Inconsiderate in the Checkout Aisle

October 1, 2013December 31, 2024 RilalyLeave a comment

Are you inconsiderate? How inconsiderate are you? Are you one that is momentarily inconsiderate, or do you have bad habits? When you’re at a grocery store, and you need a moment to discuss the needs of your household with your significant other, do the two of you wallow in the middle of aisle during this discussion, or do you create a pathway for any possible oncoming shoppers? How considerate are you? Are you one that waits until the need for a pathway arises, or do you prepare for this eventuality beforehand? How many people have to say, ‘excuse me’ to get by you? Are there moments where this has happened, or is it an event that occurs whenever you’re at a grocery store?

Whenever a discussion of ethics arises on TV, or in literature, the audience is usually subjected to larger questions. How concerned are Americans with the world at large, are Euros so self-righteous that they think they’re better than most other countrymen, and what of the societal ethics regarding cell phones? Are Americans becoming more inconsiderate on the street, in their cars, or in their everyday life? These discussions are all very macro, and as such less interesting to me. I think we can get a better gauge of humanity, and their ethics, in the seemingly inconsequential manner in which we conduct ourselves in a grocery store.

When we’re at work, or church, we’re usually on our best behavior with the fear that the boss might see us at our worst. When we’re in bars, or sporting events, our behavior is usually altered to some degree, but when we’re at a grocery store, we are who we are, and the interactions we have with strangers define us.

The grocery store can be a breeding ground for selfishness and self-involvement, in that the only reason we go there is to satisfy our personal needs. It does require some effort, therefore, to avoid focusing too much on ourselves, and to remain considerate of those around us.

We’re all going to have moments in supermarkets, just like in life, where we slip up and become inconsiderate. When you’re discussing the benefits of beef broth and mushroom soup to your next meal, you and your significant other can get so caught up in that discussion that you momentarily lose track of the world around you. Some of the times, the two of you have to be shaken out of that world by a fellow consumer trying to get by, and if this happens to the considerate they are embarrassed by the momentary slip up, and they quickly move to rectify it with apologies.

There are others, and we all know them, that seem to be born inconsiderate. It’s a way of life for these people, as opposed to a momentary slip up. They’re the ones that walk gingerly through cross walks, ignore a person that’s speaking, and place their cart in the middle of an aisle while reaching for the peas. These people can be immersed in the broth/soup conversation, be jerked out of the conversation by a passerby, and continue that conversation while apathetically moving their cart aside ever so s-l-o-w-l-y.

Even these annoyingly ambivalent and methodical shoppers can be redeemed, however, if they know the regimented process involved in the checkout aisle. We also understand that some discussion is necessary when two people are making choices for a household, but that doesn’t mean that we are any less frustrated with you. It can all be forgiven, however, when you have made all of your selections, and your focus is acute in the checkout.

Anyone that has achieved the age of—to be generous—thirty, knows that there is an order to the manner in which a customer moves through the checkout aisle. Some of us have watched our elders and learned of the considerate order, that allows the consumer to make his stay in the checkout aisle a smooth, orderly, and quick transaction. This order is very regimented, to the progressions you physically make through the aisle, and onto the manner in which you prepare to pay. Those of us that have paid attention to our elders, and all the precedents we have witnessed with other customers, know this order. We may not expect every customer to follow this order down to the regimented progressions through the aisle, but when we see an example of the opposite, we grow impatient and frustrated with their inability to follow the codes and standards of our society.

To paraphrase Ice Cube’s line in Boyz in the Hood: “Either they don’t know, don’t show, or don’t care about the standards of the grocery store checkout aisle.”

How prepared are you for the total, when that cashier calls it out? If you’re writing a check, how much of it is written out before the total is given to you? Do you have your billfold in hand, if you’re paying cash, or are you one that waits until the total is called out? If you’re one of the latter, what did you think was going to happen? Did you not consider the fact that you would have to eventually pay, or were you simply not thinking?

I find cash to be the most considerate method of payment available to those waiting behind you, and I usually have a hand in the billfold ready for the total to be called out. I’m also, usually, within one to two dollars of the total. About the only inconvenience experienced by those behind me is the change thing. If I have an opportunity to get rid of some change, I will always do so. Some of the times, I will count my change beforehand, to know how much I have versus how much I may need, but most of the times, I am (unfortunately) totally caught off guard by the fact that I can dispense with some change in this transaction, and I will fish around in my pocket for any change that I have. It’s a minimal inconsideration, but I still have to put a checkmark by this if I’m going to be honest and objective on my consideration list.

I have little to no problem with you debit card people, as long as you know the process well enough to know which buttons you will be required to punch through without too much pausing, or too much instruction from the cashier. Most debit card people are caught off guard by the “change” question at the end of the debit card machine’s algorithm, and I’ve thought more than once that we might all be better off if this question were placed at the beginning of the algorithm, so that people are more practiced in that part of the process.

Other than my personal problems, involving dispensing with change, my progressions through the checkout aisle are honed and polished. My conveyor belt progressions are impeccable. For, not only do I push the items as far forward on the conveyor belt as possible, but once the checker has reached the halfway point in my number of items, I am halfway through the aisle. This halfway point places me in a perfect position to reach any items that the cashier might not be able to reach, and it makes me available for questions that she may have. At the point when she only has a few items left, I am at the little check writing outcropping, with cash in hand. This allows the person behind me to move forward so that they can push their items as far forward as possible, and prepare for their checkout.

Those of us that have studied the protocol, and understand it well, want no praise for our actions. We do not do it for the glory. We understand that as others drift through life, on the lookout only for the inconsiderate, they will accidentally ignore those of us that follow the procedure. If those same people watched us, and learned from us, and copied our procedures, we would consider it the greatest of all compliments, and we believe that it could leave a trail of ease for the rest of humanity that move through the checkout aisle.

We’re all going to experience some problems in the checkout aisle. Some of the times, we’re going to have to have a price check, and some of the times the verdict on those price checks are not going to go our way, and we will have to put some items back, and some of the times we’re going to have coupons that slow the proceedings, and some of the times the unexpected will arise that causes a severe delay in the lives of those behind us. Some of the times, all we need to do is apologize, and all will be forgiven. It may not mean much to those of us that have already reached a pique of frustration with humanity, as it usually does nothing than add an exclamation mark to the swear words we have in our head for them. We will accept their apology, however, and move on, knowing that that person has done their best to be considerate, and they have thus eased the suffering that I think they should be experiencing for their malfeasance.

Rilalities III: Thoughts

August 29, 2013May 29, 2024 RilalyLeave a comment

A Thought: Anti-religious people go nuts when the religious Creationists point out that there are gaps in Charles Darwin’s attempt to explain creation. “How could there not be gaps in his Theory of Evolution?” they ask. “Darwin was dealing with mid-19th century science.” They also caution that we shouldn’t insert God, or mystical miracles, into every gap we currently have in our current explanations, based on our current levels of science. The import of this message is that we have already filled many of Darwin’s gaps with our current levels of science, and we will fill even more as science advances in the future. Yet, some of these people, who place such prominence on science, are perfectly willing to fill the gaps of our current levels of science on global warming with the explanation that man did it.

On that note, how many future generations, with their progressed levels of scientific knowledge, are going to be laughing at global warmers in the manner we currently laugh at bloodletters and flat earthers? There were even some people, see Aristotle, who believed that a slab of beef spawned maggots. Scientists warn, based on these precedents, that we shouldn’t leap to conclusions, or fill the gaps of our current scientific knowledge, with explanations that support our personal agendas, but some of them claim that all the science is in on … everything, and there’s no need for more debate on the subject, no matter how we arrive at truths through the scientific method.

B Thought: We all learn lessons in life, no matter how old we are, and no matter how many times we have already learned those lessons.

C Thought: Debate matters of substance with enough people, and you’re bound to come across extremes. Those of us who discuss matters with representatives of the extreme faction of the other side, find it enjoyable to nuke their ideas out of the park with facts. If you seek such discussions often enough, however, you’re bound to run across the extreme faction from your side. Some of these people, unfortunately, go so far out of the parameters that you may initially think that the other side may be right about their characterizations of your side. They’re not. The person in front of you is simply a characterization of the extreme faction of your side that diverts themselves away from the important matters of the day with trivial matters. I don’t know if these people strive for the trivial, because they’re not able to compete in the knowledge of important matters, or they find the trivial more entertaining, but they are inordinately intrigued by the trivial, and they exist on both sides of the aisle

D Thought: Most artists have one masterpiece in them. Everything they do after that is, in ways large and small, derivative of that one master. Those of us who get excited when we experience a masterpiece, should understand how difficult they are to create. Most of us characterize the masterpiece as brilliant, and we think the next piece should be just as brilliant, and if it isn’t, “it sucks!” An overwhelming majority of us don’t know what it takes to create a masterpiece, much less something of an artistic nature, but we enjoy giving our uninformed opinions for the mileage they gain us.

E Thought: Some watched the movie version of Fight Club and fell in love with the romanticized notion of blowing up banks to finally achieve economic justice in this unfair system. The import of this dream is that those who are burdened by debt, would be no more, and we could reset the system to finally give the poor the chance they never had to be rich. In this dream, those who inherit money, would have to start over from scratch. Those who gain money by being lucky, or being in the right place at the right time, would have to do it again. Those who accumulate money by ill-gotten means, would have to start over from scratch, and those who haven’t been afforded a chance to succeed in our unfair system, would be able to have another crack at the system.

Let’s put aside the ridiculous notion that blowing up a couple branches, or a couple banks, that house a couple computers, can accomplish anything. Let’s say, for the purpose of this argument, that some Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) bomb were able to comprehensively wipe out all data, and all Americans were afforded a restart. How depressing would it be, to these dreamers, to realize that people are, in fact, different? How depressing would it be to them that some people are more talented, more industrious, more ambitious, more creative, and more willing to risk it all for more? How depressing would it be for these people to finally achieve hope and change, only to realize that everything would eventually cycle back? How depressing would it be when all the same millionaires are the same millionaires and billionaires ten years after the EMP bomb occurred? It’s not only possible, it’s likely. Most of those who accumulate the millions and billions they do, do not do so by birthright. Most of them knew how the system worked so well that they could manipulate it again, if called upon to do so, and they might enjoy the challenge. In this post-EMP world, these people would know how to raise capital better than we would, they would know how to form coalitions better than us, and they would be far more willing than the rest of us to risk it all on some idea that they just thought up. We, theoretical dreamers, would be living in John Lennon’s Imagine world, while they would be re-invigorated to prove themselves all over again. This event would prove to be only be more depressing to those dreamers to eventually realize that they couldn’t do it yet again.

F Thought: One of the primary arguments against the stop, question, and frisk law, used by the police in New York City, is that it violates the Fourth Amendment, and it allows for some degree of profiling. Most of those that argue against this law do not want it finessed. They want it ended. An interesting aspect of the law, that I hadn’t considered before, is that some leaders have been screaming for generations that government do something about the crime that occurs in specific neighborhoods. They’ve said, for generations, that government leaders ignore the crises that occur in some crime-ridden neighborhoods, and they’ve said that the police virtually ignore those neighborhoods. Yet, when a government, and its police force, do attempt to do something, and that something is the stop, question, and frisk law, the leaders claim that it unfairly targets some in some specific neighborhoods where crime is the highest. The answer, of course, is that those leaders, screaming the loudest about the fact that the government wouldn’t do anything to solve crime, and that most police forces won’t even go into those neighborhoods, never wanted solutions. They just enjoy the fruits of the labor involved in screaming.

G Thought: Why do serial killers in movies, and on TV shows, turn the TV off when a news report of their spree makes it to air? I understand that the screenwriter is trying to establish the fact that the killer is not doing what he’s doing for fame. “This particular killer has a more gruesome motive,” the action of turning the TV off attempts to suggest. “His malady is so much deeper than all that. This particular killer is not your typical, garden variety serial killer.” In one particular show, Netflix’s The Fall, the serial killer plays with his child while the TV broadcasts a press conference with those in charge of the investigation detailing their findings, and he appears to be only symbolically interested in the broadcast. When it’s announced, by the serial killer’s wife, that dinner is ready, he shuts the TV off, mid-press conference, and takes the daughter to the dinner table. It’s cool that he doesn’t care, and it does characterize him as something different than what we expect, but shouldn’t that killer want to know how the law’s investigation is proceeding, so he can, at least, adjust his spree accordingly?

H Thought: Anyone who argues against the idea that most Americans are ignorant when it comes to the subject of Economics, needs to watch an episode of TruTV’s Hardcore Pawn. Pick any episode, and you’ll see a customer walk in with something of relative value, and you’ll hear them assign it value. “I want $100 for this ticket to (a concert by the band) Journey!” said one particular customer, on one particular episode. When she was asked how she arrived at that dollar figure, she couldn’t do it. When she was informed that she wouldn’t be getting $100, she was outraged. “I want $100!”

These customers don’t care that they’ve just entered a pawn shop –that is not going to give them face value, much less fair market value, for their product– they just want their $100, and they usually “don’t care” because they don’t know. They know nothing about economics, bartering, or the fact that a pawn shop is in the business of making as much profit off their products as possible. They don’t even know enough to know anything about the bartering process involved in the pawn shop world, they just want their $100. I don’t want anyone to think that I approve of what they do on the show, or in their shop, for I think they shortchange most of their sellers, but if I were to enter this, or any pawn shop, I would walk in knowing that I probably wouldn’t receive the value that I assigned to this product. My goal would be to get something more than I fear I would get. And perhaps this fear, and this knowledge of how the pawn world works, would lead me to getting far less. Regardless, I can assure you that I wouldn’t be one of these crying and screaming idiots that ends up getting tossed out on their ear, on a nationally broadcast television show, or if I were, I wouldn’t be signing the release that allowed them to air it. It would officially be the most embarrassing moment of my life. To these people, apparently, it’s just another manic Monday.

Tattoo You

August 8, 2013April 16, 2019 RilalyLeave a comment

Most people don’t search for answers, only solutions, especially when they’re young and impressionable. Tattoos are the solutions for those that can’t achieve differentiation through creative, internal methods, but if you’re one of those looking for the answers to some of life’s greater problems, you’re probably not going to find them in tattoos.

This may seem like a foolish notion, for how many reasonable people look to a tattoo to complete them? A portion of the answer involves the question, how many people are unable to finesse the gifts of intelligence they’ve been given to have an effect on people, and how many people, especially young and impressionable people, are unable to cultivate their personality in a manner that wows people? In an attempt to answer some of these questions, some believe that a simple, short-term fix involves changing their wrapping.

When people get their first tattoo, they usually show it off with an expectant half-smile. That half smile suggests that the reason they got that tattoo was either to impress those that surround them, or tick them off. The thing that these people either don’t know, or forget, is that most people don’t care about them one way or another.

Nobody cares what you do to your body, and nobody cares about the rebellion that drove you to get your first tattoo. You may think people care. You might think that most people are looking at you with a screwed up and indignant look, and that may be part of the reason you got it in the first place. Some people will provide you this joy, but most of us won’t, because most of us don’t care. We don’t care that you don’t think the world is unfair, and we don’t care about the way you wear your hair, and if your driving force for getting a tattoo was to tick off those who really do care a great deal about you, you should know that you will probably, and eventually, accomplish that goal, and they won’t care about it either.

Tattoos make a statement, they provide an insecure, and reaching, individual an identity. It also provides one internal temerity. In that, those that won’t get a tattoo are said to be weak, because they fear needles. While this may account for a segment of those that are not tattooed, it does not represent all of them. The tattoo also gives the tattooed the ability –some of the times for the first time– for young people to believe that they are cool. This apparently allows them to stand in stark contrast to the relatively normal, somewhat nerdy, most likely insecure individuals that are unable to find a means through which to rebel against their parent’s societal standards.

Gaining this identity, apparently, is the selling point to getting a tattoo. “What prompted you to get a tattoo? I can see Duke Bradford getting one, but you Ned Backwater? I’m shocked!” Suddenly, everyone wants to talk to Ned. Everyone wants to ask him about that tattoo. He is the center of attention. Ned never did have the type of personality, the type of well-rounded intelligence, or the diversity of thought necessary to sustain such popularity, so once this headline began to fade, so did Ned. This depressed Ned, because once he finally found the limelight, through that tattoo, it was narcotic, and the only possible answer to this new dilemma was, of course, to get another one.

The idea that a second tattoo would achieve the degree of notoriety Ned received with the first one, isn’t likely. It’s more likely that once Ned achieved the role of tattooed individual, the shock and awe of a second tattoo will do little more for his standing in his community. Let’s say that it does, however, let’s say that Ned’s new persona allows him to mock all of those that don’t have tattoos. Let’s say that a pretty, young thing approaches Ned and says, “Did it hurt when you got that tattoo right there?” “Nah!” says Ned with aplomb. “I got that one to illustrate the duality of man! It’s Cuneiform! The Sumerians rock dude!”

Let’s say it all goes according to plan, and Ned regains the center of attention, and he decides that more tattoos equals more attention, and more attention equals more definition of character, and more definition of character leads to a more meaningful life, and a more meaningful life means he can leave the Backwater traditions and standards in the dust with each tattoo. What does Ned do when he is standing in line at the bank, and a different beautiful young thing spots him and snickers at the fact that Ned’s obsession has progressed to the point where getting leopard spots tattooed all over his face seemed like a reasonable progression at the time?

I know what you’re saying, “I’m a normal dude, and no normal dude don’t get no tattoos in his face.” I know that there is a line in the sand in the tattoo community that suggests that getting a facial tattoo is a taboo, even in the tattooed community. Isn’t that the very reason that you got a tattoo in the first place? What kind of rebel picks and chooses the taboos he is going to violate? If one tattoo on your arm made you feel like a rebellious renegade, why wouldn’t you want to break all the rules, until you’re standing in line, at a bank, with leopard spots on your face? It seems to be a natural progression to those of us trying to understand.

I didn’t get a tattoo when I was younger, but the peer pressure to get one wasn’t what it is today. I did, however, engage in the many short-term fixes for happiness, and identity, offered in my era. I knew all the reasons to indulge in these short-term fixes, for their proponents littered my life, and the opponents never did give me a decent philosophical answer regarding why I shouldn’t.

The best possible answer I could give to such a question today, regarding tattoos, alcohol, or any other temporary fix to all that ails my interrogator is, most people don’t search for answers, only solutions. Answers can be difficult to find, complex once they’re found, and ever-progressing. It’s much easier, and more fun, to engage in short-term fixes.

‘Are you happy now?’ I would ask them. Depending on their age, most of them would probably say no. Most of them would not want to go into how confused they were about their irrational and chaotic lives, they would just say no. Most of them wouldn’t want to talk about how difficult it can be to cultivate a creative and interesting personality that others wanted to be around. Most of them wouldn’t confess how difficult the search for answers can be, and most of them probably wouldn’t recognize that they’re engaging in short-term fixes, so that they can, at the very least, ignore their problems for a little bit. Most of them would not appreciate our answers to their problem is time and experience. It wouldn’t be good enough for most of them to hear that you’ll learn things in life that will cultivate your personality and cause your inner core to grow, for they need answers now.

By choosing to indulge in the solution that you’ve selected, I would say, your ceding your search to something else. It’s admittedly tough to find happiness in your inner resources, being as immature as you are now, but your inside sources give you a freedom to decide what emotion you will have for the day and how much. The outside sources can provide short-term fun—in the case of alcohol and tattoos—and I would not try to diminish those aspects. I would probably lose that argument, but I would tell them that you run a circuitous route when you attempt to sprint past your problems with short-term fixes, and you usually end up with more questions and fewer answers than when you started. There will also come a point when that short-term fix doesn’t do the trick anymore. At that point, the only reasonable answer you will find, will be to double down on the short-term fix, for that was the only reasonable solution you could come up with in the first place.

Imagine eventually reaching a point where your happiness depended on the short-term fix only that outside source could provide. Imagine that you soon began to believe that the only way you could be happy is to have more of those outside sources. At some point, you would begin incrementally ceding your whole life to the short-term fixes that only outside sources can provide. Eventually, you would reach a point where you decided that this was no way to live. Eventually, you would decide that the best way to find happiness is to strengthen your inner resources. The final question I would ask is, is it better to try and strengthen those inside sources now or later, after you have gone through all the self-discovery it takes to rectify all the damage you’ve done to yourself with your short-term fixes?

At this point, many of you are saying I’ve left the world of tattoos and entered the world of dependency, and for the most part you’re right, but I would say tattoos are neither the answer nor the solution. Tattoos, like most short-term fixes, never resolve the questions that a Ned Backwater attempted to conceal when he started getting them in the first place.