I was fired.
The organization, which depends on grants from foundations and citizen donations, has not taken in as much money lately. Wonder why? It's because we're in a deprecession. So they've been cracking down on people's fundraising requirement.
Canvassing is part of my former job. I was supposed to canvass (go door to door or stand on the street asking people for contributions) 25 days before the summer, at which point I would canvass all over everyone's ass for the entire summer. By that I mean, I would direct a canvass office. In years past, I've heard they hadn't fired people for sucking at canvassing. But this year, a bunch of people who weren't cutting it were given a week to prove they could average $120/day.
So I went to Chicago to prove myself. After 4 days, having only raised $90 total, they went ahead and fired me.
It's possible the org had other reasons for firing me, but I don't really think so. I bring it up because I wasn't actually incredibly effective at my job. Or maybe I was. The org motivates people by highlighting their inadequacy, so it's hard to tell when you actually did a good job. Also, my supervisor was in Chicago and was slow to respond to my voicemails, which I initially thought was great, but then towards the end, I realized I wasn't getting enough supervision (one check-in call per week), which meant that I didn't know what I was doing (not my fault--um, entry level staff in another state??) which meant that I didn't always succeed, which meant that I didn't always enjoy what I was doing. The paycheck pretty much became my motivation to keep the job toward the end. And my amount of motivation corresponded to my compensation, which should give you some indication as to how hard I tried when I raised an average of $22.50/day.
The bad news is that the job paid me and gave me health insurance. It was also a meaningful way to spend 8 hours of my day, working on issues close to my heart such as public transportation, financial regulation, and health care. Now I have to come up with something to replace it.
The good news is that the job paid me so very little. They could have paid me in like postage stamps or something for how much I made. What they did give me is valuable experience and training that I should be able to parlay into something that makes me feel warm inside and pays me in currency.
The other good news is that I worked in the midwest and am no longer tied to it. Well, Ann Arbor is a sweet place and it tries to be a city, and I like it, and supposedly it's beautiful in the spring/summer, but it was freezing cold (-15ยบ??) when I was here and it's still a part of the midwest. Midwest=beer pong. That's how I would sum it up. I can now return to Utah=friends=social scene=girls+Protons=more girls=no money.
Oh, so my plan first though is to go visit some friends from work in Boston and try to get some interviews for jobs on the East Coast=DC, New York, Boston. I'm leaving bright and/or early tomorrow and driving there. I intend to be there 4 or 5 days, at which point I will drive back to Ann Arbor for one final relapse to pick up my stuff and drive back to Utah. At which point I will see you, probably, because if you're reading this, you're most likely one of my friends who lives in Utah.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Spring 2009 mix: Serotonin, Instant Pleasure
Today is the first day of Spring. Couldn't come soon enough! You all know what that means:
Disclaimer: This is actually an adulterated version of the Spring 2009 mix, since 8tracks.com's license doesn't allow more than 2 songs from the same artist. I may have committed a mixtape faux pas by including 3 Clash songs in the mix, but I'm standing behind it. And you will too if I decide to burn you a CD.
Disclaimer: This is actually an adulterated version of the Spring 2009 mix, since 8tracks.com's license doesn't allow more than 2 songs from the same artist. I may have committed a mixtape faux pas by including 3 Clash songs in the mix, but I'm standing behind it. And you will too if I decide to burn you a CD.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
the future of conservatism: mote in your eye or beam in mine?
There are the Bush apologists, the ones whose glaring inconsistencies stretch all the way to blaming Obama for our economic crisis while excusing Bush, and there is a whole crowd of people who think that sounds about right. There is Joe the Plumber, who has championed willful ignorance to a disturbing degree with his thoughts on Obama and Israel. Acting as general for these crusaders is Rush Limbaugh, the (mostly) unchallenged voice of the GOP.
The Republican Party took a hesitant step out of the wilderness in picking Michael Steele as its new chairman. He's black, duh (black=hope). Seriously though, he quickly laid out plans for pitching the GOP to a black, urban population. He was thinking beyond the white men who conceal who-knows-what motivation behind folksy, paper-thin tautology ("You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't." -Joe the Plumber). Implicit in this strategy is the acknowledgment that the Republican Party, instead of everyone outside the Republican Party, might have something to do with losing the last two election cycles.
Limbaugh et al. are naturally on the other side of the fence. It quickly came to a head as Steele criticized Limbaugh as an "entertainer" who has said some "incendiary" and "ugly" things. Which would it be, GOP? Self-awareness and self-improvement? or beligerent irrelevance?
The GOP chose belligerent irrelevance. Steele quickly backtracked on his comments and paid homage to Limbaugh.
Maintaining a unified front doesn't necessarily mean being belligerent. In this case it does. It means continuing to ignore the central inconsistency of modern conservatism, namely championing economic freedoms while restricting social ones. Libertarians and the religious right rallied together in the 70s against the threat of communism, and Republicanism has chosen to continue to band together against a perceived threat.
The "irrelevance" part comes from the fact that the perceived threat has become crudely identified as "not us." This is how Sarah Palin convinced some that she was against earmarks after she accepted what became the symbol for all earmarks, the "Bridge to Nowhere." This is how Joe the Plumber is able to opine with a straight face that journalists shouldn't report from war zones AS HE WAS REPORTING FROM A WAR ZONE. The GOP has become so accustomed to external enemies that it's begun to think of itself as blameless. And now Michael Steele, in venturing to say that the GOP could maybe sort of think about doing something differently, is feeling the beginnings of mutiny. Criticism of the GOP, or even failing to rail against the rest of America for your own shortcomings, marks you as one of "them."
No, no, it's the media's fault. Not that the GOP will do anything about it except whine about the New York Times and continue to tune in to Glenn Beck. After all, they don't need to change, no matter how many elections they lose.
As much as I like ragging on the Republican Party, the Democrats do the same thing when they're down. Our rigidly bipartisan system tends to make the minority party into mere naysayers and armchair quarterbacks, insulated from a need to critically evaluate themselves by a dearth of competition. But of course, voting for a third party is throwing away your vote, because everyone else is wedded to one of the two big parties and third parties can't get a foothold. Oh wait, 30% of Americans identify themselves as independents.
Back to the GOP now, the hollowness of their newly embraced platform is most evident in this video, where the Republicans' braintrust, Rush Limbaugh, cynically discusses the formula for making talk radio hay. God be with us.
The Republican Party took a hesitant step out of the wilderness in picking Michael Steele as its new chairman. He's black, duh (black=hope). Seriously though, he quickly laid out plans for pitching the GOP to a black, urban population. He was thinking beyond the white men who conceal who-knows-what motivation behind folksy, paper-thin tautology ("You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't." -Joe the Plumber). Implicit in this strategy is the acknowledgment that the Republican Party, instead of everyone outside the Republican Party, might have something to do with losing the last two election cycles.
Limbaugh et al. are naturally on the other side of the fence. It quickly came to a head as Steele criticized Limbaugh as an "entertainer" who has said some "incendiary" and "ugly" things. Which would it be, GOP? Self-awareness and self-improvement? or beligerent irrelevance?
The GOP chose belligerent irrelevance. Steele quickly backtracked on his comments and paid homage to Limbaugh.
Maintaining a unified front doesn't necessarily mean being belligerent. In this case it does. It means continuing to ignore the central inconsistency of modern conservatism, namely championing economic freedoms while restricting social ones. Libertarians and the religious right rallied together in the 70s against the threat of communism, and Republicanism has chosen to continue to band together against a perceived threat.
The "irrelevance" part comes from the fact that the perceived threat has become crudely identified as "not us." This is how Sarah Palin convinced some that she was against earmarks after she accepted what became the symbol for all earmarks, the "Bridge to Nowhere." This is how Joe the Plumber is able to opine with a straight face that journalists shouldn't report from war zones AS HE WAS REPORTING FROM A WAR ZONE. The GOP has become so accustomed to external enemies that it's begun to think of itself as blameless. And now Michael Steele, in venturing to say that the GOP could maybe sort of think about doing something differently, is feeling the beginnings of mutiny. Criticism of the GOP, or even failing to rail against the rest of America for your own shortcomings, marks you as one of "them."
No, no, it's the media's fault. Not that the GOP will do anything about it except whine about the New York Times and continue to tune in to Glenn Beck. After all, they don't need to change, no matter how many elections they lose.
As much as I like ragging on the Republican Party, the Democrats do the same thing when they're down. Our rigidly bipartisan system tends to make the minority party into mere naysayers and armchair quarterbacks, insulated from a need to critically evaluate themselves by a dearth of competition. But of course, voting for a third party is throwing away your vote, because everyone else is wedded to one of the two big parties and third parties can't get a foothold. Oh wait, 30% of Americans identify themselves as independents.
Back to the GOP now, the hollowness of their newly embraced platform is most evident in this video, where the Republicans' braintrust, Rush Limbaugh, cynically discusses the formula for making talk radio hay. God be with us.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
faith-based initiatives
I like 'em. I like that Obama is keeping them. I doubt his administration will allow churches who receive federal subsidies for community programs to use those programs for explicit proselytizing.
The reason I like faith-based initiatives is not because I'm religious or have any other personal interest in the programs, but because churches are one of the last remaining organizations in our civil society. There is little sense of neighborhood outside of church, no other reason to get together in person and shoot the shit. Government funding of church-based programs puts money on the ground where needs are known. It promotes more of the kind of civil society that our country needs, where people in communities take care of one another. I understand the objections, but I think it's a very pragmatic solution with little risk.
If I have any reservations, it's on the religion end. The mixture of politics and religion makes for bad politics and even worse religion. Flattening religious beliefs to fit a campaign squeezes out the complexity of relating to God(s) and humankind, ignoring humble truth-seeking. But the programs in question are things like homeless shelters and medical clinics. The gov't isn't funding things like anti-abortion campaigns; there are no policy issues, just spiritually motivated service.
I can't help but think the objection is motivated at least partly by an a priori antagonism towards religion.
The reason I like faith-based initiatives is not because I'm religious or have any other personal interest in the programs, but because churches are one of the last remaining organizations in our civil society. There is little sense of neighborhood outside of church, no other reason to get together in person and shoot the shit. Government funding of church-based programs puts money on the ground where needs are known. It promotes more of the kind of civil society that our country needs, where people in communities take care of one another. I understand the objections, but I think it's a very pragmatic solution with little risk.
If I have any reservations, it's on the religion end. The mixture of politics and religion makes for bad politics and even worse religion. Flattening religious beliefs to fit a campaign squeezes out the complexity of relating to God(s) and humankind, ignoring humble truth-seeking. But the programs in question are things like homeless shelters and medical clinics. The gov't isn't funding things like anti-abortion campaigns; there are no policy issues, just spiritually motivated service.
I can't help but think the objection is motivated at least partly by an a priori antagonism towards religion.
Monday, March 09, 2009
be careful what you wish for
In this video, Erin Burnett of CNBC says we should be careful what we wish for for China. The thrust of her argument is that if China starts making safe toys instead of toxic lead-coated ones, the toys will go up in price, which will cause Wal-Mart to raise its prices.
This is emblematic of idiotic, unsustainable economic thinking that thinks only of endless consumption and bottom-line throughput as indicators of a healthy economy. Baffling.
Seriously? China should make poisonous toys because because non-poisonous toys are more expensive??
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Recognize these guys?
Hint: the guy making the crazy face around 3/4 through wrote Jesus the Christ.
Monday, March 02, 2009
speaking up day X: overfishing
Fish is seen as a benign, even beneficial meat, which is why some people who consider themselves vegetarians eat it. Those people are idiot posers who should die. Just kidding. But despite the health benefits of fish oil and omega 3 or whatever, eating fish carries an environmental toll. Scientists are saying that current commercial fishing practices could rid the seas of fish by 2048. This has an impact not only on the health of the ocean's complex ecosystems, but also on subsistence fishers who find their hauls diminishing because of commercial overfishing. So why not be like me and stop eating fish?
Or you can take the less extreme but still helpful step and visit the website for End of the Line, a documentary on the ill effects of overfishing. I haven't seen it, but Aaron Monson has, and it made him swear off fish. If anyone knows anything about Aaron "Fish-eater" Monson, it's that he loves eating fish!
The campaign page of the website has some helpful info about fish, as well as a neat thing where you can claim your 2 hectares of the world's oceans. Europe appears to be dominating us in that, by the way, so go claim your ocean!!
Or you can take the less extreme but still helpful step and visit the website for End of the Line, a documentary on the ill effects of overfishing. I haven't seen it, but Aaron Monson has, and it made him swear off fish. If anyone knows anything about Aaron "Fish-eater" Monson, it's that he loves eating fish!
The campaign page of the website has some helpful info about fish, as well as a neat thing where you can claim your 2 hectares of the world's oceans. Europe appears to be dominating us in that, by the way, so go claim your ocean!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
