December 5, 2006
Bike Raffle and $5,000 Bike Safety Grants
Bike Portland is holding a raffle for that Amsterdam bicycle I lust after. $4 is a price even I'd be happy paying for one of those beautiful beasts.
I was reading Bike Portland to see if anyone was talking about applying for one of the bicycle safety mini grants offered by the Community Cycling Center, the grants go up to $5,000.
It occurred to me that this could be a good source of support for my Public Safety Campaign For Poor and Working Adults on Bikes idea. I wrote about it in 2003, and in 2005, someone actually did it, although without the focus on bars and the North Portland Peninsula, I think -- and completely independently of me, of course.
Posted by mary at 11:13 AM | Comments (0)
November 29, 2006
Great Gift Ideas from Vladmasters to Vulva Candles -- including local (for Portlanders), cheap, fancy, nerdy, DIY, and political suggestions
Here are some of my gift ideas. Spoiler alert: If I know you (and like you), you may be receiving something on this list.
- For cheap people and their arty friends, what better gift than a Vladmaster story, made by local personage Vladimir. New and old myths told by way of Viewmaster and music packaged in attractive boxes. Priced at Under $30 -- including shipping and a Viewmaster!!! -- this is not only hip, it's an awesome deal. It's too bad about the Mattel Viewmaster toxic waste that went into the well that fed the fountains the workers drank from, but the Viewmasters themselves aren't toxic, and Vlad has nothing with Viewmaster itself. Actually, I just thought of a great project for her, which would be to tell the story of the Viewmaster well poisoning via the Vladmaster method -- it would be like an arty, self-referential Erin Brockovich. Chris, you can pass on the idea with my compliments. Anyway, I imagine it's only a matter of time before Vlad goes commercial and starts making Viewmaster porn, so get 'em now while they still have their indy cred.
- If I were wealthy and had a bike-
nazicentric friend, or even just a tub of lard like myself who is more likely to exercise on cute objects than ugly ones, I'd get them an adorable "Amsterdam" bike. It comes with a skirt guard, which, as someone who is herself perennially sans culottes or anyway without pants, I've looked for but never found, although I have seen instructions on how to make one. The Amsterdam also comes with built in headlamps and in pretty colors, like cape code blue (that's a link you'll have to click around on yourself to get to the blue -- flash and all). I really want one of these bikes, but I don't want anyone to get me one because I'd feel guilty about how much it would cost. $550 is kind of a lot of money, but probably not for some people. Maybe you're one of them. And compared to this they're a steal! - Another thing I'd do if I was made of money is, I'd get a friend a fan-fucking-tastic hat at Pinkham Millinery, right here in downtown Portland. I had my wedding hat made there -- so, apparently I've got a hat made by the same person who made a hat for Serena Williams! I wonder what else we have in common? My wedding hat was very cute, although a little fru fru for daily wear (it was coral colored, for one thing), and I think it's in the basement now. Along with my dreams. Sigh. Anyway, I did have cloche on my list, but now I really like the look of the sloper -- and the tapered slouch -- aaggh! I love hats!!! -- but who am I kidding? I don't know anyone who has that much money AND likes me that much. Maybe you do. Anyway, it's a fun experience to go and have a hat fitted, even for fatties. I recommend it. They cost, like, hundreds and hundreds of dollars, though. I'm not kidding.
- Everyone can use more shiny things in their lives, especially this time of year. I'm not talking about diamonds, of course (diamonds are evil and I feel kind of sorry for anyone who gives or receives them as a Christmas gift -- it would be like getting a dead baby seal in a box or something -- just too too truly goth) but things like reflective tape and flashlights are not only nifty, but practical. Some people might prefer a fleshlight, and that would be a good gift, too, but a little personal for those on my list. If you don't want to spend $200 on a moose-repelling flashlight, you can always pick one up for $5-$10 at Freddies, and the self-generating ones are extra cool. People can never have too many flashlights, seriously. I also like the flashing blinking lights that you clip on yourself -- also easily lost, and easily purchased at Freddies or elsewhere.
- I've always said a fire extinguisher is the kind of gift that, even if someone uses it only once, they'll be incredibly grateful. Kind the opposite of a subscription to the National Geographic
. It's more like condoms, which would also make a great gift for the right person. And they're another thing you can't have too many of! You can put one in the kitchen, put one in your car, one in the office, one in the bedroom -- put one everywhere! You just never know when you'll need a fire extinguisher. Same thing goes for a carbon monoxide detector
- Speaking of subscriptions, I've really been enjoying my subscription to The Atlantic
- Again with the subscriptions, I think the McSweeny's Book Release Club would be a cool gift, and I guess $100 isn't that much for ten books -- especially ten good books. For the value shopper, an even better (and more local, and cuter, and cooler) deal is the Clear Cut Press subscription -- $65 for eight adorable (and smart) books. I say adorable because they really are good looking little objects. And smart because they feature writers like Charles D'Ambrosio and Stacey Levine, etc. I think all the books in the series are out, so they might come all at once, which is almost even better if you hate waiting. If my memory serves, they arrive very nicely packaged, so it's something you could have sent directly to the recipient.
- Speaking of adorable, how about a nice Gadget Cozy? I'm making 'em, and they are cuter than ever, although I still haven't figured out how to get the Paypal set up, mostly because I suck and have a day job. But if you or someone you love wants a soft, lovable anthropomorphic cover for your laptop, MP3 player, or digital cameral, send me an email and I'll figure out how you can give me money. They run $25 (for an iPod) to $45 (for a 17" laptop cover), plus postage, if that's an issue. I'm still working on slogans and names and stuff, too. How does: "Gadget Cozies: naturally protective fun faux fur covers for your stuff" sounds? Not that great, eh? Well, get one now anyway, before I start making faux fur and felt porn tableaus and portraits of Paris Hilton.
- Maybe you'd like to make someone their own promotional laptop sleeve? Or you could make holiday ones -- that's actually a pretty good idea.
- Drew over at MoHDI has a Surprise Gift package starting at $25. It's pitched as a gift for yourself (and who doesn't want more gifts for oneself, especially this time of year?), but there's nothing that says you can't give it to someone else. It's like an extremely thrifty, unpretentious, and groovy personal shopper.
- DIY hoodoo candles are easy and cheap to make, and they are very heavy, so people think they're substantial. I stole this idea from Nancy, who got it somewhere herself. First, get some of those blank glass encased candles in glass jars that Safeway sells in the Latino foods section -- try to wait until they are on sale for $.99 each; otherwise, you'll pay around $1.39. Make a picture (I've used digital photos of friends, family and bees) and glue or tape it to the candle et voila! I like to give a couple or three at a time, placed in a nice shoe box. If you don't want to make your own, you can get some truly awesome candles here -- maybe you know someone who'd like a nice vulva candle to go with their fleshlight?
- Little Dee is smart, funny, gentle, and good looking -- just like its author, former Portlander (now Olympian), Chris Baldwin. You can read more of the strip here. I think the book would make a great gift for the younger (or older) reader in your life -- actually, I think it would be really fun to sit and read with someone -- and at $10-$12, it's also a great deal.
- Like peace on earth? Have a young man in your life who you don't know what to get? How about a contribution in his name to Veterans for Peace or the American Friends Service Committee (or any other agency working for peace). Like a fire extinguisher, they might not appreciate it on a daily basis like they would a Wii and some war game, but if you think about it, contributing to an agency working for peace might actually be a better investment in their future, not to mention a better use of your money.
- How about that geeky friend with a conscience? The IT guy/gal who always helps you out in a pinch? They've got every gadget you've heard of (and many you haven't), you can't afford to buy an iPhone (even if it existed, which it doesn't ... yet). Rather than waiting for Woot to come up with something that makes even a little bit of sense, how about making a domation in their name to FreeGeek, which has been, as they say, "helping the needy get nerdy since the beginning of the 3rd millennium." If the geek in your life hasn't heard of FreeGeek, they'll love the concept and if they have, they'll respect you for doing something other than getting them that USB cup warmer
- Not to mix moods uncomfortably --- well, no, this will mix moods uncomfortably, but what are you going to do -- many of us were outraged by the killing of James/Jim Jim Chasse, and there are other good reasons for wanting to make a gift to local organizations working against police violence and for the rights of the mentally ill. I was impressed by the advocacy and organization work of the Portland Mental Health Association, and Portland Copwatch has been doing good work for years. A contribution to one of these groups would also make a great gift for the pissed off radical in your life. Or maybe you want something for the irritating Republican in your life -- how about a contribution to Jobs with Justice? They're radical, but not crazy.
- Want something that's free, but a little bit risky? Do like my friend Rachel's boyfriend did one year and go get a bunch of books you think your gift target will like from the library and wrap them in a box. Then return them for them when they're due. There's a trust issue involved, in that if they don't let you return them or you forget to do so, it could end up being a very expensive gift rather than a free one.
- Finally, a classic gift, the board game, and a new reason to give it: Ticket to Ride -- Europe
Posted by mary at 9:56 AM | Comments (3)
November 14, 2006
Eric Schlosser Interview
Eric Schlosser is interviewed in The Onion AV Club this week. I suspect we'll hearing a lot more from him with the movie coming out November 17. I wish Schlosser was starring in it. He's so dreamy. Such a muck-rakish charm.
Why oh why, if we can send a man to the moon and make teeny tiny iPods, etc. -- can't someone manufacture a healthy, tasty, fair-trade, happy dead animal Big Mac?
Posted by mary at 12:46 PM | Comments (0)
November 5, 2006
My Christmas List
I know there are people who are eager for this list (hi, mom) -- I'll update it as I think of things --
- Slippers. I like ones that I can go outside in, maybe moccasin style? Or even better, boiled wool with outdoor soles. I wear 8.5
- A nice sweater. This might be hard to get a good fit, since it needs to be broad, but short, like me. Still, maybe a brown one? I would love cashmere, but its cost would probably make me uncomfortable.
- A cloche hat.
- Lucky bamboo. I'm not sure why, but I want some. Not the kind that's braided, though.
- A good flashlight for the car.
- Nice wool socks. I just bought a pair of Smartwool socks and now I want more. Cute ones, though, not sporty.
- An attractive box to put tampons in in the bathroom - so, one that is at least the length of a tampon.
- A subscription to Consumer Reports.
- A handmade pot holder -- maybe with my name (or logo?!!) on it
- A reflective collar for Pica
Update
I've added a more comprehensive list of my gift ideas herePosted by mary at 12:32 PM | Comments (0)
October 31, 2005
Adrian Goodwill
It's the Adrian Goodwill As-Is, circa several years ago! (I just got a scanner).
Posted by mary at 2:42 PM | Comments (1)
February 15, 2005
Selling crap on eBay
So now that my cafe press store is no longer linked (indeed, I need to update the merch with the new logo -- if you loved the old logo, now's the time to buy up!), I'm left with eBay as my e-commerce outlet. My first sale a couple of month's ago was a pair of snooty-pants shoes, which sold for an obscene amount of money. They were a gift that didn't really fit (thanks, Dave Loveland!), so I was pretty happy with that. And then yesterday I posted this Lobster votive candle holder (grandma, if you're reading this, I'm sorry! I loved the lobster votive candle holder in theory, but I just don't have room in my life for it right now!). But when Nancy came over she wanted it for a friend, so I sold it to her. No shipping costs or hassle! But so far no one is buying my hip 1970s jean jacket or my pyrex saucepan, despite my best efforts to make it look like a boudoir photo. I'm going to work on refining my auctions, though. I need to find something to do with all the crap in the basement, and my gut tells me it's gold.
Posted by mary at 12:18 PM | Comments (1)
February 4, 2005
Why I Hate the Goodwill
A couple of years ago I was living in a small town in Michigan where I made regular trips to the local Goodwill As-Is. I love a bargain, and it reminded me of hometown, Portland, Oregon. The Adrian Goodwill As-Is displayed their goods heaped up in piles atop big wooden bins, just like home, and there was an abundance of dirty, crappy stuff that no one else really wanted with one or two cool things thrown in for good measure, just like home. Unlike Portland, they priced things by the piece instead of by the pound, so, $.25 for a pair of pants, $.50 for shoes, $.75 for an overcoat, etc., but it was still wicked cheap, obviously, so I wasn't complaining.
One day while I was shopping I overheard the staff say something about going to a by-the-pound system. I butted in: "that's the way they do it where I'm from!" They were extremely interested and told me that my Goodwill was a model for Goodwills all over the country and they were trying to adopt its practices.
When I eventally returned home to Portland, I found out why. Prices at the Goodwill had spiraled out of control! Even at the bins (or the As-Is, or the "Outlet" as they are now calling it) was charging $1.29 a pound! The regular first-run Goodwills had adopted a cheap department store look, and replacd the popcorn and hotdog counter with an espresso stand. I don't like change on general principals, and I definitely didn't approve of any of these updates. But the real downside struck home when I saw a man, whom I'd originally noticed in the parking lot getting out of a live/drive car in the parking lot, bring a pair of workboots up to the counter to ask the price. After he was told they were $5.00 he tossed them back in a bin in disgust. It did seem a ridiculous price for a pair of shitty old worn out workboots and I thought to myself, "what a betrayal of Goodwill principals!" My sense of outrage inspired regular, ranting barstool lectures to friends and family. My aunt was so pissed about the high prices at Goodwill that she took to shoplifting some small item on each trip, wearing a hat or scarf out of the place.
Goodwill was a big part of my life growning up. As a kid, I thought of the Goodwill as a generous source of cheap goods for poor people that only incidentally employed retards and cripples as a thoughtful source cheap labor to keep the prices down for us poor folk. (Goodwill also employed at least one able bodied member of the family who took advantage of his position by picking extra nice goodies from the donation box to bring home to us. It was a form of graft, but it all seemed within the spirit of things.) I thought of the Goodwill as a cornicopia of all that was good and fun, where you could go and buy anything you wanted -- and many things you didn't. I still have dreams inspired largely by the freedom that the Goodwill made me feel. At the old Goodwill, they didn't even have shopping carts, so you'd find a cardboard box or suitcase, attach an old tie or belt to it and drag it around on the ground after you. You'd load that box up with as many items as your heart desired and leave with big garbage bags full of goodies (or baddies -- who cared?). You didn't worry too much about what fit or not because you could always give it back; it was all part of the great cycle of consumption.
Then, in the context of what I came to understand about the history of American consumer culture, I saw Goodwill as a potential source of empowerment for poor people: a chance to excercise the buying power that the world otherwise denied them, but valued so highly. And unlike charity, there could be no coercive pressure to reform. I also saw it somewhat more insidiously as a gateway drug for a consumer's high. As a someone without much money, you could still be introduced to the thrills of unfettered consumption -- practice for later days when you might actually have some money (and maybe an incentive to make it).
After some research I realized that my disappointment in Goodwill came from a profound misunderstanding of its mission. The historical mission of Goodwill Industries rests more on ideals about production than consumption. Our local Goodwill aims to "provide vocational opportunities to people with barriers to employment;" the national Goodwill says, "We at Goodwill Industries will be satisfied only when every person in the global community has the opportunity to achieve his/her fullest potential as an individual and to participate and contribute fully in all aspects of a productive life."
I have mixed feelings about this emphasis on production rather than consumption. Historians tell us that in the early/mid-20th century American workers made a compromise with capitalists under the new industrial economy: they accepted relatively boring, non-automomous, and alientating working conditions in exchange for more time off, and increased wages which gave them greater buying power under what one historican has called the Consumers' Republic. In this narrative, Americans went from skilled producers to deskilled consumers, a bargain that wasn't without sacrifice, but I think we can all agree that consumer culture is not without pleasure: certainly even the gnarliest thrift-store shopping trip is more fun than grinding away as a receptionist, drill press operator, or sock assembler. On the other hand, many groups today (particularly Canadians, for some reason) have rejected consumption as a basis for identity and ask us to find something more meaningful to hold on to. I don't think they mean work, but for all of us, there something more noble in general about the idea of identifying with what we make, than what we buy.
But I don't know that there's much nobility in the work that Goodwill offers. When I found out that Goodwill has a temp agency, the prospect of a cruel and innapropriate comedy skit immediately came to mind: Scene: boardroom full of high-powered executives, "We need this report out by Monday but we just don't have the manpower to crunch all that data!" Guy in suit: "Let's call in a temp!" Next scene: receptionist's desk at snazzy office interior. Guy who looks and talks like he has Downs Syndrome or something introduces himself: "Hi, I'm the temp. Will you be my friend?" Stressed out executive rushes out, "Great! we need you to start in on this report pronto!" Hilarity ensues as Temp fails to understand instructions, wants to be everyone's friend, hugs people at inappropriate times, etc. The Goodwill Temp could be a series (or at least a running joke on SNL).
Goodwill sees itself as offering a low-stakes chance to learn about the displine of the workforce. The Goodwill temp agency in Southern Oregon, for instance, is called, "Willpower," and Goodwill brags that it teaches such "soft skills" as "time management, dependability, problem solving and customer service.", not to mention appropriate dress. All of this would be easier to take if it weren't for the additional fact that the Oregon Department of Justice has been auditing Goodwill because its CEO is so highly compensated for a non-profit. I don't know that I think non-profit executives should make less than regular ones -- they all make too much! Still, the move from selling poor folks junky things at a low price to gouging folks of all kinds for crappy things so that you can give poor people their money back in the form of charity with lots of strings attached just seems naturally regressive. Personally, I've been trying to just plain give away more stuff for free to avoid the whole issue.
I'm petering out here -- what began as an energetic barstool rant has trickled to a overworked blog entry; I now have too much information to be truly irate or articulate (or maybe I just need to drink more beer while blogging). I've been learning about the value of the polemic from reading, Against Love: A Polemic, but I lack the ability to suspend uncertaintly to carry it off. I guess my point in a nutshell is, I miss the days when I was able to enjoy Goodwill as a training ground for unfettered consumption even if I am politically suspicious of consumption as a skill to be learned, and in theory, at least, more sympathetic to the idea that we realize ourselves through our skills and talents rather than our pocketbooks. Boo hoo.
Posted by mary at 4:10 PM | Comments (14)
Why I Hate the Goodwill
A couple of years ago I was living in a small town in Michigan where I made regular trips to the local Goodwill As-Is. I love a bargain, and it reminded me of hometown, Portland, Oregon. The Adrian Goodwill As-Is displayed their goods heaped up in piles atop big wooden bins, just like home, and there was an abundance of dirty, crappy stuff that no one else really wanted with one or two cool things thrown in for good measure, just like home. Unlike Portland, they priced things by the piece instead of by the pound, so, $.25 for a pair of pants, $.50 for shoes, $.75 for an overcoat, etc., but it was still wicked cheap, obviously, so I wasn't complaining.
One day while I was shopping I overheard the staff say something about going to a by-the-pound system. I butted in: "that's the way they do it where I'm from!" They were extremely interested and told me that my Goodwill was a model for Goodwills all over the country and they were trying to adopt its practices.
When I eventally returned home to Portland, I found out why. Prices at the Goodwill had spiraled out of control! Even at the bins (or the As-Is, or the "Outlet" as they are now calling it) was charging $1.29 a pound! The regular first-run Goodwills had adopted a cheap department store look, and replacd the popcorn and hotdog counter with an espresso stand. I don't like change on general principals, and I definitely didn't approve of any of these updates. But the real downside struck home when I saw a man, whom I'd originally noticed in the parking lot getting out of a live/drive car in the parking lot, bring a pair of workboots up to the counter to ask the price. After he was told they were $5.00 he tossed them back in a bin in disgust. It did seem a ridiculous price for a pair of shitty old worn out workboots and I thought to myself, "what a betrayal of Goodwill principals!" My sense of outrage inspired regular, ranting barstool lectures to friends and family. My aunt was so pissed about the high prices at Goodwill that she took to shoplifting some small item on each trip, wearing a hat or scarf out of the place.
Goodwill was a big part of my life growning up. As a kid, I thought of the Goodwill as a generous source of cheap goods for poor people that only incidentally employed retards and cripples as a thoughtful source cheap labor to keep the prices down for us poor folk. (Goodwill also employed at least one able bodied member of the family who took advantage of his position by picking extra nice goodies from the donation box to bring home to us. It was a form of graft, but it all seemed within the spirit of things.) I thought of the Goodwill as a cornicopia of all that was good and fun, where you could go and buy anything you wanted -- and many things you didn't. I still have dreams inspired largely by the freedom that the Goodwill made me feel. At the old Goodwill, they didn't even have shopping carts, so you'd find a cardboard box or suitcase, attach an old tie or belt to it and drag it around on the ground after you. You'd load that box up with as many items as your heart desired and leave with big garbage bags full of goodies (or baddies -- who cared?). You didn't worry too much about what fit or not because you could always give it back; it was all part of the great cycle of consumption.
Then, in the context of what I came to understand about the history of American consumer culture, I saw Goodwill as a potential source of empowerment for poor people: a chance to excercise the buying power that the world otherwise denied them, but valued so highly. And unlike charity, there could be no coercive pressure to reform. I also saw it somewhat more insidiously as a gateway drug for a consumer's high. As a someone without much money, you could still be introduced to the thrills of unfettered consumption -- practice for later days when you might actually have some money (and maybe an incentive to make it).
After some research I realized that my disappointment in Goodwill came from a profound misunderstanding of its mission. The historical mission of Goodwill Industries rests more on ideals about production than consumption. Our local Goodwill aims to "provide vocational opportunities to people with barriers to employment;" the national Goodwill says, "We at Goodwill Industries will be satisfied only when every person in the global community has the opportunity to achieve his/her fullest potential as an individual and to participate and contribute fully in all aspects of a productive life."
I have mixed feelings about this emphasis on production rather than consumption. Historians tell us that in the early/mid-20th century American workers made a compromise with capitalists under the new industrial economy: they accepted relatively boring, non-automomous, and alientating working conditions in exchange for more time off, and increased wages which gave them greater buying power under what one historican has called the Consumers' Republic. In this narrative, Americans went from skilled producers to deskilled consumers, a bargain that wasn't without sacrifice, but I think we can all agree that consumer culture is not without pleasure: certainly even the gnarliest thrift-store shopping trip is more fun than grinding away as a receptionist, drill press operator, or sock assembler. On the other hand, many groups today (particularly Canadians, for some reason) have rejected consumption as a basis for identity and ask us to find something more meaningful to hold on to. I don't think they mean work, but for all of us, there something more noble in general about the idea of identifying with what we make, than what we buy.
But I don't know that there's much nobility in the work that Goodwill offers. When I found out that Goodwill has a temp agency, the prospect of a cruel and innapropriate comedy skit immediately came to mind: Scene: boardroom full of high-powered executives, "We need this report out by Monday but we just don't have the manpower to crunch all that data!" Guy in suit: "Let's call in a temp!" Next scene: receptionist's desk at snazzy office interior. Guy who looks and talks like he has Downs Syndrome or something introduces himself: "Hi, I'm the temp. Will you be my friend?" Stressed out executive rushes out, "Great! we need you to start in on this report pronto!" Hilarity ensues as Temp fails to understand instructions, wants to be everyone's friend, hugs people at inappropriate times, etc. The Goodwill Temp could be a series (or at least a running joke on SNL).
Goodwill sees itself as offering a low-stakes chance to learn about the displine of the workforce. The Goodwill temp agency in Southern Oregon, for instance, is called, "Willpower," and Goodwill brags that it teaches such "soft skills" as "time management, dependability, problem solving and customer service.", not to mention appropriate dress. All of this would be easier to take if it weren't for the additional fact that the Oregon Department of Justice has been auditing Goodwill because its CEO is so highly compensated for a non-profit. I don't know that I think non-profit executives should make less than regular ones -- they all make too much! Still, the move from selling poor folks junky things at a low price to gouging folks of all kinds for crappy things so that you can give poor people their money back in the form of charity with lots of strings attached just seems naturally regressive. Personally, I've been trying to just plain give away more stuff for free to avoid the whole issue.
I'm petering out here -- what began as an energetic barstool rant has trickled to a overworked blog entry; I now have too much information to be truly irate or articulate (or maybe I just need to drink more beer while blogging). I've been learning about the value of the polemic from reading, Against Love: A Polemic, but I lack the ability to suspend uncertaintly to carry it off. I guess my point in a nutshell is, I miss the days when I was able to enjoy Goodwill as a training ground for unfettered consumption even if I am politically suspicious of consumption as a skill to be learned, and in theory, at least, more sympathetic to the idea that we realize ourselves through our skills and talents rather than our pocketbooks. Boo hoo.
Posted by mary at 4:10 PM | Comments (14)
October 24, 2003
McDonald's Daycare
I was kind of afraid I'd lost that blogging feeling after a dry spell and that maybe all my creative and intellectual juices had been sucked out of me by "Survivor." I am SO happy that Rupert wasn't voted off tonight that I can't sleep. I went in/on (is it "in" or "on"?) a chat room for the first time the other day to tell the WORLD that I want to have 20 Rupert babies and the Andrew is a TOOL. Actually, what I said was, "Andrew is the kind of jerk whose office walls are covered with Motivator posters but can't operate the xerox machine" and someone wrote back to say that I should have said "copier" and I just gave up. Anyway, it was a big day on Survivor and as far as I can tell chat rooms are for chumps.
In between adrenalin shots of pure joy, I was thinking about a story I read in the New York Times this Sunday or last, about the woman whose kids were killed when someone set her apartment on fire while she was at work at her job as night manager at McDonald's, who's now (or last I read) being held on charges of reckless endangerment for leaving her kids alone without a babysitter. The story reported how she was afraid to lose her job, she'd recently been promoted, and made references how the money you earn at these crappy jobs doesn't begin to pay for child care.
Here -- I'll find the story. I'm not going to bother trying to link to it, because the NYT is so pesky about their content -- actually, I don't even like using their website because of the whole registration process which I find strangely insulting and dehumanizing, I mean, it's kind of strange that my reaction is so violent -- I'm the same way at Safeway when they insist on a customer card or address me by first name -- remind me to digress about the politics of customer serice some other time -- I'll quote from the article now:
Daily Choice Turned Deadly: Children Left on Their Own
By NINA BERNSTEIN
Published: October 19, 2003"Recently promoted to assistant manager at the McDonald's, Ms. Brathwaite was required to work a rotating mix of morning, midday and nighttime shifts that made reliable child care nearly impossible to keep on her modest wages. Nor could she leave early, since she was responsible for securing the day's receipts. When desperate calls to the missing sitter and a neighbor went unanswered, her lawyer said, she was afraid of losing the job that supported her children."
(And then it's kind of interesting to me because the article quotes Linda Gordon, a historian, and that makes me feel vaguely relevant, or maybe just smug because I vaguely remember who she is.)
And then the writer tells us about another case, this one in Santa Fe:
"an illegal immigrant, the mother of seven, had gone to work at McDonald's, leaving a 6-year-old daughter in charge of siblings aged 3 and 1. The frightened girl had called 911. But supporters — including the sheriff who bailed the mother out of jail — saw her as a desperate single mother fearful of deportation who was doing the best she could in poverty."She also says that " The Child Trends researchers found that higher-income children between 6 and 9 were actually more likely than poor children to be left unsupervised for several hours, even after controlling for the fact that the better-off parents were more likely to have jobs." Which I thought was interesting and counter-intuitive. She gives some examples of rich kids being left alone with cell phones and pizzas.
But anyway, it was the two references to McDonald's that really caught my eye.
Ever since reading the book "Fast Food Nation," I've been aware of how there's been so much attention paid to nutrition, and the unsanitary packing plants, and how crappy fast food is for kids -- speaking of, has anyone seen the ad for the new Kentucky Fried Chicken kid's meal? They call it a "laptop" meal, and it comes with chicken strips, applesauce and, prominently featured, a big Sprite or whatever it is that's passing for 7-Up now -- I think maybe they are thinking that a clear drink is more healthful than a cafeinated drink? Or maybe they're just pushing their clear drink on general principles. I don't know. Anyway, it's pretty gross -- and for me, that parts of that book that I found most profoundly moving and exciting (exciting like in, "I want to burn something down," or write my congressman using *strong* language) had to do with the shitty working conditions for everyone involved at the packing plants and the restaurants, etc.
I have a friend in public relations who was telling me about how his work with companies with reprehensible social records lately has been to directly confront the harm they have done or are accused of doing or are associated with by putting funds towards those causes, rather than pussy-footing around them.
McDonald's has a charitable arm, Ronald McDonald houses, which seems from its publicity to have made its primary mission to provide hotel rooms for people whose kids are in the hospital, which is frankly, I think, kind of a diluted message. I mean, we could all understand taking care of sick kids, or helping the homeless, but hotel rooms for people whose kids are sick ... it's just too random. Plus, does anyone else think it's kind of amazing that McDonald's is asking us to donate to its charity?
I have a couple of ideas.
1) McDonald's should open up a line of day care places. I know this has already been done in essence, but not at the massive scale that McDonald's could. Think of it: If every other McDonald's where converted into a day care facility, our nation's day care needs could almost be met. Many of the folks who work at McDonald's would be great day care workers -- many of them seem to be mothers, or the kinds of folks regularly employed as nannys and daycare workers already. And many of them already have the play areas already built in.
We all know McDonald's has been losing money for awhile (or had been, last I saw) and if it doesn't have a big shake up soon, is doomed to fail. What better thing to do than to really directly confront head on the accusations that it is contributing to the unhealth of our nation's children by *directly* caring for them. This would also allow them to take advantage of all the marketing they've been doing to children.
2) Second, more modest idea: if I had some kind of day-care non-profit, now's the time when I'd run, not walk, to fill out a letter of inquiry for a grant from old Ronald.
OK -- hold the presses. Turns out, the Colonial is more clever than the Clown -- they've already thought of this! Maybe that's why McDonald's had to go for the wierd obscure cause.
Looking around the KFC website, first I found their description of their laptop meal: "When it comes to its kid's meal, KFC emphasizes a complete meal with multiple food options and packaging designed to "edu-tain" and engage kids during mealtimes with interactive puzzles, games and activities. The Kids Laptop Pack, which resembles a laptop computer, features the meal on the inside and innovative kid-focused fun on the outside."
But even more insidiously, I see that a portion of the proceeds goes to their charity, "Colonial's Kids" and what might that charity be devoted to? CHILDCARE! Well, I guess there's no such thing as an original idea. And I guess that's a good thing that they're giving money to the Y.
What kills me is they ask for donations, too. Isn't the whole point that they have made a ton of money, have money to burn, and now it's time to "give back"?
I think my suggestion that McDonald's just convert half its holdings to day care is a good one. But if you're looking for childcare grants, you might want to try KFC. Just don't feed their food to your kids.
Posted by mary at 1:55 AM | Comments (5)