| updated weekly |
home - contribute - donate - message board - events - links - contact us - archive |
|
|
| August 25, 2006 Alaskan in Exile by Neil Zawicki I’ve been thinking a lot about value lately. Value. The idea that a thing or an idea is worth something. I thought about it while preparing mashed potatoes for my one year-old, as she predictably whipped her milk cup off her highchair and on to the floor. It was a ceramic cup with Asian writing on it. It may have even been porcelain, I don’t know. It came in a box of things my neighbor was giving away. Needless to say, the cup broke into a hundred pieces when it hit the floor, and of course I didn’t bat an eye when it happened. I just gave Gwen her potatoes, and cleaned up the mess. After all, I gave her the cup to drink from. And being a dad, I have the uncanny ability to predict the immediate future, so I was not surprised when she threw it. I was surprised, however, that she took so long to throw it. And anyway, it’s just a cup. It may have been 700 years old and worth $9,000, but it probably wasn’t, and now we’ll never know. Value is a strange and arbitrary thing. Which leads me to the shirt Gwen wasn’t allowed to wear while eating. “Do not let her wear that shirt when she eats dinner,” said Gwen’s mom when I picked her up earlier in the evening. “It cost $50.” I had an instant response that went something like this: “Why did it cost $50?” The shirt in question is a little white cotton Polo shirt with a red collar and red buttons with the word “Tommy” embroidered on the front of it. “Because it’s Tommy Hilfiger,” replied her mom. Okay, in single parent country, this is the type of discussion you just diffuse through agreement. And I really tried to do that. And I did a pretty good job, until I muttered, “People pay a lot of money just to be worried about things.” Luckily, I stopped short of adding, “… and whether you get food on the shirt or not, you’re still out $50.” Gwen learned a new phrase during the car ride home. She can now say, “This shirt is goofy.” I had a conversation with a person who was very worried while borrowing a friend’s car, because “it has $800 dollar rims, and I don’t want to scratch them.” Two questions: What makes a set of wheel rims worth $800, and why would you put such “expensive” items at road level, where they will certainly be pelted by gravel and road tar and exhaust and sunlight and even curbs? I don’t understand. And it’s not because I’m some big hippy-ass, money hating dirt farmer. No. I have things that I value, like my guitar, which apparently is “worth” about a grand by now, and I appreciate quality things, and subscribe to the idea that you get what you pay for. Maybe I’m just as guilty. But I just don’t get the idea that something is valuable just because you paid a lot of money for it. Consider this: We’ve developed complex languages. We’ve cured diseases and built great cities. We’ve created technological marvels like radio and even television, and we’ve achieved flight and traveled into space, and have landed on the moon. That notwithstanding, shiny metal still fascinates us. It’s like some kind of primate hang up we have, that we are dazzled by shiny metal. And diamonds: little pieces of compacted carbon. We pay insipid amounts of money for little pieces of compacted carbon glued to shiny metal, all because somebody has assigned a value to the little pieces of compacted carbon glued to shiny metal, and we agree on the value. “I paid $1,400 for this little piece of compacted carbon glued to shiny metal, so be very careful with it.” On second thought, maybe I should dig through the trash and try to glue that ceramic cup back together? No, screw that. But wait a minute? What if the Asian writing on the broken ceramic cup spelled the word, “Tommy?” No, that’s just crazy talk … isn’t it? Neil Zawicki, exiled Alaskan, is Editor at Large for Insurgent49, a former reporter for the Alaska Star, and winner of the Alaska Press Club's 'Best Columnist' award. He is now living out the rest of his days in an undisclosed location in Oregon. He can be contacted at - hondo23@gmail.com |
-
Columnists -
- column archive -
August 18, 2006 August 11, 2006 August 4, 2006 July 28, 2006 July 21, 2006 July 14, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 23, 2006 June 16, 2006 June 9, 2006 June 2, 2006 May 26, 2006 May 12, 2006 May 5, 2006 April 28, 2006 April 21, 2006 April 14, 2006 April 7, 2006 March 31, 2006 March 24, 2006 March 17, 2005 March 3, 2006 February 24, 2006 February 17, 2006 February 10, 2006 February 3, 2006 January 27, 2006 January 20, 2006 January 13, 2006 January 6, 2006 December 30, 2005 December 23, 2005 December 16, 2005 December 10, 2005 December 2, 2005 November 25, 2005 November 18, 2005 November 11, 2005 November 4, 2005 October 28, 2005 October 21, 2005 October 14, 2005 October 7, 2005 September 30, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 16, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 2, 2005 August 26, 2005 August 19, 2005 August 12, 2005 August 5, 2005 July 29, 2005 July 22, 2005 July 15, 2005 July 8, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 24, 2005 June 17, 2005 June 10, 2005 June 3, 2005 May 27, 2005 May 20, 2005 May 13, 2005 May 6, 2005 April 29, 2005 April 21, 2005 April 14, 2005 April 7, 2005 April 1, 2005 - also by this
writer -
|
|||||||
| Copyright 2005
Insurgent Media. All Rights
Reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
||||||||