Musings about Michael

I remember the first time I saw Michael Jackson perform. He was about 12 and on television - I honestly don't remember what he was singing with his brothers - and I was smitten. He was such a cute boy with a great voice, I remember thinking.

I started collecting MJ photos and asking for his music ...

Well, I stopped the photos by the time I was 14 - real boyfriends were a lot more, well, real. But I continued to be a fan of his music.

I never saw him in concert, but I purchased the albums and 45s. I was a devotee.

I remember the last time I saw him perform. I loved the Thriller video. As a rule, I don't like music videos - music is an auditory and emotional experience for me, the visuals mess with that. But Thriller was something else, something special.

While I have continued to like his music - and I believe he was a transformative figure in the music industry and in our time - long before he stopped regularly performing, long before his strange relationships and legal troubles became attached as a definition of him, he was dead to me. So I find myself oddly detached from the response of the rest of the world.

We are all seekers in this life, searching for answers about who we are becoming, why we are here, what we destined to do, accomplish. Sometimes this is the hardest thing we do and it is easy to get lost, to stumble ... It happens to us all.

I think Michael struggled with this for most of his adulthood, perhaps more than most of us and his struggle impacted his work and his behavior, which made it worse. Through he struggle he became troubled, instead of gaining small measures of clarity and wisdom. And when his confusion began to transform his work and his very being, the Michael I was smitten with, followed and greatly appreciated died. And I mourned him then.

What I have now is shock over the death of someone so young - and the impact of that on my own feelings of mortality - and my prayers that the man I mourned years ago and the man that died last week can both now find peace and rest.

It's more than the receipt

Over the weekend, I stopped at McDonald's and purchased ice cream sundaes. It was the three window drive thru - order at one, pay at one and pick up at the last.

Everything went well until I picked up the order. The pleasant young lady at the window handed me the ice cream order and some napkins, but no receipt. So, I asked her for the receipt.

She gave me a quizzical look. So I asked again.

After getting the same look, I tried to describe what I wanted - tells what I spent, square piece of paper - but to no avail. The response was the same look.

Then I said receipt again and she handed me a pack of peanuts.

Finally she got another employee to come to the window, hear my request and get the receipt.

Now, I understand that often, long before a person that has immigrated to the United States becomes conversant with the language they need to work. But I think it is wrong to assign to the front lines of service a person that can not speak with the majority of your customers. Especially in McDonald's, there are several jobs that can be done without speaking a lot of the language, but working in the drive thru is not one of them.

A great idea, if it would work

According to a news report, Barry Popkin, a nutritionist from the University of North Carolina, believes people can be turned away from sodas and other drinks loaded with calories and sugar by putting a high tax on those items.

I have to say, I laughed out loud.

We are doing this with alcohol and with cigarettes and ... do I really need to say it ... it does not work.

With the cost of cigarettes at $4 or more a pack, people still have a two-pack a day habit. Think about that for a minute, $56 a week, $248 a month ... in my world that pays the monthly electric bill, water bill and telephone bill. Yet lots of people regularly drop that amount of money to roll the dice with lung cancer.

What evidence makes Popkin think people would drink fewer soda if they cost more, if the threat of obesity-related diseases doesn't make them cut back? Clearly in our consumer culture the cost of something is not really a deterrent. If you need proof of that, check the profits of tobacco and liquor companies. People are still consuming those items at the same rate even with the increases in cost. 

Despite his laughable idea, he is right. Something needs to be done and soon. Taking in extra calories from drinks with high-sugar content without the appropriate changes in our exercise and other calorie consumption levels is dangerous to our overall health.

I guess doing something is better than doing nothing.

Stop playa' hatin' on Wal*Mart

According to a report in Advertising Age, Wal-Mart Watch, a group following the public actions of the retailer, is claiming one of the company's advertisements is giving false information. The article says the group is protesting the commercials based on the results of a Global Insight study commissioned by Wal-Mart. Reportedly the study indicates the economic impact of the company's low prices saves working families about $2,300 a year. The statistic is used in advertising (generated by Wal-Mart's corporate-affairs department) along with the lines: "It's been said that when Wal-Mart comes to town, it's like getting a nice pay raise. ...which buys a lot of things—and a whole bunch of freedom." The group is filing formal complaints in two states.

I think Wal-Mart Watch is wrong. I am a believer in that statistic because I live it. If I buy paper goods at the supermarket during grocery shopping, I spent $10 - $20 more on those specific items than if I purchase those things at Wal-Mart. Just the paper goods, at a $10 weekly savings, add up to $520 saved in a year. Slippers, t-shirts, watches, DVD movies, batteries, toys, camping goods, art supplies, sewing supplies, light bulbs, you name it, most thing are less expensive at Wal-Mart. The stores have ultra-customer friendly return and exchange policies, and lately, have been constantly upgrading services and merchandise.

Wal-Mart found a hook: sell decent quality goods, purchasing in huge volumes to get the absolute best prices, and pass those best prices onto the consumer; mix warehouse-type stores with conventional retail outlets, letting the overhead savings of one subsidize the staffing of the other; put a cornucopia of goods under one roof for one-stop shopping; and open early and close late. The combination made it the friend of families with median or below household incomes (most of us), and jobs and children that leave them with little time for store hopping to get the best prices.

The company's strategy works because it is friendly to the consumer, you know, the person you need to separate from their cash in order to make a profit.

Despite all the things about Wal-Mart that can and should be better—especially with employee relations—the real problem is sour grapes. Wal-Mart has economic muscle that puts most other retailers in jeopardy and those companies can not bulk up fast enough to actively compete in the Wal-Mart-dominated market. Many see bringing down the behemoth as essential to their survival.

But is that really the fault of one business or the fault of the rules of capitalism and a free market economy?

Many of my friends refuse to shop at Wal-Mart. To their credit, the reasons revolve around the negative reputation the company has regarding employee treatment. While I wish most companies would pay lower-level employees significantly better (believe me, Wal-Mart is not the only one needing to improve in the wage/benefit department), we choose where we work and also choose to stay. Do I wish Wal-Mart employees made more money and had better benefits, and the store still had the best prices? Absolutely. Would Wal-Mart pay better if no one was willing to work for those wages? Absolutely. Will Wal-Mart pay better wages if everyone stops shopping there? Not likely.

Wow, this was never intended as a "virtues of Wal-Mart" entry, just one to say we can't be mad because Wal-Mart figured out how to play the game within the rules and win. But, if that result is really the problem, we need to evaluate the structure of capitalism and the free market economy, not one company.