That is a really, really, REALLY big dog. Woah.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Oklahoma sucks
Oklahoma has passed a law requiring the publishing on a website the personal information about every woman who has an abortion performed in the state.
They're going to require women to provide, among other things, age, marital status, previous pregnancies/miscarriages/abortions, education level, race, residence, relationship to the father (but not any information about the father, of course) - not names (not yet). To what purpose is this data being made public? There is enough information here to identify someone from a smaller communities - its only purpose can be to bully women out of seeking an abortion and frighten doctors out of providing them. I'm not against collecting data - that helps provide the basis for programs and funding, but making it public? For what purpose?
What about the privacy of medical records? OH, don't worry - they're just collecting statistical data and, well, lookie-lookie, the identity and privacy of the father is not being reported. So, no harm, no foul, right?. I mean, we're only punishing those sluts who get pregnant and have an abortion, right? (In fact, the law was proposed as a measure to eliminate abortions based on the gender of the fetus - how that relates to this law, I can't figure out). What the fuck is wrong with people?
I wonder how they'd feel if a law was passed requiring that the identifying information about the father was also collected, or perhaps everyone who buys alcohol, or viagra, or perhaps tracking what church they attend? This law is simply an invitation for women to be abused and shamed by a bunch of narrow-minded religious zealots intent on banning abortion. Great approach, don't you think?
I suppose we can rely on red-state Oklahoma to pass some of the most backward, misogynist laws imaginable, and, while screeching about government getting it's hands out of their business, will give one tremendous fuck you to women in the state.
Unbelieveable.
They're going to require women to provide, among other things, age, marital status, previous pregnancies/miscarriages/abortions, education level, race, residence, relationship to the father (but not any information about the father, of course) - not names (not yet). To what purpose is this data being made public? There is enough information here to identify someone from a smaller communities - its only purpose can be to bully women out of seeking an abortion and frighten doctors out of providing them. I'm not against collecting data - that helps provide the basis for programs and funding, but making it public? For what purpose?
What about the privacy of medical records? OH, don't worry - they're just collecting statistical data and, well, lookie-lookie, the identity and privacy of the father is not being reported. So, no harm, no foul, right?. I mean, we're only punishing those sluts who get pregnant and have an abortion, right? (In fact, the law was proposed as a measure to eliminate abortions based on the gender of the fetus - how that relates to this law, I can't figure out). What the fuck is wrong with people?
I wonder how they'd feel if a law was passed requiring that the identifying information about the father was also collected, or perhaps everyone who buys alcohol, or viagra, or perhaps tracking what church they attend? This law is simply an invitation for women to be abused and shamed by a bunch of narrow-minded religious zealots intent on banning abortion. Great approach, don't you think?
I suppose we can rely on red-state Oklahoma to pass some of the most backward, misogynist laws imaginable, and, while screeching about government getting it's hands out of their business, will give one tremendous fuck you to women in the state.
Unbelieveable.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Regretsy
If you're not familiar with Etsy, it's an online marketplace for crafters and artisans to sell their stuff. Some is fabulous (a lot of jewelry makers and fun t-shirts, for example) and some is rather horrifying.
This, though...THIS is funny. The Regretsy blog -- highlighting the weird, the wonderful and the simply odd.
This, though...THIS is funny. The Regretsy blog -- highlighting the weird, the wonderful and the simply odd.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Fully Conservative!
I can't decide whether to laugh or sigh over this one. Apparently conservatives over at the near-parody site, Conservapaedia (where they have started to define their own little reality, as opposed to the rest of the world, I guess) aren't happy with the Bible and have decided to rewrite it. (And no, this is apparently not a hoax nor a bad joke.)
That Jesus fellow was a bit too liberal for them. Too much 'give to the poor', 'care for your neighbor' and 'do unto others'. Nope! They want more support for the free market, less touchy-feely niceness, more condemnation, more paternalism, and more hellfire and damnation.
I shouldn't be surprised, I guess. Every single religious group wants to rewrite the bible/reinterpret the bible to fit their own views. That it took this long for "conservatives" to add their heavy-handed dose of moralism and politics to to the list is the actual surprise. I'm sure this version will emphasize their "family values", even if it means bastardizing the text to do so.
Where they got the idea that it was the "liberals" who wrote, edited, collated, and interpreted the bible, I have no idea. Obviously they aren't that knowledgeable about biblical (or world) history. But they want a Whole New Bible with all the 'bias' removed. Because, you know, two thousand years of biblical criticism, theology, and religious analysis have been totally wrong the whole time! Aren't you just quivering with excitement that a bunch of 'conservatives" have decided to FIX the bible?
What about the Biblical Literalists? Aren't the most conservative of the christian sects on the end of the spectrum that believes the bible is without flaw? And even if it is not inerrant, it is divinely inspired..do they really believe that everyone is wrong and that rewriting it is necessary? Will anyone using another bible transation be considered an un-believer now, since the message is changed? So much for the Bible as a holy book with inspirational power, eh?
And, just to add a dose of hilarity to the process - -they aren't actually going to go back to the original texts...they are going to rewrite the King James Version of the bible to fit their lovely set of beliefs. I suppose it's like a meaner, less-accurate version than the Surfer Bible, when you come right down to it. A target for ridicule and mockery, nothing more.
And just look at the criteria! I had no idea that christians were clamoring for a "fully conservative" version of the bible. Can you even call that a bible anymore?
That Jesus fellow was a bit too liberal for them. Too much 'give to the poor', 'care for your neighbor' and 'do unto others'. Nope! They want more support for the free market, less touchy-feely niceness, more condemnation, more paternalism, and more hellfire and damnation.
I shouldn't be surprised, I guess. Every single religious group wants to rewrite the bible/reinterpret the bible to fit their own views. That it took this long for "conservatives" to add their heavy-handed dose of moralism and politics to to the list is the actual surprise. I'm sure this version will emphasize their "family values", even if it means bastardizing the text to do so.
Where they got the idea that it was the "liberals" who wrote, edited, collated, and interpreted the bible, I have no idea. Obviously they aren't that knowledgeable about biblical (or world) history. But they want a Whole New Bible with all the 'bias' removed. Because, you know, two thousand years of biblical criticism, theology, and religious analysis have been totally wrong the whole time! Aren't you just quivering with excitement that a bunch of 'conservatives" have decided to FIX the bible?
What about the Biblical Literalists? Aren't the most conservative of the christian sects on the end of the spectrum that believes the bible is without flaw? And even if it is not inerrant, it is divinely inspired..do they really believe that everyone is wrong and that rewriting it is necessary? Will anyone using another bible transation be considered an un-believer now, since the message is changed? So much for the Bible as a holy book with inspirational power, eh?
And, just to add a dose of hilarity to the process - -they aren't actually going to go back to the original texts...they are going to rewrite the King James Version of the bible to fit their lovely set of beliefs. I suppose it's like a meaner, less-accurate version than the Surfer Bible, when you come right down to it. A target for ridicule and mockery, nothing more.
And just look at the criteria! I had no idea that christians were clamoring for a "fully conservative" version of the bible. Can you even call that a bible anymore?
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:
1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
Oh, yes, gotta make sure to preserve that paternalistic, opporessive male-dominated society. Them uppity wimmen are just causing problems left and right. (I'm curious where they are finding 'gender inclusive' language in any standard translation of the bible, except perhaps for humankind instead of mankind.) Is that what is emasculating? That we might say "humankind" or take the meaning of 'mankind' to mean men and women? Ok, let's go back to the sexist language of the bible and make sure to put women in their place - at home, as chattel. Oh, goody.
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
So, they should be reading in the original Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin, right? Admittedly, there are a boatload of "new age" translations of the bible that remove the purposely archaic and ponderous language of the KJV to make it more accessible to many people. It is dumbed down if it doens't contain the thees and thous and spakests? On what do they base the idea that a passage is "dumbed down"? -- just disliking the text is not reason enough. Well, ok, maybe it is for them. The KJV is already a primarily word-for-word translation, and the NIV is only slightly more understandable.
Anyone who has actually tried to read the bible in any of the original languages, or in a word-for-word parallel translation, would never say that the bible is 'dumbed down' and needs to be fixed. And, without understanding the very complex koine Greek (the original language of the New Testament), how can they possibly make any word changes based on the KJV alone? That is just dishonest and deceitful. But, truth doesn't seem to be the goal of this particular endeavor.
And, how insulting - the NIV is the 1978 translation of the Bible, long hailed as a very good translation, and is the most popular bible translation used by evangelical churches. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to be told that they are wrong.
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as “word”, “peace”, and “miracle”.
Oh, yes. Because the original Hebrew and Greek texts used the wrong word. Words have specific meaning that can't just be discardes. That's staying true to the message of the original text. So this version is going to be specifically geared towards a conservative political and social agenda, no matter what the actual words in the original are. They don't really matter any more -- it's the way that they can be used and twisted now that are important. Gotcha. That sort of throws the infallibility and god's word part of biblical history down the tubes. And on what sort of scholarship do they base the comment "defective translation"? None, I'm guessing. I'm sure it's "We really want Jesus to say HATE here instead of FORGIVE, so we'll just change his words a teeny little bit...there! Now our social agenda has a biblical basis!"
This is the "goal" that is most objectionable, actually. What in the hell are 'powerful conservative terms"? Loaded code words? Why is the use of comrade - a venerable and context-appropriate word, objectionable? Because to the simple-minded it cannot mean anything except a left-wing label? Comrade and volunteer are not the same word and have very different meanings. What purpose replacing them except to skew the text?
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;[5] using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
Conservative religion is nothing without the opportunity to threaten your opponents with hell and damnation. The bible actually has very little to say about hell...they must be adding it in to fulfil their own fantasy. Kind of scary, actually. And, this really sort of contradicts number 8 below about 'adding shit in that wasn't there to start with'. Must be ok if its their stuff.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
Oh, because first century prophets were proponents of the free-market philosophy and Jesus was all for corporate sponsorship and wide-open capitalism. Well, that's obvious! How could we have missed that in the existing text?
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
Um, inserted by who, exactly. What about the later-inserted passages that aren't so liberal, but that support their ideology...those are ok, right? These right-wing ideologs know better than the combined scholarship of the church history, what should and shouldn't be included? And we're talking about the collection of stories with possibly hundreds of authors, copied and rewritten hundreds of times with all the intention and unintentional changes that entails. THsi is like making a copy of a copy of a copy a thousand times removed and claiming that you have recovered the original meaning. What unmitigated arrogance.
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
Ah, so we can pick and choose which bits of the gospel they want to believe, because all those other authors aren't as accurate as a purported eyewitness without much evidence and who wrote contradictory stories. Got it.
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.”
But they're not going to "dumb down" the bible, (see 3, above), just remove all that exceess, high-falutin' academic wordiness...complex ideas can rarely be expressed in simple terms, but these idiots are more concerned with the appearance of intellectualism than with actual accuracy. Hah. And what is "word-to-substance' ratio? I suppose that some of the more nuanced ideas might be a bit too dififcult for the Fox News cohort to grasp. They seem to want a soundbite bible, without any neccessity for actual critical thought or worry about shades of gray in interpretation.
They also don't seem to understand the reasons behind the different words and the ambiguities in the bible - preferring instead to gloss over the different authors, different ideas, different contexts to clarify their New Word for a simpler, more gullible audience.
What idiots.
It's not much different than the thousands of interpretatios and 'teachings' put forward by various churches, really. I've heard some really ridiculous and somewhat scary "meanings" attributed to bible verses by some people. So finally trying to codify your own "version' of the bible by publishing your edited, bowdlerized, "special" version isn't too far off. It's the next step, I guess - you can now claim the bible says anything you want, just rewrite it to say what you want and voila! Instant validation, espeically if you can still manage to claim divine inerrancy and the factual truth of the now-rewritten bible you just produced. How convenient.
Now, I don't take anything in the bible is anything more than allegorical myth, but I do accept that there is a historical body of scholarship that lies behind it. There are reasons that it says what it says, and contains what it contains, and you can evaluate the context, history, authorship, and concordance of the bible based on well-accepted criteria. As a work of literature, it has a long and colorful history. As a work of religious expression, it has been used and misused through history to rationalize and justify behavior, both good and bad.
I suppose that I should not be so upset over this particular revision - with several hundred bible revisions in English alone, the differences and changes are monumental already. I just recoil at the idea of rewriting it with a specific purpose in mind and presenting it as a 'corrected version' that fundamentally intends to change the content, not just the dialect, with very little scholarly input. It is as offensive an effort as expurgating classics, like rewriting Huck Finn to eliminate the racial content because it offended someone, or changing Shakespeare to eliminate "new" word usage, which are considered a gift to the English language. Neither of these things is improved by changing content, which is far different than translation. It's one thing to express the intent of the text in another language (even Cockney or Ska!) , quite another to change the meaning of the words without valid reason to.
logos (word) does not equal Truth, no matter how much you want it to (one of the suggestions is to replace the word "word" in the beginning of the Gospel of John, and replace it with "truth"). The rest of their "examples" on the website are equally specious. Shrewd does not equal resourceful, unless you intend to change the meaning of the passage. And only in the mind of a fanatic does using the word 'laborer' mean that the author has a socialist agenda. Tin-foil hat time, people. Get a grip.
Do we really need a more conservative message shouted from the pulpit? -- that's the way to create a Christian Taliban: don't question, don't think, just obey the hyped-up language and political ideals spoken from a religious leader. This rewrite seems to imply that every christian worshipping today needs to be more conservative, to combat some imagined flaw in society. And if you aren't that conservative, you are reading a dumbed down version (NIV) and not getting the 'real' message. That turns the tables a bit, actually - how often have non-believers heard "you're not reading it right. You don't understand it properly".
I think the bible has a lot of good ideas in it, and I think that using it as a guide for figuring out 'the truth' helps a lot of people. But combine the idea that 'we need to conservatize the bible with a political agenda' with the widespread acceptance of the bible as "gods words" - how many people will go along with the idea and shove the philisophy of the christian church even further to the right?
Hopefully, this farce will be rejected for what it is: a novelty, a boutique version of a book that is clearly recognized as a parody or amusing alternative version. Hell, the bible has been translated into Klingon and Elvish, there is a Rasta version and Surfer Bible and and Illumintaed Goth version. I think, though, that these translations are not trying to change the basic message, as the Conservapaedia version seems to intend. Hence, my complaint.
Well, maybe not the Klingon version. I can't imagine they're all into the Golden Rule.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Push Poll
I got an automated push-poll from Huckabee this weekend that really irked me. Now, I tend to get calls for polls all the time from a variety of sources and I usually participate. I was quite fun when I was targeted by polls from every single candidate in the last election --I was getting two or three a day for a while right before the election.
At any rate, this one seemed like a particularly egregious push poll. I know that writing poll questions is an art -- the slightest change of wording in a question can radically change the response, and skilled question writers are in demand to get the questions "just right" so they get the answers they want. It's usually fun to figure out what the goal of a particular poll is based on the questions, and some are so biased to one particular answer that they are hard to respond to at all. Equating two unrelated things, for example (Do you think Obama should force through a public option regardless of public opinion, or should he institute death panels?) is one common approach.
At any rate, this started off with Huckabee's cheerful announcement that we were facing the worst crisis ever in health care and we needed to act and asked if I was willing to answer a few questions on "issues facing the nation". Sure. Why not?
First question: Do you consider yourself "pro-life"?. In the politically charged parlance of the anti-abortionists agenda, no, I do not. (I am always angered by the semantics used by them, too - the opposite of pro-life is not anti-life or pro-abortion, but that's a screed for another time). In any case, I replied 'no' to the voice-recognition poll.
There was a pause, a click, and then "thank you. We have a few demographic questions for you. Are you male? Thank you." Click.
The poll was apparently designed to either ignore or minimize any "non-pro-life" respondents, as far as I can tell. It definitely felt as if it was just cut off when I didn't answer in the positive to their filtering question. Would there have been further questions about health care and immigration and the rest of the issues Huckabee is always peddling if I had said that I was a pro-life voter? Will my response, that I don't agree with his basic premise, even be counted? Push polls are generally biased and heavy-handed, but this was surprising.
Most of the time these things don't bother me -- I've been called with questions that are pretty questionable from politicians of all sides, so this is not a right-wing or left-wing problem--it was just the abrupt nature of "oh, you didn't answer our question properly, we don't want YOUR opinion" that I came away with that left me feeling angry and testy.
I'm just too crabby today I guess. Ishoudl be outside in the cool, cool weather and enjoying the beautiful fall day.
At any rate, this one seemed like a particularly egregious push poll. I know that writing poll questions is an art -- the slightest change of wording in a question can radically change the response, and skilled question writers are in demand to get the questions "just right" so they get the answers they want. It's usually fun to figure out what the goal of a particular poll is based on the questions, and some are so biased to one particular answer that they are hard to respond to at all. Equating two unrelated things, for example (Do you think Obama should force through a public option regardless of public opinion, or should he institute death panels?) is one common approach.
At any rate, this started off with Huckabee's cheerful announcement that we were facing the worst crisis ever in health care and we needed to act and asked if I was willing to answer a few questions on "issues facing the nation". Sure. Why not?
First question: Do you consider yourself "pro-life"?. In the politically charged parlance of the anti-abortionists agenda, no, I do not. (I am always angered by the semantics used by them, too - the opposite of pro-life is not anti-life or pro-abortion, but that's a screed for another time). In any case, I replied 'no' to the voice-recognition poll.
There was a pause, a click, and then "thank you. We have a few demographic questions for you. Are you male? Thank you." Click.
The poll was apparently designed to either ignore or minimize any "non-pro-life" respondents, as far as I can tell. It definitely felt as if it was just cut off when I didn't answer in the positive to their filtering question. Would there have been further questions about health care and immigration and the rest of the issues Huckabee is always peddling if I had said that I was a pro-life voter? Will my response, that I don't agree with his basic premise, even be counted? Push polls are generally biased and heavy-handed, but this was surprising.
Most of the time these things don't bother me -- I've been called with questions that are pretty questionable from politicians of all sides, so this is not a right-wing or left-wing problem--it was just the abrupt nature of "oh, you didn't answer our question properly, we don't want YOUR opinion" that I came away with that left me feeling angry and testy.
I'm just too crabby today I guess. Ishoudl be outside in the cool, cool weather and enjoying the beautiful fall day.
Over the line
I disliked George Bush a lot. I thought he was a nasty piece of work, as did a lot of Democrats, Progressives, and Liberals. For eight years, we criticized his policies and actions.
I don't recall seeing the sort of hate speech that is currently being directed at Obama, being said about George Bush. I see signs to "kill him!", quotes from teabaggers that he should be killed, people openly carrying guns to his speeches, the knuckle-dragging gun nuts buying up guns and ammo "just in case" -- and stuf like this - a facebook pool "should Obama be killed?" (not the actual poll, but a screenshot and note on another blog).
No, I don't think this was a "joke". No, I don't think this was even remotely funny. I hope the secrete service pays a visit to this person. I'm not sure what this says about the conservative mindset or "the base" who is screaming about Obama, except that these are not the sort of people that I want in control of anything.
I don't recall seeing the sort of hate speech that is currently being directed at Obama, being said about George Bush. I see signs to "kill him!", quotes from teabaggers that he should be killed, people openly carrying guns to his speeches, the knuckle-dragging gun nuts buying up guns and ammo "just in case" -- and stuf like this - a facebook pool "should Obama be killed?" (not the actual poll, but a screenshot and note on another blog).
No, I don't think this was a "joke". No, I don't think this was even remotely funny. I hope the secrete service pays a visit to this person. I'm not sure what this says about the conservative mindset or "the base" who is screaming about Obama, except that these are not the sort of people that I want in control of anything.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Joy of...Reheating?
Isn't this just the most oxymoronic product that ever existed? The Joy of Cooking was supposed to bring fresh cooking to the family table easily and without any muss or fuss...and they are now marketing prepared-ready-to-heat foods in the supermarket."Our products conveniently located in a single freezer door"
Um, doesn't that sort of fly in the face of, say, cooking?
Sure, prepared foods are much easier on the schedule, but I have to admit that I laughed at the source. I haven't had any of them, but reviews online are not particularly positive. Like any mass-produced, pre-packaged meals, they tend to be overly salty and unimaginative.
Of course, I shouldn't throw stones from my glass house. We don't often cook anything more complicated than baked chicken or paninis at home anymore. We've succumbed to the idea that our time is better spent elsewhere (and indeed, while it was available, we relied on Entres Vous for our meals). But Joy of Cooking Foods? Couldn't they have at least changed the name?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Nerdiest Nerd Ever
Ok, I'm the nerdiest nerd ever. I just loved this! Brilliant!
Jones soda has released the Dungeons and Dragons Limited Edition Spellcasting Soda. It comes in Sneak Attack, Potion of Healing, Illithid Brain Juice, Dwarven Draught, and Bigby's Crushing Thirst Destroyer. I totally need some of this!
BRILLIANT!
Jones soda has released the Dungeons and Dragons Limited Edition Spellcasting Soda. It comes in Sneak Attack, Potion of Healing, Illithid Brain Juice, Dwarven Draught, and Bigby's Crushing Thirst Destroyer. I totally need some of this!
BRILLIANT!
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Fast Food Neophyte
We went to KFC for chicken for dinner today, as we are wont to do every so often, and as we sat in the restaurant eating our chicken bits and mashed potatoes...a couple and their little girl came in.
Their food arrives, and within seconds, the mom is back up at the counter 'returning' her mashed potatoes and gravy and asking for "fresh ones" because they have been sitting in the warmer for a while. (they package up the cups of potatoes and gravy and keep them warm, this has always been true). She is given a new order of mashed potatoes and gravy. Fair enough. Perhaps they were cold or the gravy was lumpy, I don't know.
But then, moment after she bustled back to her seat and rejoined her family, she is once again up to accost one of the clerks because her sandwich isn't "right". When poor employee made the mistake of asking what was wrong with it, she dragged him up to the counter to complain that her little snack sandwhich had 'the wrong bread' and didn't look like the picture on the menu. She actually pointed and demanded that this poor person acknowledge that the bread she had was different than the bread on the picture.
What?
Really, lady? You're browbeating a minimum wage employee because your sandwich DOESN'T LOOK LIKE the picture on the giant menu?
Have you never eaten at a fast food restaurant before? The food NEVER looks like the picture on the menu. That food is carefully arranged and painstakingly photographed to be the best looking food ever. The food actually made at whatever restaurant you have decided to frequent, is usually hot, usually fresh, but it's not photo-ready.
Oh, but she continued her tirade, demanding to know the phone number of the "higher up" manager (as opposed to the teenage manager on duty) to complain about how this was totally unacceptable. It didn't LOOK like that picture, not at all, totally different bread and they spent twenty whole dollars on dinner and they could have, you know, gone somewhere else and gotten fresh, carefully prepared food. Yes, she actually said that.
It was all the Adorable Husband and I could do, to not laugh out loud at them. We just rolled our eyes and snarked quietly as they continued dinner, with at least one more visit to the counter to complain about something else.
For pete's sake, you went to KFC. What did you expect? Haute cuisine and lovingly prepared entrees? Get a grip!
Their food arrives, and within seconds, the mom is back up at the counter 'returning' her mashed potatoes and gravy and asking for "fresh ones" because they have been sitting in the warmer for a while. (they package up the cups of potatoes and gravy and keep them warm, this has always been true). She is given a new order of mashed potatoes and gravy. Fair enough. Perhaps they were cold or the gravy was lumpy, I don't know.
But then, moment after she bustled back to her seat and rejoined her family, she is once again up to accost one of the clerks because her sandwich isn't "right". When poor employee made the mistake of asking what was wrong with it, she dragged him up to the counter to complain that her little snack sandwhich had 'the wrong bread' and didn't look like the picture on the menu. She actually pointed and demanded that this poor person acknowledge that the bread she had was different than the bread on the picture.
What?
Really, lady? You're browbeating a minimum wage employee because your sandwich DOESN'T LOOK LIKE the picture on the giant menu?
Have you never eaten at a fast food restaurant before? The food NEVER looks like the picture on the menu. That food is carefully arranged and painstakingly photographed to be the best looking food ever. The food actually made at whatever restaurant you have decided to frequent, is usually hot, usually fresh, but it's not photo-ready.
Oh, but she continued her tirade, demanding to know the phone number of the "higher up" manager (as opposed to the teenage manager on duty) to complain about how this was totally unacceptable. It didn't LOOK like that picture, not at all, totally different bread and they spent twenty whole dollars on dinner and they could have, you know, gone somewhere else and gotten fresh, carefully prepared food. Yes, she actually said that.
It was all the Adorable Husband and I could do, to not laugh out loud at them. We just rolled our eyes and snarked quietly as they continued dinner, with at least one more visit to the counter to complain about something else.
For pete's sake, you went to KFC. What did you expect? Haute cuisine and lovingly prepared entrees? Get a grip!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Trained Monkeys
I got clued in to some"online computer training' that was being offered (name withheld to protect the innocent) and I've just been laughing my butt off over this.
Go ahead -- try it! Mousing Around Training
Really? Are there actually people out there who don't have any clue whatsoever how to use a mouse on a computer? Well -- perhaps there are. My father is not the most computer-savvy person, and I suppose his first introduction was rather hard for him. But most people are at least familiar with what they are, aren't they?
But eleven slides about the mouse before you even TOUCH it? That has to be the most simplistic training that I"ve ever seen.
I suppose it is a way to make sure that everyone has the same, very basic, knowledge about how to use the mouse and navigate in web pages. Of course, it's a bit insulting that the training is at the "trained monkey could do this" level.
Go ahead -- try it! Mousing Around Training
Really? Are there actually people out there who don't have any clue whatsoever how to use a mouse on a computer? Well -- perhaps there are. My father is not the most computer-savvy person, and I suppose his first introduction was rather hard for him. But most people are at least familiar with what they are, aren't they?
But eleven slides about the mouse before you even TOUCH it? That has to be the most simplistic training that I"ve ever seen.
I suppose it is a way to make sure that everyone has the same, very basic, knowledge about how to use the mouse and navigate in web pages. Of course, it's a bit insulting that the training is at the "trained monkey could do this" level.
Monday, September 14, 2009
"Exotic" mortages
I wish someone would explain why this sort of loan is even legal -- interest only, or worse, an option that lets you pay LESS than the interest payment, so the principal of the loan actually goes up every month.
I know that this sort of thing was popular to allow people who normally couldn't afford the payments to get much more house than they could normally buy. If you only have to pay the interest payments (or less!) then you can get a much more expensive house! You don't need to be "limited" to the houses you can actually pay for, but you can move up a notch and get a bigger McMansion for the same price! (Well, not really, but a lot of people didn't really anticipate this).
Of course, this sort of things works fine when the housing market is booming - your house will increase in value, so you will always be "ahead". But a slump in housing? You might owe substantially more than your house is worth, if you weren't making a dent in the actual loan amount.
That people were encouraged to get loans like this -- and sought them out because of greed or ignorance-- means that these homeowners are now behind the eight ball. They owe more than the house is worth, they are looking at payments that are going to reset and go up dramatically, and they can't afford to actually pay for the house they have already bought. I feel some sympathy for them, but it's tempered with the thought that they should have been more conservative and planned ahead. It's like all the poeple who got adjustable rate mortgages and were "surprised" by the huge increase in their payments as the rates went up 2 or 3 or even 5 percent at a time. How did they not know that was going to happen?
During the worst of the mortgage idiocy, people with no income, no savings, no jobs (I think they were calling them NINJA loans) were getting loans to buy houses. Now, I'm all for home ownership...but if you don't actually have income, you should never qualify, period. Irrational exuberance isn't going to pay the mortage payment when it comes due.
The housing market has improved some - it seems to be on the road to recovery here in Denver, anyway. But still, the house next to us - a new, custom-built home, is still sitting empty after nine months and the asking price has fallen from 740 to 620K. And still, people are just not nibbling. (Well, it is the most expensive house on the culdesac and while it's a nice house, it doesn't look like that much more house than the rest of us.
All the people who are now 'upside down' on their houses are in more desperate straits - many of them are going to just walk away from the deal. I wonder if we're going to see another wave of foreclosures even as the housing market improves, as these loans are adjusted.
And I still see ads on television for loans with no credit check. Aargh.
I know that this sort of thing was popular to allow people who normally couldn't afford the payments to get much more house than they could normally buy. If you only have to pay the interest payments (or less!) then you can get a much more expensive house! You don't need to be "limited" to the houses you can actually pay for, but you can move up a notch and get a bigger McMansion for the same price! (Well, not really, but a lot of people didn't really anticipate this).
Of course, this sort of things works fine when the housing market is booming - your house will increase in value, so you will always be "ahead". But a slump in housing? You might owe substantially more than your house is worth, if you weren't making a dent in the actual loan amount.
That people were encouraged to get loans like this -- and sought them out because of greed or ignorance-- means that these homeowners are now behind the eight ball. They owe more than the house is worth, they are looking at payments that are going to reset and go up dramatically, and they can't afford to actually pay for the house they have already bought. I feel some sympathy for them, but it's tempered with the thought that they should have been more conservative and planned ahead. It's like all the poeple who got adjustable rate mortgages and were "surprised" by the huge increase in their payments as the rates went up 2 or 3 or even 5 percent at a time. How did they not know that was going to happen?
During the worst of the mortgage idiocy, people with no income, no savings, no jobs (I think they were calling them NINJA loans) were getting loans to buy houses. Now, I'm all for home ownership...but if you don't actually have income, you should never qualify, period. Irrational exuberance isn't going to pay the mortage payment when it comes due.
The housing market has improved some - it seems to be on the road to recovery here in Denver, anyway. But still, the house next to us - a new, custom-built home, is still sitting empty after nine months and the asking price has fallen from 740 to 620K. And still, people are just not nibbling. (Well, it is the most expensive house on the culdesac and while it's a nice house, it doesn't look like that much more house than the rest of us.
All the people who are now 'upside down' on their houses are in more desperate straits - many of them are going to just walk away from the deal. I wonder if we're going to see another wave of foreclosures even as the housing market improves, as these loans are adjusted.
And I still see ads on television for loans with no credit check. Aargh.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
FINE Scottish Weather
We spent the day up in Estes Park at the Highland Festival -- and it was cold and rainy and gray the whole day. We were bundled up in good rain jackets and it didn't slow us down at all . Well, a little bit, sitting in the bleachers during the piping competition did get a little chilly and damp, but otherwise, it was a lot of fun.
We watched the Highland Games competition -- who on earth decided that flipping telephone poles end-over-end (caber tossing) was a good idea? Or throwing a 56 pound weight straight up over your head and over a bar 16' up in the air? Throwing rocks, hurling a hammer (a weight on the end of a pole) and flinging weights on chains...it's a show of pure strength in mots cases. The guy who won most of the competitions looks like an Iowa farmboy (well, a bit older now, and he's actually from Missouri, but you know the type). It was a ton of fun and everyone really got into cheering, even in the rain.
We learned the differences between Irish step dancing and Scottish step dancing (not the least of which is that the Irish step dancers have super-extra-curly-bouncy-hair), and sat out in the rain to hear the Piping Band competition - and even spent some time watching the herding dog demonstration. It was a ton of fun.
Lots of people in tartan, men in kilts and women in skirts, bagpipers everywhere, "traditional food", pints of Guinness. It was interesting to watch the men who were wearing the full kit (kilt, sporran, gillies, sporran, etc) : about half of them looked and acted like they were wearing a costume, and the other half were simply wearing clothes. Obviously some are more comfortable in the kilt than others. I think more men should wear them!
I found out that there is a local Gaelic-speaking group that meets in Boulder every week, so I may have to sign on and learn a bit of Scots Gaelic (as opposed to Gailge, or Irish Gaelic). Could be fun - and the group of people at the booth seemed really nice.
We watched the Highland Games competition -- who on earth decided that flipping telephone poles end-over-end (caber tossing) was a good idea? Or throwing a 56 pound weight straight up over your head and over a bar 16' up in the air? Throwing rocks, hurling a hammer (a weight on the end of a pole) and flinging weights on chains...it's a show of pure strength in mots cases. The guy who won most of the competitions looks like an Iowa farmboy (well, a bit older now, and he's actually from Missouri, but you know the type). It was a ton of fun and everyone really got into cheering, even in the rain.
We learned the differences between Irish step dancing and Scottish step dancing (not the least of which is that the Irish step dancers have super-extra-curly-bouncy-hair), and sat out in the rain to hear the Piping Band competition - and even spent some time watching the herding dog demonstration. It was a ton of fun.
Lots of people in tartan, men in kilts and women in skirts, bagpipers everywhere, "traditional food", pints of Guinness. It was interesting to watch the men who were wearing the full kit (kilt, sporran, gillies, sporran, etc) : about half of them looked and acted like they were wearing a costume, and the other half were simply wearing clothes. Obviously some are more comfortable in the kilt than others. I think more men should wear them!
I found out that there is a local Gaelic-speaking group that meets in Boulder every week, so I may have to sign on and learn a bit of Scots Gaelic (as opposed to Gailge, or Irish Gaelic). Could be fun - and the group of people at the booth seemed really nice.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Wild Weekend
We're heading up to the Estes Park Highland Festival this weekend (even though the forecast says 'rain' - we've been toughened up by the recent trip to Scotland and we are quite sure we won't melt). Love the bagpipes, though!
But we are also considering attending the Eagle Potatopalooza! A potato festival! It just makes my little Polish antennae perk right up. A whole day devoted to POTATOES! Woot!
Potato races, baked potato contest, a street fair. All about potatoes!
But we are also considering attending the Eagle Potatopalooza! A potato festival! It just makes my little Polish antennae perk right up. A whole day devoted to POTATOES! Woot!
Potato races, baked potato contest, a street fair. All about potatoes!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Something's off
There is something wrong with the fact that a Kentucky school has not censured or even reacted to the fact that one of their coaches bussed the team to his church and had them baptized without telling the parents...
...yet the same school required parental permission slips for the students to watch President Obama's speech about staying in school and working hard.
...yet the same school required parental permission slips for the students to watch President Obama's speech about staying in school and working hard.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Giant Maps
Mae was kind enough to come over and install the huge mural map that we bought - now we have a fabulous National Geographic map in our upstairs sitting room, just ready for pins and flags and pictures. It covers the whole wall -- it's about 9' x 6'.(The picture is not our house, though -- my camera battery died and so I didn't get a picture of it in situ. I'll replace this one when I get the batteries charged!)
The Adorable Husband and I did not attempt to put this up ourselves - we know that wallpapering is dangerous work. Married couples should not wallpaper - they'll end up yelling at each other. Or at least, crabbing at each other quite seriously.
So I was a bit surprised when Mae (who owns ColorfauxCreations.com) brought her husband (my co-worker) to help. They've put up a few of these, she says. Hah! We definitely detected a bit of snarking between the two of them as they measured andpasted. We stayed far away, and sipped wine in the kitchen with their son (our housesitter). We all got a laugh out fo the fact that we had to cut a hole in the map for the light, which got was smack dab in the middle of Kazakhstan. Since we probably won't be visiting there in th enear future, we aren't going to miss it much.
But we solved the problem with the proper application of good steaks, wine, and fettuccine. Yeah!
Friday, September 04, 2009
Go Green!
Oregon State University researchers say that if you're serious about reducing your carbon footprint, the best way to do it is to have one less child. They claim the effect is almost 20 times greater than recycling, driving a high-mileage car, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs over your entire lifetime.I am hereby going to stop feeling guilty about my carbon footprint and my refusal to use fluorescent light bulbs (which I hate with a white-hot passion that their icky light can't match).
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Onion Strikes Again
BBC: Two Bangladeshi newspapers have apologised after publishing an article taken from a satirical US website which claimed the Moon landings were faked.
The Daily Manab Zamin said US astronaut Neil Armstrong had shocked a news conference by saying he now knew it had been an "elaborate hoax".
Neither they nor the New Nation, which later picked up the story, realised the Onion was not a genuine news site.
Both have now apologised to their readers for not checking the story.
"We thought it was true so we printed it without checking," associate editor Hasanuzzuman Khan told the AFP news agency.
This is not the first time the Onion has fooled a foreign journalist, but it is pretty funny. I even saw a couple of nutty posts on local forums about how the conspiracists had been Right! All! Along! Heh.
"We didn't know the Onion was not a real news site."
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Missed Marketing Opportunity
The venerable geeky shop RadioShack has decided to 'upgrade' their image and is currently marketing themselves with the oh-so-hip "The Shack" moniker. Same store, same we-have-everything-you-need stock of electronic gewgaws and connectors and bits and pieces, just a new, hipper, younger image.Well, they think it is, I guess.
It's pretty lame, if you ask me. Their marketing department has missed the actual demographic pretty widely if they are trying to attract a younger market segment. 'RadioShack might sell mobile phones now but they are primarily a techno-nerd source for parts and bits you can't find anywhere else.
The new name, 'The Shack', is not cool, it's awkward in the way that your parents tried to be all cool and shit when you were growing up. Embarrassing, maybe, trying just a little too hard to be "hip" and use all those words that 'young people use today', without quite recognizing how weird they sound. The first thought I had was that the marketing decision was made by a 50-something white guy in a business suit. (Of course, the whole campaign is probably the brainchild of some edgy new marketing company where the median age is 20, so I'm completely off base)
If they were actually tuned in to their real demographic, they'd have renamed the entire operation Electrode Hut.
We'd all get the joke. And we'd think they were pretty cool for doing it, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
