Cole Parker
-
Posts
9,048 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Blog Comments posted by Cole Parker
-
-
I tend to agree with everything you've written, Jason. People are complex. You can't define them with any single word. Yet there seems to be a need to be able to do that. Call someone a liberal and it's thought you have defined them. Or a redneck—call someone that and all aspects of him seem to have been covered. And of course that isn't true. It might define one little bit of him, but not the whole. Humans are too complicated to be fully described by a word or phrase.
I'm not even sure we'd all define 'gay' the same way. There's an obvious definition, being interested in having sex with your same gender, but as you say, that's only a small part of it.
I might quibble with this statement you wrote: I have found in my travels, the “gay community at large” are shallow, promiscuous, addicts, that are too self absorbed to be good friends much less good human beings.
Some gay people are certainly that way, but I'd never define the gay community that way. Just look at the denizens who frequent our AD forum. I doubt that definition fits any of them. So does that mean they're not part of the 'gay community'?
The gay community you describe in that way might be the ones who spend a whole lot of time in gay clubs for the sole purpose of hooking up and getting wasted. That certainly doesn't fit with my view of the gay lifestyle. I'd use that term to describe a married gay couple raising a family and part of the community they live in that's comprised of families of all kinds. To me, that's the ideal.
C
-
I always thought you were a kid at heart, Jason. A big kid now, I guess.
C
-
Picky, Jason, just picky.
C
-
You and Colin, Jason. And you wonder why books, published on paper, and falling by the wayside. It's YOUR faults.
C
-
I get the LA Times, both the paper and electronic versions, and news from other online sources. I haven't watched network news in years. It's more advertising than news, and here at least is more in depth with car chases and violent crimes than anything else. If it bleeds, it leads is more than just a slogan here. It's reality.
C
-
Jason:
I have a couple of comments that work for me. You're a better writer than I am, but I've now written 100 stories in the 13+ years I've been writing and so have learned a couple of important things that impact on you discussion here.
Without being presumptuous, let me say, first and foremost, you need to have a reason to start a story, something you want to say. If you abandoned a story several chapters in because you'd stopped getting mail, you started writing it for the wrong reason. Writing for the purpose of getting your ego stroked doesn't work. It has to be to scratch an itch you have, to expose a problem or illuminate something that needs the light or for some other personal reason, and definitely not simply to curry flattery from others..
Second, you need to have an end in sight when you start. If you don't, you'll do as you suggest—just ramble. With an end predetermined, you have a target, a goal to write toward. That'll keep the story focused and give it forward momentum. A story, especially a long one, desperately needs that.
And third, writer's block. I have an answer to that, at least one that works for me. I get that with many stories I write, and have found a way to obviate it. It's simple. We stop writing because where we are in a story is difficult or frustrating of depressing or whatever. It's no fun to write any more and so you find reasons not to. Ideas dry up. You're blocked. There is an answer: go to another part of the story you know is still ahead, something you have ideas about and are looking forward to writing, and start again there. Suddenly, no more block. Suddenly you're writing something you want to write and the words flow again.
The great thing about this is, by doing this, the place that stopped you becomes easier to engage with again because now, you only have to get from there to where you've already progressed. And you'll find it's no longer so difficult to do that.
I really can't speak for anyone else, but these are points I've learned by doing.
C
-
Congratulations! You've had as drama-filled a life as I've ever known of. Now you're entering a phase of normality, which you seem ready for, and you've found the perfect person to enjoy it with.
I like the part about your writing more now. I've always loved your prose.
C
-
Bart! Amazing! Hope you stay awhile.
C
-
We're so happy you're still here writing, Jason, but mostly, I'm happy you're happy! For so long, you weren't; you seemed a lost soul, searching for yourself. Now, you've found happiness, and that's truly wonderful. You worked hard to get where you are now, and you deserve every bit of the joy you've discovered in life.
C
-
Yeah, I've noticed how dreary and boring your writing is. ?
C
-
If for some reason restaurateur doesn't work out, you have a future writing film critiques!
C
-
Hot and spicy; that's your preference.
C
-
I have a simple solution to your hot wings brouhaha. You've put up with enough nonsense from that company to kill an oversize horse, yet kept your patience, something that in itself has to be a world record. But it's time to quit this absurdity, and I'll tell you how.
Many restaurants list hot wings on their appetizer menus. I've even seen Mexican restaurants where they're available. Obviously, you aren't the only one with an addiction for those suckers. But if so many houses now serve them, why can't yours? You manage the place; you obviously can have some say about the menu. So, start serving them every night, and the bonus is, when you leave, you can take a container of them with you. If you take them as an in-house quality check, you would not even have to pay for them. Nightly hot wings. On the house.
And, ta da, you can kill two birds with one stone if you add salt peter to the sauce recipe. That way you'll get your wings and not have to worry about inappropriate hard-ons every morning.
Not sure Nick will be happy about it, but that's a problem to solve another time. Oh, yeah, I decided N is Nick, and he's a hairy guy of Greek origin who's endowed better than your average chicken wing.
C
-
You both have been missed. We're still here! Welcome back.
C
-
Jason, I love your writing. Wish we could see more of it, but I guess you're too busy trying to make a living.
Don't forget to smell the roses.
C
-
Burned buns can be quiet a problem. I'd suggest sunscreen. Oh, wait. That's comes before, doesn't it?
C
-
Great start! You've got me glued to the screen.
C
-
That's really heartwarming, Richard. That substantive a change can't be an act. 16-year-olds can certainly be deceptive and deceitful, but not with something as basic as their values.
Most foster parents are in it for the money. You guys are amazing. I'm sure Social Services would like to clone you. You guys put your money where you mouth is.
From 16 to 18 is a difficult time for kids. They're beginning to realize their future is up to them, not their parents, not the 'system' for someone like Julien. It's a scary time, because they wonder if they're up to it, if they can handle the challenges. It has to be ten times worse for a kid with Julien's background, because he has a lifetime of failures to look back on, and it would be so easy to simply give up.
So you two have a challenge ahead for the next two years, too. You have to support him so he can meet his personal challenges with confidence and the feeling it he really tries, he can make it.
If anyone can succeed at this, it's you two.
C
-
Probably not. I'm uncertain with most things. And this, turning mismatched socks into motivation for youthful scholars does make me scratch my head such that folicle deterioration becomes an annoyance.
C
-
My problem with wearing one white sock and one black one, aside from the rampant nonconformity issue which is much more attractive on the younger set, is that all my white socks are of the sweat sock variety, i.e., thick and absorbent and made of heavy cotton, while by black socks are dress socks, silky and thin to the point of emaciation.
Should I wear these synchronously, I'd be walking like a drunken sailor and probably soon do my groin an injury. Besides which, and what is really the point here, I already have enough people claiming I'm unbalanced. I don't need to prove it to them.
-
And I feel for you. I worked in industry for over 40 years, for several companies. I had many bosses. Some were competent; many were not. Of the many, I can honestly say I liked working for less than five in all that time.
So believe me, I understand your rant. I lived it. It's one of the reasons I so wanted to get out. My last boss was certainly competent. He had some skills. He also was very much a company man who would do what he could to rise up the ladder, and if that meant people under him weren't treated as well as they should have been, so be it. His first concern was himself.
You do learn to survive in whatever system you're in, until it becomes unbearable. That seems to have happened to you, and it did to me, twice. Both time I got fed up and simply left the job. In today's job climate, that's more difficult to do, and as you get older it's more difficult to do. It's too bad when you have to balance your sanity and personal integrity against a pay check. But it does come to that, doesn't it?
C
-
Cole wrote:I guess I should have be clearer and not merely mentioned our OHS. OHS stands for Occupational Health and Safety and is the Australian government version of your OHSA. my point is not that it is toothless or useless, it isn't; the point is that the management, when in authoritarian mode, actively makes the staff feel like it isn't worthwhile for them to complain. This is reinforced by the legal process before lawyers and judges being even more intimidating than the managers who are often encouraged by the owners of the business to get away with whatever they can.I have seen what happens to people who make claims against the company/management, and have been a witness for one women who was mentally abused. She won her case after months of delays (by the company lawyers), and all she received was a token compensation.Often the judges award against the companies, but the toll of court appearances and cross examination is almost worse than the original workplace intimidation.
Speaking of safety issues, there is a fundamental difference between the two systems. You have the company fighting the employee with the government in the middle adjudicating. That isn't how it works here. The employee doesn't complain to the company here, he complains to the government, who then does all the investigating on behalf of the employee and metes out fines and notices to the company to change its ways. Any legal battle the ensues is between the government and the company. The employee isn't involved at all.
What generally happens is the employee isn't even the one who complains. There are annual inspections of workplaces by OHSA employees. During the inspections they personally observe working condition, safety procedures, rest break lengths, electrical wiring, just everything under the sun. The inspections can take a few hours or a week or more depending on the size of the facility and the number of inspectors involved. During the inspections the inspectors have the right to talk to any worker they wish to, and the workers have the right to ask to speak to an inspector. This allows complaints to be voiced, and notification to the inspectors of unsafe equipment or procedures at the facility.
In the past 40 years, workplace safety has been dramatically improved. Some plants that wouldn't come into compliance have been shut down entirely. The act works here.
Unions have gone a long way to improve worker/employee relations. Sometimes, too many times in my opinion, the unions and the companies are confrontational, and less is achieved in those instances. But more and more, everyone realizes they can work together for both their benefits, and in those cases, working condition do improve, and working harmony is enhanced.
There will always be battles between management and the work force, and it's especially true when managers are ill-trained, are smug and arrogant, are nepotistic, are a whole lot of other things. Companies seems too slow on the whole to weed those men and women out. But in general, they do get found, and booted.
B
-
Yes, there is that benefit. When I retired, my blood pressure was 150/95. Three months later it was 130/80. Getting rid of that stress makes a whale of a difference.
My experience tells me as younger people move into the stratospheres of companies, which inevitably they do, things change. Old systems are seen for what the are. Enlightenment often occurs.
There's another factor, actually several, that now come into play that have changed the company/employee relationship at a fundamental level. One is that today's younger employee grew up in the recently accepted parental mode of 'anything goes' where permissiveness and child aggrandizement were the rule of the day. The child of course grew up thinking he was the bees' knees (to use an expression probably only you and I know) and has acted that way all his life. He doesn’t take to the regimentation of his elders. He has to be treated differently or he'll simply go home and live with daddy and mommy.
They really are different. Until you've hired a managed a few, you don’t realize how different they are.
Then too, companies have changed. They used to be large families of workers and managers. A dysfunctional family, surely, but still a family. Today, young people expect to work for many firms before they retire. And they have very little loyalty to any of them because the companies have no loyalty at all to them. This is a completely different dynamic from 30 and 40 years ago. And it effects how they're treated today and how they treat their jobs. Managing in this environment is tricky indeed.
Most companies no longer have pension plans. Ones that did are withdrawing them. Most have done so. They tell the employee it's up to him to save for his retirement. That changes everything.
Your problems sound ridiculous to me. We have systems in place here to deal with that sort of thing. You evidently don't, making life very hard. Fairness in employment, employee rights, safety issues -- these are all mandated by law here, and the company is usually on the defensive and has taken steps to prevent these issues from arising. There are huge monetary fines for breaking these laws, and in many cases managers who break safety laws and force employees to work unsafely not only are fined and usually fired, but go to jail for lengthy periods of time. Really. It happens regularly when these laws are broken. And companies are continually training managers on the laws and how to perform without running afoul of them. Their own penalties are severe enough that they care about doing things right.
These cases are taken before judges, and the judges don't side with the company just because it's the company. They hear both sides and go by the facts. If that isn't the case there, then, wow! You should probably move here.
C
-
There is of course some truth in this. But I can dissent a little, too.
Over here, on this side of the world, we have what is called OSHA -- the Occupational Saftey and Health Act, which has been the law of the land since the '70's. It's a vast, far-reaching law that was enacted to improve working conditions for employees. You probably have something similar.
If an employee here is asked to do something he feels isn't safe or would endanger his heath, he has the legal right to complain, and to not obey the directive until the situation has been artibrated by a neutral party and someone in a management positon above the person who gave the order. And no repercussions are permitted against the person who complained. This protects both the worker and the company, and greatly reduces accidents and lawsuits.
Another bone to pick. You say companies back their middle management and will side with them against employees. Well, yes and no. The company is most interested in protecting it's investment in the workplace and continuing it's profitability. If a manager is as inept as the ones you're talking about, inevitably the profitability of his section will suffer. As that happens, he'll be called to task and then replaced. Happens all the time. So an inept manager is not backed the way you seem to feel it happens, at least not in the long run. In the short term, maybe.
I've worked within both systems, with bosses who try to intimidate workers with threats and an atmosphere of fear, and those who are detached enough that they want to issue orders but not get involved in the details, but blame you if things go wrong. Both are incredibly difficult to work under.
I managed for many years. In the latter stages of my career, I'd learned to trust my people and gave them pretty much cate blance on running their own operations. When I began that, profits, efficiency and worker satisfaction all soared. And what was upper management's reaction? They thought I was way too soft on my employees and didn't trust what I was doint at all. They'd come up through the intimidation method, and didn't trust anything else. And to me, that was the worst management system going.
C
Scan to donate
My Gay Community
in Somewhere In Between
A blog by Jason Rimbaud in General
Posted
I guess it depends on who you are, what your personality it is and your tastes. For some, it is more likely to find a mate at the grocery store, mostly because the type of person they'd want is more likely to be in the grocery store than getting wasted in a hook-up bar. But you're certainly right, some people would be better off looking in such a place for a mate if that's the kind of mate they wanted.
It takes all kinds. None of us should try to dictate what someone else should like.
C