I actually had someone tell me not all that long ago, that since restaurant owners and the tax structure figured tips to be a portion of a waiter's wage, that if you receive poor service, you should still give a normal tip and complain to the manager. Isn't that sort of defeating the point of a tip? I mean, if a waiter gives me adequate service, they'll receive an adequate tip. If they give me superior service, they'll receive a superior tip. And if I, or someone in my party, creates a larger than usual hassle for them, I'll tip to reimburse that. So, conversely, if I get lousy service, they'll get a lousy tip. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Okay, okay. I realize that there are people out there who don't tip well for whatever reason they may have. But it's not *my* job to make up for them. As a matter of fact, my husband regularly accuses me of being too generous when I tip. But the point, I always thought, of a tip, was to reward the peson waiting on you (in whatever capacity) for service. Perhaps if they cannot make "enough" money in that sort of field, they should consider what they are and are not doing on the job and perhaps accept that they should be working in some other field.
Am I wrong about this?
Monday, November 08, 2004
Story Time
Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was turmoil and conflict in the world. This country was fighting with that country and they, in turn, were fighting with some other country. And there were subgroups in many countries fighting amongst themselves. There were people in the US who thought we should get involved and police their problems. There were people in the US who thought we should just stay out of it. And there were people in the US who thought that we should just send material aid to those groups whose causes we supported. Then, one day, everything changed. The US was attacked!
How dare they? An attack on US soil? The public was incensed. The president and congress moved faster than we'd seen them move in quite some time. Suddenly troops were being deployed and we were fighting back. We were taking sides. And those poor people living in the US who were associated with the attackers? What of them? Their ability to travel (at the very least) was severely restricted and the PTB's kept a very, very close eye on them. Wo be unto them if they tried anything at all that could be construed as anti-American.
Time passed. Most of our troops that were deployed were not in the country our attackers came from. They were someplace completely different! Sure, the head of this country was a bad man, but he hadn't attacked us (this time). But they weren't the ones who attacked us.
Does any of this sound familiar? I thought it might. Oh, you thought I was talking about 21st century Iraq and 9/11? Sorry about that. I was talking about World War II.
See, we've got people today complaining about no-fly lists based on profiling. Seems a step up from interment camps to me. How about the troops in Iraq? I mean, Sadam's a bad guy and all that, but his people weren't the ones who attacked us this time. Hmmm... Hitler was a bad guy and all that, but the Japanese were the ones who attacked us. What were all our troops doing in Europe?
Oh, and how did we get attacked in the first place. There must have been a clue somewhere and we were asleep at the wheel, huh? Both times. Still not all that different.
How about the horrendous things a few of our soldiers have been accused of doing in Iraq? Killing civilians? Torturing captives? Do you really and truly think NONE of our soldiers did like things in Europe or the Pacific? If so, you're only fooling yourself. It was wartime. In wartime soldiers commit attrocities. Does that mean they are endorsed or condoned by their commanders? No. Does that mean I condone them? No. It just means that horrible things happen in war. And they aren't just done by the "bad guys."
How about the shortages of supplies that our boys are dealing with? Do you think that's limited to this war? I mean, seriously, can you think of *any* war throughout history where the armies had all the supplies they wanted/needed? Is that reason enough to just quit? I think not.
So, why is the current conflict being judged so differently in the court of public opinion? All I can come up with is the media, and it's control or lack thereof. In WWII there were public campaigns about Rosie the Riveter and victory gardens and the like. There were fund-raisers for the troops. Move to current day, and we still have fund-raisers for the troops. But we also have people crying all over the media that if we can't take care of our boys, we should bring them home. Not that we should finish and bring them home, which is, of course, the plan, but that we should just bring them home and leave everything as it stands now. We even have major political figures claiming that we're fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I guess the thing that bothers me most about this, is that these people claim they support our troops, just not our involvement in the war. Let's think about this a minute. Let's say I'm a soldier and I'm off to fight for my country. I'm going to see and do a lot of horrendously appalling things that I'm going to have to live with for the rest of my life. When I come home, which is going to make it easier? To have people thanking me for doing what had to be done, what they might not have been able to do themselves? Or is it going to be easier to come home and be told that I really didn't need to see and do those awful things, but thanks for doing it anyway?
So, unless you really think it'll help our boys in combat to be told they didn't really have to try to live through hell, support our troops by helping with fund-raisers, sending them things to make life a little easier, sending an encouraging letter, or writing a letter to your own congressmen to allocate more money and equipment for the troops. But don't ever say, in front of me or them, that they really shouldn't be over there.
How dare they? An attack on US soil? The public was incensed. The president and congress moved faster than we'd seen them move in quite some time. Suddenly troops were being deployed and we were fighting back. We were taking sides. And those poor people living in the US who were associated with the attackers? What of them? Their ability to travel (at the very least) was severely restricted and the PTB's kept a very, very close eye on them. Wo be unto them if they tried anything at all that could be construed as anti-American.
Time passed. Most of our troops that were deployed were not in the country our attackers came from. They were someplace completely different! Sure, the head of this country was a bad man, but he hadn't attacked us (this time). But they weren't the ones who attacked us.
Does any of this sound familiar? I thought it might. Oh, you thought I was talking about 21st century Iraq and 9/11? Sorry about that. I was talking about World War II.
See, we've got people today complaining about no-fly lists based on profiling. Seems a step up from interment camps to me. How about the troops in Iraq? I mean, Sadam's a bad guy and all that, but his people weren't the ones who attacked us this time. Hmmm... Hitler was a bad guy and all that, but the Japanese were the ones who attacked us. What were all our troops doing in Europe?
Oh, and how did we get attacked in the first place. There must have been a clue somewhere and we were asleep at the wheel, huh? Both times. Still not all that different.
How about the horrendous things a few of our soldiers have been accused of doing in Iraq? Killing civilians? Torturing captives? Do you really and truly think NONE of our soldiers did like things in Europe or the Pacific? If so, you're only fooling yourself. It was wartime. In wartime soldiers commit attrocities. Does that mean they are endorsed or condoned by their commanders? No. Does that mean I condone them? No. It just means that horrible things happen in war. And they aren't just done by the "bad guys."
How about the shortages of supplies that our boys are dealing with? Do you think that's limited to this war? I mean, seriously, can you think of *any* war throughout history where the armies had all the supplies they wanted/needed? Is that reason enough to just quit? I think not.
So, why is the current conflict being judged so differently in the court of public opinion? All I can come up with is the media, and it's control or lack thereof. In WWII there were public campaigns about Rosie the Riveter and victory gardens and the like. There were fund-raisers for the troops. Move to current day, and we still have fund-raisers for the troops. But we also have people crying all over the media that if we can't take care of our boys, we should bring them home. Not that we should finish and bring them home, which is, of course, the plan, but that we should just bring them home and leave everything as it stands now. We even have major political figures claiming that we're fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I guess the thing that bothers me most about this, is that these people claim they support our troops, just not our involvement in the war. Let's think about this a minute. Let's say I'm a soldier and I'm off to fight for my country. I'm going to see and do a lot of horrendously appalling things that I'm going to have to live with for the rest of my life. When I come home, which is going to make it easier? To have people thanking me for doing what had to be done, what they might not have been able to do themselves? Or is it going to be easier to come home and be told that I really didn't need to see and do those awful things, but thanks for doing it anyway?
So, unless you really think it'll help our boys in combat to be told they didn't really have to try to live through hell, support our troops by helping with fund-raisers, sending them things to make life a little easier, sending an encouraging letter, or writing a letter to your own congressmen to allocate more money and equipment for the troops. But don't ever say, in front of me or them, that they really shouldn't be over there.
Intro
You know how you'll be talking to someone and they say something that just irks you, but you can't seem to come up with the perfect comeback until days later when coming to them with it would just be pathetic? Or how you'll be driving somewhere alone and you'll have this moment of clarity where something all of a sudden makes sense that never did before, but when you go to explain it to someone they just don't get as excited about it as you do? Well, I've been having a whole lot of those lately. I don't know if it's the elections or just where I am at life in general, but I'm having them. So, I decided to find someplace to write them all down. Maybe they'll do someone else some good. And maybe they'll just give me a place to write them down and remember. I make no commitments to ever post again here. Or to post with any set degree of regularity. Or to even make sense when I post. So if you read, read at your own risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)