Someone sent me a link to this New Yorker cartoon. No surprise as to why, huh? ;)
I do have to say that I've never actually ordered in that fashion, although I have pointed it out to a server at more than one restaurant when I've noticed a typo on the menu. In one of those cases, the server ended up bringing it to management's attention, and the laminated dessert menu was actually corrected. There's been another occasion when I ended up notifying the owner of a group of restaurants about an error in the spelling of one of the restaurant names on a document, which was then corrected, but that's a story I won't repeat in writing.
And then there's a favorite restaurant where they seem to like to use quotation marks for the oddest things on a special menu, and during one particular dinner, it was actually brought up to the special guest of that dinner. On another occasion, it turned out that the odd usage of the quotation marks ended up being correct. Maybe I'll tell that full story on another blog post sometime.
Showing posts with label pet peeves. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pet peeves. Show all posts
Monday, August 11, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
entertain me - a vent
My friends really need to post to their blogs more often so I have new stuff to read all the time.
I'm finding all kinds of stuff to do rather than do the stuff I should be doing anyway, so it might as well be stuff my friends write. Besides, I really like how some of my friends write, and I love to read their stuff. They have great story-telling abilities, and it entertains me - that's the key, after all, I need to be entertained! ;)
And, while I do enjoy reading some random people's writings as well, I find that I have more of a connection to the writing with someone that I know, or at least know well enough from their writings.
But, some of the people that I read who I want to post more don't read my blog, so they'll never know that I'm complaining about them. Hmmm, that might be a good thing.
Anyway, if you're looking for more stuff to read yourself, and you haven't already noticed on your own, there's a column on the right side of this blog with links to other blogs and websites and such that I like. Yeah, you have to scroll down a little bit to find it - just go a little past the "bury your face in spaghetti" guy that amuses me so much.
I'm finding all kinds of stuff to do rather than do the stuff I should be doing anyway, so it might as well be stuff my friends write. Besides, I really like how some of my friends write, and I love to read their stuff. They have great story-telling abilities, and it entertains me - that's the key, after all, I need to be entertained! ;)
And, while I do enjoy reading some random people's writings as well, I find that I have more of a connection to the writing with someone that I know, or at least know well enough from their writings.
But, some of the people that I read who I want to post more don't read my blog, so they'll never know that I'm complaining about them. Hmmm, that might be a good thing.
Anyway, if you're looking for more stuff to read yourself, and you haven't already noticed on your own, there's a column on the right side of this blog with links to other blogs and websites and such that I like. Yeah, you have to scroll down a little bit to find it - just go a little past the "bury your face in spaghetti" guy that amuses me so much.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
consequences
When you choose to engage in a particular course of action, I don't understand how you can turn around and say that you don't understand why you have to pay the consequences that resulted from that course of action. One of my biggest irritants is when people take no responsibility for their actions - yeah, I did that but look at what they did! They made me do it! Ummm, yeah, what, are we back in second grade?
One thing that I figure most people would know - you cannot physically assault your boss. A couple of days ago, Houston Astros pitcher Shawn Chacon had a confrontation with general manager Ed Wade wherein Chacon ended up shoving Wade, effectively his boss, to the ground. Twice. He was suspended, and then today, he was released from the team for breach of contract. OK, there are technicalities involved wherein another team could pick him up, but that's extraneous. There is about $1 million in regular compensation owing on his contract as well as potential bonuses that could have been earned, none of which the Astros would have to pay him.
Counsel for the players' union said, "Based on the information we have to date, we believe the Astros' response violates the Basic Agreement. If Shawn Chacon clears waivers and is released, we will pursue appropriate relief on his behalf." OK, I have no idea what the union agreement says, but I would be incredibly surprised if there's a provision in there that says a player physically assaulting another member of the team, much less his BOSS isn't sufficient grounds to terminate the agreement for cause. Heck, Chacon is lucky that Wade isn't pressing criminal charges for assault.
Chacon's agent further says, "As the process unfolds there will be more facts revealed which will shed more light on the situation. By no means does that mean the physical confrontation was appropriate, and Shawn knows that." Really? What kind of facts are going to come to light that makes the assault ok? Did Wade insult Chacon's wife? His mother? His clothes? Wade says that he didn't yell at Chacon, didn't swear at him or make any insulting remarks to him. There were many witnesses to this confrontation, so I expect there are lots of people who know whether that's true or not. However, even if Wade *had* done all of those things, that's still not enough to justify Chacon's physical attack.
The article goes on to detail numerous incidents where Chacon was insubordinate and ignored the instructions of his manager and pitching coach, all of this before Chacon apparently became more upset because he had been pulled from the starting rotation for poor performance.
OK, so Chacon is having a bad year, so he's probably frustrated and angry and might have some issues with controlling those feelings and not letting them manifest in his actions. His manager asks to speak to him. He ignores him. His general manager comes down to the team dining room to ask him to go back to his office so they can talk. He refuses. All of those are actions he chose to take. And then he lost his temper and assaulted the general manager. But now, he's surprised that he's been cut, and it's not fair? Dude, step up. Admit that you made a mistake, that you lost your temper, and you're really sorry for it, and you understand there are consequences to your actions. You know that the physical confrontation wasn't appropriate. So what do you expect them to do? Just ignore it? Slap you on the wrist? Wag their finger at you? You've shown a history of ignoring your bosses, and they didn't pull you from the rotation because you're wearing the wrong color hat - they did it because your poor performance is hurting the team. You probably can't help but take it personally, but in the light of day, you cannot see that your actions were so wrong that they are entirely within their rights to terminate you for cause? And you are not entitled to whine that it's not fair?
One thing that I figure most people would know - you cannot physically assault your boss. A couple of days ago, Houston Astros pitcher Shawn Chacon had a confrontation with general manager Ed Wade wherein Chacon ended up shoving Wade, effectively his boss, to the ground. Twice. He was suspended, and then today, he was released from the team for breach of contract. OK, there are technicalities involved wherein another team could pick him up, but that's extraneous. There is about $1 million in regular compensation owing on his contract as well as potential bonuses that could have been earned, none of which the Astros would have to pay him.
Counsel for the players' union said, "Based on the information we have to date, we believe the Astros' response violates the Basic Agreement. If Shawn Chacon clears waivers and is released, we will pursue appropriate relief on his behalf." OK, I have no idea what the union agreement says, but I would be incredibly surprised if there's a provision in there that says a player physically assaulting another member of the team, much less his BOSS isn't sufficient grounds to terminate the agreement for cause. Heck, Chacon is lucky that Wade isn't pressing criminal charges for assault.
Chacon's agent further says, "As the process unfolds there will be more facts revealed which will shed more light on the situation. By no means does that mean the physical confrontation was appropriate, and Shawn knows that." Really? What kind of facts are going to come to light that makes the assault ok? Did Wade insult Chacon's wife? His mother? His clothes? Wade says that he didn't yell at Chacon, didn't swear at him or make any insulting remarks to him. There were many witnesses to this confrontation, so I expect there are lots of people who know whether that's true or not. However, even if Wade *had* done all of those things, that's still not enough to justify Chacon's physical attack.
The article goes on to detail numerous incidents where Chacon was insubordinate and ignored the instructions of his manager and pitching coach, all of this before Chacon apparently became more upset because he had been pulled from the starting rotation for poor performance.
OK, so Chacon is having a bad year, so he's probably frustrated and angry and might have some issues with controlling those feelings and not letting them manifest in his actions. His manager asks to speak to him. He ignores him. His general manager comes down to the team dining room to ask him to go back to his office so they can talk. He refuses. All of those are actions he chose to take. And then he lost his temper and assaulted the general manager. But now, he's surprised that he's been cut, and it's not fair? Dude, step up. Admit that you made a mistake, that you lost your temper, and you're really sorry for it, and you understand there are consequences to your actions. You know that the physical confrontation wasn't appropriate. So what do you expect them to do? Just ignore it? Slap you on the wrist? Wag their finger at you? You've shown a history of ignoring your bosses, and they didn't pull you from the rotation because you're wearing the wrong color hat - they did it because your poor performance is hurting the team. You probably can't help but take it personally, but in the light of day, you cannot see that your actions were so wrong that they are entirely within their rights to terminate you for cause? And you are not entitled to whine that it's not fair?
Monday, June 16, 2008
give me a frickin' break
Today was going to be movie review day, but I hadn't had a chance to write the review yet. So I was going to write the review later and post an entry later in the day than I normally do.
And then I was browsing around the news and found this story about Elian Gonzalez.
You might remember Elian. When he was about 6 years old, his mother took him with her on a boat from Cuba to the States, and she was killed on the journey over. He survived, and his relatives living in Miami wanted custody of him. But his still-living father wanted him returned to Cuba, where the father lived. A U.S. Federal Court decided that the father was the one entitled to proper custody of him, and when the relatives refused to hand him over, he was forcibly removed by immigration agents and returned to his father in Cuba.
Sad story. Mom died, frightened child has no clue what's going on and probably had no idea of the political firestorm that surrounded him. Mom and Dad wanted him to live in different places. Who gets to choose? Well, if both were alive, I'm not sure how that would have worked. But with his mother unfortunately killed, there is no question left - Dad has custody. And add to that factor that at the time of Elian's arrival on U.S. soil, he was not a legal resident, so we're not even talking about the child of two parents who have citizenship in two different countries.
I know that conditions in Cuba are bad for a lot of people. I don't recall that Elian's family was particularly in danger, any more than anyone else in Cuba would have been. So does that mean that all cute six-year-old boys should have been allowed to come to the States from Cuba? What if they're seven? Can they still come? What if they're not quite as cute as Elian? Do they still get to come?
There are a lot of people in a lot of countries that are in imminent danger of being killed, and every day that we don't bus them all into the States, hundreds and maybe thousands of them die. Should we be importing them all onto U.S. soil? I know, I sound heartless, but there are realities that have to be faced as well. The United States cannot possibly save everyone. So how are we supposed to decide who to save? Why does one person get asylum but another doesn't? And that's in cases having to do with adults who can decide for themselves where they want to be. How can the United States government possibly have put themselves in the position of stripping custody from a father who has citizenship in another country simply because the U.S. doesn't agree with how things are going in that country?
I get that the mother thought she was doing what was best for her son, though I'm not sure I agree that taking a six-year-old on an unsafe boat in unsafe waters illegally trying to get to another country was the best bet to go, unless he was physically in danger of being imminently harmed in that country. But I don't see her as the saint that most people have painted her to be. "Oh, the poor woman gave up her own life to give her child a better life, and that was ripped away from him." Yeah, sorry, not quite how I see it.
So, 8 years later, why do we care about one of the 18,000 people who recently joined Cuba's Young Communist Union? Is anyone going to dare say out loud that if only this poor little happy boy had been allowed to stay with his loving relatives in Miami, he would not now be joining a communist organization pledging allegiance to country leaders that so many despise? The United States had the ability to save this little boy, and how, he's lost to the brainwashing of communism.
Maybe I'll be able to calm down enough by tomorrow to write a movie review.
And then I was browsing around the news and found this story about Elian Gonzalez.
You might remember Elian. When he was about 6 years old, his mother took him with her on a boat from Cuba to the States, and she was killed on the journey over. He survived, and his relatives living in Miami wanted custody of him. But his still-living father wanted him returned to Cuba, where the father lived. A U.S. Federal Court decided that the father was the one entitled to proper custody of him, and when the relatives refused to hand him over, he was forcibly removed by immigration agents and returned to his father in Cuba.
Sad story. Mom died, frightened child has no clue what's going on and probably had no idea of the political firestorm that surrounded him. Mom and Dad wanted him to live in different places. Who gets to choose? Well, if both were alive, I'm not sure how that would have worked. But with his mother unfortunately killed, there is no question left - Dad has custody. And add to that factor that at the time of Elian's arrival on U.S. soil, he was not a legal resident, so we're not even talking about the child of two parents who have citizenship in two different countries.
I know that conditions in Cuba are bad for a lot of people. I don't recall that Elian's family was particularly in danger, any more than anyone else in Cuba would have been. So does that mean that all cute six-year-old boys should have been allowed to come to the States from Cuba? What if they're seven? Can they still come? What if they're not quite as cute as Elian? Do they still get to come?
There are a lot of people in a lot of countries that are in imminent danger of being killed, and every day that we don't bus them all into the States, hundreds and maybe thousands of them die. Should we be importing them all onto U.S. soil? I know, I sound heartless, but there are realities that have to be faced as well. The United States cannot possibly save everyone. So how are we supposed to decide who to save? Why does one person get asylum but another doesn't? And that's in cases having to do with adults who can decide for themselves where they want to be. How can the United States government possibly have put themselves in the position of stripping custody from a father who has citizenship in another country simply because the U.S. doesn't agree with how things are going in that country?
I get that the mother thought she was doing what was best for her son, though I'm not sure I agree that taking a six-year-old on an unsafe boat in unsafe waters illegally trying to get to another country was the best bet to go, unless he was physically in danger of being imminently harmed in that country. But I don't see her as the saint that most people have painted her to be. "Oh, the poor woman gave up her own life to give her child a better life, and that was ripped away from him." Yeah, sorry, not quite how I see it.
So, 8 years later, why do we care about one of the 18,000 people who recently joined Cuba's Young Communist Union? Is anyone going to dare say out loud that if only this poor little happy boy had been allowed to stay with his loving relatives in Miami, he would not now be joining a communist organization pledging allegiance to country leaders that so many despise? The United States had the ability to save this little boy, and how, he's lost to the brainwashing of communism.
Maybe I'll be able to calm down enough by tomorrow to write a movie review.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
"Speed Racer" - non-spoiler movie review
There are times when I look at the box office results for a movie, and I don't understand or don't agree when a film fails to capture an audience. "Charlie Bartlett" is a good example of this - great little film, but to date, the domestic box office gross is just under $4 million. This film should be right up there with the likes of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". But for some reason, it just didn't find an audience.
And then other times, the box office is the perfect manifestation of a film. "Speed Racer" was released a little over a week ago, and the big-budget mega-movie with the full power of Warner Bros.' marketing team and money has so far managed a domestic gross of ... slightly over $30 million. Its opening weekend gross was a whopping $18.5 million, down from the $20 million that Warner Bros. had purposely over-estimated for the weekend, putting the film third behind fellow new release "What Happens in Vegas", which came in second that same weekend with a gross of $20.1 million. Well, it was Mother's Day weekend, and people didn't want to go to the movies. Ummm, that might be an excuse except that "Iron Man" raked in another $51.1 million in its second week of release that same non-movie-going weekend.
Having finally seen the film this past weekend, I completely understand why the public stayed away in droves.
The story wasn't bad - except for a few bits, it was actually decently thought out and interesting. (One part I hated is towards the end of the film when Speed is remembering some of the things that various people have said to him, all of which prove to be the inspiration to do his best. Having the audio playing of the other people while you show his face soaking it in is fine. But we really didn't need to actually *see* those scenes again. Yeah, umm, some of those were scenes that we just saw a few minutes ago. Was the repeat of the scenes for the benefit of those with really short attention spans? Because otherwise, it was entirely a "beat you over the head with a really big hammer to get the point across" moment.) The acting wasn't bad - as a matter of fact, Susan Sarandon gave a wonderful performance as Speed Racer's mother, and she had a couple of really stand-out scenes. The special effects weren't bad - I'm presuming the forty million effects houses (including ILM) did exactly what they were contracted to do, and you can see their handiwork in just about every second of the film.
Now, I am familiar with the original television show - I remember watching it in the afternoon all the time, though I can't tell you that I remember much about it now. I remember the car, and I remember it could jump and do cool stuff. Can't tell you a thing about what the story was or anything else about the show. Given that I haven't seen the show in many, many, many, and I mean *LOTS* of years, it's possible that I wouldn't enjoy the show now. Maybe it had something to do with my being a kid when I watched it. Maybe it had something to do with it being animated, so I would allow for more things from an animated product than I do a live-action one. Maybe it has to do with the fact that with technology and special effects being what they are now, I think it was entirely possible to pull off all the cool action sequences and still have it look great, instead of having it be a mishmash and cartoony. Whatever the reason, there were many aspects of the film which really bugged me, though I'm told they're true to the television show. I guess having a monkey in the family in an animated show when I was a kid was one thing, but I could not get over it in the film. (And yeah, gotta throw in that obligatory poop joke for those with an IQ of 4.) And the little brother was just entirely too annoying, too "posing" and campy and obvious.
I think the thing that annoyed me the most about the film, though, was that the filmmakers (and really, I blame the directors - both of them) decided to go for style over substance. Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did exaggerated primary colors and made everything specifically look fake so that you can point out all the special effects layered shots? Sorry, it didn't work for me AT ALL. And what makes me most angry about that is that I could have really gotten into the movie, really gotten invested in the characters and the story they were telling, but every time they pulled a stylistic move, it just ripped me out of the story, and to me, it really destroyed the performances being given by the actors. As I mentioned, Susan Sarandon comes off pretty well because her important scenes are done straight without the "look what I can do with the camera and editing and CGI" crap. Matthew Fox as mysterious Racer X has a few of those moments as well. I can't really tell you how I feel about Emile Hirsch as Speed. His performance was so chopped up that I can't give an opinion on it. I've not seen the other things he's done, so maybe he'll be in something that I'll see sometime where I can actually tell what kind of performance he put in. I generally liked Christina Ricci in this film, though there were a couple of tiny bits that I thought were entirely too cutesy.
About the only thing I couldn't decide was whether I was more annoyed at the movie or at the stupid woman sitting in the front section who had decided to bring her two small children to this film, including a little boy who was hyper and wanted to talk and scream and laugh and run around in the theatre. And he did. And what did supermom do? Shush him loudly. (Yeah, that helps.) And watch him run around in front of the first row of seats, laughing. Both of the kids were both too old to be sleeping through the movie and too young to be sitting patiently and quietly through the movie. This is not a children's movie where you expect a lot of little kids in the theatre, being restless and making noise. I don't care if you can't find a babysitter. Then you don't get to see this film in the theatre. Your kids don't belong here, so NEITHER DO YOU. Take your rude selfish self out of the theatre and take the kids with you. Nice that you're so frickin' important that you figure it's ok to ruin other people's movie-going experience if that's what works best for you.
Maybe I should have hired ILM to rotoscope her and the kids out of the theatre.
And then other times, the box office is the perfect manifestation of a film. "Speed Racer" was released a little over a week ago, and the big-budget mega-movie with the full power of Warner Bros.' marketing team and money has so far managed a domestic gross of ... slightly over $30 million. Its opening weekend gross was a whopping $18.5 million, down from the $20 million that Warner Bros. had purposely over-estimated for the weekend, putting the film third behind fellow new release "What Happens in Vegas", which came in second that same weekend with a gross of $20.1 million. Well, it was Mother's Day weekend, and people didn't want to go to the movies. Ummm, that might be an excuse except that "Iron Man" raked in another $51.1 million in its second week of release that same non-movie-going weekend.
Having finally seen the film this past weekend, I completely understand why the public stayed away in droves.
The story wasn't bad - except for a few bits, it was actually decently thought out and interesting. (One part I hated is towards the end of the film when Speed is remembering some of the things that various people have said to him, all of which prove to be the inspiration to do his best. Having the audio playing of the other people while you show his face soaking it in is fine. But we really didn't need to actually *see* those scenes again. Yeah, umm, some of those were scenes that we just saw a few minutes ago. Was the repeat of the scenes for the benefit of those with really short attention spans? Because otherwise, it was entirely a "beat you over the head with a really big hammer to get the point across" moment.) The acting wasn't bad - as a matter of fact, Susan Sarandon gave a wonderful performance as Speed Racer's mother, and she had a couple of really stand-out scenes. The special effects weren't bad - I'm presuming the forty million effects houses (including ILM) did exactly what they were contracted to do, and you can see their handiwork in just about every second of the film.
Now, I am familiar with the original television show - I remember watching it in the afternoon all the time, though I can't tell you that I remember much about it now. I remember the car, and I remember it could jump and do cool stuff. Can't tell you a thing about what the story was or anything else about the show. Given that I haven't seen the show in many, many, many, and I mean *LOTS* of years, it's possible that I wouldn't enjoy the show now. Maybe it had something to do with my being a kid when I watched it. Maybe it had something to do with it being animated, so I would allow for more things from an animated product than I do a live-action one. Maybe it has to do with the fact that with technology and special effects being what they are now, I think it was entirely possible to pull off all the cool action sequences and still have it look great, instead of having it be a mishmash and cartoony. Whatever the reason, there were many aspects of the film which really bugged me, though I'm told they're true to the television show. I guess having a monkey in the family in an animated show when I was a kid was one thing, but I could not get over it in the film. (And yeah, gotta throw in that obligatory poop joke for those with an IQ of 4.) And the little brother was just entirely too annoying, too "posing" and campy and obvious.
I think the thing that annoyed me the most about the film, though, was that the filmmakers (and really, I blame the directors - both of them) decided to go for style over substance. Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did exaggerated primary colors and made everything specifically look fake so that you can point out all the special effects layered shots? Sorry, it didn't work for me AT ALL. And what makes me most angry about that is that I could have really gotten into the movie, really gotten invested in the characters and the story they were telling, but every time they pulled a stylistic move, it just ripped me out of the story, and to me, it really destroyed the performances being given by the actors. As I mentioned, Susan Sarandon comes off pretty well because her important scenes are done straight without the "look what I can do with the camera and editing and CGI" crap. Matthew Fox as mysterious Racer X has a few of those moments as well. I can't really tell you how I feel about Emile Hirsch as Speed. His performance was so chopped up that I can't give an opinion on it. I've not seen the other things he's done, so maybe he'll be in something that I'll see sometime where I can actually tell what kind of performance he put in. I generally liked Christina Ricci in this film, though there were a couple of tiny bits that I thought were entirely too cutesy.
About the only thing I couldn't decide was whether I was more annoyed at the movie or at the stupid woman sitting in the front section who had decided to bring her two small children to this film, including a little boy who was hyper and wanted to talk and scream and laugh and run around in the theatre. And he did. And what did supermom do? Shush him loudly. (Yeah, that helps.) And watch him run around in front of the first row of seats, laughing. Both of the kids were both too old to be sleeping through the movie and too young to be sitting patiently and quietly through the movie. This is not a children's movie where you expect a lot of little kids in the theatre, being restless and making noise. I don't care if you can't find a babysitter. Then you don't get to see this film in the theatre. Your kids don't belong here, so NEITHER DO YOU. Take your rude selfish self out of the theatre and take the kids with you. Nice that you're so frickin' important that you figure it's ok to ruin other people's movie-going experience if that's what works best for you.
Maybe I should have hired ILM to rotoscope her and the kids out of the theatre.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Tropicana Hotel and Casino - hotel review
When we've spent time in Las Vegas, we've stayed at various hotels for various reasons. I'm not one to be willing to pay large amounts of money to stay in a fancy hotel if I'm not going to be doing much more than using the room for sleeping. If I'm going to be spending time in the hotel or using their amenities, then that's a different situation, but to me, it doesn't make sense to pay for a multitude of luxuries that you're never going to use.
On our recent trip over Easter weekend to Las Vegas, we decided we didn't want to stay at one of the nicer hotels because we were going to be busy and not spending much time in the hotel. With the holiday weekend and spring break and the NCAA tournament, prices were higher than normal. However, we knew that we wanted to be near Las Vegas Blvd. and Tropicana, since that area was where we'd be spending a lot of time, so after finding a good deal on a room at the Tropicana, we decided to stay there. The hotel is on the fourth corner that includes MGM, New York New York and Excalibur, so it's a terrific location.
We drove from the airport to the hotel, and immediately, you could tell it was an older hotel, which in and of itself wasn't a problem. However, a lot of the escalators in the hotel weren't working, and from the looks of it, they hadn't been running for some time. There was a lot about the place that also seemed very run-down. Down one hallway on the way to the parking area, there were some nice black-and-white photos of Las Vegas' early days which were interesting to look at. I understand that the Tropicana is one of the oldest hotels on the strip - I'm just not sure it should look so obviously like one of the oldest hotels on the strip.
The decor of our room was bamboo-themed but the theming extended to everything, including the dresser and the walls, so that was a bit much. Our room ended up being in a wing at the far end of the hotel, so we had to walk the gauntlet of merchandising carts/kiosks every time we went back and forth to the room, and it was also fairly far away from the parking.
The view out the window of our room gave us the Hooters Hotel and Casino on one side and a nearby church on the other side, so I thought that was pretty funny. When in hotels, we've become accustomed to having some kind of refrigerator so that we can get some water and other drinks and keep them cold. Since the room did not already have a refrigerator, the husband called the front desk to ask for one. "What do you want it for?" was the question he was asked. Ummm, to put things inside to keep cold? What do most people want a refrigerator for? To make toast? To put their shoes in? The person asked if we needed it for medication, and we said no, so he said ok, they're going to have to charge us. Ummm, ok. From that part of the conversation, I'm presuming that if we *had* wanted it for medication, then they wouldn't have charged us, but since we just wanted it for normal, ordinary refrigeratory stuff, they would charge us. Ok.
One of the worst parts of our stay was that at the bottom of the stairs leading to and from the casino floor were people working for Tahiti Village, and they were VERY AGGRESSIVE every time you walked by. They were very intrusive and on several occasions, even belligerent if you didn't stop and talk to them, all the while playing the "but I'm just trying to give you something nice for free" card. No, actually, you're verbally assaulting me several times a day. It's one thing to get that on the street (not to mention the other bank of Tahiti Village people right outside the hotel) when so many people are handing our flyers and trying to get you into their show, but I didn't expect to have to deal with that in my hotel. I guess it's worth whatever money Tahiti Village pays the Tropicana for them to allow the people to assault their own customers. If I had ever wanted to even consider looking at Tahiti Village, the behaviour of their reps would turn me away. Besides, why would I do something Tanya Roberts wants me to do?
I don't envision ever staying there again, given the combination of the state of the hotel, the long walk to and from the room, and the obnoxious Tahiti Village people assaulting you at every turn, making a bad start and end to your day. If we need to stay in that part of the city, we'll spend the little bit more to stay at one of the other hotels.
Of course, then there's the question of how much longer the hotel might be there. I happened upon this news story last week that the owner of the Tropicana Hotels in Las Vegas and Atlantic City has filed for bankruptcy. It's a bit interesting that the branch in Atlantic City lost their gaming license several months ago and so the property is in the process of being sold.
Maybe someone can come in and buy the place and renovate it so that it's "classic" and not just "old".
On our recent trip over Easter weekend to Las Vegas, we decided we didn't want to stay at one of the nicer hotels because we were going to be busy and not spending much time in the hotel. With the holiday weekend and spring break and the NCAA tournament, prices were higher than normal. However, we knew that we wanted to be near Las Vegas Blvd. and Tropicana, since that area was where we'd be spending a lot of time, so after finding a good deal on a room at the Tropicana, we decided to stay there. The hotel is on the fourth corner that includes MGM, New York New York and Excalibur, so it's a terrific location.
We drove from the airport to the hotel, and immediately, you could tell it was an older hotel, which in and of itself wasn't a problem. However, a lot of the escalators in the hotel weren't working, and from the looks of it, they hadn't been running for some time. There was a lot about the place that also seemed very run-down. Down one hallway on the way to the parking area, there were some nice black-and-white photos of Las Vegas' early days which were interesting to look at. I understand that the Tropicana is one of the oldest hotels on the strip - I'm just not sure it should look so obviously like one of the oldest hotels on the strip.
The decor of our room was bamboo-themed but the theming extended to everything, including the dresser and the walls, so that was a bit much. Our room ended up being in a wing at the far end of the hotel, so we had to walk the gauntlet of merchandising carts/kiosks every time we went back and forth to the room, and it was also fairly far away from the parking.
The view out the window of our room gave us the Hooters Hotel and Casino on one side and a nearby church on the other side, so I thought that was pretty funny. When in hotels, we've become accustomed to having some kind of refrigerator so that we can get some water and other drinks and keep them cold. Since the room did not already have a refrigerator, the husband called the front desk to ask for one. "What do you want it for?" was the question he was asked. Ummm, to put things inside to keep cold? What do most people want a refrigerator for? To make toast? To put their shoes in? The person asked if we needed it for medication, and we said no, so he said ok, they're going to have to charge us. Ummm, ok. From that part of the conversation, I'm presuming that if we *had* wanted it for medication, then they wouldn't have charged us, but since we just wanted it for normal, ordinary refrigeratory stuff, they would charge us. Ok.
One of the worst parts of our stay was that at the bottom of the stairs leading to and from the casino floor were people working for Tahiti Village, and they were VERY AGGRESSIVE every time you walked by. They were very intrusive and on several occasions, even belligerent if you didn't stop and talk to them, all the while playing the "but I'm just trying to give you something nice for free" card. No, actually, you're verbally assaulting me several times a day. It's one thing to get that on the street (not to mention the other bank of Tahiti Village people right outside the hotel) when so many people are handing our flyers and trying to get you into their show, but I didn't expect to have to deal with that in my hotel. I guess it's worth whatever money Tahiti Village pays the Tropicana for them to allow the people to assault their own customers. If I had ever wanted to even consider looking at Tahiti Village, the behaviour of their reps would turn me away. Besides, why would I do something Tanya Roberts wants me to do?
I don't envision ever staying there again, given the combination of the state of the hotel, the long walk to and from the room, and the obnoxious Tahiti Village people assaulting you at every turn, making a bad start and end to your day. If we need to stay in that part of the city, we'll spend the little bit more to stay at one of the other hotels.
Of course, then there's the question of how much longer the hotel might be there. I happened upon this news story last week that the owner of the Tropicana Hotels in Las Vegas and Atlantic City has filed for bankruptcy. It's a bit interesting that the branch in Atlantic City lost their gaming license several months ago and so the property is in the process of being sold.
Maybe someone can come in and buy the place and renovate it so that it's "classic" and not just "old".
Friday, May 2, 2008
Obama, Wright, Clinton, Winfrey and Cosby
By this time, most people are probably familiar with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. He made some comments during sermons that caused an uproar, and while he had not previously made any additional comments, he has recently surfaced to defend and reiterate his prior comments. I wasn't particularly happy with Obama's mostly non-response to Rev. Wright's comments, but Obama has now formally and decidedly denounced Rev. Wright's stance.
I think Rev. Wright is a coward for hiding behind 1) the color of his skin and 2) his religion. I don't understand how someone who presents himself as a man of God can say the things he did, but he should at least take responsibility for his own position, but to claim that people who attack his views in his sermons are also attacking the black church in general? How insulting! How dare he indict all the members of black churches who don't share the views that he does and upon whom he is now undeservedly deflecting criticism aimed at him because of his own views. Playing the race card in this case is an insult to all the people who do actually suffer from racial prejudice.
I still don't know whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton should be the Presidential candidate for the Democrats, but I've been feeling for some time now that they shouldn't tear each other to shreds so much during the race for the nomination that they then have no hope of winning the actual election. Because while I don't know which of them is the best candidate, I do know that I fear for the country if presumed Republican nominee John McCain wins the Presidency.
And speaking of Obama, I really wish he'd stop allowing himself to be portrayed as Oprah Winfrey's candidate. Lots of celebrities back various political figures, but her very public and constant support of him is also concerning me. If people vote for Obama because they think he's the best candidate, that's fine. But I'm concerned that people are going to vote for him because Oprah says so, the same way they will read a book because she says so or will do or believe or whatever any other thing simply on her word.
On a different note, how refreshing are Bill Cosby's opinions on things? I'll admit that I'm not a great fan of his. Yeah, I like some of his older stand-up, and I watched "The Cosby Show", and I know it's regarded as one of the best sitcoms ever. But even at the time, as much as he was being tauted as the best example of a father on television, I always found him to be a bit too sarcastic and condescending to his kids for my taste. But I love the message that he's been trying to spread for some time now. Yes, injustices have and still continue to happen, but don't just hide behind them. Don't use them as excuses, as crutches, to do bad things or to do nothing at all, or as a way to blame something, someone, anything, anyone else for what's wrong in your life. Take charge of your life and responsibility for making your own life better. Yeah, it's hard, and it takes a lot of work, but a lot of people have to do that. Go, Bill!
I think Rev. Wright is a coward for hiding behind 1) the color of his skin and 2) his religion. I don't understand how someone who presents himself as a man of God can say the things he did, but he should at least take responsibility for his own position, but to claim that people who attack his views in his sermons are also attacking the black church in general? How insulting! How dare he indict all the members of black churches who don't share the views that he does and upon whom he is now undeservedly deflecting criticism aimed at him because of his own views. Playing the race card in this case is an insult to all the people who do actually suffer from racial prejudice.
I still don't know whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton should be the Presidential candidate for the Democrats, but I've been feeling for some time now that they shouldn't tear each other to shreds so much during the race for the nomination that they then have no hope of winning the actual election. Because while I don't know which of them is the best candidate, I do know that I fear for the country if presumed Republican nominee John McCain wins the Presidency.
And speaking of Obama, I really wish he'd stop allowing himself to be portrayed as Oprah Winfrey's candidate. Lots of celebrities back various political figures, but her very public and constant support of him is also concerning me. If people vote for Obama because they think he's the best candidate, that's fine. But I'm concerned that people are going to vote for him because Oprah says so, the same way they will read a book because she says so or will do or believe or whatever any other thing simply on her word.
On a different note, how refreshing are Bill Cosby's opinions on things? I'll admit that I'm not a great fan of his. Yeah, I like some of his older stand-up, and I watched "The Cosby Show", and I know it's regarded as one of the best sitcoms ever. But even at the time, as much as he was being tauted as the best example of a father on television, I always found him to be a bit too sarcastic and condescending to his kids for my taste. But I love the message that he's been trying to spread for some time now. Yes, injustices have and still continue to happen, but don't just hide behind them. Don't use them as excuses, as crutches, to do bad things or to do nothing at all, or as a way to blame something, someone, anything, anyone else for what's wrong in your life. Take charge of your life and responsibility for making your own life better. Yeah, it's hard, and it takes a lot of work, but a lot of people have to do that. Go, Bill!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
posted!
As an update to this entry from last month, my submission to The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks is one of the items in today's entry on that blog.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
"The Forbidden Kingdom" - movie review (spoilers)
I'm not a particular fan of Jackie Chan, but I love Jet Li, so when I first heard about "The Forbidden Kingdom", I knew it was a film I wanted to see. I didn't discover until a few days ago, though, that the film was in English, not Chinese as I had expected. I found that to be a little disappointing as I'm not a fan of watching them struggle with their English and me having a hard time understanding them. I'd much prefer subtitles, and I have no problem with them. I'm thinking this film wasn't aimed at me in that respect. It looked like they were trying to draw in the audience that wouldn't necessarily go if it was entirely subtitled.
We ended up going to an evening show at the AMC theatres at Universal CityWalk. We arrived about 10 minutes before showtime, and that screening was almost sold out. We did manage to find three seats together, though it was in the bottom section and to the far right, which is not where I generally prefer to sit, but at least we were all able to sit together and not be in the front row.
I was a little surprised at the trailers that were shown before the film, which were all fairly broad comedies, except for "Hellboy 2". I think I expected more action movies considering the film we were seeing, but our friend posited that they were going for the male crowd, and the husband's theory was that they were appealing to the crowd who were drawn in by Jackie Chan's comedies.
Generally, I loved the film. I didn't completely love the story - I could have done without the bracket story (it was a sort of "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" situation), but I understand that was the draw into the film being English, and there was a story/lesson that needed to be taught in the bracket story as well. Otherwise, I loved the story that was told in Ancient China itself (I'm really wanting to call it Medieval China, but I'm not sure that term exists.), and I think they did a good job of telling you the backstory you needed. They also did a good job of integrating the different characters as they showed up so you got a good sense of who everyone was instead of the jumble of "ok, now who's this person again?" that can sometimes happen with ensemble pieces.
There were bits of the story that also reminded me of "The Fellowship of the Ring", with a disparate group of people thrown together to aid an unwitting and reluctant novice on a mission to return an artifact to save the world.
The fellowship of the stick.
As you'd expect, the action sequences were outstanding. The choreography was brilliant, and given the pairing of Jackie Chan and Jet Li, you'd expect an epic battle between them - and the film did not disappoint. The geek part of me wondered what the contract negotiations must have been like with the two of them, making it a fair and balanced representation of both of them, kind of like Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" But the extensive fight between the two of them was not the showpiece - that happened later when all of the main characters were engaged in battle, and there were a few other impressive sequences in the middle as well.
Michael Angarano played Jason, the Boston kid who was inexplicably thrown into the world that he was obsessed with. I loved the sequence where Jason was caught between his two teachers as they were battling each other in the techniques they were supposedly trying to teach him but what really happened was that he got a beatdown in the process. I thought he was very good, though I also found him very distracting because he looked so familiar and I kept trying to remember where I knew him from. It turns out he was in a few episodes of "24" last season, and refreshing my memory as to who he was, I remember liking him, but I'm not sure that his four-episode appearance on that show was what I was remembering him from. Then I figured out that it was because he reminded me so much of Shia LaBeouf in "Transformers".
Michael Angarano in "The Forbidden Kingdom".
Shia LaBeouf in "Transformers".
I don't think I've ever seen a Jackie Chan film before, but I really liked him in this. It wasn't the broad humour that I've seen in trailers of his films, but he definitely brought a nice comedic turn to the film. He played Lu, Jason's teacher/mentor, and he reminded me at various times of Yoda, Rafiki and Mr. Miyagi. One of my favorite lines from him was in the "wax on/wax off"-type sequence when Jason was complaining that he had just been chopping grass for a couple days and was not actually being taught kung fu. Lu went up to him and hit him with the stick weapon and said that the next day, he would teach him to block. For some reason, that scene reminded me of when Rafiki hit Simba in "The Lion King" and told him to forget about it because it was in the past.
I thought Jet Li was spectacular in this film, and I loved his flowing white robe costume as the Silent Monk. I'm glad I was right in figuring he was also playing the Monkey King, but even given that, I completely didn't see coming the revelation that the Silent Monk was just a hair even though it had occurred to me that the Monk was somehow some kind of reincarnation or alternate reality version of the Monkey King. My favorite line of his was after the big fight sequence between Lu and the Silent Monk, when the Silent Monk realized who Jason is, and he said to Lu, "But he's not even Chinese." That line had me cracking up. Of course, Jet Li's fight sequences at the end, both as the Silent Monk and as the Monkey King, were awesome.
Collin Chou played the Darth Vader-like Jade Overlord, and I thought he was very good, both in his acting and in his fight sequences.
Yifei Liu played Golden Sparrow, the orphan child seeking revenge against the Jade Overlord for killing her family. I never got why she would often refer to herself in the third person, and I wondered for a while whether Sparrow was supposed to have been possessed or something. I also wondered how she knew that it was the Jade Overlord who killed her mother. Supposedly, no one else was left alive after that massacre, and she would have been able to find her dead mother and see the arrow in her back, but since she was at the bottom of the well, I don't know how she would known that it was the Overlord himself who had shot the fatal arrow. I really liked the actress though and look forward to seeing her in more films.
Bingbing Li played the white-haired witch who had been sent after Jason and his group by the Jade Overlord. I really liked her, and I thought she had great expressions. I did laugh, though, when her character called Sparrow an "orphan bitch" during their fight sequence, and her serious men issues reminded me of Anya during her Vengeance Demon days on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
I loved the music in this film and may have to pick up the soundtrack. The cinematography was spectacular, as you'd probably expect from a period-piece kung fu movie.
One of my few complaints about the film is that they never explained how Jason was either all-of-a-sudden able to understand Mandarin or alternatively, how everyone in Medieval China was all-of-a-sudden able to speak English. (They also didn't really bat an eyelash at the white kid wandering around Medieval China, but that didn't annoy me ... quite as much.) When he was first transported there, he couldn't understand a word, and the Mandarin lines were not subtitled, so I have no idea what the farmer said to him or what Lu was saying to the guards prior to beating the crap out of them or even what Lu was initially saying to Jason. And while Lu's "you're not listening" line was funny, there was no explanation of why that magically made Jason be able to understand them all or made everyone in Medieval China be able to speak English. The rest of the film was mostly in English, except for some sequences with the Overlord that were subtitled. I'm having trouble remembering now if the Overlord ever spoke English, whether he spoke English or if it was subtitled when he proposed the duel to the death between the witch and Jason over the immortality elixir. The oddest language sequence to me was during the "But he's not even Chinese" line. Lu and Silent Monk both turned away from Jason and spoke softly, all as if to prevent Jason from hearing them, but that exchange of lines was in Mandarin and subtitled. If they're speaking a language he doesn't understand, why do they need to turn away and lower their voices? But then that means Jason doesn't really understand Mandarin and everyone is inexplicably able to speak English to him. I think it would have been really easy to address the issue, without even having to explain it or coming up with a plausible reason. All kinds of mystical things were happening, but a simple acknowledgement of the language problem would have been nice. When it comes to language issues in films, I am one of those who likes the disparity explained. The best example I can recall of this being done perfectly was in "The Hunt For Red October".
My only other major complaint is that even though Jason turned out to be a hero all around, I could never quite forgive him completely for betraying Old Hop. OK, he got beat up a little by the thugs, but rather than take any more punishment from them or trying to get away from them, he immediate caved and agreed to be the one to facilitate their robbery of Old Hop, a man who he seemed to like and respect and who had been so good to him? At least the situation was redeemed somewhat when it was revealed that Old Hop wasn't seriously hurt, gunshot wound notwithstanding, since his death would have made Jason completely unforgivable. I would still have liked some bigger threat of consequence to convince Jason to turn on Old Hop.
However, some minor issues aside, I really did enjoy this film. It had a good story, terrific action sequences, lots of humour, and they skirted the unnecessary romance angle that I was afraid they were seemingly heading towards. I'm looking forward to the DVD to see what additional sequences and behind-the-scenes footage will be included.
We ended up going to an evening show at the AMC theatres at Universal CityWalk. We arrived about 10 minutes before showtime, and that screening was almost sold out. We did manage to find three seats together, though it was in the bottom section and to the far right, which is not where I generally prefer to sit, but at least we were all able to sit together and not be in the front row.
I was a little surprised at the trailers that were shown before the film, which were all fairly broad comedies, except for "Hellboy 2". I think I expected more action movies considering the film we were seeing, but our friend posited that they were going for the male crowd, and the husband's theory was that they were appealing to the crowd who were drawn in by Jackie Chan's comedies.
Generally, I loved the film. I didn't completely love the story - I could have done without the bracket story (it was a sort of "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" situation), but I understand that was the draw into the film being English, and there was a story/lesson that needed to be taught in the bracket story as well. Otherwise, I loved the story that was told in Ancient China itself (I'm really wanting to call it Medieval China, but I'm not sure that term exists.), and I think they did a good job of telling you the backstory you needed. They also did a good job of integrating the different characters as they showed up so you got a good sense of who everyone was instead of the jumble of "ok, now who's this person again?" that can sometimes happen with ensemble pieces.
There were bits of the story that also reminded me of "The Fellowship of the Ring", with a disparate group of people thrown together to aid an unwitting and reluctant novice on a mission to return an artifact to save the world.
The fellowship of the stick.
As you'd expect, the action sequences were outstanding. The choreography was brilliant, and given the pairing of Jackie Chan and Jet Li, you'd expect an epic battle between them - and the film did not disappoint. The geek part of me wondered what the contract negotiations must have been like with the two of them, making it a fair and balanced representation of both of them, kind of like Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" But the extensive fight between the two of them was not the showpiece - that happened later when all of the main characters were engaged in battle, and there were a few other impressive sequences in the middle as well.
Michael Angarano played Jason, the Boston kid who was inexplicably thrown into the world that he was obsessed with. I loved the sequence where Jason was caught between his two teachers as they were battling each other in the techniques they were supposedly trying to teach him but what really happened was that he got a beatdown in the process. I thought he was very good, though I also found him very distracting because he looked so familiar and I kept trying to remember where I knew him from. It turns out he was in a few episodes of "24" last season, and refreshing my memory as to who he was, I remember liking him, but I'm not sure that his four-episode appearance on that show was what I was remembering him from. Then I figured out that it was because he reminded me so much of Shia LaBeouf in "Transformers".
Michael Angarano in "The Forbidden Kingdom".
Shia LaBeouf in "Transformers".
I don't think I've ever seen a Jackie Chan film before, but I really liked him in this. It wasn't the broad humour that I've seen in trailers of his films, but he definitely brought a nice comedic turn to the film. He played Lu, Jason's teacher/mentor, and he reminded me at various times of Yoda, Rafiki and Mr. Miyagi. One of my favorite lines from him was in the "wax on/wax off"-type sequence when Jason was complaining that he had just been chopping grass for a couple days and was not actually being taught kung fu. Lu went up to him and hit him with the stick weapon and said that the next day, he would teach him to block. For some reason, that scene reminded me of when Rafiki hit Simba in "The Lion King" and told him to forget about it because it was in the past.
I thought Jet Li was spectacular in this film, and I loved his flowing white robe costume as the Silent Monk. I'm glad I was right in figuring he was also playing the Monkey King, but even given that, I completely didn't see coming the revelation that the Silent Monk was just a hair even though it had occurred to me that the Monk was somehow some kind of reincarnation or alternate reality version of the Monkey King. My favorite line of his was after the big fight sequence between Lu and the Silent Monk, when the Silent Monk realized who Jason is, and he said to Lu, "But he's not even Chinese." That line had me cracking up. Of course, Jet Li's fight sequences at the end, both as the Silent Monk and as the Monkey King, were awesome.
Collin Chou played the Darth Vader-like Jade Overlord, and I thought he was very good, both in his acting and in his fight sequences.
Yifei Liu played Golden Sparrow, the orphan child seeking revenge against the Jade Overlord for killing her family. I never got why she would often refer to herself in the third person, and I wondered for a while whether Sparrow was supposed to have been possessed or something. I also wondered how she knew that it was the Jade Overlord who killed her mother. Supposedly, no one else was left alive after that massacre, and she would have been able to find her dead mother and see the arrow in her back, but since she was at the bottom of the well, I don't know how she would known that it was the Overlord himself who had shot the fatal arrow. I really liked the actress though and look forward to seeing her in more films.
Bingbing Li played the white-haired witch who had been sent after Jason and his group by the Jade Overlord. I really liked her, and I thought she had great expressions. I did laugh, though, when her character called Sparrow an "orphan bitch" during their fight sequence, and her serious men issues reminded me of Anya during her Vengeance Demon days on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
I loved the music in this film and may have to pick up the soundtrack. The cinematography was spectacular, as you'd probably expect from a period-piece kung fu movie.
One of my few complaints about the film is that they never explained how Jason was either all-of-a-sudden able to understand Mandarin or alternatively, how everyone in Medieval China was all-of-a-sudden able to speak English. (They also didn't really bat an eyelash at the white kid wandering around Medieval China, but that didn't annoy me ... quite as much.) When he was first transported there, he couldn't understand a word, and the Mandarin lines were not subtitled, so I have no idea what the farmer said to him or what Lu was saying to the guards prior to beating the crap out of them or even what Lu was initially saying to Jason. And while Lu's "you're not listening" line was funny, there was no explanation of why that magically made Jason be able to understand them all or made everyone in Medieval China be able to speak English. The rest of the film was mostly in English, except for some sequences with the Overlord that were subtitled. I'm having trouble remembering now if the Overlord ever spoke English, whether he spoke English or if it was subtitled when he proposed the duel to the death between the witch and Jason over the immortality elixir. The oddest language sequence to me was during the "But he's not even Chinese" line. Lu and Silent Monk both turned away from Jason and spoke softly, all as if to prevent Jason from hearing them, but that exchange of lines was in Mandarin and subtitled. If they're speaking a language he doesn't understand, why do they need to turn away and lower their voices? But then that means Jason doesn't really understand Mandarin and everyone is inexplicably able to speak English to him. I think it would have been really easy to address the issue, without even having to explain it or coming up with a plausible reason. All kinds of mystical things were happening, but a simple acknowledgement of the language problem would have been nice. When it comes to language issues in films, I am one of those who likes the disparity explained. The best example I can recall of this being done perfectly was in "The Hunt For Red October".
My only other major complaint is that even though Jason turned out to be a hero all around, I could never quite forgive him completely for betraying Old Hop. OK, he got beat up a little by the thugs, but rather than take any more punishment from them or trying to get away from them, he immediate caved and agreed to be the one to facilitate their robbery of Old Hop, a man who he seemed to like and respect and who had been so good to him? At least the situation was redeemed somewhat when it was revealed that Old Hop wasn't seriously hurt, gunshot wound notwithstanding, since his death would have made Jason completely unforgivable. I would still have liked some bigger threat of consequence to convince Jason to turn on Old Hop.
However, some minor issues aside, I really did enjoy this film. It had a good story, terrific action sequences, lots of humour, and they skirted the unnecessary romance angle that I was afraid they were seemingly heading towards. I'm looking forward to the DVD to see what additional sequences and behind-the-scenes footage will be included.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
weird news round-up - thawing turkeys, Charleton Heston would have moved to Florida, and adios Simpsons
I'm entirely too tired and sleep-deprived today to write much coherently, so I'm just going to go through a couple of weird news stories that I found.
story 1
This article mentions that law enforcement in Spokane, Washington maintain a tip line where people can call with information about crimes. However, not everyone apparently knows that they're supposed to *leave* tips, not ask for tips on how to do various things. Ummm, if you have a question about thawing turkeys, you should call the Butterball hotline or look at their online help information/FAQ. (OK, I digress here, but this is a story about some of the "extreme calls" that have come into the Butterball hotline. The last story is just hilarious.) I guess these are the same people who call 911 with completely stupid non-emergency issues.
story 2
They have an official day where you can take your sons and daughters to work, so why not have equal time - you should be able to bring your GUNS to work every day! At least that's how Florida legislatures would have it. They've passed a bill that has gone to the governor for signature that would allow employees to keep guns in their cars. Of course, the person has to have a permit to carry a gun, and they would have to keep the gun locked in their car. Because you know, if you actually need the gun for protection, then you can just make a quick trip out to your car to get it. I'm sure whomever is making you feel like you need it will just wait around for you while you do that. Hey, at least it doesn't apply to places like nuclear power plants or prisons or schools, because you know, only in those places would it be a bad idea.
story 3
Venezuela has evicted "The Simpsons". With the reasoning that the show is a bad influence on children, what appears to be Venezuela's equivalent of the FCC has forced the local television station to stop showing episodes of the long-running sitcom after receiving complaints. Apparently, like in the U.S., Venezuela also has people who are too stupid or inept to control their children's viewing habits and who can't do something as simple as turning the channel or turning off the TV. The television station has instead been showing a much more wholesome and child-friendly show - "Baywatch".
story 1
This article mentions that law enforcement in Spokane, Washington maintain a tip line where people can call with information about crimes. However, not everyone apparently knows that they're supposed to *leave* tips, not ask for tips on how to do various things. Ummm, if you have a question about thawing turkeys, you should call the Butterball hotline or look at their online help information/FAQ. (OK, I digress here, but this is a story about some of the "extreme calls" that have come into the Butterball hotline. The last story is just hilarious.) I guess these are the same people who call 911 with completely stupid non-emergency issues.
story 2
They have an official day where you can take your sons and daughters to work, so why not have equal time - you should be able to bring your GUNS to work every day! At least that's how Florida legislatures would have it. They've passed a bill that has gone to the governor for signature that would allow employees to keep guns in their cars. Of course, the person has to have a permit to carry a gun, and they would have to keep the gun locked in their car. Because you know, if you actually need the gun for protection, then you can just make a quick trip out to your car to get it. I'm sure whomever is making you feel like you need it will just wait around for you while you do that. Hey, at least it doesn't apply to places like nuclear power plants or prisons or schools, because you know, only in those places would it be a bad idea.
story 3
Venezuela has evicted "The Simpsons". With the reasoning that the show is a bad influence on children, what appears to be Venezuela's equivalent of the FCC has forced the local television station to stop showing episodes of the long-running sitcom after receiving complaints. Apparently, like in the U.S., Venezuela also has people who are too stupid or inept to control their children's viewing habits and who can't do something as simple as turning the channel or turning off the TV. The television station has instead been showing a much more wholesome and child-friendly show - "Baywatch".
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
what's yours is mine
There are a few advice columns that I read periodically, mostly for entertainment value. Sometimes, the situations in there are so incredibly outrageous that it's hard to imagine they're not made up. But then I think about people I've heard about with similar opinions, and I realize that unfortunately, there are people with opinions in this world that I cannot even begin to fathom.
This particular question was from a 40-something single woman who bought a house, and her parents lent her the down payment, which she was supposed to pay back with interest. Her position was that since her parents paid for her siblings' weddings and won't have to pay for one for her (she doesn't foresee getting married anytime soon), she thinks the down payment should be the equivalent of the money her parents spent for her siblings' weddings, and therefore, she should not have to pay it back. She wanted to know what the columnist thought.
My first reaction would be to send a letter to the parents to say how sorry I am that they apparently ended up raising at least one entitled bitch. I can't imagine knowing someone like this who would bring that particular complaint to me - you know I'd be unable to contain myself when they asked for my opinion.
First of all, I think the expectation that the parents would pay for her wedding is one thing. As far as I'm concerned, if you're in your 30s or 40s and both parties have decent jobs, you really should be paying for your own wedding. If the parents offer some assistance, that's one thing, but to expect it is another thing entirely. To me, the concept that parents are "required" to pay for a wedding is back from ages ago when people got married really young and didn't have the money for it. Heck, even if parents are paying for a wedding nowadays, it makes me cringe when I hear the bride and/or groom demand exorbitant amounts of money, so the parents even have to take out a huge loan, sometimes a second mortgage, to pay for the wedding. Umm, yeah, ok, whatever.
Second of all, if the parents agree to pay for a wedding, that's one thing, but to then transfer that money to something else? What if she was a drug addict? Since her parents didn't have to pay for a wedding, should she be entitled to have that money to buy cocaine or crack?
So if a friend invites me to dinner for which the friend is paying, I can feel free to decline the dinner but say that since the friend probably would have spent X amount of dollars on my dinner, the friend can just give me that money outright instead?
The entitlement issue is one that I think about often, because it comes up all the time in many different topics. You can expect more rantings about that in a future entry.
But a particular situation came up recently that brought back something I'd been thinking about anyway. I was talking to a friend before our recent trip to Las Vegas, and of course, we speculated on how it would be possible to win a huge jackpot, one big enough to be able to quit. The friend made a comment about me giving the friend some of the money. I was really surprised by the comment, as this was someone who really should have known better. I responded that I wasn't sure why I would have to share the jackpot with the friend, and the friend said that if I didn't have to work, that way, the friend wouldn't have to either.
I can't remember what I said, but I think I made it pretty clear that I wasn't going to feel obligated to share if we won any kind of significant money. It was pretty amazing to me that the friend even broached the subject, and I don't think it was meant to be a joke. But it went along with something I'd thought about anyway when it came to money.
In previously fantasizing about winning the lottery when it's some huge bazillionish number, I've thought about what I'd want to do with the money. But then it also comes to - who would you share the money with? And who would expect you to share some of the money with them? I'm not sure that my parents would exactly "expect" some of it, but I'm sure they would be terribly hurt if I didn't do something nice for them with some of the money I'd won. And in their case, there are a few things I'd be more than happy to do for them. There is some family that I'd want to share with, but not all family. I'm presuming the family I wouldn't share with would be pretty angry about that. Would I have some kind of obligation to share with anyone who is family? Would I be looked upon horribly if I didn't? I could see if someone was homeless or in a really bad situation, but when it just comes to having nicer things and not having to work, I don't feel I'm obligated.
There are also friends I'd be inclined to share with for various reasons, but obviously, not all friends. Would those who don't get anything (or much less) be angry and refuse to be friends with me anymore? Is this a kindergarten thing where if you're going to share, you have to share with EVERYONE? I suppose I could see how someone would be mad if they saw me sharing the money with some friends but not them, and in the same situation, I'll admit that I'd probably feel jealous, but I can't imagine actually confronting them with it or refusing to be friends with them anymore. Now, if they were flaunting it - "I'm giving X friend $1,000,000 and I'm not giving you a thing" - that would be different. But I honestly can't think of anyone, family or friends, where I'd really *expect* them to share any of their winnings with me.
But heck, I've already run into this entitlement situation, and it wasn't a matter of a lot of money or winnings. After I got out of college and had been working for a while, I was happy to start having some semblance of savings. I don't usually discuss money with friends, but I happened to be talking to a male friend that I thought I could trust, and I mentioned how happy I was that I'd been able to put a little away - $2,000. Now, that's not a lot of money, but when you've been living with pretty much nothing in the bank, it was a big deal to me and something I was proud of. His reaction was to say that it was a lot of money, and we could do a lot with it. I was taken aback at the "we" comment. First of all, we're just friends, and you're not entitled to my money. Second, even if we were dating (which was not ever a possibility in either of our minds), you still wouldn't be entitled to my money. He and another mutual (female) friend and I used to hang out quite a bit, going to movies and dinner and such. He didn't have much money, so when we'd go out, she and I would sometimes pay for the friend so he could go. Well, after a while, we got tired of it - we had enough to pay our own way, but not necessarily enough to pay for another person, so she and I started going out on our own, which he didn't like. Ummm, ok, so since you don't have any money, that means we can't go out either? The last straw in the friendship was when he and I were at the L.A County Fair one year, and he saw something he really wanted. It was a type of collectible, so it wasn't something he needed, and I was stupid enough to lend him $50 to buy it. Now, I'm not one to talk about buying things you want and don't need, but I also only spend money I have. $50 wasn't a huge amount of money, but it was something he said he'd pay me back. And time went by and nothing. I would ask him, and he was noncommittal. Even if I said something about $5 or $10 a week or a month until it was paid off, he never agreed to it. It became clear that he had no intention of ever paying me back, and coupled with other things, I was done with him as a friend.
So as much as I'd love to win the lottery, there's a part of me that would also dread the hassles that would come with it and the hurt feelings that would inevitably arise from friends and family who don't feel they got enough of it. (There was a television show on a few years ago called "Windfall" that followed a group of friends who collectively won a humongous lottery - about $20 million each - and the problems that arose after the winnings. I loved that show. Cancelled after a few episodes. *sigh*)
Money can solve a lot of problems but it can also create many others.
This particular question was from a 40-something single woman who bought a house, and her parents lent her the down payment, which she was supposed to pay back with interest. Her position was that since her parents paid for her siblings' weddings and won't have to pay for one for her (she doesn't foresee getting married anytime soon), she thinks the down payment should be the equivalent of the money her parents spent for her siblings' weddings, and therefore, she should not have to pay it back. She wanted to know what the columnist thought.
My first reaction would be to send a letter to the parents to say how sorry I am that they apparently ended up raising at least one entitled bitch. I can't imagine knowing someone like this who would bring that particular complaint to me - you know I'd be unable to contain myself when they asked for my opinion.
First of all, I think the expectation that the parents would pay for her wedding is one thing. As far as I'm concerned, if you're in your 30s or 40s and both parties have decent jobs, you really should be paying for your own wedding. If the parents offer some assistance, that's one thing, but to expect it is another thing entirely. To me, the concept that parents are "required" to pay for a wedding is back from ages ago when people got married really young and didn't have the money for it. Heck, even if parents are paying for a wedding nowadays, it makes me cringe when I hear the bride and/or groom demand exorbitant amounts of money, so the parents even have to take out a huge loan, sometimes a second mortgage, to pay for the wedding. Umm, yeah, ok, whatever.
Second of all, if the parents agree to pay for a wedding, that's one thing, but to then transfer that money to something else? What if she was a drug addict? Since her parents didn't have to pay for a wedding, should she be entitled to have that money to buy cocaine or crack?
So if a friend invites me to dinner for which the friend is paying, I can feel free to decline the dinner but say that since the friend probably would have spent X amount of dollars on my dinner, the friend can just give me that money outright instead?
The entitlement issue is one that I think about often, because it comes up all the time in many different topics. You can expect more rantings about that in a future entry.
But a particular situation came up recently that brought back something I'd been thinking about anyway. I was talking to a friend before our recent trip to Las Vegas, and of course, we speculated on how it would be possible to win a huge jackpot, one big enough to be able to quit. The friend made a comment about me giving the friend some of the money. I was really surprised by the comment, as this was someone who really should have known better. I responded that I wasn't sure why I would have to share the jackpot with the friend, and the friend said that if I didn't have to work, that way, the friend wouldn't have to either.
I can't remember what I said, but I think I made it pretty clear that I wasn't going to feel obligated to share if we won any kind of significant money. It was pretty amazing to me that the friend even broached the subject, and I don't think it was meant to be a joke. But it went along with something I'd thought about anyway when it came to money.
In previously fantasizing about winning the lottery when it's some huge bazillionish number, I've thought about what I'd want to do with the money. But then it also comes to - who would you share the money with? And who would expect you to share some of the money with them? I'm not sure that my parents would exactly "expect" some of it, but I'm sure they would be terribly hurt if I didn't do something nice for them with some of the money I'd won. And in their case, there are a few things I'd be more than happy to do for them. There is some family that I'd want to share with, but not all family. I'm presuming the family I wouldn't share with would be pretty angry about that. Would I have some kind of obligation to share with anyone who is family? Would I be looked upon horribly if I didn't? I could see if someone was homeless or in a really bad situation, but when it just comes to having nicer things and not having to work, I don't feel I'm obligated.
There are also friends I'd be inclined to share with for various reasons, but obviously, not all friends. Would those who don't get anything (or much less) be angry and refuse to be friends with me anymore? Is this a kindergarten thing where if you're going to share, you have to share with EVERYONE? I suppose I could see how someone would be mad if they saw me sharing the money with some friends but not them, and in the same situation, I'll admit that I'd probably feel jealous, but I can't imagine actually confronting them with it or refusing to be friends with them anymore. Now, if they were flaunting it - "I'm giving X friend $1,000,000 and I'm not giving you a thing" - that would be different. But I honestly can't think of anyone, family or friends, where I'd really *expect* them to share any of their winnings with me.
But heck, I've already run into this entitlement situation, and it wasn't a matter of a lot of money or winnings. After I got out of college and had been working for a while, I was happy to start having some semblance of savings. I don't usually discuss money with friends, but I happened to be talking to a male friend that I thought I could trust, and I mentioned how happy I was that I'd been able to put a little away - $2,000. Now, that's not a lot of money, but when you've been living with pretty much nothing in the bank, it was a big deal to me and something I was proud of. His reaction was to say that it was a lot of money, and we could do a lot with it. I was taken aback at the "we" comment. First of all, we're just friends, and you're not entitled to my money. Second, even if we were dating (which was not ever a possibility in either of our minds), you still wouldn't be entitled to my money. He and another mutual (female) friend and I used to hang out quite a bit, going to movies and dinner and such. He didn't have much money, so when we'd go out, she and I would sometimes pay for the friend so he could go. Well, after a while, we got tired of it - we had enough to pay our own way, but not necessarily enough to pay for another person, so she and I started going out on our own, which he didn't like. Ummm, ok, so since you don't have any money, that means we can't go out either? The last straw in the friendship was when he and I were at the L.A County Fair one year, and he saw something he really wanted. It was a type of collectible, so it wasn't something he needed, and I was stupid enough to lend him $50 to buy it. Now, I'm not one to talk about buying things you want and don't need, but I also only spend money I have. $50 wasn't a huge amount of money, but it was something he said he'd pay me back. And time went by and nothing. I would ask him, and he was noncommittal. Even if I said something about $5 or $10 a week or a month until it was paid off, he never agreed to it. It became clear that he had no intention of ever paying me back, and coupled with other things, I was done with him as a friend.
So as much as I'd love to win the lottery, there's a part of me that would also dread the hassles that would come with it and the hurt feelings that would inevitably arise from friends and family who don't feel they got enough of it. (There was a television show on a few years ago called "Windfall" that followed a group of friends who collectively won a humongous lottery - about $20 million each - and the problems that arose after the winnings. I loved that show. Cancelled after a few episodes. *sigh*)
Money can solve a lot of problems but it can also create many others.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
What do you "mean"?
Here's a picture of a sign that the husband and I have driven past multiple times. This company is located in Baldwin Park, east of Los Angeles, and the sign is visible from the 10 freeway.
The way I see it, they haven't actually moved - they're just pretending. Maybe they have creditors after them who want them to pay up, or unsatisfied customers who they've treated poorly or disgruntled employees who they haven't paid in ages, and they're pretending not to be there just to avoid all of them. After all, if they've "moved", all these people after them won't think to look for them at their actual place of business, right?
We had noticed the sign and the "moved" some time ago, and it bugged me every time we went past it. But it took finding out about this blog (Thanks, Bean!) to give me the impetus to want to take a picture of the actual sign so we'd have a record of it. I've also submitted the picture to their blog, but since they get a bazillion submissions, I don't know if or when it might get posted. I'll let you know if it does. It's a great site. Be sure to read the FAQ on that site!
The way I see it, they haven't actually moved - they're just pretending. Maybe they have creditors after them who want them to pay up, or unsatisfied customers who they've treated poorly or disgruntled employees who they haven't paid in ages, and they're pretending not to be there just to avoid all of them. After all, if they've "moved", all these people after them won't think to look for them at their actual place of business, right?
We had noticed the sign and the "moved" some time ago, and it bugged me every time we went past it. But it took finding out about this blog (Thanks, Bean!) to give me the impetus to want to take a picture of the actual sign so we'd have a record of it. I've also submitted the picture to their blog, but since they get a bazillion submissions, I don't know if or when it might get posted. I'll let you know if it does. It's a great site. Be sure to read the FAQ on that site!
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Fox vs. FCC Grudge Match - The Supreme Court Edition
Everyone who watches television and/or listens to the radio knows the affect that the FCC has had on those two mediums in the last number of years. Ever since the world got a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast during the half-time show at the 2004 Superbowl, the FCC has been on an unchallenged rampage, deeming this or that to be obscene with seemingly no rhyme or reason and without any accountability. People can't possibly be held responsible for paying attention to what they watch or even worse, paying attention to what their children watch. No, some other entity must be responsible for saving the children and for saving us from ourselves. Wouldn't want to be scarred for life because someone got a glimpse of a boob they didn't expect. Now, I don't have kids, but I would think that if your kid was watching the Superbowl and got a quick glimpse of Janet's breast and wanted to know what the big deal was or what happened, you as the parent could have taken the opportunity to explain that in the States, some people think it's not right to be naked on television. It's something private and personal, but nothing to be ashamed of - different cultures have different beliefs, and things aren't necessarily right or wrong, just different. I would think that would have been much less traumatizing to a child than a parent/guardian/adult flipping out about the exposure and screaming and carrying on about it. And if any adults were traumatized by Janet's boob, then seriously, you need help, way more than the FCC could ever provide you.
And I could see where people can expect that if they're seeing a family show, they're not going to encounter nudity or anything remotely resembling bad language. But if you're watching "NYPD Blue", you're really going to be outraged by seeing some kind of nudity or hearing some bad language? If you're watching that kind of show, you don't expect something more than sunshine and light? Heck, blood and violence are apparently ok, but love and sex are considered obscene? In any case, if you're letting your kids watch that show, then you're an idiot. If you happen to be channel-surfing during the two seconds that the nudity is shown, then that's just bad luck on your part. And even then, are your sensibilities so paper thin that brief nudity is going to create a chasm in your soul?
Even in a case where broadcasters requested ahead of time for some guidance on whether a particular broadcast would be considered indecent, the FCC refused to cooperate. And we're not talking about television stations wanting to show something like Playboy After Dark. No, the indecent, heinous thing they wanted to show on broadcast television was "Saving Private Ryan" around Veteran's Day in 2004. The FCC refused to say ahead of time whether they would fine stations for showing that movie. It's not like you didn't know what the movie was about. It's not a sexual romp or anything like that. It's a film about the very real trauma experienced by soldiers during a war. Usually with that kind of thing, they have disclaimers and such broadcast repeatedly, so it's not like you're not going to know what you're watching. And it's not just for sensationalism's sake. It's history. Ooooo, but it's not appropriate. Bite me.
But there are people out there who need to not only have someone control what they watch, but they also feel the need to control what other people watch. Turning off the TV or changing the radio station would be entirely too much responsibility for them to take. No, they must protect the entire frickin' world from what they deem to be so incredibly horrible. And the FCC decides that if a handful of people complain about something, then they must be the ones whose voices must be heard. Never mind the MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO AREN'T COMPLAINING, who don't need to have their hands held or eyes or ears covered at every little thing, who are perfectly capable of being adults and deciding for themselves what they and their children are to be exposed to.
And for eons, the FCC has continued to go unchallenged.
Until now.
During the Billboard Music Awards in 2002 and 2003 that were broadcast on Fox, a couple of celebrities let loose with some expletives. In 2006 (it took 3 and 4 years to arrive at this decision?), the FCC cited Fox for those expletives. Fox challenged the citation since the FCC had a history of not issuing citations in cases where it was basically an outburst during a live show, and the challenge has been upheld by a federal appeals court. The FCC has asked the Supreme Court to address the issue, and in a move that is surprising to many, the Supreme Court has agreed. Some have speculated that the Supreme Court could review not only the specific instances of one-time live outbursts but also the FCC's indecency policy altogether, which operates under the guise that it is in place to protect children who may be watching. The last time that the Supreme Court ruled on an indecency matter was in 1978 involving a radio case, but many argue that an updated precedent needs to be set in these technologically-advanced times when parents have many options on devices that can control what their children watch.
I have no idea how the Supreme Court is going to rule, but I'm optimistic that no matter how they rule, there will at least be some kind of guideline set for what's acceptable, something the FCC has refused to do. And hopefully, the Supreme Court will take into account the changed society we live in today where Ricky and Lucy Ricardo, a married couple, no longer have to sleep in separate beds.
I originally read about this story in Daily Variety yesterday, but stories about this are pretty much all over. Here's a Reuters article, here's an Adweek article, here's a San Francisco Chronicle article, and here's an AFP article.
And I could see where people can expect that if they're seeing a family show, they're not going to encounter nudity or anything remotely resembling bad language. But if you're watching "NYPD Blue", you're really going to be outraged by seeing some kind of nudity or hearing some bad language? If you're watching that kind of show, you don't expect something more than sunshine and light? Heck, blood and violence are apparently ok, but love and sex are considered obscene? In any case, if you're letting your kids watch that show, then you're an idiot. If you happen to be channel-surfing during the two seconds that the nudity is shown, then that's just bad luck on your part. And even then, are your sensibilities so paper thin that brief nudity is going to create a chasm in your soul?
Even in a case where broadcasters requested ahead of time for some guidance on whether a particular broadcast would be considered indecent, the FCC refused to cooperate. And we're not talking about television stations wanting to show something like Playboy After Dark. No, the indecent, heinous thing they wanted to show on broadcast television was "Saving Private Ryan" around Veteran's Day in 2004. The FCC refused to say ahead of time whether they would fine stations for showing that movie. It's not like you didn't know what the movie was about. It's not a sexual romp or anything like that. It's a film about the very real trauma experienced by soldiers during a war. Usually with that kind of thing, they have disclaimers and such broadcast repeatedly, so it's not like you're not going to know what you're watching. And it's not just for sensationalism's sake. It's history. Ooooo, but it's not appropriate. Bite me.
But there are people out there who need to not only have someone control what they watch, but they also feel the need to control what other people watch. Turning off the TV or changing the radio station would be entirely too much responsibility for them to take. No, they must protect the entire frickin' world from what they deem to be so incredibly horrible. And the FCC decides that if a handful of people complain about something, then they must be the ones whose voices must be heard. Never mind the MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO AREN'T COMPLAINING, who don't need to have their hands held or eyes or ears covered at every little thing, who are perfectly capable of being adults and deciding for themselves what they and their children are to be exposed to.
And for eons, the FCC has continued to go unchallenged.
Until now.
During the Billboard Music Awards in 2002 and 2003 that were broadcast on Fox, a couple of celebrities let loose with some expletives. In 2006 (it took 3 and 4 years to arrive at this decision?), the FCC cited Fox for those expletives. Fox challenged the citation since the FCC had a history of not issuing citations in cases where it was basically an outburst during a live show, and the challenge has been upheld by a federal appeals court. The FCC has asked the Supreme Court to address the issue, and in a move that is surprising to many, the Supreme Court has agreed. Some have speculated that the Supreme Court could review not only the specific instances of one-time live outbursts but also the FCC's indecency policy altogether, which operates under the guise that it is in place to protect children who may be watching. The last time that the Supreme Court ruled on an indecency matter was in 1978 involving a radio case, but many argue that an updated precedent needs to be set in these technologically-advanced times when parents have many options on devices that can control what their children watch.
I have no idea how the Supreme Court is going to rule, but I'm optimistic that no matter how they rule, there will at least be some kind of guideline set for what's acceptable, something the FCC has refused to do. And hopefully, the Supreme Court will take into account the changed society we live in today where Ricky and Lucy Ricardo, a married couple, no longer have to sleep in separate beds.
I originally read about this story in Daily Variety yesterday, but stories about this are pretty much all over. Here's a Reuters article, here's an Adweek article, here's a San Francisco Chronicle article, and here's an AFP article.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
what is wrong with this picture?
I read a couple of advice columns for fun. There are times I wonder if people are just making stuff up. It's not necessarily the situation itself, but the fact that they would feel the need to write and ask.
Here's a situation that was posed recently:
1. He had a girlfriend when you met up, and yet you took up with him anyway. Your fault just as much as his.
2. "He refuses to break up with me." So he's forcing you to speak to him and see him? Howzabout YOU break up with HIM?
3. "She has done nothing to deserve him leaving her." So what has she done to deserve him cheating on her? If she deserves for him to stay with her even though he's cheating on her, she must be a pretty awful person.
4. "What do you suggest I do?" Have your head examined.
See why I don't write advice columns anymore?
Here's a situation that was posed recently:
I am involved with a man who had a girlfriend when I met him. He refuses to break up with her and refuses to break up with me. He says he has a good heart and that she has done nothing to deserve him leaving her, but that he wants me to prove my love over time "before giving up certainty for uncertainty." What do you suggest I do?
1. He had a girlfriend when you met up, and yet you took up with him anyway. Your fault just as much as his.
2. "He refuses to break up with me." So he's forcing you to speak to him and see him? Howzabout YOU break up with HIM?
3. "She has done nothing to deserve him leaving her." So what has she done to deserve him cheating on her? If she deserves for him to stay with her even though he's cheating on her, she must be a pretty awful person.
4. "What do you suggest I do?" Have your head examined.
See why I don't write advice columns anymore?
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, part 2
Situation 1
We were doing some cleaning up around the house yesterday. We'd bought some nuts/dried fruit/candy about two weeks ago, and I hadn't gotten around to putting them away in the pantry, so they were still in the grocery bags on the floor of the kitchen. I had noticed that the husband had pulled out one of the dried fruit containers a couple days ago and was snacking on them when he was watching TV. So imagine my surprise as I was going through the bags and found that very same container in one of the bags. He had taken the container out, snacked on the fruit and then when it came time to put them away, instead of putting that container in the pantry where it belonged, he had just put it back in the bag, on the kitchen floor. He said that he had just not wanted to deal with finding space for it in the pantry, which was pretty full and disorganized.
I told him he was such a guy.
Situation 2
This is Porthos, Jonathan Archer's beagle dog from "Star Trek Enterprise".
This is Snoopy, from Peanuts fame, who is also purportedly a beagle.
Exactly what kinds of genetic experiments were the folks at the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm doing?!?!?!?!
We were doing some cleaning up around the house yesterday. We'd bought some nuts/dried fruit/candy about two weeks ago, and I hadn't gotten around to putting them away in the pantry, so they were still in the grocery bags on the floor of the kitchen. I had noticed that the husband had pulled out one of the dried fruit containers a couple days ago and was snacking on them when he was watching TV. So imagine my surprise as I was going through the bags and found that very same container in one of the bags. He had taken the container out, snacked on the fruit and then when it came time to put them away, instead of putting that container in the pantry where it belonged, he had just put it back in the bag, on the kitchen floor. He said that he had just not wanted to deal with finding space for it in the pantry, which was pretty full and disorganized.
I told him he was such a guy.
Situation 2
This is Porthos, Jonathan Archer's beagle dog from "Star Trek Enterprise".
This is Snoopy, from Peanuts fame, who is also purportedly a beagle.
Exactly what kinds of genetic experiments were the folks at the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm doing?!?!?!?!
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
OK, first, a disclosure. I didn't make up the blurb that I'm using as the title of this entry. I saw it on a website that I read, and it took me a second to figure it out, but once I did, I loved it.
OK, so I've had a few Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moments in the last couple weeks:
Situation 1
This has been going on for a couple of months now, but the component parts have just escalated. Now, people who know me well will know that I do not suffer fools easily. But sometimes, when the fools are people I have to deal with because of work, I have to suffer them more than in non-work situations. Screaming at someone, whether on the phone or over email, "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?" is not something that I can do at work. It's taking everything I've got to maintain a professional demeanor with this person ("A"), and I've already decided that I'm keeping all my interaction via email only. With email, I can wait until I've calmed down before I respond, and I can edit and re-edit my response before sending it. I'm not confident that I'll have the same self-control on the phone.
strike one
There had been some discussion on a particular document I was working on as there had been several drafts. When asked for the latest, I sent through a July draft. "A" references an October draft of the document, that the October draft must be the most current, and can I confirm the terms of the document. I reiterate that the July draft is more current and explain the circumstances of how it arose. "A" again responds that the October draft must be most current, and "A" just needs me to confirm the terms. Pissed off beyond all belief that I even have to make this distinction, I point out in no uncertain terms that while it was November 2007 at the time, the October draft was not in fact more recent than the July draft as the October draft was clearly dated October 2006 whereas the July draft was clearly dated July 2007. OH MY HECK!!!!!
strike two
With regard to a different document, "A" told me that the current annual number of 9600 is incorrect as the number had been increased, so I should use 1200 instead. I responded to say that we're using annual amounts, not monthly, so I need the annual amount. "A" again responded that it should be 1200. I asked one more time if "A" was sure that the number had been decreased from 9600 to 1200 or whether "A" really meant 12000. "A" responded that oh yeah, "A" meant 12000. OH MY DOUBLE HECK!!!!!
strike three (and you're out)
Regarding a different annual number, "A" said that the current 3600 is incorrect and should be 2600 instead. I responded to ask if "A" was sure about that since 3600 had been what's been used in all other similar situations. "A" responded that yes, it's 2600. Another person asked if it shouldn't be 3600 since the monthly number is 300, which you multiply by 12. "A" then responded that oh, yeah, it's 3600. AAAAUUUUGGGHHHH!!!!!
Situation 2
Yesterday, I had lunch in a cafeteria-type environment. I was enjoying my soup and the book that I was reading. Random person walking by my table pointed to my book and said to me, "Where'd you get that book?" I looked at her and said, "At the bookstore." She smiled back at me and said, "Oh, yeah, the bookstore" and continued on her way.
This wasn't like a doctor's office or something where there's a corner of reading material, and someone might not know where the reading material was. And I've gotten stopped before by random strangers because they liked my shoes or my shirt or my jacket and wanted to know where I got it. That at least makes sense since particular designs are available in particular places. But a book? Aren't they pretty much available in lots of locations? OK, so maybe the local grocery store or the kiosk at the airport won't have something because they only carry a small number of books, but any large bookstore or something like Amazon would either have in stock or be able to order pretty much anything.
And I wasn't reading a rare book or a first edition or anything limited like that. It's a very popular book, so much so that even though it's not a recently-released book, I picked it up off the shelf at Borders a week ago.
OK, so I've had a few Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moments in the last couple weeks:
Situation 1
This has been going on for a couple of months now, but the component parts have just escalated. Now, people who know me well will know that I do not suffer fools easily. But sometimes, when the fools are people I have to deal with because of work, I have to suffer them more than in non-work situations. Screaming at someone, whether on the phone or over email, "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?" is not something that I can do at work. It's taking everything I've got to maintain a professional demeanor with this person ("A"), and I've already decided that I'm keeping all my interaction via email only. With email, I can wait until I've calmed down before I respond, and I can edit and re-edit my response before sending it. I'm not confident that I'll have the same self-control on the phone.
strike one
There had been some discussion on a particular document I was working on as there had been several drafts. When asked for the latest, I sent through a July draft. "A" references an October draft of the document, that the October draft must be the most current, and can I confirm the terms of the document. I reiterate that the July draft is more current and explain the circumstances of how it arose. "A" again responds that the October draft must be most current, and "A" just needs me to confirm the terms. Pissed off beyond all belief that I even have to make this distinction, I point out in no uncertain terms that while it was November 2007 at the time, the October draft was not in fact more recent than the July draft as the October draft was clearly dated October 2006 whereas the July draft was clearly dated July 2007. OH MY HECK!!!!!
strike two
With regard to a different document, "A" told me that the current annual number of 9600 is incorrect as the number had been increased, so I should use 1200 instead. I responded to say that we're using annual amounts, not monthly, so I need the annual amount. "A" again responded that it should be 1200. I asked one more time if "A" was sure that the number had been decreased from 9600 to 1200 or whether "A" really meant 12000. "A" responded that oh yeah, "A" meant 12000. OH MY DOUBLE HECK!!!!!
strike three (and you're out)
Regarding a different annual number, "A" said that the current 3600 is incorrect and should be 2600 instead. I responded to ask if "A" was sure about that since 3600 had been what's been used in all other similar situations. "A" responded that yes, it's 2600. Another person asked if it shouldn't be 3600 since the monthly number is 300, which you multiply by 12. "A" then responded that oh, yeah, it's 3600. AAAAUUUUGGGHHHH!!!!!
Situation 2
Yesterday, I had lunch in a cafeteria-type environment. I was enjoying my soup and the book that I was reading. Random person walking by my table pointed to my book and said to me, "Where'd you get that book?" I looked at her and said, "At the bookstore." She smiled back at me and said, "Oh, yeah, the bookstore" and continued on her way.
This wasn't like a doctor's office or something where there's a corner of reading material, and someone might not know where the reading material was. And I've gotten stopped before by random strangers because they liked my shoes or my shirt or my jacket and wanted to know where I got it. That at least makes sense since particular designs are available in particular places. But a book? Aren't they pretty much available in lots of locations? OK, so maybe the local grocery store or the kiosk at the airport won't have something because they only carry a small number of books, but any large bookstore or something like Amazon would either have in stock or be able to order pretty much anything.
And I wasn't reading a rare book or a first edition or anything limited like that. It's a very popular book, so much so that even though it's not a recently-released book, I picked it up off the shelf at Borders a week ago.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
pet peeve
My schedule hasn't changed that much. So let's not start in again with the "you must not like me as much now because we never see each other anymore" crap. Everybody has their schedules and interests. Things happen. That kind of guilt doesn't really work with me. It just serves to irritate me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
