Oh my gosh. This is excellent.
"And so the first party I threw was called Date My Friends. So for $10, you could go to a party and meet 60 of my friends." Cool party! Cool interview with a nightmare person.
Broccoli and tomatoes?!?
Hey Mike (or anyone who answered around $50/week or less), just wondering what your list or menus typically look like? I don't track what I spend (though I def. will now), but $50/week sounded surprisingly low to me. The general buying patterns people talked about in the patterns looked a lot like my own, yet I feel like I'm spending way more.
This is the best thing I've seen on the Internet all year. Maybe ever.
Oh man, this was really hard to read. One thing that really stuck out to me was her isolation. She mostly hides details about her financial situation from her mom; she kept her job loss a secret from her children. I think she should consider being more honest with the people in her life and also reaching out more to her friends. Shouldering all that worry and stress alone is just too much for one person. In my experience, at least, talking to people helps not just in terms of the perspective or practical support they might be able to offer, but also just in terms of having a sounding board. Like there is just something in the sheer act of saying something out loud that can help a problem seem less daunting. And, conversely, there is something about hiding a problem that gives it undue power. I’m impressed by this interview--fantastic job, Mike. I’m also impressed with this mother. She should give herself more credit.
Whoa. I'm curious if you have a weekend wardrobe.
@WhyHelloThere Actually, I don’t have an agenda. I’m just a person giving this complex topic a few moments of serious consideration. You should try it! Anyway, I guess you’re not familiar with the common practice of letting graduate students teach undergraduate courses, which undermines your whole half-baked argument.
@WhyHelloThere @David G Alm@facebook Hmm, just dropping in here to say it seems to me there’s been some misunderstanding on both sides. As a regular reader (and sometimes writer here and at The Awl), I agree with whoever said that David read too much into Logan’s tone. Her short summary rightfully draws attention to the ambivalence in David’s original post. But, you know, she also spelled his name wrong, and I can only imagine that set the tone for his reading of her “agenda” (which: pretty confident Logan would not intentionally misrepresent someone here, even if she had a dog in the fight). Reading David’s perspective was interesting to me on several levels, partly because I disagree with most of it. I have several friends who are CUNY adjuncts whose experiences seem to align more with the Gregory side. I also have a lot of friends in academia who have suffered through non-CUNY adjunct and adjunct-ish gigs with terms that were far from fair. And my own very brief experience as an adjunct (which was right after I finished the same MA program as David, though I barely knew him) was pretty awful. At the same time, I think David articulates something in his post--call it the original spirit of adjuncting--that I hadn’t really considered. Or maybe I had considered it, but I wasn’t sure it actually existed. And I think my understanding of the subject is richer for having considered his view--even the parts I don’t agree with. Maybe it’s purely a function of this site’s mandate (talkin’ money, which is inherently more political than the other Awl sites), but sometimes I feel that the subjects explored here feel a little one-sided--not just in the posts, but also in the comments. Like anything that’s even remotely contrarian gets dismissed out of hand. Speaking of which, @WhyHelloThere, there are plenty of experts without PhDs--David among them--who are perfectly qualified to teach college-level classes. If you think that a PhD in any way makes someone a teaching expert, you have a lot to learn about both higher education (particularly its crippling lack of emphasis on pedagogy) and, you know, THE WORLD. Christ.
Given that the waitress's original post of the receipt included the pastor's full signature, I think Applebee's was right to fire her. Welch did not just "embarrass" the pastor--she violated her privacy. I know the waitress thought it was just an innocuous post on reddit. But it seems pretty clear that posting the receipt with the signature had real-world consequences. That waitress should take responsibility for it. In fact, I think she owes the pastor an apology. I mean, listen, I think that pastor is seriously an asshole. But that's the thing: We all think she's an asshole! She has been tried before the kangaroo court that is the Internet, and we've decided she's awful based on what really amounts to a snapshot in time--an (admittedly, super condescending, stupid and sanctimonious) phrase she scrawled on a receipt, probably on a whim. And some accounts I've read said she actually left a tip in cash. But with a viral story, no one's looking for those details; they're looking to vilify. And I'm guessing that vilification will have long-term consequences in that pastor's day-to-day life. Imagine if your entire reputation depended on what happened one time at Applebee's! Chilling.