two entries in 300 words or less on the status quo
Last night, steve and i went on an all-day date to lawrence and kansas city. it was nice to spend time with him and for the most part we had an awesome time. however, the last part (or second-to-last part) in kansas city was where it got bad. we had dinner at houston’s on the plaza at my request because they have really delicious veggie burgers, and we waited with ryan and jackie for about an hour to be seated. then, when we’re eating there the waiter decided it would be a good day for the patriarchy. first, he always asks “ladies?” first on drink orders. now, this could very easily be a company policy and it isn’t too terribly offensive by itself. logically, however, it offends me because there is absolutely no reason why he would start with jackie and i. the position furthest from the waiter with no specific recalling of right or left just doesn’t seem like a logical starting point. at this point, i decide i’m paying for the meal despite the aggreement that i would spend the money for the gas to get us there and back and he would buy the meal. when it comes time to pay, we clear a spot in the middle of the table for him to set the check. our waiter returns at puts the checks in front of steve and ryan. at this point, i’m mostly livid. so the waiter walks way and i dig up my credit card and put it in the center of the table. the waiter returns and leaves with ryan’s cash and my credit card. when he comes back for the final time with my credit receipt he asks for me by last name and i respond about three times before he actually acknowledges that i am the person associated with the card. luckily, i have the power of tip and the wonderful people of houston’s conveniently calculate the tip based on percentage of the check and give the options of 15, 18, and 20 percent. so i tipped 15 because i didn’t want to be incredibly uncordial and i think he did about 15 percent of necessary work. i left a note on the back about how he shouldn’t put the check in front of my boyfriend because it makes me feel like my dollar isn’t able to pay for the meal. and if my dollar can’t pay for the meal then it probably won’t cover much of a tip either. i also suggested he try for the middle of the table and pointed out that we had cleared a spot for him. go jess.
this morning, i had a RYLA preperation day that consisted in part of choosing the junior counselors for next year. the first activity the applicants were evaluated on was called “Who Should Survive?” It gave a list of 11 people and a little bit of background on them. They were then informed that the ship these eleven people were on was sinking and the life boat could only get 7 to an unoccupied island where they may be able to survive. The task was to decide who should live and who should die. The group I observed chose to kill the only three Spanish-American individuals on board the ship. Their other victim was a young boy (maybe 12?) who was Jewish and was mentally handicapped. The exercise really made me think about how people view other people. For instance, two of the Spanish-Americans were a mother and child. The mother was about 23 and had worked as a prostitute but was currently employed doing something legal. The child was 3 months old and healthy. Most of the reason for the mother being killed was that she was a prostitute at one time, but they ignored the fact that she was in college and that a hard life probably means that she has more to offer than a lot of the people they saved by way of physical strength and emotional health (or at least the ability to deal with harsh surroundings). Meanwhile they saved a girl whose description was “Black, 18, Protestant, trade school degree, artistic.” because they could identify with her age I think. and the Mormon who “sympathized with anti-black sentiment.” awesome. Because that won’t clash. Plus, out of the people they chose to save the religious breakdown looked like this: Protestant, daughter of a Protestant Minister, atheist, Jew, Jew, Catholic priest, Mormon. So It looks to me like they weren’t too logical. It also made me realize how utopic some people can be and how I’m not as much of a utopian as I once thought. I think mostly people just look at the flaws of these individuals and choose their fate based on random analysis that probably has more to do with their own subconcious views of race and religion. The argument was made that these people would get along because really all religion boils down to one god. Too bad the word Protest in Protestant comes from anti-Catholic movements. and too bad all sects of Christianity outside of the LDS (That’s latter day saints, my children) deny the validity of the Mormon church. And where will the Jews be in this religious debate that is bound to take place? The atheist would be the only safe one except he’s also maybe a homosexual and the only doctor that lived. There goes that theory of saftey. Oi. I guess the Catholic priest is pretty liberal though. So they should probably team up (the priest and the gay man) and try to have a crusade or something.