Sunday, March 20, 2005

FUCK YOU RENAISSANCE!

Fourty-five minutes for a fucking pinini? Are you serious? Are you fucking seriousing me?

First of all, a "few minutes" in my book doesn't mean 45. Five or 10 I can see, even 15. But fucking 45?! If it's going to be over half an hour, fucking tell me that. Don't give me "just a few minutes" shit when you know it's not. Second, don't give me that "we're understaffed" bullshit. How long have you been in operation? If you have two people on duty on weekdays, two people should be plenty enough for the weekends. Compared to weekdays, SFU is a fucking ghost town on Sunday. And really, if that retarded brown chick behind the counter knew what she was doing, there wouldn't have been a backlog in the first place. Using the microwaves to speed up the process? I'll give you credit for that. But you know what? It probably would be even better to make use of all the grills. If there are four grills and a backlog of orders, you use all four grills, NOT TWO. It's not that fucking hard. And those grills weren't broken, she used all of them... just not at the same time because, apparently, she's fucking stupid. Third, if you forget whose order is whose, FUCKING ASK! Don't just stare aimlessly for 2 minutes, only to put it to the side and ignore it.

...

I'd continue, but I was interupted and have lost the rhythm. I meant everything I wrote up there, but probably could have found a more constructive way to say it. It's amazing what a simple "thank you" will do for your mood. You're welcome, Jess.

And thank you.

It's all about the D.R.E.A.M.

So I get a phone call yesterday from a client who just wants to make it clear that she is not racist. The reason she asked about our nationality when she first met us, she says, is because she had some bad experiences with Central and South American people, and so doesn't want to take any more chances with Filipino people.

Didn't realize the Phillippines were in the Americas.

But back to the point, judging or discriminating against a person based on their race is the very definition of racism. But "I'm not a bad person. I'm not racist," she keeps claiming. Well, I'm not going to comment on the first part (she did call to apologize afterall, but that may have been for reasons other than a simple apology), but lady, you are racist. And by your very own admission. If you're going to claim that you are not something, you should at least know the definition of it first.

The thing that gets me the most is that I'm pretty sure she doesn't really understand what racism is and the reprecussions of it. Sure, it's discrimination, but that's not why it's wrong. It's wrong because in most cases, a person's race has nothing to do with their capabilities or appropriateness for a job. Discrimination is not inherently a bad thing. When buying food, you discriminate on taste and price. When hiring somebody for a job, you discriminate based on perceived competence and experience. After all, Discrimination Rules Everything Around Me, DREAM (get the money, dollah dollah bills, y'all!). Where things go wrong is when the basis of discrimination and the target measure of performance are not related.

Now I can imagine some circumstances where racism (discrimination based on race) is justified. For instance, when producing a historically accurate film on a budget, you don't cast a Chinese guy to play the role of Mansa Mussa, African King of Mali. A person's race, however, is not related to their landscaping skills.

South America... get a freakin atlus.

Friday, March 18, 2005

Awkward silences

Hi.




...




...




...




So... come here often?

Monday, March 14, 2005

Artificially Esoteric and Intentionally Ambiguous

"What do you believe?"


Every so often I am asked this question. My answer is usually some off-hand remark about being agnostic (read: indecisive). But if I were to honestly consider the question, I may be lead to say that what I believe is that we are all here for a reason; not necessarily for a purpose, but certainly for a reason. Also, although I may be contradicting myself, I believe in choice and free will.

It's a theory that has been coagulating in the pit of my mind for a while now. While it seemed an epiphany at the time, after years surfing the net and browsing the numerous authoritative discertations of self-proclaimed intelligentsia, it all appears rather banal.

Please, if there are any philosophy majors or critical thinkers out there, leave me my ego and restrain from tearing apart my argument.


  • Fate
  • Cause and effect
  • The illusion of choice
Elementary chemistry teaches us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is not to say that the results of actions are equal to the action itself. Some people call this a snowballing effect, domino effect, or a butterfly effect (where a butterfly flapping its wings in Rio de Janeiro might change the weather in Chicago), point being that it is virtually impossible to see in totality the effects of our actions as ripple and build with other actions in an infinite system. At the same time, it is also impossible to be aware of all the factors that came to cause your action. Following this thinking, if everything is based on cause and effect, any particular action you take or "choice" you make is a reaction to past actions and circumstances. While there are options and different paths to be travelled - "choices" if you will - which path is ultimately followed is the end result of a cosmic equation of infinite variables. Sure, there are different options available, but if somebody knew all the particulars of you, your environment, and the history of your experiences and interactions, they would be able to predict your actions with the utmost accuracy.

So the concept of "choice" exists in that we are, theoretically, confronted with many options every minute of every day. But we never actually practice "choice" because all of our actions are but reactions. In otherwords, everything is predetermined by, for lack of a better word, fate.

So why try? If everything is predetermined, then my failures, my circumstances are but a result of fate. Responsibility and accountability are no longer in the individual's domain. This course of thinking, if adopted by even a few can be dangerous. Already we are seeing cases in criminal law (alright, I saw it on Law & Order) where the Defence argues that we are all victims of circumstance. A poor upbringing, a tragic occurrence, and preconceptions imposed by society are all grounds for dismissal of blame.

While I would agree that the consignment of blame should not fall on any single person, neither should it fall on the "system" itself, as if it were a separate entity from its parts (people). I would also argue that the responsibility for actions are not equally spread out among the parts. Accountability is not equal, it falls more heavily on some than others, and justifiably so. But people must still be held somewhat accountable for there actions, if only to maintain a healthy functioning society.

Thus, while this take on predeterminism makes sense to me, I nevertheless believe in free will. I "choose" to believe in choice as even if free will does not truly exist, by believing in it, one can create a state of "virtual free will", serving the purpose of injecting responsibility, accountability, and a sense of accomplishment into life. Creating a sense of "self" for individual cogs in a complex automaton of life.

Let's just end this here before I go off on a tangent on self and reality and what little I know of Descartes' "A Discourse on the Method".