How I'm Not Political and Stuff

Politics is a weird topic for me. I don't follow many minor details (like local goings on), but I do keep up on the nationwide and worldly topics. I know how I feel about all the issues, and most importantly my opinions are mine, not the opinons of some party that I'm supposed to support. I think for myself, even if I frequently use quotes from other people to sum up some of my attitudes (like as Bill Hicks said about abortion, "You're not a person until you're in my phone book.").

If anyone ever mentions some topic of social or political value, I immediately have a comment to add or, better yet, a question to ask. Yes, a question. My attitude is, "I already know what I think and why. I want to know what you think." I don't always get to hear their why.

So I'm not shy about stating opinions or arguing an ideology. But the other day I was having a conversation with a friend about political activism and it left me feeling strange, like I was unsure of myself.

First of all, this girl is wholly devoted to Making A Difference. Her work and attitude endlessly impress me. She's living her life as if she will make the world a better place by sheer will power alone. She seems to have an endless drive to fight the good fight, to the point of making Princess Leia look like a slacker. And she's only 21!

Heh. She would appreciate the age mention.

But she asked me what I cared about. What causes I would fight for. Animals? Human rights? Environment? Unions?

This got me to thinking how one does fight for, say, environmental rights? Blow up tractors? Write your congressman and say; "Don't dump nukes?" I can't imagine me tying myself to a tree.

I'd like to think I'm too young to start that whole "It was easier back in the old days" crap, but seriously, how much easier is it to fight for black and white to have equal rights than it is to fight multinational globalization? With one, you just hang out with black people and tell anyone who discriminates against them to fuck off ("Are too gonna sit in the front of this bus."). How do you stop Nike from using slave labor? Don't buy their shoes. Good, my First Year Activist Class. And then what do you do?

It's not just me who thinks being socially and politically active is hard to do. Most people have the attitude of "All politics is lies so what's the point in trying? The right and left are both fuckers, so I'm staying out of it."

And who hasn't voted in an election where it came down to picking the guy that you disliked the least? You don't like Bush or Kerry? You've got over a month, buddy. Go get yourself a new candidate. Best of luck to you.

A lot of people talk (too much) about who they hate and why, saying, "Man, I'm gonna do something about this," but then never actually do anything. Some people can get their messages out through independent music. The few people I know who write for newspapers have been able to get their opinions out that way. Some people start their own web sites.
But what do most people do? Bitch about Republicans or Democrats on internet bulletin boards. It's so much easier to speak your mind when you're totally anonymous and there's no fear of being held accountable for what you write.

(This doesn't include personal websites. The g-men will take you down for that, but you have to be writing some serious anarchy shit, or at least link to a site that makes homemade bombs.)
I have a strong dislike for political parties. I don't side with any of them, and I hate hearing that since I'm not a Democrat or a Republican I must be an "Independent" (capital I). "You know, like the Green Party." Ugh. I'm not really against the Green Party (aside from the stupid name, which is even worse than Whig), but I don't want to be automatically associated with it just because I don't fit into the other two categories.

People have a weird thing about labels. Words start getting new meanings that supercede the old ones. I always hate when people use words incorrectly. Like David Cross said, "if you use penultimate and you meant ultimate, well, you're only off by one, so it's not that big a deal, but if you say 'literally' when you meant 'figuratively', you totally fucked the whole word up!" "Ignorant" doesn't mean "stupid." "Momentarily" doesn't mean "in a moment."

During the conversation with my friend, I called her liberal. She laughed and said she was not liberal. I posted the definition:

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Now where the fuck does it say you have to be a Republican or Democrat in that statement? (Did you know most people don't think you can be a Conservative Democrat or a Liberal Republican? You can, and they do exist.)

I'd say that anyone could be a liberal, from a certain point of view. Except maybe the Pope. I'd say he's pretty well limited by established views. I would hope, though, that he is tolerant of the ideas of others, even if he doesn't like them.

To be fair, my friend may not be "ample," another definition of Liberal.

If I have to pick some stupid label, I'd go with Bill Maher's "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" line. Don't blow money on stupid shit, but don't tell people how to live their lives, either.
I'm not big on labels, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I believe. So I've got my beliefs in place. Now, what to do with them.

You could say that protests are arrogant, because you're basically saying, "I AM RIGHT. THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG. BE LIKE ME!" Few people ever believe they're wrong. Do you think the people being protested know they're wrong? Like they just didn't think their plans through, and all it'll take is a few slogans and signs to open their eyes?" "Shit, Grand Moff Tarken, maybe this Death Star was a bad idea."

(Sorry for all the Star Wars references. The movies did just come out on DVD, y'know.)

But look at the reality of marches. A bunch of people getting together to walk down a street, posters in hand and slogans in mouth. Sometimes they just walk a certain path. Others, they march toward something, like when protesting city hall. The only way for a march to make any difference is for it to be either seen or documented. If a person sees a march and hears the slogans being yelled, then the protesters can be said to have made a difference, because someone heard their message. Now it's up to the listener to drop what he's doing and join the good fight, but I wonder how often that happens. Most people stand on the sidelines and watch, hoping to catch a glimpse of one of those big balloons. Or a float.

(In whatever differentiates a march from a protest, is either one invitation only? And if not, how quickly does either one turn into a mob?)

So the people there on the scene are influenced. In New York, that can mean a lot of people. What if you're protesting a snow cone company in Wild Springs, Arkansas? If you don’t happen to be driving by at that time, you're not gonna know about it.

The other way for your messages to be heard is through the media. A demonstration in New York has no effect on a guy in Montana if the news isn't there to cover it. Whatever you're protesting had better be media friendly or your cause is doomed. And what if the newspeople do show? Almost every time a march or protest is going on, a reporter sticks a mic in the face of one person (usually not the best speaker of the group) who says something rushed and stupid like, "Yeah, we're here to, uh, to protest this group because of… of... because they kill babies and… and… eat dolphins, too." That's all the airtime the protesters get. The viewer in Montana--who knows nothing of the protesters, the company, or the issue--thinks, "Fuckin' tree huggers…"

So best of luck in getting your word out with a 14" by 20" piece of poster board and a sound bite. I hope you put a web address on that card.

And the people being protested? How does it really affect them? They've got security. The police are there. They'll take care of any problems with gas and rubber bullets so the Company can get back to its closed-door secret deals.

And what if the police for some reason revolt? Say all the police decide, "Shit, man. These protesters are right. Fuck these dolphin-eatin' motherfuckers. Let's bash some heads." The police join with the protesters and then what? Break down the doors and kill everyone? Great message there. Right up with pro-lifers killing doctors. Or what else? Sit down with the people who have all the money and make all the baby-killing rules and explain to them that their ethos is wrong? "If you stop this, all those babies will be alive and you'll make millions of dollars less a year. Isn't that great?"

I see no motive to change.Or, as with the WTO, the protesters are gonna piss off the wrong people and, in the end, do nothing of any value, except have police records and be watched a little more closely.

I was stuck on the GW parkway for two hours during the WTO protest in September of 2002. Listening to the radio, I heard nothing of any value, except that there were protesters protesting the WTO. (I don't work in downtown D.C. usually, but that week I was working a convention that showcased new medical supplies and procedures, along with various hospitals and facilities. The protestors fucked it up something good. Knowing how terrible some drug companies are, maybe that was a good thing.)

That night, I went to my job as a bartender (yes, I have to tie this into restaurants somehow). I much prefer waiting tables to bartending. I don't give a shit about sports so I can't much chat it up with that kind of bar guest. Fortunately, this was a nice family-type restaurant, so I got a nice cross section of the area. All kinds of people would sit at my bar. The ages would range from the early twenties to the late sixties. Sometimes it'd just be a person who wanted a quick meal and didn't feel like sitting at a table alone. Or maybe the restaurant was on a wait and he was in a hurry to eat. Other people just liked being near the television (or the door).

We had two televisions behind the bar. One was always on sports (ugh) and the other always on news. We used to have them both on sports, but that summer the D.C. Sniper freaked everyone out so we'd gotten in the habit of always having one television turned to news.

All these news channels seemed to show the same footage of the WTO protest. Most of it was little more than kids, cops, and quick camera cuts. I remember one girl in a huge padded suit getting pushed around by other people (protesters and cops alike). She had no expression. It was very weird, like she had turned off her own mind.

There were one or two clips of people yelling. Nothing I could make out. All the footage for the entire week was like that. A few brief little fight snippets, the shot of the blank-faced girl in the padded suit, and then a talking head would go on to something else. It would have been nice to get a good interview with one of the protesters or even an expose on the WTO. But the WTO is big money, big money pays for the news, and the news doesn't want to piss big money off, so of course they're going to make all news bland, saccharin shit.

You know what I heard from the people sitting at my bar?

Not: "Great going, guys. Show those money-grubbing bastards the what for!"

Not: "Man, I really applaud those kids, standing up for what they believe in."

Not: I'd never heard of the WTO. They suck! I'm glad these protesters brought this to my attention. Someone should do something about them."

You know what I heard more than anything else? Variations of these: "Stupid fucking kids need to get a job" and "I was stuck in traffic for an hour because of those bastards."

And this is not out or two people in one night. This sort of thing is all I heard for the entire week. I was hitting fifty to sixty hours in those days, trying to pay for the video equipment I just bought. I served a lot of people.

Yes, this was just one bar in suburban Maryland. But somehow I doubt that at any of the other bars in suburban Maryland awards were being given out for Best Use of a Burning Tire by a WTO Protester. I doubt this happened much anywhere in the area. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Whenever I'd hear one of these "Stupid hippy" comments, I'd usually say (and picture me wiping a bar glass as I say this, like all the good bartenders in all the good westerns); "You know what the WTO is?"

"Who cares?" would be the response. "Those kids are dumb hippies."

"No, they're kids that understand how evil the WTO is. Let me explain this to you: the WTO goes to nations in need, like after a war or natural disaster, and says, 'Hey, guy! Having some problems? Here's some money,' and hands out enough money to get the country going again. Never mind the interest rates. We'll deal with those later. Eventually, the country's economy starts going again. That's when the WTO shows up like a bad drug dealer to collect its money. 'What? You're a little short this fiscal year? That's okay. We'll help you out. You need a new treasury department. And look, we have some treasury people right here, just for you.' Bam. Out go the natives, in go the accountants, with one priority: making money on this country. So the newly installed accountants start cutting the stuff that doesn't make any money, like health care, public works, that sorta useless crap. And, if possible, they get this country to start manufacturing something the world can use, like bombs, guns, or, who gives a damn, make some fuckin' napalm. That stuff will sell!

"(Yes, I'm exaggerating here, but not by much.)

"So this country's going to shit, but they're starting to make money. They're not keeping any of this money, because the cash is all going to pay the exorbitant interest rates the WTO charges. Maybe, in a few decades, the country will have the loan paid off, but by then, it'll be a worthless shell of its former self anyway."

I get no argument to any of this. People listen silently, like they have no interest in what I’m talking about.

"And these kids--I'm sorry, the stupid hippies--think what the WTO does is horrible, and so they're protesting it.

A short little pause.

"I don't know about all of you, but I say screw those little brown people. Their culture sucks, anyway."

This offended people. When they protested what I said, I replied, "Oh. So you agree with the stupid, dirty hippies?"

I didn't make the greatest tips as a bartender.

So while I don't think protesting really helps any (the WTO doesn't show any signs of weakening), I'm not cutting down protesters at all. It takes a lot more balls than I'll ever have to put your own life in danger just to speak your mind. They are to be much admired for standing up for what they believe in. Activism--regardless of what it accomplishes--is very cool. What have you got to show for your life, pal?

The week of the protest, I took the Metro down to D.C.--camcorder in hand--to witness this social activism in person. I was looking forward to speeches, pamphlets, cooperation, and inspiration at its finest.

What I got was a bunch of hippy kids sitting around, smoking clove cigarettes and listening to crappy music.

There were dozens of cops on the street. They weren't busting heads. They weren't in riot gear. They just stood there, watching everyone.

They didn't seem to care when I turned on my camcorder and walked around the area. I even taped them for a few minutes. The kids didn't care, either (I had the impression they all checked to make sure I wasn't form NBC or the like. I don’t remember why I thought this).

The whole scene of cops and kids to me seemed like the children were at the playground and the parents were making sure they weren't gonna fall off the jungle gym.

Only one person approached me with a hand out. It was a single piece of yellow paper that listed a website where you could read about WTO atrocities. I thanked him for the paper and he walked on. There were many of these yellow pieces of paper crumpled on the ground. I thought, "You activists obviously don't give a shit about littering, do you?"

But these weren't real activists. These were kids who wanted to get out of school. I guess all the real activists were either in jail or… (Almost made an easy "out huggin' a tree" joke there).

(Oh, I did.)

So I don't lump all activists in with these guys. There are people in the world that really care and do the best they can with what they have. Sometimes, it's just handing out food at a soup kitchen, or organizing drives to give food to the homeless. Seems like it's a lot easier to help people in your own city than it is to help some poor people you've never met on the other side of the planet.

So with protests, I can support the ideas, but in the end what good does it do?

The same with marches. More so with marches. With a protest, you have people getting the shit kicked out of them by cops, and that makes for good television. That leads to (at least a little) exposure. But a march? Just the quick, badly worded sound bite I mentioned earlier.
Again, I don't think badly of the people who organize marches and protests, I just wonder what they're actually accomplishing.

In the case of the WTO, what happened? Did the WTO get the message and start handing out food to the locals? No, they moved to another place (that was also protested) and continued their secret deals. And the secret deals are going on today. (For reference: http://www.wto.org/)

Maybe I'm wrong. I can type "Word Trade Organization" into Google and find a shitload of websites, but I can't sort through all of them to find out what effect the protesters have had on the people who matter. Did they delay a talk? Maybe. And if they did, that's great. But the talk did happen, and the same people got screwed. Maybe they got one more day of not being screwed. Or maybe the delay pissed off the wrong people, and the screwing was twofold. Never can tell with screwings.

Yes, I sound very cynical about all this activism stuff, but that's only because I wonder at the VALUE of it. I'm certainly not telling anyone to stop doing what they believe in. It just so happens that I've never been directly influenced by someone who organized protests. My influences mainly come from books and, just under that, music. I love punk music. Have since I was a teenager. If you have a message you want to get out to a large number of people, self-publishing/printing/pressing your work is the best way to do it. But one thing I noticed about the punk scene is that it mainly supported itself. The members of one band would go to the shows of another band, buy their music, and so on. There was a firm feeling of solidarity, even during the occasional times when people would get pissy and say this band sucked or that band is getting repetitive. They still supported them, even if they didn't like their style of art.

And I'm thinking this activism thing is a lot like a punk scene. Lots of kids going out and trying to make a difference with their marches, protests, and websites, but the only people who are influenced are each other. Instead of only preaching to the choir, they're diving off the stage into the choir, each trying to go higher than the last one. Ask an activist about the WTO, and he'll tell you why they suck and who's going to be protesting them next. That's great information to have and know, but it's mostly being shared with the people who already know it. Is it going to get to anyone who's in a position to do something about it? Not if all they can manage to do is get people to realize they're angry. You can't fit a political argument on a crappy, hand-held sign that says, "Fair Trade not Free Trade." What would you say if you saw this? "What's wrong with free trade? If the trade is fair, then it's not gonna be free, is that it?"

To keep this activism scene going, the kids are gonna stay tuned into the protest network on-line, keeping up with all the local events in their own areas and try to participate. That's great. But, again, they're probably not going to get many "straights" to attend. You don't see many people from nine-to-five type jobs at protests. Is it because they're robots who "work for the man?" No. They just have lives to deal with. Responsibilities. Paying rent, car loans, utilities, maintaining a household, and a bit of recreation on the side. Some of the most politically active people I've met don't have jobs and still get by on money from mom and dad. Their only responsibilities are school a few times a week.

Funny how having to feed yourself takes a bite out of your crusading time.

It's like, "Dude, I protested this group last week." "Yeah, I saw you get busted on the news. I protested this other group yesterday." "I saw you! Great sign, dude. 'Free Speech not Martial Law'. Right on! What's up for next week?" "Same thing, man. Soon as I finish my psych homework."

All right, so I'm making a few stereotypical jokes at the expense of protesters. But any group that can't take a few jokes is not the kinda group to go around changing the world. Well, in that case they'd just be Republicans.

The conversation with my friend left me feeling kinda weird because I almost got defensive about not being socially active. "But… but I try to be a good person and lead by example." Ugh. I'm glad the conversation ended fairly quickly after that.

The fact is, I don't do anything that's socially active. I do a lot of social thinking, and not just the goofy comedy routine I wrote about tonight. A good deal of my information comes from books, CDs (yes, Jello Biafra, among many others), and websites. Like anyone else, I combine this information with my other influences and arrive at opinions, which I then consider further, refining them by talking to others who are as unlike me as possible. I don't want to talk to anyone with the same ideas I have. I'd rather talk to people with totally different viewpoints (usually conservative types, but not that limited) to see what they think. The more an idea is attacked, the stronger it gets, unless it dies, in which case your next idea will be even better. The rules of survival apply to all things, real and imagined.

Now, do I have plans for all this social active thinking? Solutions to the problems of "How do you make anyone give a shit?" Yes, I do. Very elaborate plans that are so bizarre they just might work (to quote many eighties sitcoms). Will my ideas work? Won't know until I try them, and I have a lot more to learn before I do.

Not that I’m going to write my plans for saving the world in a blog. But if the world were saved one day, I sure would like to be able to take the credit.

With the next entry, I'll be back to good old-fashioned restaurant irritations.

Party of Five or Fifteen

August and September are the slowest months in many types of restaurants, so while I've been standing around not making money I've had a lot of conversations with other waiters. When we're not talking about who's fucking who (biggest topic) and where (ugh), movies or comics (much smaller group on the comics side), we talk about the job itself. This sort of conversation usually soon turns into What I Hate the Most.

These hates fall in two categories: the actions of our guests, and the actions of our coworkers.

I'm not in the mood to talk about lazy busboys. Let's talk about guests.

(If I haven't mentioned it before, I never refer to People Who Eat In Restaurants as "customers." I always call them guests. Most waiters call them customers. I think "guest" is a more accurate word for People Who Eat In Restaurants than "customer," that's all. Serving a guest implies hospitality, instead of only service. There is a difference.)

Generally, waiters make the same complaints about guests: they're bad tippers, they make impossible demands and whiney complaints (translated as "What can I get for free?"), and show a total lack of understanding for both principles of business ("Seven dollars for a chicken sandwich? That's outrageous! I can buy chicken at the grocery store for a dollar!") and principles of science ("What do you mean it's taking longer for my extra extra well done steak to cook?").

These are all general gripes. Recently, when I mentioned something that really annoys me, I found out that it tops the list of irritations for many other waiters, too.

The shortest name I can give this is "Large Groups of People Who Don't Arrive at the Same Time."

That's a bad name for it. It goes like this:

Mr. Underhill makes a reservation for ten people at seven o'clock. At seven-twenty, Mr. Underhill and his wife arrive. At seven-thirty, Mr. Underhill's brother and sister-in-law show up. At seven-forty-five, The Underhill's son, daughter-in-law, and two nephews come running in. At eight, Mr. Underhill's lawyer gets there. They're still not sure if Mrs. Birchly, the nice old lady down the street, got the message to attend.

Why does this make the job of waiting difficult? First, a word about reservations in general: Reservations are hated by waiters. And for good reason, too. Half the time, people who make reservations don't show up. More than that, they don't cancel. Wouldn't be nearly so bad if they cancelled.

The other night, I was in a section with three four-top booths and one six-top table. The six-top was reserved for a group of five at six. I started my shift at four, so for two hours, that table sat empty. By six-thirty, I had asked the hostesses at least three times if this group was still coming or if they had cancelled. No one had heard anything. After thirty minutes, we assumed the guests-to-be forgot their reservation and put the table back into rotation to be seated. There was a reservation for five people at seven-thirty, so the hostesses marked my six-top table for that. This group showed up at about ten to eight and stayed for an hour and a half. The table was bussed and reset just in time for the hostesses to stop seating my section, because the back room where I was working closes at around nine-thirty or ten, depending on business.
So because of reservations, my largest table was seated one time in five and a half hours. That is a good deal of lost income for me. I would have rather had a string of couples (two-tops) sitting there all night. Four chairs on each round would have sat empty, but making money on two people is making no money at all. Also, couples usually take about forty-five minutes to eat. I might have had six couples sit there--twelve people total--throughout my shift, instead of what I did get, which was only five.

(If you average a tip of three dollars a person, the difference was making fifteen bucks instead of thirty-six.)

Sure, I had three other booths to take care of, but as with any job, you want to make the most money possible, and having some of your money-making tools (in this case, my six-top table) left unused is not only unproductive and unprofitable, it's really god damn annoying.

So reservations that show, waiters don't mind so much. Reservations that don't, waiters hate.
Now we go back to the Underhills, who trickled in over the course of an hour. This time, we'll see it from the point of view of the waiter.

At seven, the waiter is thinking he's about to get sat. (Restaurant lingo is riddled with this kind of bizarre language. You "get sat" when the hostess seats some people at a table in your section.) He catches up his other tables and gets ready to greet his ten top, which will be arriving any minute now.

A good hostess staff will stop seating the waiter's other tables here, so he doesn't have to greet a ten-top just as he gets one or more other smaller groups. Sadly, most restaurants don't have good hostess staffs.

At ten after seven, the waiter is hoping they're not too much later. At seven-fifteen, he's thinking he's gonna get fucked again. He goes the hostess stand and asks if there was a cancellation. No message, so they hold the table. Most restaurants have a policy of holding tables.

The hostess decides to seat the waiter's other tables. She does this JUST as Mr. Underhill and his wife walk in the door. (This is called getting "double-sat," if I haven't already mentioned it.)
Now, before this turns into a stupid sitcom, let's drop the whole double sat thing. Yes, that does happen, and just as I described it, but it just clutters the example.

Mr. Underhill and his wife come in at seven-twenty and sit down. The waiter says hello and tells them the daily specials. He also asks about the rest of the party. Underhill says they'll be in soon. The waiter asks to get a drink for Mr. and Mrs. Underhill. They get alcohol, meaning the waiter has to do a call at the bar. This takes considerably longer than getting a Coke or tea from a side station.

The waiter comes back from the bar with the drinks in a few minutes. He sets them down and asks if the Underhills want any appetizers. They say they'll wait for the others. The waiter walks off.

At seven-thirty, Mr. Underhill's brother and sister-in-law show up. The waiter comes back to get their drink orders. Another trip to the bar. The four guests still don’t want to order, prefering to wait for the others. The brother asks what the soup of the day is. The waiter tells him and walks off.

At seven-forty-five, the Underhill's son, daughter-in-law, and two nephews come running in. The older two get drinks from the bar, the kids get soft drinks. When the waiter comes back from the bar, no one is ready to order, nor do they want to, preferring to wait for the other two. The daughter-in-law asks what the soup of the day is.

At eight, Mr. Underhill's lawyer gets there. He wants a Coke. The waiter gives him a Coke and asks the group if they want to wait for their last person to show before they order. Mr. Underhill says yes. The waiter starts to walk away. The brother asks if they could get some appetizers. The waiter hears this and comes back, then takes the appetizer order. He starts to leave. The sister-in-law's kid is crying. The sister-in-law orders food for the kids, asking for it to come out with the appetizers. The waiter starts to leave again, only to be stopped by the lawyer, who wants to know what the soup of the day is.

Before leaving the table again, he asks one more time--to be perfectly clear--"Do you want to wait until the last person arrives before you order your entrees?"

Mr. Underhill says "Yes." A few people grunt "Yeah." The rest nod their heads.

The appetizers and kiddie food come out on time in about ten minutes. The waiter checks on them. They're fine. One person needs another drink. The waiter gets it.

Twenty minutes later, the waiter clears the appetizer plates. Both kids need drink refils. Nothing else.

Fifteen minutes pass. The waiter keeps walking by the table, but at this point he can't ask "Are you SURE you don't want to order now?" without sounding like a pushy asshole. He's already asked about the ordering thing several times. No one says anything to him.

A couple minutes later, the waiter is in his side station, putting in an order for another table, when Mr. Underhill taps him on the shoulder. "We're ready to order," he says, with that tone of "You stupid mother fucker, why do I have to get up to tell you this? YOU are supposed to wait on US!"

The waiter hurries back to the table. The tenth chair is still empty. Mrs. Underhill looks annoyed. The kids are both finished eating and looking for something else to do. The other women are obviously hungry and irritated.

The waiter tries to make a joke out of it. "Gave up on the last person, huh?" No one responds, as if there never was supposed to be any tenth person, and why the hell didn't the waiter take the order an hour ago?

They all order their entrees. Some get refills on their drinks. The waiter orders the food, putting a "rush" on it.

Five minutes later, Mrs. Birchly arrives. She flags down the waiter and asks him what the soup of the day is. She needs some time to read the menu. She orders a hot tea.

The waiter comes back a few minutes later to find that Mrs. Birchly has been chatting with Mr. Underhill about her new hat. The waiter asks what she'd like to order. She says she hasn't looked at the menu yet.

A few minutes after that, when the waiter is taking an order at another table, Mrs. Birchly flags him down, saying she's been waiting to order her food. The waiter takes her order, just as the food for the rest of the people arrive.

The waiter puts a "Super Rush: Late Arrival" memo on Mrs. Birchly's food. He goes back to the table to check on everyone (make sure everyone likes what they're eating and see if anyone needs anything else). They've had their food for about three minutes now. Mrs. Birchly asks how much longer it'll be on her lobster. The waiter says, "Soon."

Because everyone was so hungry, they are all (minus Mrs. Birchly) finished eating within ten minutes. The waiter starts clearing the empty plates, avoiding the angry glare of Mrs. Birchly. Her lobster comes out just then. She asks for more hot water.

Mr. Underhill says that no one wants any dessert (without asking if anyone actually does). The nine people stare at Mrs. Birchly while she eats her lobster. Everyone is slightly uncomfortable, although no one will say (or maybe even knows) why.

Mr. Underhill asks for the check. The waiter brings it, runs Underhill's credit card, and says thanks. Mr. Underhill leaves him an average tip. The party leaves in an average mood.

Now, I've tried not to make this all goofy and outlandish. The timing may be a little more precise than usual, but this sort of thing happens to me about once a week. A large party trickles in and can't make up its mind on what it wants to do. Some want to wait, some want to order. They tell me to do one thing, then get annoyed when I do it.

What's the message for today? If you plan to go out as a group, SHOW UP AS A GROUP. And if you don't, understand that a waiter can only do what you tell him.

And now, other concerns about large parties.

In the above example, the waiter had to go to the bar several times to get the first drinks for each guest that arrived. Here's what going to the bar usually means.

If someone orders a gin and tonic, a waiter can't make it himself. He has to order it in the computer. Then he has to go to the bar to get it. Again, he can't make it himself. He has to wait for the bartender to make it. There are two main methods of this. The most common is when he orders it in the computer, a little piece of paper prints at the bar with the words "GIN AND TONIC" on it. The bartender--as soon as he can, which can be up to a few minutes--then makes the drink and leaves it in the window. The other method is that the little piece of paper prints at the waiter's computer, and he has to take that to the bar, tell the bartender what he wants, and then wait for the bartender to make it.

(Both these methods are theft-deterents. Bartenders are held accountable for liquor usage. Waiters are not, because there are so many of them.)

If a group arrives all at once, and each person gets an alcoholic drink, the waiter will ring them all in the computer, get the drinks from the bar, then bring them back to the table. Simple. When people trickle in, ordering as they arrive, the waiter has to do these same steps over and over again. This takes a lot more time (as I'm sure you understand. Consolidating steps makes any action more efficient.).

I suddenly feel the need to defend waiters again. Yes, we are there to serve you and all that, but the more efficient you are, the more efficient we can be. Most people who complain that a waiter's service sucks are the same people who send him back to the kitchen for multiple items at different times.

(Every waiter's had this happen. You drop off a cheeseburger and ask the guest if he wants anything else. The guests says he wants some mayonaise, so the waiter goes back to the kitchen and gets him some mayonaise. Then the guy says he wants some onion, so the waiter goes back to the kitchen to get the guest some onions. Then the guest asks for an extra pickle… Even asking, "Is that all you need right now?" doesn't work. The guest won't realize he wants something else until the waiter returns. Happens more than you think. And waiters always think the same thing: Get your shit together, moron!)

Here's another large party problem: at a table of ten people, everyone has ordered an entrée. ONE person ordered chicken wings as an appetizer, and he wants it as an appetizer. He does not want it with his entrée. So the waiter orders the food as that guest has asked.

This REALLY pisses people off. And people don't seem to understand why it happens. Let me explain it to you.

If a person, eating alone, orders chicken wings and a steak, here's how the order will work: the cook will make the chicken wings immediately. As soon as the wings are finished and brought to the table, the cook will start grilling the steak. It takes about ten minutes to cook a steak (temperature depending), which is about how long it takes to eat an order of wings. The steak will be finished just as the appetizer plates are cleared. This way, the guest will eat fresh chicken wings and then a nice, hot steak. If the steak and wings were cooked at the same time, the steak would get dry and shitty while the guest ate the wings. By the time the steak got to the table, it might still taste okay, but it won't taste as good as when it was first prepared.

This is all common sense right? Let's add nine people to this guy's table, as above. The ten entrees and one appetizer are ordered to the kitchen. The cook starts making the chicken wings. In about ten minutes, when the wings are ready, the cook starts preparing the ten entrees. The one guy at the table is eating his wings, while the other nine people are staring at him, getting hungrier. The one guy feels awkward because these are HIS wings, dammit, and if the others wanted some, they should have gotten an order themselves. The other guests are getting impatient. It's now been fifteen minutes and their food's not ready. The food WON'T be ready until at least the twenty minute mark. If anyone ordered a well done steak, it could take twenty minutes to cook, on top of the ten minutes while the wings were being prepared.

I've had people get very angry at me for this sort of thing. It's usually older people (not known for patience with food), but what am I gonna say? "Sorry your food's taking ten minutes longer than it should, but THAT GUY RIGHT THERE is the cause of it."

There is nothing I can say. I can only look like an incompetent moron who can't make the kitchen do magic.

What are the solutions? Prepare all the food at once? Great. So one person is going to have a plate of wings AND a steak with side orders arrive all at once. I'm sure that's what he wanted. How about making the wings arrive with all the other entrees and then have that guy's steak come out later? So when everyone else is finished eating, the guy with the wings will just be getting his steak. Then everyone can stare at him and hope he hurries the fuck up so they can all leave.

The solution is this: when you're part of a large party at a restaurant, pay attention to what other people are eating. If no one else gets an appetizer except for you, then you are going to be the asshole of the group, right there with your waiter. At least tell the group at large that you're getting an appetizer and ask if anyone else wants one. Then they certainly can't complain when you're eating and they're not.

As with most things, the solution comes down to simple communcation.

Man, this was a long post. But this is my Blog about waiting tables, and if I'm going to write about waiting tables, by gum, I'm gonna write about the things that piss people off the most.

Perception of Incompetence

There are many good lines about waiting tables. Perception of Service and Sense of Urgency come to mind right now. If you've never waited tables--and there are far too many of you out there who have not--these may not mean anything to you.

Perception of Service is how the guest thinks you served him. If you're a great waiter and performed like one (no forgotten or fucked up orders) without having to put forth any real effort, the guest might think you did not do a good job because you didn't appear to be working hard. More than that, you might appear to not really care, either. So there goes your tip. Sometimes, a not so experienced waiter makes a better tip because the guest thought he was working very hard. Perception of Service also sometimes refers to simple details, like turning the handle on a coffee cup toward the guest after putting the cup on the table. If you understand why this is important, then you understand Perception of Service.

Sense of Urgency just means that you appear to give a damn that the guest is taken care of. You don't have to act like a spastic moron to show a Sense of Urgency. Have you ever walked into a store and needed help with something, only to be treated by a clerk like you're an idiot who's interrupting his phone call. Or felt like a stupid pest when all you wanted to do was quickly buy something and get out? That is the exact opposite of Sense of Urgency.

Perception of Service and Sense of Urgency encompass so many different things it's hard to concisely define the phrases. It basically means you act like a good host. I'm hoping you non-waiting, non-retail readers are intuitive enough to know what I mean.

In my ten years now of restaurant work (with a few exceptions while I "got a real job"), I've always analysed the trade of waiting tables. I've always quickly become a server-trainer. I spoke up with helpful hints at staff meetings and had many productive ideas to give out during the pre-shift meeting.

• New Restaurant Term: "Pre-Shift Meeting." Most restaurants call it something else, like "Line Up" or "Menu Class." This is the time when all the waiters for that shift get together with a manager or chef (and that's sometimes the same person) to go over the specials of the day and talk about any upcoming special events or happenings. Sometimes the information is just "We have a crapload of reservations at noon" or "We've only got two bussers so try and help them out." There might be a few longer-term announcements, too, like "There's a staff-meeting next Saturday" or "We're all going rafting in two weeks." More fun restaurants will announce things like "Jennifer apparently has syphilis" or "I've finally snapped and will soon kill all of you. Have a great lunch." In my experience, the only restaurants that don't have any type of pre-shift meeting are the ones that don't offer an extensive menu. If the food is the same every day, there's really no point in getting everyone together, especially if you're just going to kill everyone after lunch.

I like putting in these sidebars to explain things, but then I lose my train of thought. Damn.

(And why do people keep spelling "lose" "loose?" It's gotten so bad I've even seen it in print a few times. A typo on the net is a simple mistake, but to get past a print writer and his editor?)

So I tend to analyse this job of waiting tables a lot--

(Also: "A lot" is TWO words, like "You have a lot of fish." Not "We hate alot of people.")

--and that's why I feel confident to write about it here. This isn't just because I feel like running my cyber mouth. I have two reasons: the first is that my movie about waiting tables will be that much funnier (having failed once, I'll probably never try to shoot it again, but I still want to write the damn thing). The bigger reason is so that YOU, the restaurant-going public, will stop being such inconsiderate assholes when you go out to eat.

So I still don't qualify as an altruist.

All restaurant managers want their waiters to be efficient. The faster people eat and get out the door, the faster new people come in to spend more money. The tables in a waiter's section are what make his money. So waiters need to anticipate the guest's needs.

Part of this is always carrying an updated copy of the guest's check so that as soon as the guest says, "Check, please," the waiter can give it to him.

(No, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say, "Check, please." It's sorta like "Beam me up, Scotty" or "Play it again, Sam" in that it's a cliche that came from nowhere. Most people say, "We'll take the check." Some say, "We're ready to go, so..." and never actually ask for the check. Some say, "I'm ready for the ticket." Yes, "ticket." Where do these people come from?")

I rarely follow management-type waiting bullshit. I don't "sell" people on expensive items. I don't "push" anything, especially desserts or alcohol. You know that line of "Treat others how you want to be treated?" I hate pushy people, especially salespeople. When someone sits in my section, I ask, "What would you like to order?" If you have a question, I'll answer it. You want to know what's good, I'll ask you what sort of things you generally like to eat. Chicken or fish. Spicy or mild. I usually recommend cheeseburgers, because restaurants make good cheeseburgers. If you want to see a dessert menu, I'll give you one and describe every item on it, but I won't shove one in your face. I won't even say, "Don't forget about dessert. Ours are excellent and you should get one." All I do is ask if you want to see the dessert menu. If you say no, then it's dropped immediately. I am not a corporate whore.

I don't always carry the updated checks on me, but I do keep copies when the guests are about ready to leave, like when the dinner plates are cleared and the guests are finishing their drinks or thinking about dessert. That's when I print a new check and carry it with me in a waiter wallet.

The other day, a guest said, as I cleared his plate, "No dessert tonight. I'll just take a check." Holding his plate and his wife's plate in my left hand, I pulled out the waiter wallet containing his check with my right and set it on the table. Very efficient, right? Restaurant managers everywhere would be proud of me.

Here's what the guest said: "Oh, in a hurry to get rid of us, are you? Need the space for someone else?" He looked around, "Doesn't seem to be that much of a wait right now." He said all of this very quickly, with a somewhat jocular tone (I hate that "I might be joking, but I might not" tone people use with waiters. Makes me think they're just trying to get something for free, which they more than occasionally are.)

I quickly said something like, "No, not at all. Just trying to be efficent. Take your time. Would either of you like refills on your drinks." I'm sure I sounded like I was backpeddling. But what else could I do? I really wasn't trying to get him out. I had other open tables and it was a fairly slow night. There was no wait at all. I honestly was just trying to be efficient. But his PERCEPTION was that I was rushing him. And that sort of perception is very, very bad at a time like this.

This guy was not being a dick, but he said enough to make me wonder if he was really annoyed. This is the worst time of the evening to irritate a guest. If you're slow getting his drinks or extra condiments at the beginning of the meal, you still have time to make it up throughout the rest of the night. But dropping the check is usually the last interaction you have with a guest. Even if you did everything perfectly all night, taking too long to give a guest his check or his change can quickly drop your tip from twenty pecent to ten, just because of that immediate irritation the guest is feeling by having to wait. This irritation is doubled if the rest of his group is already walking out the door and he's sitting there alone, his food and drink finished, with nothing to do.

Time is subjective in restaurants.

In the end, this guy left me sixteen or seventeen percent. Not bad, but not great. No way to know if I had fucked up the tip at the end, of if he was just a crappy tipper.

I usually don't do that sort of quick draw shit with checks for this exact reason. I don't want guests to feel rushed. Most of the times when people asked for the check, I've had it right there in my apron but still walked away and returned a couple minutes later so it looked like I went out of my way just to do something for them.

And that is called good Perception of Service. It is not always about being efficient. It's about, in a way, lying, which is all good waiting really is.

And in the waiting tables movie I wrote, there is a scene where this is demonstrated. A guest asks for the check. I walk off to get it and he gives me shit about not being prepared and, hence, being a shitty waiter. Later, a guy asks for the check, and I give it to him immediately. He response pretty much the way the guy the other night did. In the interests of comedy, neither guy tipped me. This illustrates a few things:

One, I still occasionally make the same stupid waiting mistakes I've made for years, even though I know better.

Two, there is no Standard of Service. People have very different expectations when they go out to eat. A simple example: clearing someone's plate when he's obviously finished eating. One type of person will expect you to clear his plate as soon as he's finished and will think you're an incompetant moron if you don't do this. The other type of person will be offended if you attempt to clear his plate before everyone else at the table is finished eating. He will think you're an incompetant moron if you don't know you're not supposed to clear one plate before you clear all the others. Getting this very specific preference wrong can sometimes totally fuck your tip.

Three, the set ups of the scenes in my waiting tables movie (Hereafter referred to by its very simple and not-too-original title "Wait") are timeless: they keep happening over and over again. Also, it would have been one damnably funny movie if only I had a crapload of money to make it (And for the ninetieth time it's not just a rip off of "Clerks" set in a restaurant, dammit.)

I think this concludes today's Waiting Life lesson.

(And Looking back on it, "Beam me up, Scotty" and "Play it again, Sam" are not good analogies for "Check, please." "Check, please" at least HAS been heard in lots of movies and tv shows, like in every eighties romantic comedy just as the girl reveals she's ready to now have sex for the first time. "Check, please" is always a good punch at the end of a joke. Didn't Billy Crystal say that after Meg Ryan's fake orgasm? Aside from "When Harry Met Sally," the restaurants in those types of movies are very, very nice. It's much funnier when a girl gets all hot and sexy in a classy joint. Or when Ghostbusters fling slime or Blues Brothers drink out of the wrong glasses.)

I love the movies.

September 1, 2004

My thirty-second birthday.

Can't say I feel any different. It wasn't even my thirtieth that made me feel like I was getting old. The only birthday that ever had any effect on me (other than sixteenth and twenty-first, for obvious reasons) was my twenty-eighth.

When you hit twenty-eight, you can no longer say you're in your early/mid twenties. You can do that at twenty-five and even sorta get away with it at twenty-seven. Once you hit twenty-eight, you're pretty much thirty.

I usually work on my birthdays. I don't like going to bars or any of that socializing crap. Just so happened I was off today, my set schedule being what it was, and I didn't feel like picking up an extra shift. I stopped by the restaurant today to talk to somebody and get some video (more on that later). Not being much for subtlety, I told everyone I saw, "It's my birthday!" Hugs, handshakes, and happiness galore. After turning down a few drink offers (four p.m. is too early to drink when I'm not in the mood), I mentioned to a girl that I usually like to work on my birthdays. She said, "Yeah, you seem like the kind who likes to be doted on." Wasn't really sure how to take that. Then she said, "Sure, you'll talk about your birthdays now. But wait 'til you hit your thirties. Then you won't wanna talk about them at all." I told her I was now thirty-two. She said, "Oh," and laughed. A sort of insult and a roundabout compliment all in one minute from the same person.

I imagine I'll be at my computer all day today, taking breaks only to sort through a box or three of papers and electronics. Can't even say I'm all that in the mood to have sex today, although I'm pretty sure I will (sex is a quick and cheap present, you know). Not quite in the mood for sex today? I must be getting old.

This is a lame post, even by my pedantic ranting standards. I guess I really just wanted everyone to know it was my birthday.

But no one reads this blog yet, so what's the damn point, y'know?

Useless fact! Edgar Rice Burrough is ninety-seven years older than me. And today Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze Jr. celebrate their second anniversary. You go, Daphne and Freddie!

Useless rant! The word "arguably" is being used too much, and usually by wishy-washy pussies.