LOL

[interstice]

I can sort of see the government's side; however you'd think that the thank-you letter from a Maj. Gen. would go a long way?

Really, it's just the same as this: I wouldn't bring a spare home coffeemaker to replace a broken one at the office. Am I afraid of liability? Hell no. But it would be weird - they wouldn't actually want it, since it would represent my presence in an artifact. At least I think that. We should have a word for this since I know it's a common feeling although possibly new-ish to Americans (less than 60 years old?).

http://www.theagitator.com/2008/09/10/were-from-the-government-wed-rather-pay-for-it/

(edit: looks like I jumped the gun; the sculpting would still cost $2M, so his $30k donation is kind of worthless, and even suspicious. Still sort of funny.)

Comments

[suicide-sam-e.livejournal.com]

$30k is never worthless. (Well, it might be in another ten years, but that's a different contingency argument.) Plus, one has to factor in that it is the right strata of marble, correct dimensions, and the like.

It does seem as though the government is unwilling to co-operate, even to the point of snubbing its own citizens (its body, so to say). In fact, I am inclined to agree that the whole thing smacks of not-kosher. Even if there was the rock-assaying and the expense of sculpting AND then there was some liability or flaw in the stone - the government regularly eats up that kind of waste of money. Like the money we've spent on flechette and other weapons, exploding bats, and giving volunteers (and others) brain-melting amounts of LSD. So this particular kerfuffle (or maybe snafu?) seems as though the government is attempting to pull something shady. There is almost no other reasonable explanation. And almost any "explanation" seems inexcusable.

Proper channels, my ass. The Village of Wellington once accepted someone's donation of a full-grown live oak. They had to remove and transport it, find some way to drag it under all of the traffic-lights, and find a place to put it (the road approaching the civic offices). And this is a tree—something which is guaranteed to die, require pruning, and may one day blow down and kill someone or damage property.

I wonder what would happen if the donor also found a sculpting team to donate their efforts? How far would the government go to turn down a fully-recreated Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? Probably farther than I would like to accept. They would most likely leave it weathering outside the gates of the cemetery, and at some point attach a notice to it that its owner has to remove it or it will be impounded.

A thank-you, eh? Well, there are, what? four people who outrank Major Generals? Lieutenant Generals, the General of the Army, the Army Chief of Staff, and the Commander-in-Chief? So he's kind of low on the totem pole.

I think there is irony in the symbolism. (up until DNA testing) The soldier is unknown. His body represents all of the nameless (and presumably valorous) dead. Since nobody knows who he is, he seems lucky - that someone cares enough to bury his remains, and donate 30+k to a monument. But the guy is dead. Dead people do not care, outside of films (like Poltergeist) and campfire stories/urban legends.

Is the government just bitchy about how their symbolic corpse is honored? Maybe their concern is that the tomb be anonymous enough for the anonymous dead?

[random-walker.livejournal.com]

That is interesting. At least one of the anonymous soldier's descendants would probably be a convicted (or even suspected) felon right? We could match him up, then, through the state and FBI databases. Ha. That would rile some people up no doubt.

And anyway, if the government is willing to eat the loss if there is a flaw in the stone, it would also be willing to eat the loss of not taking the donation in the first place.

I don't think this has much to do with it being the tomb of the anonymous soldier - it could be anything.

[suicide-sam-e.livejournal.com]

So far as your tainted replacement coffee maker goes, I think that is a limited feeling. Small business owners mingle their tools/materials between work and home use all of the time. (Right now I'm using the Welky! Pub computer.) This becomes less common with bigger-ticket items, like reactors/public lands and other things not usually owned privately. But the more likely something is to impact an employee's daily work, the more likely they are to substitute or improve upon it with something of their own. (Unless they can get work to furnish it.) Conversely, the more an employee depends on a specific tool (or other aspect of their job) the more likely they are to come up with improvements, personal modifications/tweaks, ideas relating to the thing, and also just plain more likely to attempt to maintain and learn about the thing.

(As a RL example of the last case, where I formerly worked the trucks were large, large-engined trucks. The government-provided gasoline was, predictably, low-grade. So employees who cared about the truck they most worked in would occasionally bring STP fuel additive to help stop the huge engine from developing knocks and pings.)

(Also, in Army BCT we ran out of CLP (some kind of cleaner/lubricant/protectant?) for M-16s just as the 2nd of 9 weeks of training ended. This second week was the week we were learning about the M-16s—per Fate, the CLP ran out just around when we learned that it was the only thing approved by the military for use in maintaining the M16 and its components. The CLP company had some exclusive license/contract. But I'll leave you to suss whether we did the right thing, or if we did whatever we could to stop our rifles from rusting, jamming, and causing us to fail inspections and miss targets.)

I think where practicality and necessity do not suggest bringing private property into work, some other purpose is suggested. Maybe to intentionally have more of one's presence in the workplace. Maybe for flaunting purposes. Perhaps religious significance.

Gods willing that I ever get a desk job, you can bet my first work area will be schmeared with my trappings. Guidelines and regulations be damned. Everything will have a purpose! Although ideally less-valued items, in case of loss or theft.

Would you leave your spare coffee maker at work anonymously? As a seeming donation, devoid of personal attachments?

Also, given that you would share your spare 'maker, if your home one then ceased functioning, would you as silently remove your contributed 'maker from your workplace?

[random-walker.livejournal.com]

I understand that unauthorized maintenance of your rifle is practically encouraged by the military (this comes from a weird pamphlet I found on boingboing, about maintaining your girlfriend the M-16). The army's not a business though.

Some of my cow-orkers were upset that I had a linux dualboot at work, despite the fact that one of our software packages were developed native to linux, and the windows ports was a cheap hack. Their objection (or at least excuse) was that we might get sued for copyright and patent infringement for just having it, by some magical Intellectual Property fairy I suppose. The loudest and most annoying guy also pestered me every day for two weeks about how I couldn't have any mp3s on the work computer because it's illegal. Since this guy was not in my "chain of command" (I reported direct to the Chief Scientific Officer), I told him to bugoff and downloaded a bunch of Public Domain and copyleft music just to spite him.

And I remember how I am treated. Later, I would decompile one of his programs and distribute an improved version to whoever wanted it. That might have been over the line; I don't think I'd do it again, at least not as flippantly as I did.

I think I'd bring in STP additive. I would bring in a coffeemaker, probably; after trying to requisition one. I would not take it back to replace mine if it broke. Depending on the terms of departure, I'd possibly take it back when I left.

I brought in pastries (good ones) around Christmas twice; people really liked that, and it was worth the $20 to me. I'm still kind of confused by how people don't do things like that more frequently.

[suicide-sam-e.livejournal.com]

The Army is like a business. Like a megacorporation that does not produce products so much as craters and skilled personnel.

Were they upset that it was line'ix and merely that you had it? Or was it more of an "I don't understand linux; why does he insist on the scary and mysterious OS?" attitude reacting not so much to the program, but that you had it [running]? They thought you had a pirate copy of linux?

Well, they sound a bit like a partly-ignorant bunch (with an acute example). Mayhap you should have hosted a class on Windoze alternatives to let them know that the average and standards for office software are not the only options? Deaf ears, I know...but you may have been pleasantly surprised by a few people.

Windows, even business copies, usually come with two mp3s, don't they? I think some Bach fuge and that something with "Streets" in the title. I'm not going to bother looking ATM. (Tired.)

Over the line - perhaps. But I, personally, have a hard time blaming people for acting according to how they are treated. I guess [such behavior] can be viewed as childish, un-professional, or petty. I would say it is reactionary. I would also it was appropriate, justified by the attitude of others, and say to some extent it was "corrective". Plus, if you (apparently did) manage it without any anti-social outbursts, it was more professional than other healthful alternative ways you might have lashed out. "lash" is kind of a strong word, tho'.

(It could be argued that by not confronting the cow-ork you did not reach an accord or foster communication. Or perhaps you just avoided more feelings of ill-will and wasting both your and their time. Some conversations are not worth having.)


Sharing foods at work is a positive, social behavior. Even if I do not want something I can appreciate the gesture. I think anyone could. I do sometimes regret not sharing foods at certain past jobs. I think in larger employee bases, I might have been bowing to a fear of judgment - either "what does ____ food say about me?" and/or "will this perpetuate rumor that I am a spoiled/wealthy person who does not need this job?" I suppose not treating people I like and suspicion winning out are the regrets.