Friday, March 23, 2012

My personal vendetta with European McDonalds

There is one issue with Europe that, country to country, has been bothering me to no end—and that issue is McDonalds. I’ve lived my entire life building a very intricate and personal relationship with this fast food chain, a relationship that I hold very dear to me. Unfortunately, living in Europe has somewhat soiled the age-old bond between Mickey Ds and I. At first glance, I was ready to embrace the European McDonalds with open arms; the restaurants are remarkably more modern and clean than their American counterparts, and their food seems to be made with more care and possibly fresher ingredients. However, the Europeans looked over the most important and defining quality of the franchise that enabled it for success—low prices. McDonalds was built on the entire premise of providing people with an option to obtain quick and affordable meals. The franchise’s quality of food isn’t the reason why people keep coming back, it’s the price. So when I walk into a McDonalds, I’m not thinking to myself “Gee, I can’t wait to indulge myself with this world-class cuisine”, but rather “God, I’m broke. Atleast McDonalds will always be there for me”. So when I was face to face with a $13 Big Mac mealand 30 cent ketchup packets in Switzerland, something deep down inside of me slowly started to die. Why are the prices so inflated here?! It goes against anything and everything that is McDonalds! The food definitely isn’t good enough to warrant such prices, so what in God’s name is making this acceptable? Is it because they want to take advantage of hungry American tourists? I doubt that’s the sole reason, as I see the establishments constantly filled to the brim with locals. A more likely reason is that they’re taking advantage of the poor souls who haven’t grown up to love and know McDonalds as it was meant to be. They are trying to benefit off of European ignorance, and I’m unfortunately getting caught up in the cross fire. So I say to the hell with European fast food! I’ll stick with off-brand Nutella and bread.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Occupy Davos

After visiting an Occupy camp outside of the World Economic forum in Davos, I can safely say that the Occupy movement’s biggest strength will eventually develop to be it’s biggest hindrance. The quality that I’m referring to is the movement’s leaderless structure. It’s important to mention that the absence of leadership worked extremely well in the early stages of the Occupy movement. When dealing with concerns that encompass such a broad scope of government and society, any attempts of centralization would have been somewhat detrimental to the movement’s progress. The lack of a central, solidified leader or objective allows the movements goals and ambitions to be molded specifically for an individuals own specific qualms and concerns—so long as it is somewhat related to the overall theme of the Occupy movement. This allows the Occupy movement to not only have access to a significantly larger support base but also speeds up the growth of the movement as well. So in terms of garnering public attention, the first and arguably most difficult step of a movement, this trait has worked incredibly well. However, the movement is now at a point where the attention gathering stage is over; the entire world has taken notice and the question is now, what are they to do with this attention? Every movement’s sole purpose is to evoke some kind of change, and unfortunately for the Occupy movement, their lack of leadership is hindering their ability to do just that. How are they to efficiently use their unique following for change when the movement’s goals are so broad and undefined? On that note, how are they to even communicate such needs to the public without an experienced and knowledgeable representative? These concerns were all but blatantly apparent at the World Economic Forum. During a seminar that was specifically dedicated to the attempt of patching up the inherent flaws of capitalism, a special seat was reserved for one representative of the Occupy movement. This fact alone does a perfect job of emphasizing just how well their current leaderless structure has served them in regards to public attention. Watching the seminar play out, however, displayed just how detrimental this structure is to their ability to garner change. Instead of using the seat to engage in productive and meaningful discussion, they used that privilege to destroy the order and efficiency of the forum. Interruptions and distractions were abundant throughout the audience, as the many occupy protestors attending the conference couldn’t resist the urge to disrupt the discussion to proclaim their own personal dissatisfactions. To make matters worse, there wasn’t one protestor present that was able to contribute any productive input towards the forum’s discussion. When presented with an opportunity, Occupy Davos was unable to step beyond the stages of protest and produce anything of value. In fact, the only thing they accomplished was to leave the audience and guest speakers with the impression that the Occupy movement is full of retards—unfortunately, without a known centralized leader or representative of the movement, we were left with little other choice.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Blog assignment: Shared Leadership


There were several things that I found interesting about the theory of shared leadership. Unlike traditional views of leadership, shared leadership focuses on the internal dynamics and relationships of mutual team members rather than the influence of a single external individual. In this theory, leadership influence is distributed freely among several different members of the team depending on the given circumstances. While I can understand several of the key points made throughout the paper, I believe that the authors are sometimes mistaking leadership for proper team cooperation. When a team of individuals that share the same goals and interests are put together—especially when there is a lack of an external leader—there will inherently be moments where different individuals positively effect the motivation and performance of others. How could a motivated group of people sharing a common goal make any progress without doing otherwise? The entire purpose of a team is to take the unique efforts, abilities, and desires of different individuals and mold them together to achieve things that wouldn’t have been possible for a single person. To say that the positive interactions between these individuals are attributed to any sign of leadership is to discount the very reasons why they were grouped together in the first place. That is why the theory was described so fluidly and entailed the leadership roles as consistently changing. If there were any sign of true leadership, I don’t believe the roles would flow about so easily. 

Monday, March 5, 2012

Thoughts on Amsterdam


          On a purely physical level, I didn’t find Amsterdam very impressive. While the city boasts an interesting canal system and a few notable buildings, I never had a moment where I was overwhelmed by it’s beauty. I actually found myself continuously getting lost throughout the city as everywhere seemed to look the same. But that is irrelevant. What makes Amsterdam special, as most people know, are it’s unique laws and customs. Amsterdam’s tolerance towards several societal taboos creates a distinct and interesting atmosphere that can be felt throughout the entire city; street’s are plagued with countless sex/smart shops, entire blocks are dedicated towards showcasing women through red, neon-tinged glass, and random gusts of wind casually carry the faint but distinctive smell of marijuana. It’s undeniable that Amsterdam truly has an ambiance unlike any other. What drives this ambiance, however, is an interesting matter to discuss.
While the presence of taboo shops and practices does contribute to the city’s distinct atmosphere, it’s important to note that this contribution is attributed solely to the sheer saturation of these themes. If Amsterdam still carried the same laws and customs, but the number of these shops were reduced to 1 or 2 every mile or so, the city would have a completely different feel. With that said, I see the unique vibe of the city as not a direct relation to it’s laws and customs, but rather as a result stemming from these practices becoming a glaring theme of the city. Now this leads me to the question of how such a theme came about in the first place. While partaking in a guided tour of the city, I learned an interesting fact; the percentage of local drug users in Amsterdam falls notoriously short to that of other popular cities. So despite the fact that the city boasts some of the world’s most liberal drug laws, the locals are less inclined to use these drugs than residents living in other, more conservative cities. If that were the case, how then would such a city become world-renowned for drugs and sex? The answer is simple—tourism. Amsterdam’s unique policies attract millions of visitors a year, from all across the world. Similar to how a person is often bombarded by friends if they open a pack of gum in the wrong place, people flock to Amsterdam to experience novelties that are not otherwise available in their respective countries. So an interesting scenario occurs where a place is defined not necessarily by it’s culture, traditions, or people, but rather by the desire and tendencies of those who visit. With that said, what does this say about Amsterdam’s taboo vibe? Is it derived from anything particular of the city, or is it rather a reflection of something much larger? And would you even consider such a vibe as negative? Another interesting fact that I picked up from the tour was that Amsterdam is ranked 13th in the world for quality of living, and 3rd in the world for innovation. So despite being a cesspool of the world’s desire to indulge in drugs and sex, the city still thrives and societal issues such as crime and public health are comparable to some of the best in the world. What does this imply about our perceptions of these practices? Are the inherent negative connotations soundly justified—and if not, why do they even exist? It seems the more I break it down, the more I come to realize that Amsterdam is not simply a city—it’s so much more than that. It’s one of the few places in the world that is defined not solely by its intrinsic qualities, but rather by the beliefs, practices, and desires of the outside world. Whether thats a good or bad thing is an entirely different story.