A weighty metaphor from The New York Times :

Under an Iron Hand, Rebirth of a Republic
Russia’s Proxy Is a Fearsome Midwife In the Revival of the Chechen Capital

Setting: a crowded sidewalk in the Financial District, San Francisco. A (presumably) homeless man lies a few steps from the entrance of a tall office building. He is mumbling incoherently, gesturing wildly, and clutching a brown-bagged bottle of something strong. A building maintenance worker walks over to him and says:

“Hey man, do me a favor and toss that bottle in the bin over there when you’re done.”

Half full: I live in a city that doesn’t expect the homeless to be invisible.

Half-empty: I live in a city where this is so commonplace that alcoholism and psychosis are lower priorities than recycling.

Pacific Gas & Electric screwed up, and now they owe a bunch of people money. The fact that they’re being held accountable, that consumers’ rights are being protected, blah blah blah is inspiring and wonderful, of course. However, my favorite part of the SFGate’s article on this is where they cover PG&E’s response to the question of what people should do if they think they deserve a refund.

PG&E’s position:

PG&E says it will identify people who deserve a refund and give them a credit on their bill … The utility has not yet set up a mechanism for handling [disputes] and told The Chronicle it doesn’t want customers flooding its phone lines with requests. “Customers don’t need to take any action right now,” a spokesperson said.

SFGate’s response:

Just in case you feel like contacting them anyway, here’s PG&E’s customer service line: (800)743-5000.

From the the AP, via the SFGate:

Federal authorities say an Indiana man robbed a Chicago bank just hours after he was released from jail for a bank robbery conviction … He was still wearing clothes issued to him from Chicago’s Metropolitan Correctional Center.

I must admit that my knee-jerk reaction was the same as SFGate commenter bakunin’s:

I sorta admire a guy who finds his calling in life and sticks to it, no matter the opposition which attempts to stand in his way.

Interoffice email:

Please note that our Tokyo office will be closed on:

Monday, 17th September-Respect for the Aged Day
Monday, 24th September-Autumn Equinox Day

Bark-inspired suit at Prada:

Most of the time I am disgusted by the price tags that come along with high end fashion. I’m sure a lot of thought goes into each piece, and I assume the craftsmanship is several notches above what you’d find at the Gap, but hundreds of dollars for a t-shirt? How is that justifiable?

The suit pictured above, though, won my respect and left me a bit awe-inspired. Granted, I doubt it’s worth whatever they’re charging for it, but when I saw it out of the corner of my eye, I actually thought they had placed a tree in the window display. This seemed unusual, so I took a second look and did a double take (or is that a triple take?). My amateur-at-best photography skills don’t do justice to the incredible design, so you’ll have to take my word for it that the texture and color of the fabric are palpably realistic.

Say hello to clothing as art.

In a record-shattering bout of procrastination earlier today, I had the opportunity to read a variety of archived articles on the San Francisco Chroncicle’s website. One in particular, titled “Empite Built on Sand” made me think about certain peculiarities of human nature.

The gist of the piece is this: Ricardo Ramirez, a San Francisco-based cement supplier who landed a number of lucrative contracts for projects ranging from earthquake retrofits to parking garages, has been accused of providing substandard product to many of his clients.

Basically, the stuff he mixed up could be loosely defined as “concrete,” but contains more recycled material than is safe for load-bearing structures. The article outlines how, over time, he became more and more brazen in cheating clients out of the materials they had ordered. Given that the recycled cement he sold cost 10% of the price of the safer kind, he made a small fortune in doing so.

Of course, all of this is yet to be proven, legally speaking. I’m not interested, though, in getting into a discussion of who “alleged” this, and what happened “according to” that person. Aside from the fact that I hope to not be on the Bay Bridge when the cement gives out, the facts aren’t really what interest me. I’m more fascinated by the idea that people like this “alleged” scam artist do actually exist.

As I read the story, I couldn’t help wondering what makes a person endanger the lives of thousands of people and cheat public agencies out of millions of dollars. Is it some sort of character flaw? A traumatic childhood? Cultural oppression (a theme in the article)?

Obviously, greed must play a large factor. I can understand the need for money – I’ve learned over the past year that it’s very useful in procuring basic necessities, but seriously? Luxury cars? Designer cowboy boots? How do these items become indispensible? How do they become more important than others’ safety?

The only answer I can come up with is that a person like this must have a truly monstrous ego. Only a person rating a 10 on the self-absorption scale would think his own trivial desires supersede the basic needs of everyone else. Selfishness is a useful quality in some situations, i.e. getting ahead in life, and it makes sense to embrace it here and there. Some people do so more than others, and they are the ones who are seen as having stepped on everyone else to get to the top. This guy is the perfect example of this approach, but taken to the nth degree.

On a more twisted level, this scenario also speaks to a need for control. What could be a better euphoria for the power-hungry than secretly playing Russian Roulette with strangers’ lives? I’m thinking that, if you’re this guy, there’s probably a sadistic thrill that comes along with watching people blithely drive over substandard structures. He knew exactly what he was doing, was told by numerous people that he should stop, and kept doing it. He had power, and liked it.

A couple of basic psych classes in college and two years working as a crisis counselor lead me to speculate that the character flaw theory and the traumatic childhood theory are equally possible, and not mutually exclusive. Cultural oppression, which is suggested in the article as either a cause for his behavior or the reason for his legal “persecution,” could be significant as well, whether it was actually present or simply perceived to be.

Feeling victimized generally leads to the desire for control, and this guy’s unhealthy ego channeled that into an approach that could probably win an award for passive-aggressiveness. This is a real shame, because various forms of oppression are everywhere. The idea that this man’s actions could be excused by either real or imagined victimhood is an insult to people who work in healthy ways to combat injustice. A better solution? Try community organizing, or therapy. You know what they say about the eye for an eye approach – it’s childish, and it doesn’t work. And something about leaving everybody blind.