the story broke, Covenant apologized for their team's conduct and sought to forfeit the game, calling the win "shameful." Now, the coach of the Covenant girls' basketball team has been fired after disagreeing with the administration's statement.
There may be no right answer to the moral puzzle presented here. In a fairer world, Dallas Academy (which has not won a game in the past four years) would not have played a state-championship contender like Covenant. In fairer world, the Dallas coach would have forfeit the game at halftime and praised his girls for their tenacity. Finally, in a fairer world the Covenant squad would have scored a handful of points and, subsequently, no one would have talked about this game after it ended.
But none of these things happened. One team won and one team lost. Badly. As such, it's raised a multitude of ethical questions (most of which can be applied to any sport, regardless of the school or league): Should a winning team stop their scoring attempts once they've built an insurmountable lead? In such a situation, should one of the coaches make an attempt to stop the game? Is it right to forfeit a contest with so lopsided a conclusion?
Personally, I think all these questions return to the problem of pity, which is why I would answer (respectively) no, not necessarily, and no to the questions posed above. As a person who has played on many a losing team, I would argue that the last thing a failing team wants is pity. It's demeaning and it shouldn't be mistaken for mercy (which is an act of love). And for those Covenant girls to practice passing drills for forty-eight minutes or to dribble circles around the Dallas team without scoring, that's exactly what it would have been - demeaning. Additionally, the Covenant administration's move to forfeit the game is demeaning. I will be the first to praise the Dallas team for their fortitude in the face of such adversity - consider how few of us would willingly have played the entire game - but it insults the players to say they "won" in any conventional sense. It's unrealistic and it attempts to refute the valuable lesson learned here. Dallas Academy lost but they lost after playing with incredible vigor and tenacity. Very few competitors could say they would have done the same.
There may be no right answer to the moral puzzle presented here. In a fairer world, Dallas Academy (which has not won a game in the past four years) would not have played a state-championship contender like Covenant. In fairer world, the Dallas coach would have forfeit the game at halftime and praised his girls for their tenacity. Finally, in a fairer world the Covenant squad would have scored a handful of points and, subsequently, no one would have talked about this game after it ended.
But none of these things happened. One team won and one team lost. Badly. As such, it's raised a multitude of ethical questions (most of which can be applied to any sport, regardless of the school or league): Should a winning team stop their scoring attempts once they've built an insurmountable lead? In such a situation, should one of the coaches make an attempt to stop the game? Is it right to forfeit a contest with so lopsided a conclusion?
Personally, I think all these questions return to the problem of pity, which is why I would answer (respectively) no, not necessarily, and no to the questions posed above. As a person who has played on many a losing team, I would argue that the last thing a failing team wants is pity. It's demeaning and it shouldn't be mistaken for mercy (which is an act of love). And for those Covenant girls to practice passing drills for forty-eight minutes or to dribble circles around the Dallas team without scoring, that's exactly what it would have been - demeaning. Additionally, the Covenant administration's move to forfeit the game is demeaning. I will be the first to praise the Dallas team for their fortitude in the face of such adversity - consider how few of us would willingly have played the entire game - but it insults the players to say they "won" in any conventional sense. It's unrealistic and it attempts to refute the valuable lesson learned here. Dallas Academy lost but they lost after playing with incredible vigor and tenacity. Very few competitors could say they would have done the same.
My two cents on an embattled mayor
In terms of Portland-area news, I may be weighing in on this debate a tad late but for those of you who aren't aware of our current political "scandal", here's a rundown: Sam Adams, Portland's newly elected mayor, has recently come under fire for his short-lived relationship with an eighteen-year-old legislative intern in the summer of 2007. Until two weeks ago, Adams had repeatedly stated that his relationship with the intern was only one of friendship and professional mentoring. But after a particularly in-depth report by a local alternative newspaper, Adams admitted that he had lied about the nature of the relationship. It had been, he admitted, consensually sexual and he first lied about it because he thought it would create an unwelcome focal point in the mayoral race. Some Portland residents have been outspoken about their desire to see Adams resign, while others have staunchly supported his decision to remain in office. The most prevalent ammunition hurled by detractors is not the relationship itself but Adams' act of lying.
I may be stealing a response from incoming U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, but in regards to the query of whether or not it's wrong that Adams lied, I believe it's impossible to answer the question without questioning the premise. Adams relationship with the intern may have not have been commendable but, nevertheless, it was perfectly legal. Their contact was consensual and the intern was over eighteen and did not work for him. So, it must be asked, why the initial questions about the relationship? Couldn't Adams simply have said that the matter was personal and, thus, not open for discussion? I understand that there are other issues at play here (e.g. questions of unethical reciprocity) but in terms of the first lie, I can't condemn Adams any more than I can someone who lies about a past infidelity to a nosy neighbor. If we demand more government transparency, and expect politicians to answer increasingly personal questions, we shouldn't be surprised to discover very typical, very human flaws.
I may be stealing a response from incoming U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, but in regards to the query of whether or not it's wrong that Adams lied, I believe it's impossible to answer the question without questioning the premise. Adams relationship with the intern may have not have been commendable but, nevertheless, it was perfectly legal. Their contact was consensual and the intern was over eighteen and did not work for him. So, it must be asked, why the initial questions about the relationship? Couldn't Adams simply have said that the matter was personal and, thus, not open for discussion? I understand that there are other issues at play here (e.g. questions of unethical reciprocity) but in terms of the first lie, I can't condemn Adams any more than I can someone who lies about a past infidelity to a nosy neighbor. If we demand more government transparency, and expect politicians to answer increasingly personal questions, we shouldn't be surprised to discover very typical, very human flaws.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Another bit of Vonnegut
I don't mean to discuss him ad nauseam, but I rediscovered a great article on the A.V Club today that I thought worth sharing: "15 Things Kurt Vonnegut Said Better Than Anyone Else Ever Has Or Will". I think I enjoy lists like this because they acknowledge the splendid things I fail to mention or, at the very least, commit to memory. My favorite quotes appear below (with their respective novels):
"I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, 'If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.'"
`from A Man Without A Country. I talked about this sentiment in an earlier post but I figured I'd at least identify the novel - plus it's one of the few hopeful moments in Vonnegut's otherwise bitter swan song.
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where’s evil? It’s that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on his side. It’s that part of every man that finds all kinds of ugliness so attractive...It’s that part of an imbecile...that punishes and vilifies and makes war gladly."
`from Mother Night. Possibly my second favorite novel of his, it has a wonderfully dark sense of humor and more than a few pearls of wisdom. Darker still, these judgments are most often presented by an exiled American accused of disseminating Nazi propaganda.
"Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you've got about a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies — God damn it, you've got to be kind."
`from God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater. Probably Vonnegut's shortest summation of his personal ethos, this quote comes from my all-time favorite KV novel. Though I don't consider myself a secular humanist, nor do I think this little book provides his best quotes, I dearly love the story. Eliot Rosewater is a character for the ages. He’s Christ-like, but much more human than Christ. A drunk with an intense interest in local fire-protection, a dreamer, a giver, a slob, and possibly a madman (at least, part of the time). Maybe Mr. Rosewater doesn’t reflect Jesus as much as he does John the Baptist – a recluse nearly alone in the wilderness, save for the hordes of pathetic, repenting souls who come to him for help and healing.
"I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, 'If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.'"
`from A Man Without A Country. I talked about this sentiment in an earlier post but I figured I'd at least identify the novel - plus it's one of the few hopeful moments in Vonnegut's otherwise bitter swan song.
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where’s evil? It’s that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on his side. It’s that part of every man that finds all kinds of ugliness so attractive...It’s that part of an imbecile...that punishes and vilifies and makes war gladly."
`from Mother Night. Possibly my second favorite novel of his, it has a wonderfully dark sense of humor and more than a few pearls of wisdom. Darker still, these judgments are most often presented by an exiled American accused of disseminating Nazi propaganda.
"Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you've got about a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies — God damn it, you've got to be kind."
`from God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater. Probably Vonnegut's shortest summation of his personal ethos, this quote comes from my all-time favorite KV novel. Though I don't consider myself a secular humanist, nor do I think this little book provides his best quotes, I dearly love the story. Eliot Rosewater is a character for the ages. He’s Christ-like, but much more human than Christ. A drunk with an intense interest in local fire-protection, a dreamer, a giver, a slob, and possibly a madman (at least, part of the time). Maybe Mr. Rosewater doesn’t reflect Jesus as much as he does John the Baptist – a recluse nearly alone in the wilderness, save for the hordes of pathetic, repenting souls who come to him for help and healing.
From the Desk of the Editor ---
At the risk of being labeled prolific or arrogant (or not being labeled at all), I have started a second blog, The Pith Report. I conceived of the idea after a failed attempt to write for a popular, satirical news website. (Though any current similarities to that site are almost purely coincidental). The Report provides daily updates on all things pithy and inconsequential. (Making it almost entirely different from this blog). Please give it a read and remember that you can always sign up and follow my blog(s), subscribe to the RSS feed(s), and comment upon any/all posts.
Thank you,
The Editor
Thank you,
The Editor
Friday, January 23, 2009
Two hands, two feet, ten tasks
Over the past few days (or years, if I'm honest) I have been fighting with my ability and/or willingness to multi-task. It's an area where I frequently fail. But my allegiance is torn between wanting to improve and my desire to go against the grain. In most respects I think our society moves too quickly, enjoys too little, and tries to extract too many tasks out of our waking life. Beyond this belief I find it maddening that we, as a nation, are flying around more quickly than ever and, statistically, getting less done. I don't believe anything worthwhile can be accomplished with satisfactory results while ten other things are being attended at the same time. Mark Twain, as usual, said it best: "The bane of Americans is overwork--and the ruin of any work is a divided interest. Concentrate - concentrate. One thing at a time." I am not innocent of this lack of concentration - I frequently compose intimidating lists of tasks I need to accomplish and, in the scant time over lunch break I devote to them, I often fail miserably. (I'm currently writing this post while devouring leftover enchiladas from last night).
However, once upon a time, I did have a personal system to deal with all this pressure. Instead of going off a fifteen-item list of things I "should" get done that day, every morning I sat down and wrote one tiny list. The absolute limit was three tasks, but if they were larger jobs (e.g. writing a paper for class, catching up on "Lost") I could cut the list down to one or two items. In this way, I finished two or three important things each day and found myself less overwhelmed and more satisfied at the end of the week. Though it's been a proven system for me, I frequently fall out of the habit and find myself stuck with a massive to do list and a body too stressed to finish it. It's probably time to retake the antidote.
(cartoon by Bruce Eric Kaplan)
However, once upon a time, I did have a personal system to deal with all this pressure. Instead of going off a fifteen-item list of things I "should" get done that day, every morning I sat down and wrote one tiny list. The absolute limit was three tasks, but if they were larger jobs (e.g. writing a paper for class, catching up on "Lost") I could cut the list down to one or two items. In this way, I finished two or three important things each day and found myself less overwhelmed and more satisfied at the end of the week. Though it's been a proven system for me, I frequently fall out of the habit and find myself stuck with a massive to do list and a body too stressed to finish it. It's probably time to retake the antidote.
(cartoon by Bruce Eric Kaplan)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
