Update for Everyone IV - Hungover

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Just wanted to let people know that starting thursday night, I'm going to be visiting another state for about a week and will probably not be able to post much, if anything, until that visit ends.

lol

What's going down in Idaho?  Family, I assume?

Yes.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Watching "It's a Wonderful Life" and wondering what this means for capitalism and small towns.

I'd be interested in discussing this with you some time.

Go right ahead.

What do you make of the economic critique in the movie in light of Capra, Stewart, and Reed's own Republican politics? Do you think it's attempting to draw a potentially specious distinction between good ol' down-home American capitalism and wicked rapacious cronyism, or would you describe what the movie is doing differently? Do you think "Pottersville" is revelatory or prophetic? Because I'm not sure I'd say the movie's imagination really extends to how bad a lot of the problems that actually fall on places in Bedford Falls's circumstances get. Pottersville seems awfully tame and small-time and actually like kind of a good time relative to the extremes of declivity in a lot of actual small-town America over the past few decades.

[Tender Branson]

Need some Chinese food for the last day of Christmas.

After having plenty of traditional Austrian food over the past 3 days.

[LLR]

Just wanted to let people know that starting thursday night, I'm going to be visiting another state for about a week and will probably not be able to post much, if anything, until that visit ends.

lol

What's going down in Idaho?  Family, I assume?

Yes.

Well, get used to it. D-AZ is mine now

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

My novel will be released sometime in the spring. They decided to split it into two volumes.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Pissed out another three-ish pages (single-spaced) today on this gosh darned thesis. Thing's going to drag way too long when I'm done, and it'll be a lot on my plate to have my director reread and edit.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

My novel will be released sometime in the spring. They decided to split it into two volumes.

Dude you have no idea how freaking excited I am for this!

[Grumpier Than Thou]

My novel will be released sometime in the spring. They decided to split it into two volumes.

Dude you have no idea how freaking excited I am for this!

Me too. I'm gonna learn how to read for this.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Grr. I had planned to go down to Detroit, grab a textbook, and a drink with a friend, but now it's six and dark out. My car's in the shop, so taking my mom's can is my only means of transport.

[Mr. Smith]

Turns out the first politician I met was a distant relative [I come from one of the lines that produced Republicans, ironically].

I knew I met someone famed when I got roped into going to a book signing 13 years ago, but I had no idea that I met the LBJ Secretary of the Interior.

Only today driving past Pt. Reyes did I piece it all together.

[LLR]

Turns out the first politician I met was a distant relative [I come from one of the lines that produced Republicans, ironically].

I knew I met someone famed when I got roped into going to a book signing 13 years ago, but I had no idea that I met the LBJ Secretary of the Interior.

Only today driving past Pt. Reyes did I piece it all together.

You're a Udall?

[Mr. Smith]

Turns out the first politician I met was a distant relative [I come from one of the lines that produced Republicans, ironically].

I knew I met someone famed when I got roped into going to a book signing 13 years ago, but I had no idea that I met the LBJ Secretary of the Interior.

Only today driving past Pt. Reyes did I piece it all together.

You're a Udall?

My Great-Grandma's maiden name...then she married a cowboy when such things weren't popular with the Mormons in Arizona, and that was tha.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Just wanted to let people know that starting thursday night, I'm going to be visiting another state for about a week and will probably not be able to post much, if anything, until that visit ends.

lol

What's going down in Idaho?  Family, I assume?

Yes.

Well, get used to it. D-AZ is mine now

Why did you decide to switch?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Watching "It's a Wonderful Life" and wondering what this means for capitalism and small towns.

I'd be interested in discussing this with you some time.

Go right ahead.

What do you make of the economic critique in the movie in light of Capra, Stewart, and Reed's own Republican politics? Do you think it's attempting to draw a potentially specious distinction between good ol' down-home American capitalism and wicked rapacious cronyism, or would you describe what the movie is doing differently? Do you think "Pottersville" is revelatory or prophetic? Because I'm not sure I'd say the movie's imagination really extends to how bad a lot of the problems that actually fall on places in Bedford Falls's circumstances get. Pottersville seems awfully tame and small-time and actually like kind of a good time relative to the extremes of declivity in a lot of actual small-town America over the past few decades.

My "observations" can only run so deep, but here goes my attempt to converse on matters of perceived import...

Were I Lief or Zizek, I would feel tempted to revel in pointing out what I consider obviously anti-semitic overtones of the film... The invasion of cosmopolitanism in the form of not just banking, but prostitution, vice, and so on. I, however, am neither of them. I do think there's some attempt to draw a distinction between "corporate capitalism" and "small town business"; this is obvious enough in the film. The filmmakers' Republican leanings do make it interesting, however. One is forced to wonder if they themselves were conscious of the distinction, or instead merely viewed it as an apolitical battle of a good man and a bad man. I recall reading on Wikipedia that Capra had wanted to put the film out in order to battle what he perceived to be a rising tide of atheism in the country; in such a light, it's little wonder that a conservative might see it as a moral battle rather than an economic one. In relating this to the real world, however, the film presents an ideal: a small, Christian town located somewhere aloof from the social ills of the urban world, marked not only by "good people", but by volunteerism, industry, and community. One is left to wonder if such a community can be allowed to exist; "good men" such as George Bailey cannot necessarily be counted on in every circumstance, and the natural alternative buttress against the Potter-esque encroachment of profit-driven rationalization and squalor is going to be an array of bureaucrats and government agents, just as much an anathema to Capra's American paradise as the bankers of the world. My own answer would lie in attempting to construct devices by which social capital could be fostered and, from there, indirectly recreate and restrengthen community ties; this is likely an impossibility.

There are a few other portions of the film I found interesting. In regards to the Second World War, one is reminded of Theodore Roosevelt's father (also name Theodore Roosevelt). Instead of being 4F on account of an ear, Theodore Roosevelt Sr.'s wife was a Southern belle and would see it that her husband had no formal part in a Yankee War of Aggression. Like Bailey, he found his means of participation through various informal and civic roles. There is one fan theory that claims this film is a portrayal of not a wonderful life, but indeed a rotting Hellhole; George Bailey is forever condemned to see to the affairs of his hometown while the rest of the world moves on--his brother Harry being the most poignant example, a man whose life he saves, only to see him not only gain work outside of town, but go on to be a hero in the war. The fan theory referred to George's disqualification from the war as the ultimate emasculation. The theory's main assertion--that George Bailey lived a life, nightmarish in quality--is something that, while perhaps believable, is not something I necessarily sympathize with. George's anger, boiling over in the scenes where he lays bare his feelings to Uncle Billy, and where he smashes his children's bridge, are powerful and believable. But that does not render his sacrifice meaningless, and I think it makes his actions all the more meaningful.

Secondly, what I found remarkable about the probably thirty seconds' reference to World War II is the amount of voluntary activity associated with it--and, conversely, the amount of acquiescence to non-voluntary restrictions. The list the narrator gives--air warden, supply drives, rationing, etc.--constituted a massive national effort. When asking ourselves why this spirit of participation seemed to peter out in the following decades, it seems rather obvious- if we really wished to fight and to contain communism on every front, the mobilization of soldiers and resources necessary would leave the country dry. By 1898, the young men of the country were itching for the chance to prove themselves in battle the way their fathers had done in the 1860's; by contrast, the short time it took to reengage America in combat after the end of World War II, and the immense length with which it took to wrap up Vietnam, demonstrated that a sustained, civic participation in American foreign policy was not something we were going to see in the future. On the other hand, the relegation of military duties only to those that volunteered in it ensured (A) that we could engage in war whenever and wherever and that there would be a class of people specifically reserved for the job of dealing out death and facing enemy fire; and (B) that the entirety of the country would never again be engaged in what it saw as a fight for the survival of the country or the world as a whole.

This, perhaps, feeds into an image of what a Republicanism--or, more rightly, Americanism--of a different time was. By the 21st Century, one need only ask "leave me alone" in order to qualify as a political conservative. Even for relatively "un-libertarian" members of the Republican coalition, the "faith alone" morality or the belief in warfare without participation, would come to encompass various facets of this worldview. For a Republican, or perhaps even a conservative, in 1946, duty to community appears to have a different meaning, as the ideal family man stands athwart the very forces that American (at least nominally left-wing) populism had itself aligned against in year prior.

[LLR]

Just wanted to let people know that starting thursday night, I'm going to be visiting another state for about a week and will probably not be able to post much, if anything, until that visit ends.

lol

What's going down in Idaho?  Family, I assume?

Yes.

Well, get used to it. D-AZ is mine now

Why did you decide to switch?

I'm in Scottsdale for the week.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Whenever I see the cat at the house I'm visiting, I think of my crush.

I'm not crazy, I swear.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Watching "It's a Wonderful Life" and wondering what this means for capitalism and small towns.

I'd be interested in discussing this with you some time.

Go right ahead.

What do you make of the economic critique in the movie in light of Capra, Stewart, and Reed's own Republican politics? Do you think it's attempting to draw a potentially specious distinction between good ol' down-home American capitalism and wicked rapacious cronyism, or would you describe what the movie is doing differently? Do you think "Pottersville" is revelatory or prophetic? Because I'm not sure I'd say the movie's imagination really extends to how bad a lot of the problems that actually fall on places in Bedford Falls's circumstances get. Pottersville seems awfully tame and small-time and actually like kind of a good time relative to the extremes of declivity in a lot of actual small-town America over the past few decades.

My "observations" can only run so deep, but here goes my attempt to converse on matters of perceived import...

Were I Lief or Zizek, I would feel tempted to revel in pointing out what I consider obviously anti-semitic overtones of the film... The invasion of cosmopolitanism in the form of not just banking, but prostitution, vice, and so on. I, however, am neither of them. I do think there's some attempt to draw a distinction between "corporate capitalism" and "small town business"; this is obvious enough in the film. The filmmakers' Republican leanings do make it interesting, however. One is forced to wonder if they themselves were conscious of the distinction, or instead merely viewed it as an apolitical battle of a good man and a bad man. I recall reading on Wikipedia that Capra had wanted to put the film out in order to battle what he perceived to be a rising tide of atheism in the country; in such a light, it's little wonder that a conservative might see it as a moral battle rather than an economic one. In relating this to the real world, however, the film presents an ideal: a small, Christian town located somewhere aloof from the social ills of the urban world, marked not only by "good people", but by volunteerism, industry, and community. One is left to wonder if such a community can be allowed to exist; "good men" such as George Bailey cannot necessarily be counted on in every circumstance, and the natural alternative buttress against the Potter-esque encroachment of profit-driven rationalization and squalor is going to be an array of bureaucrats and government agents, just as much an anathema to Capra's American paradise as the bankers of the world. My own answer would lie in attempting to construct devices by which social capital could be fostered and, from there, indirectly recreate and restrengthen community ties; this is likely an impossibility.

There are a few other portions of the film I found interesting. In regards to the Second World War, one is reminded of Theodore Roosevelt's father (also name Theodore Roosevelt). Instead of being 4F on account of an ear, Theodore Roosevelt Sr.'s wife was a Southern belle and would see it that her husband had no formal part in a Yankee War of Aggression. Like Bailey, he found his means of participation through various informal and civic roles. There is one fan theory that claims this film is a portrayal of not a wonderful life, but indeed a rotting Hellhole; George Bailey is forever condemned to see to the affairs of his hometown while the rest of the world moves on--his brother Harry being the most poignant example, a man whose life he saves, only to see him not only gain work outside of town, but go on to be a hero in the war. The fan theory referred to George's disqualification from the war as the ultimate emasculation. The theory's main assertion--that George Bailey lived a life, nightmarish in quality--is something that, while perhaps believable, is not something I necessarily sympathize with. George's anger, boiling over in the scenes where he lays bare his feelings to Uncle Billy, and where he smashes his children's bridge, are powerful and believable. But that does not render his sacrifice meaningless, and I think it makes his actions all the more meaningful.

Secondly, what I found remarkable about the probably thirty seconds' reference to World War II is the amount of voluntary activity associated with it--and, conversely, the amount of acquiescence to non-voluntary restrictions. The list the narrator gives--air warden, supply drives, rationing, etc.--constituted a massive national effort. When asking ourselves why this spirit of participation seemed to peter out in the following decades, it seems rather obvious- if we really wished to fight and to contain communism on every front, the mobilization of soldiers and resources necessary would leave the country dry. By 1898, the young men of the country were itching for the chance to prove themselves in battle the way their fathers had done in the 1860's; by contrast, the short time it took to reengage America in combat after the end of World War II, and the immense length with which it took to wrap up Vietnam, demonstrated that a sustained, civic participation in American foreign policy was not something we were going to see in the future. On the other hand, the relegation of military duties only to those that volunteered in it ensured (A) that we could engage in war whenever and wherever and that there would be a class of people specifically reserved for the job of dealing out death and facing enemy fire; and (B) that the entirety of the country would never again be engaged in what it saw as a fight for the survival of the country or the world as a whole.

This, perhaps, feeds into an image of what a Republicanism--or, more rightly, Americanism--of a different time was. By the 21st Century, one need only ask "leave me alone" in order to qualify as a political conservative. Even for relatively "un-libertarian" members of the Republican coalition, the "faith alone" morality or the belief in warfare without participation, would come to encompass various facets of this worldview. For a Republican, or perhaps even a conservative, in 1946, duty to community appears to have a different meaning, as the ideal family man stands athwart the very forces that American (at least nominally left-wing) populism had itself aligned against in year prior.

I'm familiar with the interpretation you mention, and my feelings on it are a bit stronger than yours--I think it's a downright unacceptable way of looking at It's a Wonderful Life, and has moral as well as critical problems. Fundamentally the idea seems to be that real value in George's life would have been in doing something "big" and conventionally impressive like Harry or Sam Wainwright, and that the small and the ordinary and the everyday sacrifices that filled his days were only squandering his ~individual~ talent. I guess one could argue that that's a "liberal" idea but it certainly isn't any kind of left-wing one; if anything it's more reactionary than the story that Capra actually told (of course it originates in the pages of the archetypically complacent-centrist-liberal Grey Lady). I'm sure you and I could both find plenty of reasons in our respective worldviews to reject that reading of the movie.

Interesting to think that Capra et al. may have seen the story they were telling solely as a moral parable as distinct from any kind of economic one (morality and economics being--artificially, in my view--separated here). In some ways it reminds me of the widespread moral sterilization of A Christmas Carol.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm familiar with the interpretation you mention, and my feelings on it are a bit stronger than yours--I think it's a downright unacceptable way of looking at It's a Wonderful Life, and has moral as well as critical problems. Fundamentally the idea seems to be that real value in George's life would have been in doing something "big" and conventionally impressive like Harry or Sam Wainwright, and that the small and the ordinary and the everyday sacrifices that filled his days were only squandering his ~individual~ talent. I guess one could argue that that's a "liberal" idea but it certainly isn't any kind of left-wing one; if anything it's more reactionary than the story that Capra actually told (of course it originates in the pages of the archetypically complacent-centrist-liberal Grey Lady). I'm sure you and I could both find plenty of reasons in our respective worldviews to reject that reading of the movie.

Interesting to think that Capra et al. may have seen the story they were telling solely as a moral parable as distinct from any kind of economic one (morality and economics being--artificially, in my view--separated here). In some ways it reminds me of the widespread moral sterilization of A Christmas Carol.

I'm in general agreement with your statements in the first paragraph. The general message of such an interpretation looks like a blank checck on some Randian "master morality". As to your second point, I'll note that such a separation of economics and morality is nothing notable; my dad was a conservative Republican, Catholic in orientation, who loved both "It's a Wonderful Life" and "A Christmas Carol". That doesn't mean he was in any way prepared to vote for some sort of platform of economic "social justice". Nevertheless, that someone around 1946 would entertain such notions politically--the ideal of small capital, estranged from both organized labor and industrial monopoly--is hardly token either. I'm reading a book for a class in January on the 1920's Klu Klux Klan; they regularly entertained a defense of capitalism alongside a hatred for both chain stores and multi-national capital, and for progressive reform. It's not surprising that such an idea, perhaps stripped down of certain overt racial ideas, would permeate int he north around the same period, especially in the context of the New Deal. I'm quite sure that in the mind of a 1940's conservative Republican, some idealized small town, family friendly capitalism, perhaps with certain restrictions on predatory activity, appeared far less threatening than secular/rational national progressive bureaucracy. George Bailey is motivated by community, not class, solidarity, paired with at least quasi-religious overtones.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm familiar with the interpretation you mention, and my feelings on it are a bit stronger than yours--I think it's a downright unacceptable way of looking at It's a Wonderful Life, and has moral as well as critical problems. Fundamentally the idea seems to be that real value in George's life would have been in doing something "big" and conventionally impressive like Harry or Sam Wainwright, and that the small and the ordinary and the everyday sacrifices that filled his days were only squandering his ~individual~ talent. I guess one could argue that that's a "liberal" idea but it certainly isn't any kind of left-wing one; if anything it's more reactionary than the story that Capra actually told (of course it originates in the pages of the archetypically complacent-centrist-liberal Grey Lady). I'm sure you and I could both find plenty of reasons in our respective worldviews to reject that reading of the movie.

Interesting to think that Capra et al. may have seen the story they were telling solely as a moral parable as distinct from any kind of economic one (morality and economics being--artificially, in my view--separated here). In some ways it reminds me of the widespread moral sterilization of A Christmas Carol.

I'm in general agreement with your statements in the first paragraph. The general message of such an interpretation looks like a blank checck on some Randian "master morality". As to your second point, I'll note that such a separation of economics and morality is nothing notable; my dad was a conservative Republican, Catholic in orientation, who loved both "It's a Wonderful Life" and "A Christmas Carol". That doesn't mean he was in any way prepared to vote for some sort of platform of economic "social justice". Nevertheless, that someone around 1946 would entertain such notions politically--the ideal of small capital, estranged from both organized labor and industrial monopoly--is hardly token either. I'm reading a book for a class in January on the 1920's Klu Klux Klan; they regularly entertained a defense of capitalism alongside a hatred for both chain stores and multi-national capital, and for progressive reform. It's not surprising that such an idea, perhaps stripped down of certain overt racial ideas, would permeate int he north around the same period, especially in the context of the New Deal. I'm quite sure that in the mind of a 1940's conservative Republican, some idealized small town, family friendly capitalism, perhaps with certain restrictions on predatory activity, appeared far less threatening than secular/rational national progressive bureaucracy. George Bailey is motivated by community, not class, solidarity, paired with at least quasi-religious overtones.

Oh, I know that separating economics and morality this way isn't really noteworthy or unusual--I think it's wrongheaded, but that's because I'm a leftist. I'm perfectly aware that there's a whole half of the political spectrum (more or less) that disagrees with me. It's one thing to say that people like Potter behave unacceptably; it's another to say that their behavior should be subject to detailed top-down legal constraints. In fact, one of the reasons it's hard to honestly classify A Christmas Carol as in any sense a leftist text is that the definitive representative of love and charity by the élite towards the less fortunate isn't any of the early Victorian society's various modernizers and social reformers but the ultra-old-school, long-dead Fezziwig. (It's things like this in my favorite stories that make me way more emotionally sympathetic to conservatism than most people with negative-eight E scores.) When I refer to "moral sterilization" I'm not referring to reading works like these in a manner that happens to diverge from my own political sensibilities, I'm referring to refusing to locate in them any kind of politically meaningful critique at all. Nothing is preventing such a critique from coming from a civil-society, voluntaristic conservative perspective.

Interesting that the KKK was doing that but I don't think it's especially relevant here given that Capra was a Catholic immigrant (and, come to think of it, the church we very briefly see George going to on V-E and V-J Days seems to be Catholic). To use Catholic terminology there's something very subsidiaritarian about the movie. One is sort of tempted to imagine Ernie the cab driver or some such figure as a Sam Gamgee-type character, updated for the industrial age. (I was actually just thinking earlier about how part of my moral objection to the theory you linked is informed by my having imprinted on a lot of Tolkien's implicit moral sensibilities at a young age.)

Now Lost Horizon, THERE'S a Capra movie that goes in what I've come to regard as some deeply disturbing thematic and political directions.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

So I had to cashier at work today and almost lost my job because I got swamped with customers and checks to cash out and this lady wanted to be checked out a certain way, well I got so distracted I accidentally pressed CREDIT instead of DEBIT and it charged her twice, she flipped her sh**t and told me she never was coming back and that I should be fired for it and that in all her 64 years of being alive she never has met someone as incompetent as me and started pressing her fingers in my face.

I stupidly decided to fight back after she called me retarded after I offered to give her MY MONEY to make up for the loss of money while she waits for it to be refunded back to her card. I basically told her that I don't care if she never came back because I deal with AT LEAST 900+ people on a daily basis at work and we make so much money we could build 2 more restaurants and that she should crawl back into the hole she crawled out of for being as salty as she was AFTER I told her I would pay her back PLUS more for her troubles and no longer wanted to put up with her.

She then grabs her husband who then proceeds to threaten be for talking back to his wife and then my boss gets involved and sent me home early... told me he was very disappointed in me and was revoking one of my raises and told me he potentially was going to slash my hours in half as punishment.

I feel so stupid. And I wouldn't be surprised if I get fired tbh.

TL;DR - got so busy at work I made a mistake checking out a customer, she naturally gets pissed, I also get pissed and fight back, boss gets involved, takes away one of my raises as punishment and is currently considering slashing my hours in half

[Kingpoleon]

Turns out the first politician I met was a distant relative [I come from one of the lines that produced Republicans, ironically].

I knew I met someone famed when I got roped into going to a book signing 13 years ago, but I had no idea that I met the LBJ Secretary of the Interior.

Only today driving past Pt. Reyes did I piece it all together.

I figured the Udalls from the first sentence.

So, are you related to Mike Lee or Gordon Smith?

[Mr. Smith]

Turns out the first politician I met was a distant relative [I come from one of the lines that produced Republicans, ironically].

I knew I met someone famed when I got roped into going to a book signing 13 years ago, but I had no idea that I met the LBJ Secretary of the Interior.

Only today driving past Pt. Reyes did I piece it all together.

I figured the Udalls from the first sentence.

So, are you related to Mike Lee or Gordon Smith?

Gordon Smith, Mark and Tom Udall are second cousins-once-removed to my grandmother...not sure what that makes me exactly, but that's still closer than FDR and Teddy were to each other.

Mike Lee is only related because his Great Aunt married into the family.

[Kingpoleon]

Turns out the first politician I met was a distant relative [I come from one of the lines that produced Republicans, ironically].

I knew I met someone famed when I got roped into going to a book signing 13 years ago, but I had no idea that I met the LBJ Secretary of the Interior.

Only today driving past Pt. Reyes did I piece it all together.

I figured the Udalls from the first sentence.

So, are you related to Mike Lee or Gordon Smith?

Gordon Smith, Mark and Tom Udall are second cousins-once-removed to my grandmother...not sure what that makes me exactly, but that's still closer than FDR and Teddy were to each other.

Mike Lee is only related because his Great Aunt married into the family.

So they're your mother's or father's third cousin, which makes them your third cousin once removed. See?

[PresidentSamTilden]

So I had to cashier at work today and almost lost my job because I got swamped with customers and checks to cash out and this lady wanted to be checked out a certain way, well I got so distracted I accidentally pressed CREDIT instead of DEBIT and it charged her twice, she flipped her sh**t and told me she never was coming back and that I should be fired for it and that in all her 64 years of being alive she never has met someone as incompetent as me and started pressing her fingers in my face.

I stupidly decided to fight back after she called me retarded after I offered to give her MY MONEY to make up for the loss of money while she waits for it to be refunded back to her card. I basically told her that I don't care if she never came back because I deal with AT LEAST 900+ people on a daily basis at work and we make so much money we could build 2 more restaurants and that she should crawl back into the hole she crawled out of for being as salty as she was AFTER I told her I would pay her back PLUS more for her troubles and no longer wanted to put up with her.

She then grabs her husband who then proceeds to threaten be for talking back to his wife and then my boss gets involved and sent me home early... told me he was very disappointed in me and was revoking one of my raises and told me he potentially was going to slash my hours in half as punishment.

I feel so stupid. And I wouldn't be surprised if I get fired tbh.

TL;DR - got so busy at work I made a mistake checking out a customer, she naturally gets pissed, I also get pissed and fight back, boss gets involved, takes away one of my raises as punishment and is currently considering slashing my hours in half

Damn, man. That sounds rough. Did they let you go or did it blow over?

[Mr. Smith]

...I'm gonna have to search for another job soon. The higher ups controlling payroll decided gut the number of hours I'm allowed to work at my current one.

The good news is, I have two more weeks (one more pay period) before the cutoff.

Bad news, I have to spend much of that money fixing up my ride.