Which "you" are you, and when?

If you asked ten different people who know me to tell you about me, you're likely to get 10 at least slightly different answers.  The answers would vary depending on whether you spoke to someone who was just a co-worker, someone who was a co-worker but a bit of a friend, someone who was an acquaintance, or someone who knew me a bit better.  You'd also get different answers depending on whether it was someone who spent more time with me in person versus someone who I interacted more with over electronic means.  And you'd definitely get different answers if it was someone who knows me but who isn't necessarily friends with me.

We all show different sides of ourselves to different people, depending on the circumstances, the kind of relationship it is, how much we reveal of ourselves to any given person.  We might be quieter with some people, more boisterous with others, more reserved with some, more brash with others, depending on our comfort level and how we might closer match with the personality of the other person.  That doesn't mean you're showing a false version of you. It just means that different people bring out a different side of you.

In my case, while I think you'd get a range of answers, I don't think you'd find two people who would describe me using polar opposite words.  Well, at least I don't think so.  I guess you'd have to ask the people who really dislike me to answer that question, but I don't think that you'd get a Jekyll and Hyde description of me from two different people.

What made me think about this situation in particular is something that happened a few weeks ago.  I ended up reading an article about someone I know.  And the person described in the article was in fact not someone I know.  I've never seen that person to exhibit those qualities in my interactions with them.  While I didn't spend a ton of time with this person, I was around them more than just casually, and while I did note differences in their behaviour depending on who they interacted with, I was absolutely floored by the person as depicted in the story.  The person in the story was kind, caring, compassionate, fun, easy-going, and seemed genuinely a good person to be around.  While I'd seen a bit of that behaviour exhibited towards some people, I'd also seen the person be very negative, outright condescending, unabashedly rude, and sometimes, even vicious, and all of those things happened more than once, and more than to one person.  And that was all before any of that behaviour was turned on me.  It was actually because I started to notice that behaviour to others and started objecting to it that things changed, and eventually, their behaviour towards me turned into something I had to discretely manage.  At the time that the person depicted in the article existed for the person writing the story, this same person was also in the worst part of their treatment towards me.  In reading the article a few weeks ago and knowing the time period when that all was happening, and thinking about the behaviour that was directed towards me at the time, it was really hard to accept that it was the same person.

I suppose it shouldn't really come as a total surprise, since there are so many situations in the news when someone does something, and people they know are interviewed, and often, their response is that they would have never expected something like that, and they would never have expected that kind of behaviour from the person they knew.  This situation isn't nearly on that level - no crime was committed towards me. But it was hard to reconcile the person I was reading about in the article with the person who had decided to target me. And while not a physical threat, there was a level of threat that it was possible the person could have inflicted on my life, given the nature of our interaction, and at times, it was problematic trying to figure out how to best avoid the land mines while still needing to make it across the field.

I think I was particularly aware of the difference in the perception of someone's personality because it's come up in other situations. Someone who comes across really nice and friend to all, but you know things about them that not everyone does, and it dampens how you feel.  Or someone who might appear "odd" or difficult but you know something else about them so have more sympathy to overlook moments of them being less than gracious.

I was especially attune to these kinds of differences in many recent high-profile cases in many different arenas, where someone is accused of doing something terrible, and there are testimonials from others in their support saying that this person has never done that to them, implying that the person therefore could not have done it to their accusers. I've never understood that.  If the person has never done this particular bad thing to you or in your presence, it means only that.  You cannot extrapolate that to mean that they have not and cannot do it to someone else during the many hours in someone's life when you're not around. The example I usually use is that there are many people that high-profile serial killers met and interacted with and didn't kill.  That certainly doesn't mean that they didn't kill the numerous people that they are convicted of killing.

While I know that different people have different perceptions of me, a realization that I accept, it's still interesting to think about it in terms of other people, especially when confronted with reading about someone you know and seeing a completely different person.

How do you know when to help?

An experience I had today reminded me a bit of this post from a few months ago.

This morning, I stopped for gas on my way to work. As I pulled up to the pump, I noticed a woman who seemed a little disheveled, but I think it was just because she had big frizzy hair, which given the current static in the air wasn't surprising. As I started getting ready to put the gas in my car, I heard a nearby voice say, "Excuse me?" I turned to look, and the woman I'd seen was standing on the other side of the open driver's side door from me. She said she was sorry to bother me, and that she was trying to make her way home to Arizona and that she had a full tank of gas (gesturing at a car parked at the gas pump next to the one I was at) but that she hadn't eaten in a couple of days. I told her I was sorry that I couldn't help her. She nodded and walked away. I had noticed in passing earlier that the car she was pointing to had a man sitting in the front passenger seat.

There was a part of me that did and still does feel bad for not helping her. If I was in a situation where I legitimately needed help, I would hope I could find someone who could assist me. However, for the same reasons as in my prior post, I have no way of knowing if someone really just needs help, if someone is using the pretense to scam for money, or if the person has more nefarious motives hidden. It seemed weird to me that she had a decent car (it wasn't new or fancy by any means, but it also didn't look really old or run down or beat up) and could manage to get a full tank of gas and yet not have the means to have gotten any kind of food in the past couple days. Knowing there was a man sitting in the passenger seat bothered me a little as well. I did notice that she went back and sat in the driver's seat of the car, and during the whole time that I was getting gas and later parked to get something from inside the convenience store, her car was still parked at the pump. I know she got out and wandered around at least once, since I saw her walk in front of my parked car. I don't know how long she was there doing that before I got to the gas station, but I'm presuming she was waiting for new people to come by so she could make the same request of them that she had made of me.

I've heard too many stories from people who have given money to a homeless person or someone wandering around asking for assistance for this reason or the other who then have it turned on them. Some have not reacted well to being given money when they didn't think they were being given enough. Some have even become violent or pulled a weapon of some sort demanding the rest of the money once the person has taken their wallet out to give them something. As a female by myself, I am conscious of what I'm capable of doing to defend myself, so I'm more cautious about the situations I allow myself to be in. If I was a burly guy, I might not feel the need to be as conscious, but then, if I'd been a burly guy, I wonder if she would still have approached me. And I was suspicious that she was doing the approaching rather than the man sitting in the passenger seat, but then, a woman asking is probably more non-threatening, which again triggers the suspicion gene in me.

And yes, I felt terribly guilty for making a purchase at the convenience store and driving away without giving her any help - her car was still parked at the pump. I just wish there was a way for me to tell when someone is really simply in need of a little assistance (which I would be fine providing), and how I can balance wanting to be helpful without putting myself in a possibly precarious situation.

giving a helping hand

I heard about Robin Hood 702 on a radio show last week. He's an anonymous high-stakes gambler living in Las Vegas who last year decided to find a family that he could help with money that would get them out of debt. He's doing the same thing this year, and he's being joined with contributions from a second person.

I think this is a terrific idea, though I can understand the difficulty in trying to decide who to pick. There are so many stories out there, and you can't possibly help them all. And you also have to learn to weed out the "deserving" (in the eyes of whomever is making the decision, of course) and those who are not so much. Some stories sound pretty bad on the surface, but sometimes, knowing the story behind the situation can change how you feel about the situation itself. At least that has happened to me a number of times.

I like that he's not interested in making someone a ton of money, but rather, a more modest amount that can be insurmountable if you're in that situation but isn't a back-breaker for someone who has some amount of money.

This is the kind of thing that I would so love to be in a position to do. No, money can't fix everything, but I hear about so many situations where some significant amount of money would make a huge difference, would help alleviate some particular concerns so that the people can get on their feet and balanced and deal with other parts of their situation that don't involve money.

There are many people who might be having a more modest holiday season and maybe don't have a lot of presents, but there are others who are dealing with even bigger issues. Here's hoping that local Robin Hoods can come to their aid as well.

Here's a news story with more information about Robin Hood 702 and the first recipients of his generosity as well as the current situation.

wandering cows

This is one of those news stories where they really need to include pictures.

domestic violence

Wil Wheaton (@wilw) tweeted the following a couple of days ago with a link to this article: "Very powerful essay about domestic violence, written by Patrick Stewart, in the Guardian".

I just read the article, and my only comment is: wow.

a publicist's nightmare

Back in the old days, public figures like actors and singers and other celebrities were often unreachable except through their publicist. Any time they were at a public event, there was their publicist, ready to stop any unflattering questions or to stop their client from saying anything they shouldn't say.

And then came Facebook and Twitter, where said celebrities can speak their heart's content, and dangerously, off the top of their head, without the filter or oversight of a publicity, and without the ability to withdraw what they wrote before the information is already spread around. I don't know that a publicist would really be able to tell their client not to use Facebook or Twitter, but then the publicist just might be in the position of doing damage control because of what their client says.

Celebrities on Facebook just have to be aware that what they're saying goes out to everyone. No tweeting when drunk, and seriously, think about what you're saying, at all times.

I ran across this article today that addresses the very topic of celebrities being able to have this direct communication with their fans and the rest of the world. I'm amused that what Demi Moore posted was used as an example. OK, so she pretty much said she was going to have sex with her husband. It's not like she was picking up some random guy off the street, and she's not exactly had the image of the pristine virgin. Having sex with your husband is not illegal or even particularly risque. Is it TMI to know they're having sex? I suppose it could be regarded as so. But it would be a much more damaging post from someone who wasn't married or someone who relied more on their wholesome image.

But I expect that the job of a publicist has gotten much more difficult and complicated in this increasing age of immediate and direct communication.

L.A. radio

I had to get a new battery for my car the other day, and when they were all done, I got in the car to drive to work. I turned the radio on and was annoyed that all my radio presets were gone - and then it occurred to me that since they had to actually take out the old battery before putting in the new one, yeah, that would have wiped out my presets.

OK, so it's a hassle to reprogram everything, but I've done it before, in other cars when I've had them long enough that I needed a new battery.

And as I started to program in radio stations, I realized I had a problem. I couldn't remember what all the stations were. I listen to so little radio nowadays that I was mostly using the same couple of presets to switch between channels, and I had no idea what stations were programmed into the filler ones.


I came up with 3 FM stations off the top of my head.

1. KROQ - I listen to Kevin and Bean, and mostly because of that, I've gotten to know and mostly like the music that the station plays, so I sometimes listen to the music itself. And they have Loveline at night, Sunday through Thursday.

2. K-EARTH - They're an "oldies" station, but for better or for worse, music from the 80s and 90s count as oldies now, so I like a lot of what they play.

3. I found a good channel that's mostly blank so that it works well for me to play my iPod. There are a few places I've encountered (including a stretch by my work) where I have to stop the iPod for a bit because the static is too bad, but otherwise, it's worked well for me.


And I came up with 2 AM stations off the top of my head.

1. KABC - I've had this on my presets forever because it was always the Dodgers station, and there have been various talk shows over the years on the station that I like. Now, I listen to them because of Frosty, Heidi and Frank.

2. ESPN - That's pretty much my go-to sports station. And they have the Lakers too.


And then I stopped and had to think hard about what other stations to add. And it took me a really long time to figure it out. I used to have KOST and KBIG on my presets, but I don't think they're around anymore. At least, I fiddled with the dial and looked for them but didn't really run across anything, but I was also driving so I could only fiddle so much.


I figured out 3 more AM stations to add.

1. KNX 1070 - They're a news station, so I need one of those.

2. KFI - I used to listen to them a lot but stopped several years ago. I'm not even sure who has shows on there anymore, but since I have the room, I figured I'd just put them as a preset.

3. KLAC - They're a sports channel as well, so having a second sports place is good.


I think I just realized that I should put KFWB on there as well. They're *mostly* a news station still, I think. I just have to remember their location when I'm in the car so I can set it.


I have 6 AM stations that I can program, but I have 12 FM stations that I can put in. And I mostly blanked on any other FM stations to put in. I don't do KIIS or POWER 106. I gave up KLOS years ago because I was so pissed off at what Mark and Brian were doing that I vowed not to listen to the station at all. I might go back on that and just listen when M&B aren't on since I actually like the music they play. Oh, JACK-FM, that's the station I was trying to think of the other day. I remember liking their stuff. Gotta remember their location so I can program it too.


Radio in Los Angeles ain't what it used to be.

addicted to the internet

On a discussion board that I participate in, someone posted a link to an article about people being addicted to the internet. I didn't actually read the article but I did think about the idea of being addicted to the internet. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm addicted, but I am pretty dependent and connected. A couple of months ago, I got a new phone and also got full data connection, which means that from my phone, I can connect to the internet at any time, with no extra charge for how much I'm on. I can check my email and Facebook and visit most websites (my phone has issues with Flash, so that is prohibitive for some websites), and most of all, it means I'm constantly connected to Twitter. I'm pretty active on there, whether it's tweeting my own messages or responding to others or just reading others' tweets.

There are times when Twitter is having problems, and that means Twitter is unavailable, sometimes for hours, or possibly, even a day. And during those times, I'm lost. I use Twitter to keep in touch during the day with a number of friends, so when the service is down, I can't tell them what I'm doing or know what they're up to.

Now, of course, there are other methods of keeping in touch, but there is a certain quality and feel to the information that we exchange on Twitter. Sure, we have other methods of communicating that we use also, but there is a special flavor to what we post and say on Twitter that is hard to duplicate in other ways.

Previously, I wasn't as accessible to my friends and vice versa, but with cel phones and texting and Twitter and all such things, I'm just used to being more connected to my friends, and it's disconcerting when that lifeline is interrupted.

Does that make me addicted?

that would be one humongoid pie

I'm not partial to all things pumpkin, but I do really love pumpkin pie. I wonder how many pies could be made from this pumpkin. And how do you pick up something that heavy? With a crane? But wouldn't it bruise the pumpkin?

"Part of Your World" - probably like you've never heard it before

So tonight, my nephew posted a link to a YouTube video that I promptly stole and re-posted myself. It's the Cantonese version of "The Lion King", and it's a scene from that film. And in the related links, I found that there was a Cantonese version of "Part of Your World", and for reasons known to some, I just *had* to post that here.

Like with "The Lion King" segment, I only understand bits and pieces of it because my vocabulary sucks. With this segment, I understand the spoken bits more. The actual song itself is harder because they have to use more elaborate words, trying to fit both the meaning and cadence, which means it's going to be vocabulary I've never even heard of. But it was fun to watch.

And it made me realize that the Cantonese words for "street" and "chicken" are very similar, so be careful! ;)







This isn't completely alien to me because I remember sitting at my parents' house watching Cantonese versions of Disney movies that my brother had gotten for them so they could watch and understand what was going on.

But the weirdest thing was sitting there one day, and my parents had some music on, and it suddenly dawned on me that I recognized the music of that particular song. No, no way, can't be. And then the vocals started. And while I didn't really recognize the words much, I knew the melody and the notes and the song - it was Dire Straits' "Walk of Life", sung in Cantonese. I just started laughing because it was so unexpected. I have no idea where the song came from or why someone did a Chinese version of it.

This is definitely a guy's only thing.

I ran across this story about underwear for left-handed men, and when I'd just seen the headline, I wondered how it made a difference what kind of underwear you have if you're left-handed or right-handed. But, having now read the article, it makes sense to me, if the situation is as described in the article.

But, I guess I was under the assumption that men didn't actually use the little slit in their underwear. I mean, even if you're right-handed, I would think it would be uncomfortable and awkward to have to do those kinds of maneuvers with your ... ummm ... thing. They don't pull their underwear down like we women do?

In any case, left-handed men - REJOICE!

taking back "bitch"

I happened upon the following, and for the most part, I agree wholeheartedly with it. That's probably not surprising for anyone who knows me. There's a lot below that applies to me, and yes, there are many times when under the circumstances described, I am regarded as a "bitch". And in those circumstances, I don't have a problem with that. Now, I will also admit (and anyone who knows me will also attest to this) that there are times when I can also be the definition of "bitch" that's not covered below and that's not regarded as a good thing under any circumstances. Hey, I never claimed to be perfect. But I also don't like that the label "bitch" is applied any time a woman says what she thinks and does what she needs to do and doesn't lay down as a doormat to everyone else. So here's to all the "bitches" in the world.

BITCH

When I stand up for myself and my beliefs, they call me a bitch. When I stand up for those I love, they call me a bitch. When I speak my mind, think my own thoughts, or do things my own way, they call me a bitch.

Being a bitch entails raising my children to be strong people who have a solid sense of personal and social responsibility, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in and who love and respect themselves for the beautiful beings they are. Being a bitch means that I am free to be the wonderful creature that I am, with all my own intricacies, contradictions, quirks and beauty. Being a btch means I won't compromise what's in my heart. It means I live my life MY way. It means I won't allow anyone to step on me.

When I refuse to tolerate injustice and speak up against it, I am defined as a bitch. The same thing happens when I take time for myself instead of being everyone's maid, or when I act a little selfish.

I am proud to be a bitch! It means I have the courage and strength to allow myself to be who I truly am and won't become anyone else's idea of what they think I "should" be. I am outspoken, opinionated, and determined. By God, I want what I want, and there is nothing wrong with that!

So try to stomp on me, try to douse my inner flame, try to squash every ounce of beauty I hold within me. You won't succeed. And if that makes me a bitch, so be it. I embrace the title and am proud to bear it. B - Babe I - In T - Total C - Control of H - Herself.

Send this to all the women you know, or anyone you feel should become a bitch. And by the way...if I were a man with these same qualities, I would be called independent, strong, self-assured, confident, determined and driven. This was not intended to offend anyone, and I hope you all enjoyed it as much as I did!

author unknown

How can I contact thee, let me count the ways...

A couple of weeks ago, I needed to send a message to a friend, and it occurred to me that for some of my friends, I now have a multitude of methods to contact them. Remember the old days, when the only option was to call them on the phone? If they were home, great. If not, maybe you left a message with someone else, or you left a message on an answering machine, or, if they had neither, the phone just rang and rang and then you just had to call back another time when you thought they might be home.

But now:

1. phone - Yeah, that still works, but for some people, I have multiple phone numbers for them: home, work and cel.

2. texting - For some people, I know that they will accept texts, so for them, texting is an option that I can use to send them a message. And I can even send pictures in texts now.

3. email - Email has been around for a long time now, but I sometimes have multiple email addresses for people, especially if they have a separate email address for work, but some people also have multiple personal email addresses that they might check at various times.

4. Twitter - For anyone who's on my Twitter feed, I could send them a tweet publicly or I could send them a direct message, which is private and only goes to them to see.

5. Facebook - For anyone who is my "friend" on Facebook, I could post to their wall (if they have that enabled), or I could respond to one of their status posts, or I could send them a private message.

6. discussion board - I'm a fairly active member in a particular discussion board, so I could respond to one of their posts on there, or I could send them a private message, or I could leave them a public message on their profile.

7. blog - If the friend has a blog, I could respond to a blog post and leave a comment. If they've left a comment on my blog and have it set up to receive all further comments to that particular topic, I could respond after them, and my response would be sent to them as well.

8. home - And of course, I could just show up at their home, but then that would be stalkerish. ;)


There have been a number of occasions when I've had to figure out the best method of contacting someone, usually driven by the urgency of when I need them to get the message and what I think they might be inclined to see first. Sometimes, it's also driven by how private the message is. Of course, if it's not for public consumption, then I could either text or email or direct message. But if it's something I might want others to see, then I could use Facebook or a public tweet.


So many options! :)

rides from strangers

The past couple of months, I've somehow gotten to thinking a lot about the whole "don't accept rides from strangers" rule that kids are usually taught. And the same goes for picking up strangers, since you never know if random person you pick up is going to be an axe murderer or, even worse, someone who thinks that WDW's Fantasmic is better than DL's Fantasmic. They tell you not to hitchhike and also not to pick up hitchhikers because it's dangerous since you don't know anything about the other person or what their intentions are. ("The Hitcher", anyone?)

I wish there was a way to figure that out, because I have found myself on several occasions wishing I could safely offer a ride to a total stranger. The last time was a couple of weeks ago when I saw an older woman, maybe in her 60s or 70s, walking along the sidewalk and carrying two grocery bags which were obviously a little heavy. I assumed she was walking home from the store. It would have been really easy for me to just stop the car and offer her a ride. I wasn't in any big hurry to get anywhere, and I figure that if she was walking, she couldn't have been going too far, so it's not like it would have been completely out of my way.

On other occasions, I've seen people waiting at a bus stop in the pouring rain or the blistering heat, and I know that for a while at least, I'm going in the same direction as the bus they're waiting for, so it would be easy just to offer them a ride - they'd be more comfortable and it's not like it would be a hardship for me or anything to give them that short ride.

But then, I remember that no matter what they might look like, I don't know anything about them, and I'm not trusting enough to just give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what could end up happening, and it might just be that the first 99 times it happens, nothing bad comes out of it, they're happy to have had a stranger do them a favor, and I feel good about doing something nice for a stranger. But if something were to go terribly awry the 100th time I did it, I wouldn't feel comfortable taking that chance.

And on the flip side, I think I generally don't appear to be a sinister person, so I would probably look safe to accept a ride from, but again, looks can be deceiving, and they don't know that I'm not just going to kidnap them or do something bad to them once they get in my car. Who knows, I could be one of those decoys, someone who doesn't *look* like they'd do something bad, which is precisely who you want to lure people in so you can do bad things to them.

So I was trying to figure out if there was some way to build a car so that there were safeguards built in. There would have to be a separate compartment or something for the passenger to sit in so that no funny stuff could happen. Both the driver and the passenger would have to have the ability to separate the passenger from the car, so the driver can't kidnap the passenger against his/her will, and the passenger can't refuse to leave the car if the driver wants him/her out, so maybe some kind of detachable sidecar that has some kind of mechanism for control so that even if the passenger gets all creepy, and the driver detaches the sidecar, the sidecar doesn't just go careening into traffic - it would have to be able to be steered and stopped in a reasonably short amount of time. But then, that might be expensive for the driver, because now, they need a new sidecar, which I expect would cost a bit to replace.

So every time something happens that brings this dilemma back into my head, I try to figure out a way to make it work, and so far, FAIL.


And while I've never picked up a total stranger, I will admit that I've accepted a ride from a total stranger.

When I was going to Cal, they were notorious for having limited student housing, and I didn't make it into any of the on-campus housing slots. Cal rented out a dorm in another college a city away (about a 30 minute city bus ride), so that's where a bunch of us Cal students ended up staying. The college was up a dead-end hill, and the bus stop was at the bottom of the hill, so before I had a car, I hated that uphill climb every afternoon. One particular afternoon, it was POURING RAIN. I think I had an umbrella, I can't remember, but I was getting soaked as I trudged up the hill anyway. A station wagon pulled up next to me, and a woman was in the front seat. She said she lived nearby and asked if I was going up to the college and if so, did I want a ride, because she saw me drowning in the rain and felt bad for me. The walk up the hill went past a number of houses, so I did know that it was a residential district. She looked nice and concerned, and she was driving a station wagon for goodness' sake - she totally looked like a mom with kids, though there were none in the car at that moment. I hesitated for a second, heard the warning in my head about accepting rides from strangers, but then remembered I was still getting soaked, so I thankfully accepted her offer. She drove me all the way up the hill and pretty much to the front door of the dorm entrance. I thanked her profusely, and she said she was happy to do it and drove off. Since we were heading up a dead-end road to the college, I figured it wasn't like she could just easily take off in a different direction if she had any nefarious plans to kidnap me. I was also sitting in the back seat, so she couldn't grab me and hold me, and I could pretty much just open the door and get out any time I wanted to, jumping if necessary, I suppose. All of that, plus her appearance and the car and circumstances flashed in my mind as I hesitated that second before I accepted. And obviously, everything turned out just fine. And no, I've never done that again.

But see, there are drivers and passengers who are perfectly nice people who don't have any sinister plans and who just want to offer a nice favor or who just might be the grateful recipient of a nice gesture - if only there was a sure-fire way to tell.

things I don't understand - baseballs and bullet holes

The question had originally come up in my mind quite a number of years ago, but a recent reminder brought the issue to the forefront.

I was driving along and at a stop light, I noticed that the car in front of me had a baseball that had hit their back windshield, cracking it, and the ball was still stuck there. OK, it's not real - it's one of those fake ones. I'd seen those previously but hadn't really noticed them lately. At first glance, it's kind of amusing, I guess, but I'm not sure I understand going to the expense (even though they're not all that expensive) and trouble of making it look like my car had been severely damaged. Maybe I just don't have that kind of sense of humour? I'm figuring the actual situation happens on a regular basis, whether it's at a ballpark where a major league baseball player might actually hit a ball out of the park and into a parking lot, presuming there are still baseball stadiums designed that way. Or it could happen at a local park with a baseball diamond or even as a result of playing baseball on a neighborhood street. When the real situation arises, I would imagine it's not a particularly happy or funny event for the owner of the vehicle, so I guess I'm not sure why faking it is particularly amusing.

But even more puzzling to me is something I saw multiple years ago, when I was seeing more of these fake baseball-in-windshield deals. I was driving along and noticed that the car in the next lane had, not a fake baseball in the windshield, but FAKE BULLET HOLES ALL OVER THE CAR. It was on the side of the car, on the front and passenger doors and elsewhere in the "metal" of the car as well as the windows, and it was also on the back windshield and trunk. Seriously? Really. Ummm, ok, so what's the status symbol or joke or WHATEVER about pretending that your car has been riddled with bullets? That's supposed to be funny? Or cool? I'm supposed to look at that and think it's the best thing in the world? If anyone I knew actually drove up in a car like that, I'd probably stare at them as if they'd just sprouted three heads.

I don't get it.

things I don't understand - Do people not know how to give change anymore?

So in the last couple of years, I've come to the realization that some people in the restaurant industry don't know how to give change.

There have been a number of occasions when I've been in a restaurant, and I'll get the bill, and I'll give them some amount of money that requires change. And if they owe me $5 in change, they're bring me a $5 bill, not five $1 bills. Each time that has occurred, I've happened to have a couple dollar bills in my wallet, so I could still leave the tip I wanted.

Recently, I paid a bill, and I was supposed to get $10 in change back. And the waiter brought me a $10 bill in change. Really? Seriously. No $5 bill and five $1 bills? Now, ok, I know, maybe there wasn't enough change in the register. But then, shouldn't that be accounted for as well, where there's a way for them to get additional small bills? In this case, I was planning to leave $2 as tip. I had a couple $20 bills on me, a $5 bill, one $1 bill, and my newly acquired $10 bill. That's it. I wasn't going to leave $5 as tip, so I just left the dollar as tip. It's less than I wanted to leave, but since the waiter didn't really do all that much for me, it didn't really bother me to leave just $1. I mean, I could have asked for change, but really, that was stupid. Doesn't EVERYONE know, and shouldn't EVERYONE in food service like that know, not to give back a single $10 bill as change, precisely because chances are the patron isn't going to leave a large bill as tip if they have nothing else, and it's more likely that they'll leave less if they don't have the right bills in their possession?

Now, I don't know why I know about the whole change thing. I've only worked food service once in my life, and it wasn't really a tip thing, so I just gave change at the register. Maybe it's just something I've heard. Maybe I heard that all wait being staff was taught to give change that way. I guess that doesn't happen anymore.

things I don't understand - Do I need your phone number or not?

If I'm calling a friend who I know has my phone number and I have to leave a message, I won't leave my phone number in the message. If I'm not sure if they have my number, or if I'm giving them a different number to call me back at, I'll leave the number. And if I'm calling a business and leaving my phone number on an answering machine or voicemail, I'll leave my phone number. In each case, I'll include the area code, and I will pronounce each number, saying it slowly and clearly.

APPARENTLY, not everyone thinks this way. I can't tell you the number of times I've listened to voicemail messages where people have left a phone number, and they just ramble the phone number like it's some kind of contest to see how fast and jumbled they could possibly say it. They're not even saying the phone number with the same pacing as they've left the message. The message will be left in regular conversational tones, but when it comes to their phone number, they speed through it like they have someone chasing after them who's about to pounce so they really need to get off the phone. In almost all of these cases, I don't already have their phone number so I actually needed them to tell me. So, they either knew I didn't have the number, or they were just leaving the number in case I didn't have it. But in either case, they're still giving me the number for a reason, right, because they think I might need it? So why not say it at least clearly and slowly enough that if I actually *did* need it, I could actually understand them and being able to write the number down? How does mumbling it at a mile a minute help me to get that number?

There was this one time at work, and I am *not* exaggerating, where I had to play the message over and over again, because I could only make out one number at a time. Our phone system at work now has the ability to slow down messages, so there have been other occasions when I've replayed a message but slowed down so I could understand the phone number they were leaving me.

If you want me to call you back, why wouldn't you want me to be able to discern the phone number you're leaving me?

MJ

I didn't watch any of the coverage of the memorial service today, but I've read bits and pieces of comments from those who were there, and it looks like they did a decent job with the service/event/whatever.

I'm still not sure how I feel about everything. It's hard to overlook the allegations, even though nothing was actually proven. It's hard to ignore the multitude of odd behaviours. But there's also no denying the immense talent that he was, the impact that his music had on so many people, the influence he had over younger talent.

He had everything in this world - fame, fortune and adoration. He had the life that people dreamed of having. And yet, it was that very same life that turned into a nightmare no one could ever have imagined.

But what I'm feeling sadness for is him. I don't know what his demons were or what gave birth to them and made them grow. I don't think anyone is ever going to know that. I'm sad that the little boy who sang songs beyond his years like "I'll Be There" and "Ben" grew up into something different. I try not to read foreshadowing and irony into the fact that he sang "Ben" so wonderfully, especially at that age, when the song was about a pet rat that turned killer because the boy couldn't relate to others and couldn't control the rat.

I saw the genius that created "Beat It" and "Billie Jean" and "Thriller" and "We Are The World". And I saw the adult that did questionable things, the incredible talent that turned into the subject of snide jokes.

I heard of the people who went to sing his praises. And I wonder, somewhat bitterly, where they all were when he needed help, why they didn't step up then to intervene, to say something, to do something, to stop him, to save him. Maybe he was already too far gone, incapable of listening to anyone. Maybe my expectations at what people should have done is unreasonable.

I just know that such promise, such talent, such a gift, should have not turned out this way, should not have ended this way.

I hope that his family's pain at losing him will decrease over time. I hope that his children will be able to have as normal a life as possible, that they will be able to overcome the legacy that is impossible not to pass along to him.

And, most of all, I hope that he is finally at peace.

call for very young volunteers

I have a co-worker who has a little daughter who is about a year and a half old. She's at the daycare center that our company has at our work location, so I've seen her daughter on occasion - cutest thing. I was asking the co-worker about the daughter the other day, and she said that her daughter was learning quite a bit of sign language, and that it was really cute when she used it. She knew words like "more" and "want" and such. She mentioned that it's much more convenient for her daughter to be able to communicate even before she can really speak because she can at least convey some of what she wants. The co-worker said that sometimes, kids can bite because they're frustrated because they can't really talk yet and can't get their thoughts across.

I found that to be a really interesting point. And it made perfect sense. And I thought, hey, Orkid does that too - she tends to bite when she wants something but can't convey to us what she wants, and we're not picking it up from her simply walking around and meowing, so she can bite in frustration. However, I don't think I'm going to be able to manage to teach her sign language. Other than that I don't know it (though I'm sure I could learn), I don't think her little paws are manipulatable (Is that a word?) enough to be able to form sign language letters and words. Pity, because it would really help to be able to communicate with her better.

But the concept of teaching sign language to children still fascinates me. They weren't into doing that when my siblings had young kids, so I don't have any experience with that. I can understand teaching children signs for finite things, like "milk" and "food" and "sleep" and such. When my siblings' kids were little, I would teach them various things pretty much by rote and repetition, but that still mostly consisted of actual objects I could show them. I suppose the exceptions would be "please" and "thank you", which are abstract concepts, but that was really a matter of training. They didn't know what those words meant, but they knew that if they said it before or after receiving something, they'd get what they wanted. OK, well, really, it's more accurate to say that they made sounds that sounded like those words because at the point where they were learning that, they couldn't really speak yet. They just knew that making those sounds at certain times generally got them what they wanted.

But how do you teach a child the concept of "more" or "want" enough to be able to even teach them the sign language for that? That's what baffles me. When I was in college, I took a sociology and psychology class, and one of the sections was on child development. When I came home on break, I had a convenient little test subject there - my niece. There was a section about when kids realize that the child in the mirror is actually them, but before that, they just think it's another child - kind of like parrots, but parrots never realize it's their own reflection. There's also the concept that if you don't see something, it doesn't exist, so if you have a ball and then put a cup over it, they don't realize it's under the cup and just think it's gone. But at some point, they do figure out that if they just pick up the cup, the ball is right there.

Well, the siblings' kids are too old to use as test subjects now, and I don't have any friends with really young children that I have access to on a regular basis where I could try out/watch this sign language thing in action, so if anyone wants to volunteer a test subject for me to observe, I'd really appreciate that. Thanks.

I'm just saying

And I'm not going to be saying much more. I'm just going to link to this story about alleged voter fraud. I could say a lot about it. A WHOLE LOT. But I think the story speaks for itself.

And in case the article becomes unreadable unless you register, I'm duplicating the story below.

Veteran Latino-rights advocate charged with voter fraud
7:09 AM | June 25, 2009
Felony charges have been filed and an arrest warrant issued for a well-known Orange County political activist suspected of committing election and voter registration fraud, the California secretary of State's office announced Wednesday.

Investigators in the agency's election-fraud unit said Nativo V. Lopez, 57, of Santa Ana leased office space in Boyle Heights and registered to vote using that address although he lived with his family in Orange County. They also say Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Assn., cast an illegal ballot in L.A. in the 2008 presidential primary.

The Los Angeles County district attorney's office, which is working with the secretary of State, charged Lopez with four felonies: fraudulent voter registration, fraudulent document filing, perjury and fraudulent voting. A warrant was issued for his arrest and bail was set at $10,000. The offenses carry penalties of up to three years in prison.

Lopez is a longtime Latino political-rights advocate in Orange County who served on the Santa Ana school board. Lopez has been a vocal advocate for Latino voting rights and supported immigrant amnesty and allowing undocumented workers to have driver's licenses. He could not immediately be reached for comment.

In 1997, the Orange County district attorney opened a criminal investigation into allegations that a group in which Lopez was a leader registered some clients to vote before they took the oath of citizenship. No criminal charges were brought, and Lopez demanded an apology from critics.

-- Dan Weikel and Shelby Grad