Well. Somebody's gotta take the blame!

by gekko at 9:57 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

How many times in your life have you kind of fucked up because, in your ignorance, you made a decision that pissed people off? Then, when the shit hit the fan, you got all red in the face and looked for someone else to blame for it?

"We will be talking to the supplier with regard to how the branding came about."
 -- Shop pulls Lolita bed for young girls | U.S. | Reuters

That's the final line in a news article about the Woolworth's retail store chain in Great Britain that was marketing a brand of beds meant for six year olds. You and I know about the literary character Lolita, and what that name symbolizes to the educated among us. We've read the novel, we've seen the movies, we've heard the references in other literature, in conversations. But a generation of Brits apparently did not know that the name "Lolita" signifies pre-teen quasi-incestuous sex and had no worries about advertising a bed for little girls called "The Lolita". After parents started expressing a little outrage, they used Wikipedia to find out more.

I'm not sure what is more amusing in this. That an entire department store chain full of people had no knowledge of classic literature, or that they're looking around to see who they can blame for their faux pas.

I'm wondering if I can sell licenses to use Murphy as a handy fall dog.

(Hat tip to Sal's misc.writing post)

Ooh, got me one hot comment!   |   TrackBack (0)

Monday Peeve: Spacing the Holidays

by gekko at 7:15 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

The company I work for has a habit of mucking about with the holidays it gives US employees. We used to have 10 paid holidays, scattered across the calendar. Then they removed "Good Friday" in the US, because it wasn't politically correct to give a day that's so very specific to the numerous Christians and the handful of non-Christians were grumbling. Instead, they created a "personal, floating holiday" that people could schedule to coincide with a day that was special to them.

I get that. I even liked it, because my own Christian faith does not require me to spend all of Good Friday in mourning, or whatever. Being at work is sufficient penance. So I had a day I could choose and it didn't have to be bound up in some churchy obligation. Kind of neat.

Then they took away Presnuts Day, leaving us with 9 paid holidays and they fixed the "floating" day to one specific calendar day. Yup. Martin Luther King, Jr., Day.

I'm not wholly against a day honoring a guy who did good things. It goes against my political morals that it was made into such a big frickin' deal because his skin is black and people thought we absolutely had to have a day to honor a black skinned guy, but whatever. Done is done and we have a day to honor a great man and that's good. And my company wants me to take that day off, and that's okay by me.

Except.

Why the fuck couldn't Marty have been born in March or April, hmmm? Because in my company have all our holidays all clustered in the coldest months. Two days for Thanksgiving, two for Christmas, one for New Year's, and now this MLK day. Then nothing until Memorial Day at the end of May. A day for Fourth of July, and one for Labor Day. In fact, MLK day is the only holiday my company celebrates in honor of a specific US person. The only other day that's s'posed to honor a person is, well, Christmas.

Here's what I figure. They took the Presidents' birthdays and crammed 'em together into one. They moved other days from the day they're normally celebrated and put 'em on Mondays. And back in the darkest of ages, they even moved Jesus' birthday from October to December!!!

So if it's good enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for the Reverend King. I say we move his birthday to March 31.

Who's with me?

4 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Mulling over rip-offs

by gekko at 9:22 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

During lunch the other day, a buddy of mine had been thinking out loud, muttering "waived the activation fee ..." as he went through his cellphone contract. Yeah, when he bought the phone and the plan, the perky sales chick, hoping to cement the sale, gave him all kinds of enticements, free phone, first month free, waive the activation, yadda.

That got me to thinking.

What does an "activation fee" really do?

Cell phone providers want you to sign up with them, take a two year contract, etc. They want your business. Part of them doing that business has to involve them entering your phone's identifying information into their database to "activate" the phone on their network. If they didn't do that, your phone would not work, and you would be unlikely to want to use their services. So it's in their interests as well as your own for them to activate your phone. When you lose your phone, buy a new one, they "activate" that new one, free of charge.

Yet, they charge an "activation fee" for a new contract. UCAN (Utility Consumers' Action Network) lists the fees the big providers charge you. Thirty to forty bucks to have someone who's being paid regardless of the amount work they do type a number into a database field?

I decided to try something. What the hell, I was bored. I pretended I was in the market for a new phone, new plan. I walked up to a cell phone provider's kiosk in the mall where I had been lunching.

"I want a phone and a plan. Whaddaya got?"

We picked out one of their free phones and one of their plans and then she went through the contract.

"What's this thing?" I pointed to the activation fee.

"That's the standard activation fee."

"Get it out of there. I don't want to pay it."

"Oh, I can't do that. It's a standard part of the contract."

"Nonsense. When you guys are hooking for my business, the very first thing to go is that activation fee. It's frosting on your cupcake. Pure over-the-top profit."

"I don't have the authorization ..."

"Oh. Okay. Well, goodbye then."

"Wait, um let me talk to my supervisor. Hold on while I call ... "

"Puh-lease. Even my dog has the authorITY," I paused after stressing the syllable, "to waive activation fees. Every business pretends they have to charge that little extra, then they graciously 'give' us back the money to entice us. Entice me, or I'm outta here."

She stammered a bit more. I walked away.

It was satisfying.

2 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

And the desert shall run with milk & honey

by gekko at 12:10 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

As if having the most golf courses per capita is not enough for Arizona -- the land that may be running with milk 'n honey, but doesn't exactly corner the market on water.

"Developers plan to build a massive new water park that would offer surf-sized waves, snorkeling, scuba diving and kayaking - all in a bone-dry region that gets just 8 inches of rain a year. "

The park will presumably use up to 100 million gallons of water a year.

I'm being asked to install low flow shower heads and waterless toilets, to rip out my small lawn and replace it with rocks, to plant "native" plants, and to replace the water in my swimming pool with those plastic balls you see at kiddie amusement centers. Okay, maybe not that last. I'd always thought, however, that the purpose behind these "earth-friendly" requests was to conserve a precious resource in these drought-ridden days and I'm actually happy to do some of that. 'Specially the plastic balls. Kinky sex, innit.

I did not realize that I was supposed to save water so that some ersatz beach butthead who wants to carve a chunk of desert into yet another playground could have it.

Waveyard's developer, Mladick, who is 39, says he wants to create the kind of lush environment he remembers from growing up in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and surfing in Morocco, Indonesia, Hawaii and Brazil.

"I couldn't imagine raising my kids in an environment where they wouldn't have the opportunity to grow up being passionate about the same sports that I grew up being passionate about," he said.
-- "Ocean" To Be Built In Arizona Desert, As Part Of Water Sports Theme Park That May Use 60 Million To 100 Million Gallons A Year - CBS News

It's called "move" dumbass. If you can't imagine your crib monkeys growing up in a fucking desert, then move your crotch fruit out of the fucking desert, is what I'm saying.

Or, he could wait until Cali breaks away, and the ice caps melt in this global warming thinger.

6 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Why Ellen Can't Read

by gekko at 1:05 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Maybe it's a failure to really focus. Maybe she's ADD. Maybe she flunked reading. Maybe the animal rescue peeps failed to do what every animal rescue peep I've ever encountered do routinely: verbally underscore the key points in the contract. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that because Ellen DeGeneres did not understand her contract, she fucked over her hairdresser's little girls, but good.

From Entertainment Times Online:

The 49-year-old explained she had adopted a puppy named Iggy from an animal rescue centre on September 20, but, despite training and neutering, Iggy failed to impress the comedian's cats. On hearing her hairdresser was looking for a family pet, and to prevent her feline friends suffering further distress, DeGeneres gave the dog away.

When pet rescue agency Mutts and Moms heard of Iggy's new domestic arrangements, it informed DeGeneres that giving away the Brussels Griffon terrier cross was a breach of the adoption contract she had signed. The agency reclaimed the dog, leaving the hairdresser's two young daughters distraught.

And, in a passive-aggressive way, she's (inadvertently?) pinning it on the animal rescue folks.

She went on to beg Mutts and Moms to return the dog to her hairdresser's family. "Well, I guess I signed a piece of paper that says if I can't keep Iggy, it goes back to the rescue organisation, which is not someone's home, which is not a family. These two little girls had bonded to the dog. I thought I did a good thing. I tried to find a loving home for the dog because I couldn't keep it. I was trying to do a good thing.

"Because I did it wrong, those people went and took that dog out of their home, and took it away from those kids. I feel totally responsible for it and I'm so sorry. I'm begging them to give that dog back to that family. I just want the family to have their dog. It's not their fault, it's my fault. I shouldn't have given the dog away. Just please give the dog back to those little girls. I'm sorry I didn't call you. I'm sorry I did the wrong thing. Just give it back to the family. Please, please, please."

I hear the Mutts and Moms dudes are getting death threats and have had to fill out a police report..

I mean, come ON. All rescue groups make you sign that pretty basic, easily understood contract because they don't want to have you go dumping the dog in the street, or giving it to inappropriate people. They take doggy things very seriously. They interview you. They visit your home, sometimes. They make sure you understand how much trouble a dog can be. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised they didn't do a trial with Iggy, knowing DeGeneres had cats. Cats are particular about who they permit to be their slaves, after all.

So I guess I'm not understanding why the hairdresser couldn't go to Mutts and Moms and fill out their own contract and get Iggy back. Can't be that difficult.

I adore my own pups and have bonded very deeply with them, but they are dogs. Not humans. While it would break my heart to lose them, I know it's more likely I will outlive them anyway. As I've so far outlived all of my previous pets. I can and will get another dog. If re-adopting Iggy is out of the question for some bizarre reason, the hairdresser can get another dog for her girls. Not the optimal solution, but better than pining, innit.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!   |   TrackBack (0)

Girls, Grrls!

by gekko at 3:13 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

In my father's working career, he wore a business suit and a tie. He addressed his boss as Mr. Slate, not "Rocky" and his boss called him "Rockford", not "Jim."

Women in his work world were secretaries or factory floor assemblers and testers.

I did not break new ground for women when I decided to become an engineer, but I was a rarity. Even so, the work place I entered had already shifted significantly. Men were not in business suits, and women were wearing slacks -- oh, sure, there were pants suits, dresses, skirts, and "uniforms", but it was a lot more relaxed.

The biggest change, though, was that we no longer addressed people by their last names. My boss was not "Mr. Stevens." I called him "Durwood." Even the CEO would sign his memos and reports as "Elvis." Okay, that was weird since his name was "Joe," but whatever.

My point is that the work place had become warmer and more personal than it had been in my father's Brave New World. It had moved away from rigid, nearly militarized formality where a person was known by their father's or husband's name. People were recognized as being individuals.

I don't know if the introduction of women into a formerly male-dominated work place was responsible for that softening, that added level of familiarity, comfort, and family-feeling or not. I just know that being addressed by a personal name is a lot cozier than being addressed by a tribal name.

You're probably going "huh?" round about now, so let me elaborate a bit further.

On the Usenet newsgroup I use to sharpen my sticky little claws is a doofus who has decided that calling a certain female US Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate by her first name constitutes sexism. It's a part of the diminution of womanhood, akin to calling a black man "boy." Or "articulate."

Yah, I'm talking about calling Hillary "Hillary."

Is it?

Sexist?

Not specifically in Hillary's case, because, hello, it's pretty much how she's been marketing herself. But is there something dark, something wrong with using the familiar when addressing a person? Or is that notion something that's still all stone age and part of the militarized machismo crap we've been moving away from?

When you get right down to it, I don't like being called "Mrs. Rubble." It makes me feel like I'm supposed to be Barney's property. Or old.

Maybe it IS sexist, but I think that if it is, then bring on more of that kind of sexism.

Oh, and let's put some floral drapes on that window, while we're at it and do you REALLY think your feet belong up on that table? PICK UP THOSE BEER CANS NOW, MISTER!!!

11 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

A School Prayer I would hate to see

by gekko at 12:26 PM as a "Jesus Lurves Me" poast

Hey. Don't get me wrong. I am aligned with the teachings of Christ. I am also aligned, for the most part, with the political philosophy that drives Big L Libertarians and I am more Right-leaning than Left.

But I've got issues with the message in the latest bit of e-mail spam I got from a friend. I'm quoting it below -- I have had mercy on you in that I cleaned up the pretentious fluffy formatting and added a link to Snopes tracking the veracity of the authorship of this piece. My commentary follows.

Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer are not allowed in most public schools anymore because the word "God" is mentioned.... a kid in Arizona wrote the attached NEW School prayer. I liked it.

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Amen

If you aren't ashamed to do this, please pass this on.
Jesus said, "If you are ashamed of me,
I will be ashamed of you before my Father."

First, and foremost: smarmy, sniffy, uber-superior life-style comparisons on the part of self-righteous anybodies leave me cold. Sad to say we seem to see it more often from Christians than from other demographic groups, which is a smudge if you ask me.

I agree to an extent with the overall sentiment: I have long argued that outright banning any student from praying aloud at any time he or she feels like praying aloud (within certain social norms or classroom needs, mind) is wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't really care if Myrna gets upset because Kathleen mutters a prayer in her hearing. I could give a fuck if Lenny, whose father is a hardcore atheist, has to understand that other people do believe in a vast invisible meddling force from beyond. And, really, c'mon Moonspirit. You can argue that the deity is really Goddess all you like, but it's okay that Chris thinks God is the father, 'k?

And, really, if we can study the spiritual practices of other cultures, then permitting people to practice theirs (within, again, the boundaries of propriety) in an unobtrusive manner should be fine.

Here's my beef (apologies to my Hindu buddies):

a) There is nothing wrong with unnaturally colored hair, and how the fuck DARE you insinuate otherwise you sanctimonious little fart.
b) Ditto mode of dress. If someone wants to do the tacky emo or goth motif, or saggy jeans with more holes than cloth, or even if they're a muffin-top and insist on wearing low-riders and crop tops, there's nothing morally wrong with that. Jesus did not say "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Vogue and GQ", right.
c) ditto piercing/tattoos
d) pregnant whatevers. Societally difficult. Unwed 'rents aren't a good idea no matter what your religious beliefs. But, hello, the Bible itself warns about making judgments. Geddit? Can you say "WWJD"? Ya?
e) so first you bitch about the pregger peeps, now you think dispensing birth control and acknowledging that we're all imperfect is a bad idea. 'k. Guess everyone has to be perfect like you.

That's pretty much it. I am impatient with the unChristian stance so many Christians adopt.

4 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

When is it just plain ridiculous?

by gekko at 1:03 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

A friend of mine wants his name on his vanity plate. He lucked out when the last guy to have the name on a plate in his state died and his widow decided not to renew the plate, relinquishing the four letters back into the bin. The state DMV notified my friend that the plate was now available (he put himself on a wait list for it). He applied. The rep initially approved it.

Then it was turned down.

Why?

Because his name is, apparently, offensive. See, it's a variation of the name "Richard." The guy's a Dick. He has been known by that name his entire life, does business with that name, appears on television using that name, ran for local office with that name and shares that name with many politicians and celebrities. Why, one dick is first in line to lead our country if the bush becomes incapacitated. The media unabashedly prints and speaks that foul word many times a day.

Of course, every Peter, Willie and Wang knows that "Dick" isn't a name at all, but a slang word for male genitalia, right?

Vermont's DMV has decided to crack down on these important matters following a lost case in which a religious rights group took up arms in a suit in federal court over the "right" to use a reference to a bible verse on a vanity plate.

Shawn Byrne tried to get JOHN316, was turned down, appealed, turned down, sued and the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative organization that states it defends religious liberty as represented by attorney Joshua Carden took up his case. This is old news, but it is the one that has the state of Vermont looking to ensure no one offends anyone with their license plate.

Carden said his client is only seeking to uphold his rights to free expression on his license plate.

"We're not seeking big money damages," he said.

According to the lawsuit, Byrne applied to the state DMV for a vanity plate on April 20, for his Ford pickup.

The application asked for Byrne to list three choices for his vanity plate. Byrne listed, "JOHN316," "JN316" and "JN36TN." The application also asked Byrne what each selection represented, and in each case he wrote, "Bible passage."
[...]

A month after applying for the plate Byrne received notice from the state DMV stating that all three requests had been turned down.

"It has been deemed to be a combination that refers to deity and has been denied based on that reason," the letter read.

Byrne appealed, but an administrative judge upheld the denial, the lawsuit stated.

The law allows DMV to reject a word or phrase considered offensive or confusing to the general public.

The regulations state that license plates are not be allowed to have a combination of letters or numbers that refer to any language to race, religion, color, deity, ethnic heritage, gender, sexual orientation, disability status or political affiliation.

-- Driver sues state for rejecting religious license plate: Rutland Herald Online

The Feds disagreed that it was a First Amendment issue. He doesn't have a fundamental right to "speak" via his license plate. So it's really up to the states to make a list of things they don't like and then stick to that list. And Vermont is very much sticking Dick.

I wonder, though, if maybe these bureaucratic nanny types don't go too far overboard. A vanity plate is, after all, something special to the individual. Its intent is to garner extra income to the state while permitting people to uniquely identify themselves. Some attempts are intended to shock or offend -- like I wouldn't see a non-offensive use of the word "cunt", would you? Yet the whole notion that the same driver who can put a fish on his car will suddenly offend someone if his plate refers to God is a bit extreme. Is the state promoting religion because they took money in order to print something to the specification of the customer? A guy everyone in the community calls "Dick" to his face is going to be offended if his car says "Dick" on it?

Does that not seem a bit over the top to you?

11 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Out of the box

by gekko at 12:19 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I found it elegant. Synergistic, maybe. I was listening to a podcast on my iPod. It was one from back in July. I enjoy NPR's Talk of the Nation "Science Friday", and July 13's show had a segment on simplicity and complexity, featuring John Maeda, MIT technologist/artist and author of "The Laws of Simplicity." The elegance was this: the iPod is one of the simplest user designs masking a fairly complex system and I was enjoying the fruits of a lifetime of complexities made simple. From capturing radio waves to storing their payload and accessing them with minimal effort, maximal enjoyment.

I am a techno-geek. I love gadgets. I am an engineer by trade and training, an artist deep in my heart, and, above all, someone who gets royally peeved when taking a gadget out of its box and finding I must spend hours or even days pouring through the user documentation to figure it all out.

Car stereo systems are like that. They try to cram tons of functionality into a relatively simple interface, reducing the number of knobs and buttons, but you end up with complex instructions for performing some of the simplest tasks. To tune into this station, push this knob in, then tilt it to the right until the number you want comes up. To scan radio signals, pull out that knob, then press this button. To set your clock, use your left hand to press and hold that knob, then use your right hand to tilt the other knob to the left for hours, right for minutes, and use your foot (either one) to punch this button for AM/PM.

Cell phones -- let us not go there. A company I like because they, well, provide my paycheck is chief among the offenders, creating user interfaces that require advanced degrees in glyphs and codices, deep arcane knowledge. I consider the iPhone a breakthrough -- like its sibling the iPod -- that combines the abstract, the artistic, and the deeply complex functions we Americans are demanding. Of course, both of those products are sitting on the shoulders of the MacIntosh computer which pioneered simple, elegant, and intuitive computing.

I value simplicity. When I pick up my new gadget, I want to just use it, right out of the box. Turn it on (do NOT make me look for the on switch!) and do the most obvious thing to make it perform its primary function(s).

But I also like to hack and customize my toys.

I've always found that the best, most elegant design of any software application or gadget was one that had a simple, intuitive user experience on the surface, but would support "power users", the peeps like me who wanted to make it do everything it could do. Layers of simplicity over oodles of complexity.

Pure elegance.

It seems, though, that for designers of products and software to accomplish that, they have to, well, think out(side) of the box.

I'm waiting for Apple, those masters of elegant simplicity, to provide me with the ability to really play with my toys.

3 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Will Wiki "editors" finally be accountable?

by gekko at 9:24 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

The erudite sneer at those who rely on Wikipedia for authoritative source material. Wikipedia is an Internet "encyclopedia" that taps into the collective mass of knowledge by letting anyone author articles or make changes. The sneerage focuses on the notion that if anyone can alter the info, then how accurate can it really be? Wiki's founders believe people who know better will quickly correct inaccurate or misleading information.

To an extent, that works. I don't recall the details of my personal experience -- what it was I was looking up -- but I found an article where some curious bit of information seemed wrong to me. I sent the link to a friend to ask if he agreed. By the time he got to Wiki, he could find no trace of the information to which I referred. The article was correct. Oddly, the cached page on my computer still showed the errors. We investigated and discovered the article had been edited not even an hour prior. Someone else had seen it. Someone else had corrected it.

But as news articles all over have been indicating for years, notables and not-so-notables alike have been abusing their ability to edit Wiki articles by changing things to suit their own views or whacked senses of humor. Congresscritters or their staff have been whitewashing articles about themselves. Others have altered President Bush's middle name. Many put left-leaning or right-leaning spin in various articles. Some changes are so subtle, it's doubtful that the vigilant can catch them all.

Now a Cal Tech grad student and self-described hacker named Virgil Griffith has created software he calls "Wikiscanner" that pinpoints origins of Wikipedia edits. Now we can see that the computers of various corporations, US political party headquarters, heads of worldwide church organizations, and even the CIA are being used to whitewash, insult, or spin information.

The CIA? If I had had substantial faith in the ability of that behemoth spy organization to operate well, it would be shaken. I mean, surely they of all organizations ought to know how to mask their IP addresses and go through anonymous proxy servers. <g>

Then again ... maybe it's a different spy organization that's masked its IP address to make it only seem like it's coming from the CIA ...

Hmmmmm.

9 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

We must remember that: a fat is just a fat ... or is it?

by gekko at 12:38 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Chocoholics all over are in an uproar. The industry assholes want to fuck with our chocolate!!!

It all began in October, when a dozen industry groups filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration to amend the [way listed products contain the right amount of key ingredients and are both properly made and not deceptively packaged] for how nearly 300 foods can be produced, from canned cherries to evaporated milk.

[...] For example, chocolate in its purest state - the "liquor" made from ground, processed cacao beans - must contain between 50 percent and 60 percent cocoa butter, also known as cocoa fat.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, Chocolate Manufacturers Association and 10 other food industry groups seek broad permission to add ingredients, use different techniques, employ new shapes and substitute ingredients - something the standards currently don't allow.

[...] Tucked between requests to allow antifungals on bulk cheese and powdered milk in yogurt is what has people riled up most: a proposal to "use a vegetable fat in place of another vegetable fat named in the standard (e.g. cacao fat)."

Manufacturers already can use vegetable fats instead of cocoa butter - they just can't call it "chocolate."

So what's the big deal? Sez a protestor:

"To me, it's a delicacy. I don't eat it every day - I don't want the calories. But when I do enjoy it, I do want real chocolate. I don't want any change in flavor by cheapening the product," said Avanele Bush, 83, of Malibu, Calif., who counts chocolates made by See's Candies Inc. and Ghirardelli Chocolate Co. as her favorites. -- http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.chocolate12aug12,0,1102792.story

It's obvious why the chocolate industry wants to be able to slap the label "chocolate" on something they can make much more cheaply. It's also obvious why the purists would object. Yet, it seems a bit arbitrary to me. I mean, they already came up with a standard for what can be labeled "chocolate", and it can have as little as 50% cocoa fat. I am going to assume that that cheap, icky, waxy, nasty stuff they flood the stores with on Chocolate Holidays like Easter is at the lowest end of the cocoa-fat scale. So we already have agreed that chocolate can be called chocolate and still be crap, right?

If I buy something that looks like chocolate, and is labeled "chocolate" and I discover I really intensely dislike it, I'm going to never buy that stuff again. If I discover I like it, am I bovvered if the fat in it comes from the soy plant instead of the cacao bean?

I'm sure there are political and political-economical stakes in there that have people all flustered, like how many farmers in Africa have banked their lives on being able to sell their beans and soon they're going to be screwed because we'll only buy half the beans and then get soy and corn from some other starving nation, but, ya know, I don't really hear that outcry. All I'm hearing is the "you can't call it chocolate unless the arbitrary standard set up a bazillion years ago is adhered to!"

Pardon me while I go off in search of some Godiva, 'k?

9 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Clarity

by gekko at 1:50 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

People
1) whose primary job is to interact with others via telephone and
2) who speak with an accent (with respect to the established "norm" of the region/language they are speaking)

should do their utmost to speak clearly, slowly, and with crisp enunciation.

I absofuckinglutely could NOT understand what the woman was saying! I have no idea what mixture of accents she was using. At times it had a British feel to it, but it also sounded a bit like the deep American south and had overtones of something Caribbean. She spoke so rapidly and slurred so many words together I had to listen to the message three times and I'm still not sure I got it all.

[UPDATE] Here's the message.

10 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Book 8: Harry Potter and the Nihilistic Curmudgeon

by gekko at 5:44 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

It's light reading, that's for sure. The Harry Potter series, I mean. I don't have to think while reading it. I can just submerge myself, lose myself, and let the words -- some of them quite clever -- and phrases and characters and ideas wash over me without much analysis. I can ponder the fates of the characters without stopping to wonder about the realism of it. I can find sympathy for some, and antipathy for others. I can scoff, wrinkle my nose, giggle, or smile fondly. It takes me away from things in my life that sometimes seem to want to devour me and leave nothing behind. It's Calgon© for the soul.

I am an adult. My kids, however, grew up with the bespectacled young wizard. They spent their coming-of-age years devouring the books -- staying up all night to read the entire thing, cover to cover, standing in lines at midnight to see the movies. They were part and parcel of Potter-mania. And now as young adults, on their own, they've done the same with the seventh and final book in the series. They express deep regret that the series is over, that they swallowed the books so quickly.

Potter did not teach my children to read. Their father and I did that. Potter did not teach them to love books. Potter-mania, the hype and ecstasy of it, did not lure them from their computers and televisions and video games into books. They already had a love for books when Potter came along. My son obsessed over The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and both kids were often seen with their noses in award winning novels that were beyond their presumed reading level. They continue to read to this day.

But there exist among us those who have always scoffed at Potter, or outright declared the books a form of evil. And their antitheses -- those who claimed that these books alone were responsible for luring the young into the world of reading.

Now, ten years after the first Potter book, along comes a sort of Death Eater of editorialists, who brings with him some numbers and facts that suggest that reading in general is on the decline, regardless of age. Potter did not keep youngsters, he says, reading. And Potter or no, people are just plain not going to the libraries. His words suggest that the money spent hyping Potter should've been better spent hyping more diverse works.

Maybe the trend is there; I haven't done my own number crunching.

I do know that in my youth, I was an aberration and even in my adulthood, what set me and my few friends apart was that we were lured toward books and reading, while so many around us had other pursuits. I could be found consuming almost anything readable. My peers were mostly out playing games, or watching TV. Adult peers who asked me what I enjoyed looked at me pityingly when I said I loved to read; they preferred skiing or camping or shopping. When I asked what they read, they pointed to a magazine or maybe a best-seller that they'd picked up to read on the airplane.

A small number of us, though, exchanged loved books and met new authors, and had -- and continue to have -- up to date library cards.

I remain unconvinced that Potter lured kids to become readers, but I also remain unconvinced that there is a death knell to be sounded for reading at all.

3 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Hate him, don't date him

by gekko at 8:46 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

PJ, who no longer blogs, posted this on Usenet and I'm using excerpts from it to introduce my topic:

I just learned about a Web site called "Don't Date Him Girl" that women can join and post warnings to other women about men they perceive to be slime. They post names, pictures, email addresses, cities/states, and lengthy descriptions of why these men should be avoided [...] What's really dangerous about this is that the women remain completely anonymous, but they can (and do) provide a ton of information about the men.

From the DDHG website:

Don't Date Him Girl, until you've checked him out first! DDHG is a social networking site where women from around the world can share their dating experiences with each other. Share your story of inspiration, hope and determination with other women around the world. Learn about how you can date safer and smarter, build your self-esteem, find true love and empower yourself to become the powerful woman you really are!

The perception is that women are vulnerable and men are scoundrels. Everyone knows that, right?

The truth of life is that humans are vulnerable and humans are scoundrels, each in their own ways and turns. Men typically take the upper hand in things and women are usually taught to be victims, but both find ways to hurt one another. Men cheat. Women cheat. Men abuse. Women abuse. Relationships suck when they don't work well. People don't talk to one another, and when the relationship goes sour, each is likely to want to lash out at the other, find a way to hurt the other. This sort of site promotes the one-sided view of female victimhood and is, therefore, less helpful than it could be.

Said Peej:

So basically, these guys are guilty because the women SAY they're guilty. Period. Where's the justice in that? Isn't this an open and shut case of libel? Sometimes I hate the Internet.

I was curious about it. I don't intend to use it, but I did register to become a member (user name "lizarddreams") just to see what's permitted, what's not. Their terms of service spell out how they protect themselves from lawsuits. They log the member's IP address and let the member know they're tracking it.

Knowing what I do about websites like this, they quickly roll over for court orders -- as they should. If a man finds his name and particulars up there, and the information is damaging enough, he can get the site to pull it and he can pursue the poster via the court system.

The site also provides a "He said/She said" forum where the man can rebut the woman's statements and offer information about her, then lets people vote on believability. Guys can register, too, and offer comments, posts about the men they know who may have hurt people.

I looked at a few more of the posts warning about these slime-dog evil-doing men. The posts are gossipy and filled with conjecture. One says "rumour has it that this guy has slept with 40 girls and he's not even 20 yet!" Another talks about a man who has children by different mothers, leverages the children to get the women to continue sleeping with him, etc. It pleads with readers who know him to comment to confirm (or, presumably, refute) that he's a bucket o sputem. <-- my term.

I tend to agree with PJ's sentiment: this is a kangaroo court of a website. They do offer all kinds of advice and support forums for women who have been hurt, and recommend books and such. It might be a useful resource in that community fashion, but the notion of ratting out guys who're dirtier than dirt without requiring the poster to offer proof of his slimedness is, well ... nasty.

5 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Yes, your butt looks too big.

by gekko at 12:01 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

If you don't smoke, or if you police your butts, then move on.

If you do smoke, and you're one of those cretins who thinks "oh, it's just one eensy little bit of cotton and paper, who's gonna care?" then read on.

If you're someone who smokes and then carelessly tosses your saliva-coated filthy butt wherever you happen to be, and you happen to be on or near my property at the time and I happen to see you doing this disgusting activity, I will find out where you live.

When I do find out where you live, I will collect my dogs' excrement (plural on the "dog") and dump it all over your yard.

I promise you this.

But, of course, I support your "right" to smoke, etc. Have a lovely day!

3 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

By the time I get to Phoenix

by gekko at 5:56 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I saw the fifth Harry Potter movie, "The Order of the Phoenix."

 

* * *  S P O I L E R    W A R N I N G  !  * * *

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh.

In general, I've been less than impressed with the movie versions of the books. I think that the way they cut them to pack the humongous books into the beensy little movie length left out some pretty keen stuff and the acting is a bit wooden in places.

But in Book 5, the coolest scene of all was one they chose not to reproduce in the film. They were all hot on the inky coal-dust-esque apparations of the Death Eaters and the silvery blinding white smokey apparations of the members of the order, and they cast Umbrage and Luna perfectly, but ... they missed out on animating the big statues at the Ministry. They could've done a Transformer coup, man!

Another irritation: had the movie peeps and the book peeps been really clever, they'd've released the movie on 7/5/07 and the seventh book on 7/7/07.

Morons.

11 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Designing with Real People in mind

by gekko at 10:41 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Two things, in rapid succession, irritated me this morning, and they both had to do with a simple design decision that could have made the difference between delighting a customer, and causing, well, irritation.

Dear Thermal Coffee Cup Designers. If you're too fucking cheap, or "cutting costs", or whatever, to use a tenth-of-a-cent blob of sealant on your trendy little coffee cups, making them "non-dishwasher-safe", then for fuck's sake make the interior large enough for an adult human hand to be able to get in there and scrape off the old coffee residue!

Sincerely yours, disgruntled coffee drinker

and

Dear Dishwasher Designers. If you're going to go to the trouble to put a "cleaning cycle completed" indicator on your high end dishwashers, then, hello. Make it fucking visible, not some pin-sized dot. Further, if I open the door to remove a fork, then close the door again, turning off the indicator makes it about as useful as using a spaghetti strainer for a birth control device, you know what I'm saying?

love and kisses, curmudgeonly home owner

3 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

iThing

by gekko at 2:46 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Yes, anything this hyped, this complex, this big-huge-gigantic-super-duper is going to have <air quotes>issues</air quotes>.

So it failed to actually do phone calls during The Today Show. 's'okay. It still looks sharp, and does lotsa cool stuff.

So you paid beau coup bucks for a paper weight, at least until AT&T gets caught up with the (could've anticipated this) huge backlog of activations on their (should've beefed these up, hello) servers. At least it's a pretty paper weight!

The thing is, while everyone's drooling over, screaming about, and laughing at the Apple iPhone, no one, but no one is paying attention to what really matters:

Transformers is out!

'course, even that will pale when Harry Potter 7 finally makes it to the book stores!

Ooh, got me one hot comment!   |   TrackBack (0)

Of Mops and Vampires.

by gekko at 12:06 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

The concept of service has had all of the life sucked from it.

I've ranted about corporate-based "Customer Service" and phone 'bots and such like. This is along those same lines, but taken to ridiculous new lows.

There was a water spill in the building where I work. It was in a break area. Lots of people walk into and out of that break area. I discovered it an early morning hour, before there were too many people. I found the source of the leak and stopped it. I found wads of paper towels and threw them on the floor. I found a marker, a piece of paper, and a handy trash can and penned "CAUTION WET FLOOR DO NOT SLIP" and taped the sign to the can and placed it in front of the wads of paper towels.

Then I went in search of custodial service.

I found a sign with a 1-888 number to call for custodial service in the place where there used to be a person. I used my personal cell phone to call the 1-888 number, and a person in a distant part of the world answered. His name might have been Rajeev. I related my issue. He asked for my phone number. I gave him my desk phone number, expecting that he would then ask for where the spill had occurred. You know. Part of the world, state, building code, area number, etc.?

Nope. He said, "Someone will get in touch with you" and he hung up.

I was on a teleconference using my desk phone. How, exactly, would someone get in touch with me? Why could he not have taken down the information and dispatched a person with a mop as soon as possible?

I went to the web site that the sign had also indicated, and saw that I could open a trouble ticket using the web. I filled in all the information, including the fact that I had just called someone and was not able to provide location information during the call. The web site cheerfully informed me the service call would be routed and my department would be billed $1000.

When my teleconference meeting ended, I got up and went to the break room. There were more sodden paper towels on the floor, and lots of wet footprints, but no sign of clean-up. No sign of a person with a mop. I tossed even more towels on the floor and went back to my desk.

I called the 1-888 number again. I ranted about how no one seemed to be mopping up the spill, someone might slip and sue the company and then the company would sue them for failing to provide contracted services. I ranted about how no one had taken the proper information down and how they were attempting to charge us $1000 for a mop-up. Pavarthy assured me that the $1000 was just an estimate and apologized and assured me, also, that she would have the work order routed very quickly.

Three hours later, a woman called me.

"Choo khav espill?"

"Yes, in the break room near me."

"Where es espill?"

I gave her the location for the break room.

"Where thees pliss?"

I gave her directions to the break room.

"Hokay. I go mop espill."

A few moments later, I saw a woman with a bucket and a mop. She picked up all the sodden paper towels, but there was nothing left to mop up.

"Espill all gone!"

I nodded.

"I choos get teeket for work. I be here fast, but they not give teeket until chess now."

I nodded.

"Hokay." She rolled her bucket out of the room. A few moments later she joined the now very large crowd of custodial persons who were taking their break in a different break room.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!   |   TrackBack (0)

Yo, F*ckwads. Lissen up!

by gekko at 8:59 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Grab your three-year-old's hand BEFORE you step off the curb into heavy traffic.

3 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Apologies

by gekko at 7:37 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" is in no way an apology for a wrongful action.

Let me make it clear that I understand and believe in that.

However. And you know that there must be a "however" because, hello, I'm writing a blog entry so there must be suspense and drama, innit.

However -- when you do NOT do a wrongful action (in your opinion), but someone feels hurt by something you did regardless, is it acceptable to express your regret for having inadvertently caused the feelings of hurt?

Let's say you went shopping one day. Just kind of felt like it. Up and went, by yourself, to a favorite shoppe, one you and your best friend both like to browse through. You caught a fabulous sale, picked up a delightful trinket and went home. Later, your friend learned of your excursion.

"You didn't call me! You didn't ask me to join you! I am SO pissed off at you!"

Her feelings of pique are quite legitimate. She would've loved to have gone. She'd been bored and lonely that day, in fact. Not that you knew that. Quite frankly, it didn't occur to you to call her when you up and decided to go. You had thought only of your own boredom, sought to remedy it. It wasn't that you wanted to hurt her -- you were just a bit thoughtless and maybe selfish.

"It was something I needed to do for myself at the time. Didn't mean to upset you. Sorry," is your response. "I was thoughtless. Shopping isn't all that important to me, and sometimes I don't think of the impact my actions might have on others."

Is that sufficient? Should it be sufficient? It's not so much an apology -- you don't feel you did anything wrong aside from not thinking "oh, hey, my buddy loves this stuff and would love to come along. Maybe she's lonely today. I should invite her." And yet, it is an apology of sorts, I maintain. You do, after all, feel sorry for having inadvertently hurt your friend's feelings.

Can I hear opinions?

18 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

GLARE!

by gekko at 8:59 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Web site developers ...

... who fucking RESIZE the browser windows of visitors ...

... need to be SMACKED!

Ooh, got me one hot comment!   |   TrackBack (0)

Fake Food

by gekko at 8:50 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I make omelets and scrambles with Egg Beaters© or a store-brand knock off of same.

"Them's fake eggs," opines a friend.

Well, no. They're made from actual eggs that chickens laid. They're not "fake."

"Yeah, but they been mucked with," he notes.

Well, yes. As has most of the food most of America eats. Or do you think cows are footless, mouthless, wedge-shaped inch thick slabs? Wot? They removed the blood, the guts, most of the fat, and most of the bones from your t-bone, so it must be fake, right?

I use fat-free cheese.

"That's fake cheese! You're putting fake cheese on fake eggs! You're not eating food, you're eating chemicals!"

Um. Well. Hello. That beer you're drinking. That would be ... what?

"Bread. Liquid bread. Pure bliss. Don't you go talkin' 'bout my beer now."

Uh huh.

He drinks a diet cola. That'd be brown-colored water sweetened with, um, chemicals.

I'm thinking that food snobs ought not throw stones at their glass bananas.

Or something.

What? No, it doesn't bother me. Not in the slightest. Why do you ask?

8 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Gadget Light, Gadget Bright, First Gadget I See Tonight

by gekko at 12:04 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

For no reason I can discern, other than that the designers at PalmOne thought it was "cool", my Palm Tungsten E2 desktop charger/sync cable continuously glows, brighter than a half-moon. I have a small bowl up-ended over it when it's not in use.

Also for no particular reason, except again for the "cool" factor, a small USB hub attached to my laptop has a brilliant blue LED that is continuously lit. I have no need for hallway night lights; just keep my laptop on and placed in the dining room, and that entire section of the house is bright enough to keep you from stumbling over dog toys at night.

First, visit this Doonesbury strip.

Now consider this:

The Gadget Bill of Lights

Gadget and PC makers: If you want happy users and more repeat business, heed our call and stop torturing us with bad decisions about the lights on your products. Here is our Gadget Bill of Lights:

I. The right of the people to get a good night's sleep shall not be infringed. Gadget makers shall make no device that lights up any dark room with flashing nag lights.

II. Excessive LED brightness, deemed cruel and unusual punishment, shall not be inflicted when dimmer lights will do.

III. Gadget makers shall make no device that nags the people for unknown reasons. If a phone flashes at us, we have the right to know why.

IV. No indicator light shall illuminate our houses or places of business without the consent of the owner. We seek the option to turn lights off.

V. An aesthetically pleasing industrial design, being necessary for the placement of electronics in various locations in our homes, shall not include inextinguishable decorative lighting. (We're talking to YOU, Dell.)

VI. In all scenarios in which products may be used in partial or total darkness, the people shall enjoy the right to optional lighting that enables users to locate various controls, keys and buttons.

Read the entire, well-wrought rant.

2 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Oh, just kick his ass, kid.

by gekko at 11:37 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Those who don't mind watching vids, take a peek at this. It's got this adorable little girl in it, doing an adorable little girl thing. You'll be all "awwww" and you'll laugh until you wet yourself, I'm sure.

Then read my rant below.

So here's my rant: the mom made her repeat it for the camera, then play-acted shock and you could see the confusion on the kid's face. Mixed messages. Mom had already heard this, whipped out the camera and was pretending to be disapproving while laughing. Then Mom, after making the kid perform repeatedly, corrected her. "It's not a nice word."

'Scuze me. But "butt" is no more nice than "ass." When I was growing up, if I said "butt" my mom would've washed out my mouth. We spoke of fannies, behinds, po-pos and derierres if we had to speak of the part of our anatomy upon which we sat. And I'm sure that reaching further back, even some of those words were forbidden.

Look, it's simply a fleshy part of the body that everyone has. Well, everyone except those caught in freak ass-excising accidents, or those poor unfortunates who were born with a sort of ass-free deformity. Oh, and me. I lost my ass. Lost my funbags, too, but that's another story, and I digress. Where was I? Oh. Yes. Ass. Why, some people are nothing but enormous walking asses! Or, at least, the hole part of it. I see no reason for Mom to have confused and corrected her kid.

Just celebrate her maturity, fuck sake. She got it right the first time. If a monster comes in, you kick his ass 'fore he kicks yours. I mean, dur.

12 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

The Camel: Did Imus break its back?

by gekko at 10:38 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Unprovoked, insensitive, racially-charged remarks are signs of ignorance and just plain fuckwittedness. I doubt Don Imus is sorry for having made the remarks. I'm certain he is merely sorry that his doing so is impacting his bottom line. He's been doing racism for years. This remark was the straw because he stupidly directed it toward an innocent and sympathetic group of people.

Of course, the women of the Rutger's University women's basketball team, whom Imus referred to as "nappy headed hos", did nothing wrong. They simply existed, and played basketball, and won games. They were living their lives, doing what they wanted to do, being successful in that way that all Americans should celebrate. Don Imus, in his eagerness to shock and awe, overreached. But then, I've always felt he was too ham-handed, too stupid in his overreaching and shocking, and I early on learned to change channels when the televised version of his radio program came on. He disgusts me because he is not genuine and plays to the mob. In my opinion Imus should be canned -- not because he said "nappy headed" or "ho", but because he is a no-talent piece of shit. Where's the skill in getting wild-eyed uneducated mouth-breathers to say "oh fuck yeah, man's gotta point"? I could do that by belching the alphabet.

But here's the deal: I loathe mob mentality. I despise it when trained apes like Imus employ it to delight the ignorant wankers who drool agreement with his over-the-top hate-filled views, and I despise it when his counterparts such as Al Sharpton do their poo-flinging routines. Sure enough, it didn't take long for ol' Al to leap up on his rock and pound the ground with his tree branch.

The head coach of the women's team is also wrong. Don Imus's ape routine was not a slap at all women athletes, and Ms. Stringer should be counselling her team to look at it appropriately, rather than stirring the froth and playing up the mob-rage. Imus's remark was a reflection on Imus and those who whole-heartedly agree with the ignorant views he spouts. Imus did not denigrate all women or all female athletes; he denigrated only successful, black-skinned female athletes. The white females, the males, and the unsuccessful athletes were not included. So it shines a harsh light on the view that a black woman is getting "uppity" and it serves as a point of education for others -- there's nothing wrong with wholesome success, no matter what your skin color, no matter what your sex, no matter what your societal pursuit.

8 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

One of these things is not like the other

by gekko at 12:00 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

T-Mobile. Cingular/AT&T. Sprint. Alltel. Verizon.

Ignore the Alltel dweeb "Chad" and the other nerks who are supposed to leverage the stereotype that nerdy fat boys are ineffective nitwits, for the time being.

Forget about the bespectacled stalker guy in the gray coveralls with the crowd of people and hovering helicopters that represent Verizon's network.

Never mind the fact that T-Mobile along with the ever-morphing CinguAT&T use GSM technology with SIM cards while the rest use CDMA technolgoy which does not utilize the handy SIM cards.

Who has what coverage, how many bars, or the coolest selection of phones is also unimportant in this rant.

There is one striking difference between one of the above-named cellular providers and all the rest that has me steamed. I'm not talking about a phone capability, but, rather, a feature you might find in your account web page -- a very useful, handy feature that I was used to having, and had relied on from time to time. It is a feature that I really needed last week, but which I was shocked to learn was NOT provided by the cell company I am currently locked into using for the next 18 months.

Suppose you had a family. Suppose you got on a family cell plan, so you all shared some minutes. You'd get phones for your kids. One for your spouse. One for you. For your grandma. Your dog. Whoever. You'd be the main account holder.

And suppose you suspected one of your kids was doing something you had forbidden -- he or she was texting his buddies during school hours, perhaps. Or calling his smack dealer during church. And you'd given her one chance to clean up her act before you yanked her phone privileges away.

Instead, suppose your spouse lost his phone. You wanted to wait a bit before shutting it off, in case someone found it and called one of the numbers in the contact list to report they found it. You were curious, though, to see if it had been found and was being used.

In both of those situations, you'd probably find it very handy to be able to check the call activity real-time, right? Log on to your account, check the call records for the past few hours or days and you'd know if your spouse's missing phone was used to ring up bazillions of hours with mainland China. You'd know if little Timmy was calling Caitlin every two minutes in spite of Caitlin's parents' restraining order against Timmy. You'd know.

You'd know, that is, unless you're with Verizon. If you're with Verizon, you have to wait until three days AFTER the billing cycle has ended, and then you can find out.

Tough luck if the billing cycle just started.

I can see that Verizon might be behind the times and that is nearly forgivable, but when I asked Verizon to provide this information to me after I had verified my identity (they have it in their databases; it should be trivial to pull it into a file and e-mail it), they refused. When I asked them to implement that feature, they refused.

"It is against Verizon policy for any one at any level within Verizon to provide pre-billing call detail records to anyone except for Law Enforcement or someone equipped with a court order."

Yeah. I'm gonna get the cops to swear out a warrant so I can see if my lost phone was used recently, or if the call I just made was "in network" or "roaming" or any other reason I might legitimately want to see what was going on with MY account.

Some peeps choose their cell providers because their friends and family are using the same one and they want the "free" airtime. Some choose them because one provider has better coverage in the areas they live and travel than other providers. Some choose them because one provider has an exclusive on THE cool phone they want. Some are lured by a spiffy new calling plan, like MyFaves or unused minutes roll-over. Some may think Chad is way hot and hope to win a date with him. And some, like me, find one company is much like the other and will hop over to the one that offers the best, most rewarding customer experience.

A T-mobile rep offered to buy out my contract if I'd bring my family over to them. I'm giving it very serious consideration.

[Updated] Someone pointed out that Alltel's dweeb is named Chad, not Chip.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!   |   TrackBack (0)

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time

by gekko at 9:58 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

The title of this post comes from a novel by British author Mark Haddon. The protagonist is a 15 year old boy with Asperger's Syndrome named Christopher Boone. The nature of his disorder renders him detached from the emotional clouds surrounding many things, including death. He likes logic, "maths," and puzzles. He does not understand emotions except on a basic level, and is often bewildered by the way people behave.

I find I resonate with many of Christopher's thoughts. My personality is such that I typically take a more rational, logical approach to most (not all!) things. A counsellor might say that I am in a "head space" rather than a "heart space" for much of life.

Take death, for example. I know there are people who view death as horrific. I can see that it bothers them, whether we're talking about their own death, or the death of someone they know. But I cannot comprehend why they feel that way about it. To me, death is an inevitable part of life and it seems more rational to view it as simply another stage of living than as something to be feared. I miss having contact with those who've died. I also miss the contact I used to have with friends who moved and eventually stopped communicating regularly. My concerns about death have more to do with the events leading up to the death, and whether the person who is more immediately dying than am I is undergoing any pain or discomfort.

Likewise, I just can't comprehend treating a person who is dying much differently than I would treat them if they were not about to die, aside from sensitivity to their discomfort, fear, or pain. Yet, so many treat the dying with reverence, as though the act of dying confers greatness, or automatic sainthood.

I'm thinking about someone with whom I interacted via the Internet over the past years. He had been a witty, intelligent man, learned and well-travelled. Filled with experiences. He had also been a petty bully, prone to bursts of ugly temper, reacting badly to things he didn't like by lashing out, without regard for the emotional pain or confusion he may have caused his target, and without regard for whether they intended to cause him distress. All too often his targets were people innocently expressing an opinion regarding something, and this man disagreed in strong, sarcastic, insulting terms. Once he took a dislike to someone he would sometimes seek them out, looking for further opportunities to deride them, unprovoked. Not a few times people who had been his target reacted in a mystified, wounded way. What did they do?

After initially liking him, I learned to dislike this man, and the more I saw him behave in this way, the more I loathed him. While I admired his wit and intellect, I did not care for the way he abused it. I disliked his overreactive defensiveness -- he could dish it, but couldn't take it with grace or humor. Granted, so many of us suffer from that particular personality quirk, but it made him all the more unlikeable.

When I learned of his illness, I hesitated. I didn't care that he was dying. I mean, <shrug>, we all get to do that. I did care that his family would miss him -- I knew his wife and liked her and knew also that she was unhappy with the situation, so I felt sad about her pain. I didn't particularly care that he was probably feeling ill. I mean, I didn't wish his suffering, but neither did it impact me one way or the other. We all go through illnesses and I reserve my distress for those who are closer to me when they are ill.

So I stayed silent, aside from offering a few words of comfort to his wife.

I was mystified, though, at some of the people who had expressed anger and hatred of him while he lived among them, so to speak, about-facing and eulogizing him in glowing terms. Where was their admiration while he was well and participating in their lives? Why would they offer it only when he was about to pass on to whatever comes after life? How odd that they make such a big fat hairy deal out of his dying, too. Someone dared to make light of his impending death, using it to poke at another person, and a subsequent uproar, cries of "how dare you?" and accusations that the jester wanted the man to die ensued. Why did his impending death impact them so?

The only rationalizations I have been able to come up with so far are that
1. they were projecting some of their death fear and hoping to ward it off with kindness, or
2. they were assuaging feelings of guilt for having been "mean" to the man, or
3. he did have an impact on them emotionally and this was a "safe" way to express their possible relief at his passing, or
4. they genuinely liked him in spite of their earlier sparring and would actually miss being abused by him, or
5. they found his dying to be a good tool to leverage in smacking down someone whom they disliked even more

His dying and subsequent death had this impact on me: it caused me to witness this behavior, and ponder it. I see it all the time, but I cannot fully understand it.

8 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Witch-bitchin'

by gekko at 1:33 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

How many years has it been? Nearly ten. I remember the furor back when the first book became popular -- my son started reading the series then, and so I grew interested and paid attention and of course way back then there were the usual predictable mouth-breathing over-reactionary parents screeching that their children would become corrupted by those "witchcraft" books. They were "anti-Christian", they were.

Harry Potter. A series of books about a kid growing up in an English school for sorcery, where they learn to control their magic and hopefully use it for the forces of good, and fight the forces of evil. The only difference between Harry Potter (et alia) and the Apostles, really, was that what Harry did was called Magic, and what the Apostles did were called Miracles. Oh, and the word "God" was invoked with the Apostles.

But never mind that. I'm not as interested in defending a Potterian school library as I am in mocking some of the comments I read in a German publication. These are readers who've weighed in on the issue of banning Potter books from school libraries. I've chosen two, because some of what they say stands out to me.

I believe that parents should have the right, whether it's a public school or not, to restrict what their children read. They should have the right to decide what goes along with the beliefs they are teaching their kids at home. At least they should until the child is old enough to make a mature decision on his/her own. After around age 14 the children should be old enough to decide for themselves. If parents don't step up and take an active roll in what their children are learning, their children will learn anything and everything, and will not have a stable opinion on anything. -- Diane Jones, USA

Parents in a free world absolutely do have the right to restrict most of what their children read. They do it by controlling their own children, not by controlling everyone's children. Obviously required reading in classrooms refutes that. Nevertheless, if Mrs. Jones demands that her son not read any of the Potter books, by golly, Mrs. Jones needs to make sure her son does not read them. Meanwhile, I demand that those books be made available to my own children through the auspices of the public school which I and my taxes support. I also insist that other good works of fiction and non-fiction be made available. I would hope that my money goes to provide as broad and interesting an experience for my children as humanly possible. Mrs. Jones? If you cannot adequately control your boy, then maybe you should consider special schooling.

Of course parents should have a say in reading materials in state run schools, but not a dictatorial say. To ban books in schools is a serious matter, especially with the very popular Harry Potter series. The goal is education, and if something like evolution is banned from schools, then the goal of education will be undermined, as with the Harry Potter series. Not only are the Harry Potter books educational, but also inspirational. Religiously controversial? I don't think it has to be such. Children should be encouraged to think for themselves at an early age, with the guidance of their peers. Ban books? That's a big no-no. -- Scott Anderson, USA

Harry Potter books aren't really all that educational -- not any more than any of a bazillion other works of fiction. Probably less so. Oh, sure, the books contain words. And situations that help children identify with various challenges in life, and options when confronting those challenges. They get to see how an 11 year old boy deals with issues and the ramifications of his choices. But there are hundreds of books that do that, so claiming some special "educational" value to the Potter books is specious. Just acknowledge they are good fun, and engaging, and that they entice children to read in a way that many other books do not, and that it is only right and good to include them as a choice in the materials available at the schools we pay for.

I do agree that children should be encouraged to think for themselves, and I agree that they should be provided the tools to help them learn to do that responsibly. I agree with Mr. Anderson's implication, that providing "alternative" choices give parents the opportunity to sit down and discuss potentially controversial subjects with them. Mrs. Jones could elect to let little Michah read the Potter books and have him compare and contrast the goodness of Tommy Tomato versus the wickedness of Draco Malfoy, and whether Harry made the right decision to join Ron in the flying car, or if he should have patterened himself after young Joan of Arc instead. Or something.

Anyway, this HP poast is brought to you by someone who really doesn't have a clue what to blog about.

[Quotes taken from DW-World.de]

17 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Where "google me" will take on new meaning

by gekko at 8:30 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

We're all a-blaze with talk about cell phones, where I work. Although my department isn't in the cell phone biz, other parts of the company are, and how that part of the company does impacts us all.

We're full of bright people, with bright ideas and we want to create the killer product that will make our company the bright shining star it once was and deserves to be again.

But we're hamstrung.

Rumors about Apple's iPhone were abounding long before Jobs unveiled the slick new phone with the awesome interface. The phone we should have been making, and could have been making. We drooled with envy, where I work. And now the rumors are buzzing with nooooooooz about Goooogle entering the phone market.

But this Fox News analyst hit the nail on the head, when speculating about a phone coming out of this software house:

I can see the frustration even within Google: they have fabulous software ideas, but the fragmented operating systems, lousy Java implementations, hideous carrier restrictions and byzantine UIs on phones prevent users from getting to them.

Yahoo! is feeling the same rage. Heck, any Internet company worth their salt is feeling it.

Apple was definitely feeling it when they developed the iPhone, which in Apple's mind solves the media-on-cell-phones problem.

Apple's super-strong brand and market power let them get past the miserable conservatism of the wireless carrier oligarchs who control cell phone software.
-- Analysis: Why America Needs a Google Phone

Byzantine User Interfaces. Which are more or less forced on us by the first-line customers, the carriers who market everyone's phones. Someone did a study, and learned that the third most popular function used on a cell phone these days is the alarm clock. Calls, text messages, and alarm clocks.

But in all the buttons and soft keys that come on your phone, where is your alarm clock function? Is it as easy to access as, say, getting to your carrier's web site to purchase ringtones and new songs?

See, making it easy to get to the alarm clock doesn't bring money back to the phone carrier.

I love my phone. I tolerate my carrier and their restrictive policies regarding letting me access the stuff on my phone easily via Bluetooth. I despise the user interface they insist on having on every phone they market. I can't see the clock on the front, because they put the little bitty numbers at the bottom. I can readily see my carrier's emblem, however.

I wish, oh how I wish that we all would get together and demand that these carriers start figuring out what we want, and make it available. If we could do what Jobs did with Cingular ...

11 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

On meanness, and hurt

by gekko at 4:34 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

This is gonna be scattered, rambling. And repetitive, because a buncha peeps are doing this, but I had a lot I wanted to say.

Some people find others "mean", and they post about the way it impacts them. Maybe they hope it will effect a change.

Some people believe that posting about how perceived meanness affects you is whiny and self-serving and deserving of scorn, especially if the posting person has themselves been mean.

Some people believe that life dishes you what it dishes you, and there are ways to deal with it, and they provide their own recipes for success in a world fraught with hurt feelings.

I'm leaving out vast groups of "some people" because I haven't got all day.

My view is ... maybe not simple. It's this: life can be mean. We're going to react to things we don't care for, sometimes by crying in hurt, and sometimes by lashing out. We're gonna be passionate about topics, and get emotionally invested in them and feel hurt when they are challenged and then lash out, garnering a counter-reaction. We're going to misconstrue light-hearted banter for insult. And on, and on.

A while back Looney posted about his father, psychically wounded, causing misery around him. Following that up with her own thoughts about the brokenness of human beings was Arleen.

The fact is that no one knows how we each can cope with things. No one really can say for certain that there isn't some special pain going on in a person's life. And what works for thee may not work for she, and maybe some of it will work for me, but what about he?

That said, I believe this: we are each responsible for our own hurts. We really are. Whether it's our brain chemistry, or simply that we don't know better, or just plain childishness, we more or less *choose*, albeit not consciously, how to react to any given situation. I may see a spider walking across the floor and react with disgust and fear. Looney may see it and want to study it. Sour Grapes would want to pull its legs off, and Paula would be envious because the spider would get to wear four pairs of shoes at once! PJ would probably want to make up a recipe for a nice sauce to go with braised spider.

If we were perfect, we'd learn how to change our reactions -- and we often do change, without awareness, to suit a new situation. But we aren't perfect. Arleen's and Looney's posts tell us about that. It may take herculean effort, or magic pills, to enable us to change, to overcome.

But, in the end, we are responsible. We take the heat for our behaviors. We live with the consequences, even though it may seem horribly unfair. And we're held accountable for past behaviors -- unfair as that is, people have colored their view of us based on how we've acted in the past. They can't help it. It's ingrained in our survival.

I don't have an answer. I can't neatly summarize and tell everyone to just buck up, move on, and deal with it. You have to choose how to handle the events in your life. You'll end up living with the consequences whether you want to, or not.

7 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Incentives

by gekko at 3:20 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Say a hypothetical company, looking at the increasing costs of medical insurance, wanted to do something clever to help its bottom line.

Say it chose to do this: make the employees pay a much larger premium, much larger co-pays, and barely cover prescriptions, but offer the employees cash incentives so they can get some of this money back.

The company gets to collect the money pretty much up front, then throughout the year the employee has to do stuff to earn "points" -- things like schedule wellness checkups, mammograms, dental appointments, engage in X number of specfic types of workouts per quarter, take on-line "courses" and take little quizzes to prove you learned something about health, make a commitment to remain tobacco free for the entire year, get various blood workups ... and so on.

Then when the employee has collected a certain number of points, "give" them back, oh, let's say they'd give back $200.

Hypothetically speaking, the number of tasks the employee would need to engage in, and the length of time it would take them to do these tasks, along with the effort the employee would probably need to expend in order to satisfy the "incentive" program (such as filling out forms, collecting signatures, logging into myriad sites to track progress, read articles, and take the quizzes) might make it daunting and stressful.

There are some interesting things to note, here.

The cost-saving plan, this hypothetical, presupposes that the reason the company has to shell out so much in medical insurance is because the employees are ignorant and need education; yet I'm willing to bet people are saturated with "health" stuff from the media. It's my belief people choose unhealthy lifestyles because they are habituated and no amount of reading chirpy little articles and acing multiple choice quizzes is going to change their lifestyles. Ask someone why they smoke and if they don't know that smoking causes lung cancer. Ask an obese person if they're aware that eating less and exercising would help their health. Ignorant? Nah.

Stress is a known factor when it comes to illness -- making employees jump through these hoops just might raise their stress levels. Lastly, the time spent in the bureacratic mess of such a behemoth program would theoretically take time away from genuinely valuable activities like, say, hiking, or coaching a child's softball team, or visiting their mum in the old fart's home, or, well, working on work while at work.

As stated, this is all hypothetical. I mean, I would not take time away from valuable activities in order to diss any actual company, here.

9 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Fucking special characters

by gekko at 9:04 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Anyone know what the fuck this is:

“

?

I'll tell you what it is. It's the string of characters that appears when you cut and paste a quote from a site that uses fucking Microsoft to format its fucking pages. In Microsoftese, it's supposed to look like a fancy version of this:

"

Forwards, that is. Forward fancy curly fucking quote marks. There is another incomprehensible string of characters that, in Microsoftese, look like backward curly fancy fucking quote marks.

One of two things has to happen here:

1. Microfuckingsoft has to STOP fucking with the fucking quote marks and just generate fucking normal ASCII characters like everyfuckingbody else, or

2. The fucking HTML protocol has to be updated to see and respond appropriately to the fancy fucking Microsoft fuckers and fucking serve them up the way Microsticktheirfuckingassesineverybody'sfacesoft intended.

If one of those things do not happen, and happen right soon, I am going to get fucking cranky!

3 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

More than biology

by gekko at 11:47 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

"Virgie" squoze Victoria, aka Anna Nicole, out from between her legs and provided some level of nurture for some number of years.

Anna Nicole squoze out son Daniel from between her legs and presumably provided some level of nurture for some number of years.

Motherhood matters in many matters ... however ...

Smith's mom admits she hasn't seen her daughter in person in ten years and that their relationship sucked.

Smith's son died in her arms.

It should be a no-brainer, folks. Bury the rotting corpse next to her son, 'k? Burying her in a place she apparently loathed just doesn't make sense. Not that Anna Nicole cares at this point, is what I'm thinking, but it seems to matter to, like, a gazillion other people.

I have written. As it be written; so let it be done.

5 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Screening Calls

by gekko at 1:37 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Yes, I have caller ID. Yes, I use it to screen calls. Yes, I dodge calls I can't be arsed -- for a variety of reasons -- to answer.

It may be someone calling about a billing issue. If I'm not ready to talk to that company (I need to get all the data, a notepad for taking notes and a tape recorder set up), I'll ditch the call. The only time a company calls me with billing issues, I should add, is when they are in the wrong but haven't had the integrity or smarts to own up to it, and so continue to sic their collections departments on me hoping to bully me. That don't work.

It may be a "legal" telemarketer. I say "legal" because I am on the National Do Not Call Registry, but that registry still permits telemarketers from political candidates and charitable organizations to keep your name on a list and call you. You still have to directly request each of them to take you off of their list.

It may be an organization or business that is leveraging the business arrangement I have with them to add me to one of their customer service polls.

It may be a friend, but I am not in a good space, emotionally, to connect to other people at that moment.

Whoever it is, if they can't be bothered to leave a message, then I can't be bothered to call them back. Ever.

Here's the deal. I own a phone and pay for the service for my convenience. Not for yours. Not for my Mom's. Not for Company X, Bank B, or Political Candidate Doofus McJerkoff. If they want to install a lizard hotline, then they can fucking well pay me for providing them access to me, 'k?

OTOH, if you do leave a message, chances are I'll return your call eventually. At my convenience.

Does that make me, like, bad?

Remind me to tell you, one day, of the harassment of Company X. I'll wait until I've resolved the issue to my satisfaction, tho.

7 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

bombshell

by gekko at 8:39 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Used four times in a recent news article I read concerning Anna Nicole, the word "bombshell" needs to be retired from the English lexicon, especially when used to describe any blonde.

I realize that when it was first coined in relation to popularly attractive blonde celebrities it was "cute" because of the alliteration, but, really.

A "bombshell" is either an actual bomb, presumably encased in a housing, or it is someone or something that has a sudden and sensational effect. How sudden is Anna Nicole's effect by now, fuck sake?

The news of her death could rightly be called a bombshell. Her first few appearances on the arm of the dead billionaire could make her a bombshell. Any time she entered a room for the first time could, arguably, earn her the title "bombshell."

But she's dead. She died while heavily drinking -- blasted -- and possibly hopped up on medications. When last seen alive, her eyelids were drooping and her face was doubtless puffy and unattractive. Presently, her skin is waxen and decaying, due to slough off as it turns gray and putrid. Her hair is flat and dull and will soon fall out in gobs. Her gums will recede as the microbes that are even now feasting on her chomp away all the soft bits. The famous and oft' ogled double D implants may not even be in place right at this second.

She's hardly a bombshell. I don't think she could rightly be described as a bombshell in her last public moments.

Regardless, writers need to find a new word to describe flashy blondes these days.

7 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Why mess with fate/natural selection?

by gekko at 10:59 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I am sick and tired of these nanny lawmakers interfering with the natural order of things!

New Yorkers who blithely cross the street listening to an iPod or talking on a cell phone could soon face a $100 fine.

New York State Sen. Carl Kruger says three pedestrians in his Brooklyn district have been killed since September upon stepping into traffic while distracted by an electronic device. In one case bystanders screamed "watch out" to no avail.
-- New York may ban iPods while crossing street - washingtonpost.com

What they are saying is that they need to fine everyone because of the very very very few who (a) fail to pay attention to their surroundings and (b) do so in a way that makes it less likely that others can watch your ass for you and (c) end up getting killed as a result of their stupidity.

So I would be barred from using an iPod or cell phone while walking in NYC, even though I would be smart enough to pay attention to my surroundings. Or I would have to pay a $100 fee for the privilege of walking freely in the city while doing something that I as a free citizen ought to be able to do.

"But what's happening is when they're tuning into their iPod or Blackberry or cell phone or video game, they're walking into speeding buses and moving automobiles. It's becoming a nationwide problem."

I know NYC is the center of the USA and all, but three idiots in New York makes for a "nationwide problem"?

7 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Prolly ain't gonna work

by gekko at 9:14 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I remember the passion with which my friend Alma, an ethnic Serb, world traveller and now US citizen, had spoken of Kosovo back in the days of Milosevic and the reported ethnic cleansings. Kosovo is to the Serbs and Croats as Jerusalem is to the Jews, Muslims and Christians. Each can lay claim to it going back eons, and it has apparently always been a center of contention between the ethnic tribes.

Now the UN is playing God, as is its wont:

The majority Albanian province of Kosovo has been put on the path to independence by an international blueprint that redraws the Balkans map and effectively strips Serbia of sovereignty over a region it regards as its Jerusalem.
[...]
"It's a compromise proposal," [special UN envoy and former Finnish president Martti] Ahtisaari said, pointing out that it had to be endorsed by the UN Security Council. The aim was a viable and stable Kosovo .

The document does not use the word independence but makes Kosovo a ward of the EU, and leaves a large NATO peacekeeping force in place.
theage.com.au

I don't have an answer. I just know that this "solution" is merely another time bomb.

[Updated: Thanks, Mark. I made the poast better.]

4 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Refrigerator Art and Preschool Pageants

by gekko at 12:37 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

We're setting them up, you know. Those of us who've raised these kids who're now trying out for American Idol. I think it started a little bit with my age group, but was definitely firmly ensconced within all the schools by the time my now-adult children got there.

Praising them for the smallest things. Finding creative ways to avoid hurting their tender feelings. Avoiding telling them they've "failed", and making up ways for them to "win" even when they've, well, failed.

8 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Is there, like, a point, here?

by gekko at 6:46 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Everyone loves it when a celebrity fucks up, especially if it's something that lets us experience real panty-wadding disgust. Whazziz's anti-Semitic comments when he was arrested for drunk driving, for example. Oooh, that burned our nads and made us buzz for weeks about his racism. Lately it's been the racist comments of some chick on some reality-tv show when she was, I guess, being voted out of a house. I haven't paid much attention other than to note that it moved from the top stories in Google news and the front pages of the East Coast gossip rags to actually hitting CBS News coverage. Prime Time news: some ditz is a racist! Oooh, more nad burning!

So can someone tell me what the Media -- that'd be the folks who're gleefully reporting on celebrity racism -- is trying to accomplish by highlighting the fact that the coaches of the two teams facing off in the Big Money Playoff Event of the Year (aka "The Superbowl") happen to be black?

Is blackness Big News? Do black people coach football differently than do, oh, white people? If a black coach faces a white coach, is there something different going on? What if he or she faced a Polynesian coach? Is it a huge accomplishment that there is a black coach -- I mean, were blacks refused the opportunity to coach teams until this past year? Is the NFL notable for its lack of blackness?

Or is the Media just patting them on their heads and gushing about how "special" they are?

Racism isn't just when you put someone else down, you know.

10 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Yer mean!

by gekko at 9:32 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Let's talk "American Idol." I don't really like the show. I've seen the very first two seasons and bits of other seasons as family members continued to watch and rave about the talents of their favorites. People would giggle and wince over the absurdness of the first rounds of contestants as well as laugh in the privacy of their homes at the nasty comments of some of the judges.

[American] Idol judge Randy Jackson told one contestant his audition was awful and perhaps ruined his business. "You shouldn't be a vocal teacher," Jackson said. "I wouldn't take vocal lessons from you, I wouldn't tell anybody to take vocal lessons from you."

Jackson defended his and his colleagues' behavior plausibly saying the judges are continually surprised at how people who should know they can't sing show up thinking they have a chance.
-- American Idol Judges, Producer Deny 'Cruelty' to Contestants - Movie News - Playfuls.com - Fun & Entertainment

Y'know? I agree. There are a large number of people who just flat out have no talent and ought to know better. I'm not talking about people who do have pretty nice singing voices, but the ones who really really suck. They're tone deaf, have no sense of timing, and yet they still come on with arrogant bravado expecting the judges to think they're all that.

Yet, as much as I agree with what Jackson said, I cannot help but feel sad for some of the hopefuls. I tuned in to the start of this season only because it happened to be recorded when I thought I was recording another show.

The first contestant to appear self identified herself as a big fan of recording artist Jewel. Jewel just happened to be the celebrity judge for this round. This young hopeful had prepared a Jewel song, and sang it in a Jewel style. She didn't totally suck. She had a clear lack of proper vocal training and was a bit pitchy, but there was nothing that a voice coach could not correct.

To their credit, Cowell, Abdul, Jackson and even Jewel were very gentle with this cheerful and obviously overwhelmingly hopeful young woman, but she was crushed nonetheless.

I turned off the TV and erased the recording. I felt enough sympathy for this girl that it hurt me to watch and I had no desire to move on to the really "funny" stuff where they got to say nasty things to the obvious talentless idiots.

I sing. I'm comfortable buried in a choir, and I do not do solos. I love singing while alone in the car, or in the shower, or while doing housework. I am smart enough and know just enough about good singing to understand that I could never be chosen for real singing, not without a lot of work.

I wish that young woman and others like her wouldn't put so much of themselves into the dream of becoming an American Idol.

Brava to her for putting herself out there. But boo for investing so much of her dream in that.

7 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Yyyyeah I Don't Think So

by gekko at 6:24 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Branding is a big part of everything. As I noted in my previous post, Apple wants to leverage the "i" thing it had going with its very clever iPod name that, as we all know, hit it rilly big.

There are other devices out there as slick as Apple's, with the same type of total touch-screen approach but you don't hear about them. You do hear about iPhone, so the name is important.

Cisco has that name for its line of Internet Phones. An Internet phone is a device that provides communication using Voice over IP across the Internet. The voice is digitized, turned into packets, and transmitted through cables using protocols specific to the Internet.

A cell phone is a device that provides communication using mostly radio frequencies. In today's cell phones, the voice is digitized and turned into "packets" and transmitted through the air, then cables, using protocols specific to the cellular industry.

In both cases, those digitized packets use Internet Protocol (IP) as a part of their transmission.

Here's some logic someone suggests might be successful for Apple to use:

One tack that Apple can take is proving that its iPhone is as different from Cisco's iPhone as Delta Air Lines is different from Delta Faucets, said David Radack, chair of the intellectual property department at the Pittsburgh law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. No one is going to call Delta Faucet looking for a round-trip ticket from San Francisco to New York, so two companies can use the same trademark if they don't confuse the other's customers, he said. -- How Apple could fight Cisco | CNET News.com

I'd say Radack and whoever else came up with that flimsy attempt ought to be laughed out of the lawyer business.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!   |   TrackBack (0)

Keeping her little

by gekko at 7:12 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I've read just enough to form an opinion. I have just a small amount of information -- I have not yet read the parents' blog -- so of course that means I am going to express my opinion.

I'm talking about the "Pillow Angel", a nine year old girl named Ashley who's got a severely debilitating brain disorder known as "static encephalopathy" wherein she will forever have the brain of a three month old baby. The parents were faced with the choice of institutionalizing the young woman she would grow up to be -- physically mature, but still only three months old forever -- or keeping her at home in a state in which they were able to care for her. That state meant stunting her growth, preventing her from menstruating and growing breasts. In this way, they can carry her easily (she does not have the brain capacity to move on her own), and she will not suffer from all the discomfort and problems that menstruating women undergo through life. She will always be a child in both mind and body.

They blog about it here.

The outrage I've seen focuses on how grotesque it is to alter a child "for the convenience of the parents."

Let me think about that for a moment.

If they did not alter the child -- a child who will never realize the potential of being an adult human -- the child would reach a mature size and physical status and live in an institution for the rest of her probably long and natural life. She would be at the mercy of orderlies, nursing staff, doctors, administrators. She would not have her family around her. She probably would not care much about that, but I'm thinking she will be feeling pain and distress each time someone does something to her that perhaps they ought not -- whether it's an honest mistake made by a well-meaning worker administering the wrong treatment, or the viciousness of someone who works in those institutions simply to take advantage of the helplessness of its patients.

Compare that with living at home -- nothing medically wrong with her other than her brain disorder, I think -- among people who genuinely care about her, love her, and are dedicated to caring for her. They, too, will make mistakes that will cause her pain and discomfort, but the chances are reduced, and there will be less likelihood of the family members deliberately harming their child.

She will not have to undergo the very thing all women hate. There's no reason on earth for her to have to menstruate or grow breasts. She will not be reproducing. So what is the harm in preventing her from reaching a potential that will never be used and saving her from that pain?

Convenience for the parents? The detractors do not seem to be thinking clearly. It is very much for the comfort and safety of the child, not the "convenience" of the parents!

Is it vital, is it really ethically necessary that simply because a person can grow breasts that she must grow breasts, even if they will never be suckled by a baby? Even if they will serve only to tempt some monster in an institution to rape her? That's "inconvenient" for the parents?

I'm guessing I don't see harm in keeping her little. I see only good. I see harm in letting her grow larger.

At this point, I am very much in favor of Ashley staying small, and staying home, and I applaud her parents for making that decision. I applaud the doctors who performed the procedures ensuring she would forever stay in the body of a nine-year-old girl.

9 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

Tinker, tailor, c'mere Sailor!

by gekko at 8:25 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I enjoy Mark's blog and his comments in others' because he's feisty. I find him enjoyable irrespective of his rightness or wrongness, because he stands behind his beliefs. People like that, expressing themselves with passion, are often considered assholes or even bullies. That makes for good controversy.

I lurves me good controversy, innit.

So I read Mark regularly and when he posted about this fellow, I wandered over to see the kerfuffle. I found the Utopia d00d moaning about Mark and this quote was just too tasty to bypass:

why did he think that anyone (including me) gave a tinker's damn what he thought anyway? -- SEEKING UTOPIA

Oh. I dunno. Maybe the fact that you just trolled him over with an entire fucking blog poast that is All About Mark?

Congrats are in order, btw, on proving that "any person who possesses a computer and who can manage to string a few words together (irregardless of whether they make any sense or have any value at all)" can write a mind-numbing run-on.

Finally, I'm not sure his ire is all that credible when, as an atheist, he bitches about a Jew sending him a nasty-gram on "Xmas."

15 comments make for a lot of heat

The Agency that is crying "Wolf"

by gekko at 8:00 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I have, at this point, only the LA Time's version of it, but it pertains to something I am suspecting. The story this time surrounds the long-awaited release of FBI documents concerning its 1970s investigation on John Lennon.

The Times reported this week that none of the documents released over the years did much more than embarrass the government's efforts to spy on the musician. The latest batch of 10 had been held up because the U.S. government argued that its disclosure might threaten national security. The reality, Marmalefsky says, is that it made a certain English-speaking island monarchy look bad for its role in helping the FBI investigate one of its celebrated sons. -- Attorney hears final refrain of 'Ballad of Lennon's File' - Los Angeles Times

I'm hearing "national security" alongside the weasel words "might threaten" a bit too much. Is it media, doing its duty by scoffing, or is it that various US government agencies are indeed overusing that particular phrase in order to cover up the things they really don't want anyone prying into?

4 comments make for a lot of heat

Secularity Run Amok

by gekko at 9:09 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Another menorah flap, this one in Fort Collins Colorado, and for the second year in a row is in the news. The (sizable) Jewish community, lead by Rabbi Yerachmiel Gorelik, has requested that they put a 9 ft. menorah alongside the Christmas tree in the town square. Last year the city permitted a lighting ceremony, but refused to let the menorah remain throughout the entire 8 days of Hanukkah. The ruling cited a Supreme Court decision dictating that the tree is a secular symbol, while the menorah is both secular and religious.

"They were saying that the Christmas tree and Christmas were American," he said, "but that Hanukkah and the menorah were something that doesn't belong."

Several council members said they were concerned that allowing a menorah display would open the door for other religious groups and organizations to request that their displays also be included.

"Someone said there are 79 recognized religions in the world," said one member, Karen Weitkunat. "Where do you draw the line?" Another member, Diggs Brown, said, "If we were to open it up to a menorah, then everyone wants to get involved. You're going to get sued if you allow religious displays, and you're going to be sued if you don't have them."
-- Town refuses request to display menorah

I am rather tired of that strawman. Where do you draw the line? At the end of the line. If you have a significant population of any particular recognized religion and a petition drive garners sufficient signatures, and the members of those religions don't mind secularizing and commercializing the symbols of their religions, then absofuckinglutely make use of the public property to display things that are important to that public!!!

The public squares of this country tend to display non-religious symbols important to the community. Flags. Statues. Lovely flowers and trees. Peaceful spaces. Carts selling items. On national holidays, the public spaces are festooned with national symbols.

When the public itself comprises significant numbers of any particular ethnic group, then the symbols displayed align with the ethnic specialties of that group. Pinatas and bier gartens and alpine-esque decorations abound. Snowmen and snowflakes in the fucking desert, for fuck's sake! Native American symbols are rife. Don't tell me the ubiquitous Kokopeli is not derived from a spiritual/religious tradition!

So if the public itself is composed of (lapsed or practicing) Christians who've grown up with the tradition of a tree or a star as part of the decor of a season, then why should not that same public, when it is composed of a large number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Rastas, Bahais, or Sikhs, expect to have some of their traditional symbols displayed?

If the people want it, why not give it to them?

The notion of "separation of Church and State" was originally intended to prevent the State from promoting or forcing a specific religion on the people. It was never intended to prevent the people from having their religious symbols where and when they want them, although demagogues have succeeded in turning it into that.

A public square is public land, not a government office. It is a place for public celebrations, and public events. It is a place for the various ethnicities and cultures to come together and share in one another's diversity. It is not appropriate for the government to deny one cultural group something because it also has religious significance.

The city isn't promoting Judaism if it permits its Jewish population to share some of its traditions with the rest of the city. It isn't promoting Christianity when it permits a creche or a tree. It isn't promoting Islam if it permits a public beheading ... I mean, if it permits the public ceremonies that might be enlightening to the non-Muslim world.

To my way of thinking, it is a good way to bring us all together, rather than separate us into this group and that group.

10 comments make for a lot of heat

Should we watch?

by gekko at 8:51 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I am of two minds. Maybe more.

http://www.familywatchdog.us

If you click the link above, you'll go to a site where you can plug in an address, and get a map with little markers for all the registered sexual offenders, where they live, where they work.

These are offenders, depending on the locality, for violent and non-violent sexual offenses.

Sexual offenses are apparently considered more heinous than property offenses or even most violent crimes. I have not seen a similar map for murderers or batterers.

I am also not entirely sure just how heinous the sexual offense has to be to end up on that map. I think it varies across the country. The kid who boffed his underage girlfriend and her parents pressed charges might be on that map. The guy who took advantage of a drunken woman at a party might be on that map. The sociopathic serial rapist would probably also be on that map.

I've read studies that suggest that sexual offenses are seriously underreported, so while you may be staring intently at the guy whose house is near yours and he had once beat and raped his wife while in a drunken rage about 15 years ago, you'll be blissfully unaware of the serial rapist who is the head deacon at your church teaching Sunday School.

So I'm of two minds. I will approach my daily walks in the park I go to differently knowing there's a repeat offender (sexual battery) living two houses away from that park. So maybe I am glad to have that information. Maybe I'm not -- more trepidation now.

But what about parents with younger children? Should they know that a pedophile is near the playground they let their kids go to? Should they just fear that everyone is a potential pedophile, and not let their kids go anywhere without having first done their weapons and martial arts exercises and fully locked and loaded?

Are the sexual offenders less likely to misbehave, knowing that the world is watching them with eagle-sharp eyes?

Is there a more severe invasion of privacy of an individual who has presumably paid his or her dues to society by publishing their locations, crimes, and photographs for all of the general populace to see and react to? Is this a form of bigotry and intolerance?

9 comments make for a lot of heat

Oh, now THAT's the Christmas Spirit!

by gekko at 6:23 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Peace on earth, goodwill toward all people, innit. Unless you're trying to protect a garish secular display in a public place. Then it's hate, hate, hate.

A local rabbi is receiving hate mail and angry phone calls after Seattle airport officials took down its Christmas trees in response to his request to include a giant Menorah in the airport's holiday decorations, his lawyer said on Monday. -- Rabbi gets hate mail over airport Christmas trees�|�US News�|�Reuters.com

The rabbi's method for sending his message was pretty stupid. But sending hate mail in defense of a commercialized icon that is associated with a religion that purports to be about peace and "good news" is totally fucked.

18 comments make for a lot of heat

TMP: What a pile of sh*t!

by gekko at 1:25 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I can't believe people who say "I can't believe people who just let their dogs poop everywhere!"

What are dog owners supposed to do, cram the crap back into the dog's ass and give a firm "NO" command?

What they're bitching about, of course, isn't that these people are "letting" their dogs do the royal squat. They're bitching about the fact that these morons do not pick up after their dogs' dookies.

As for this corollary peeve, I agree with them.

So Miz Honkershnoz takes little Paris Poodle for walkies and poochie has the urge to download some brownware. Paris potties on the sidewalk, Miz Honkershnoz daintily steps around it and they go on their way.

Substitute "my lawn" or "the public park" for "sidewalk" in the above scenario, as suits you.

I am probably being anal retentive about this, but when I take Teegan out for her daily jaunt to the park, I take along a roll of bags attached to her leash so I can clean up after her. If she cooks up a butt burrito near an existing pile, I'll go ahead and nab that one too, in my clean-up duties. I do NOT want the park shut down to dogs.

Today there were four older dirt snakes near where Teegan did her doodee. What totally teed me off and prompted this shitty post was that she squatted right next to the plastic bag dispenser the city erected alongside the garbage can! I mean how tough can it be to grab a bag and scoop the ol' sphincter spurt?

6 comments make for a lot of heat

TMP: You talkin' to me?

by gekko at 10:47 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

"Well hello! How ARE you?"

I admit the exuberance of the greeting, coming from behind me as I stood in line at the grocery store should've clued me in that this person was not talking to me.

I'm lucky if I can get a "Oh. You. Um. Whaddayaneed?" from people.

But, still. It was sudden. Loud. Right behind me.

So I turned, a plastic frozen smile on my face, to greet this chipper person who apparently thought I should be greeted and very nearly said , "Well hi yourself! 'sup?" in that automated way we all adopt, but I quickly realized

a) she was a complete, utter stranger. Not even someone I might maybe should've possibly known and recalled. Total stranger. And,

b) she was on a Bluetooth headset, talking via strange and mystic aether-like connections through her cell phone and to some complete other person. Someone who was not standing in a grocery store line. Possibly even someone who was lounging around on a sun-soaked beach, sipping exotic rum-based beverages and being fanned by well-oiled brown-skinned hardbodies.

I hate those people. The beach people. The ones who have the time and leisure to call random strangers in grocery store lines so they can neener at them.

But, I digress.

My peeve is the prevalence of these disembodied conversations. Feeling like I'm intruding when I walk past someone whose ear has sprouted a silver box and who is speaking animatedly to someone who isn't there. My peeve is that when I walk about talking into thin air, people move away and give me strange looks. Maybe if I stopped shouting "Josephine! Where are my epaulets!" they'd not behave thus, but my point, I think, is a good one.

Why is it acceptable to push your conversations with other people into my space, hmmm? Why do you think I want to know that "honey sweetie" wants you to pick up a pound of coffee and you can't find it so "honey sweetie" has to direct you to the correct aisle? Could not the pimple-faced stock clerk have done a better job? Did you really have to shout, "WHA? BAD CONNECTION! DID YOU SAY AISLE 10? THERE ARE DIAPERS IN AISLE 10! OH! AISLE SEVEN! WHA? WHA?" at me?

Yes, it was at me. I was the only person present, after all. The voice on the other end wasn't there. And, besides, she was wrong. Coffee is in aisle five.

Fuckwit.

4 comments make for a lot of heat

I am Woman. Cater to me, dammit!

by gekko at 2:53 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Dear Designers, Manufacturers, Marketers, and World At Large:

I am not a man. I am not a large person. I am a somewhat small woman. Not tiny, but, well, a bit below average. I have delicate, small, female features. They are sized just right for someone who is female, five-foot-three, and 120 pounds, but when you compare them with, say, the average male, they are darned small.

So. If you please.

- Stop selling me cars with seatbelts that choke me when I put them on.
- Stop selling me office chairs that have the "lumbar support" nestled squarely in between my shoulder blades.
- Stop making phone headsets that, on my ears, turn into huge seventies-era ear bangles.
- Stop making earbuds that when I wear them feel like the equivalent of you shoving an ostrich-egg-sized jagged chunk of meteorite metal into your ear.
- When you make a "small" sized "comfort gel" for said earbud, ensure it is not the same size as my Uncle Vinnie's 4 karat diamond, 'k? Something a little smaller than that would be good.
- "Petite" in pants lengths does not mean "Vern Troyer Sized". Right? Short women are not dwarfs. Okay? Try to get the hems of normal jeans to actually cover my ankles. Or just plain be honest and call them "crops". Lordy.

I'd like to see options, people. If you can offer different ring tones, you can offer sizing options that actually fit the human being body types that use these products.

8 comments make for a lot of heat

Haggard

by gekko at 5:59 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

The "sins" he and his church are focusing on, repentance-wise, appears to be lying, deceiving, and SEK-shul IM-morality. The sin he ought to be focusing on, however, is hypocrisy.

Jesus had a bit of a harsh word for hypocrites, if I recall correctly.

12 comments make for a lot of heat

Counting On Information

by gekko at 11:42 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

One hundred and fifty out of 300 chefs surveyed said they felt calories don't matter in the dishes they prepare, according to a survey presented at a gathering of The Obesity Society.

Sure, huge fatty calorie-rich portions are making peeps fatter, but, the chefs feel, it's up to the consumer to decide how much they wanna eat.

They're right. Buyer beware and all that. Take responsibility, etc. I agree with that.

What I do not, however, agree with is chefs who hide the nutrition content of their dishes. If they're going to stuff it with simple carbs and mountains of saturated fats, I wanna know before I order it. I want to be able to make an informed decision. If you won't tell me, I won't eat at your establishment.

I recently sent a note to the folks at The Cheesecake Factory. The reason I did so was that I wanted to add that restaurant to my list of places to eat. They have a nice menu and a good atmosphere. It's nice to take people there. It's nice to treat my Peeps there as a reward for hard work well done.

I cannot, however, add them to my list because I cannot learn what eating there is going to cost me in terms of my nutrition. They refuse to post or publish any information.

In my e-mail to them, I noted that most restaurants these days do this. I told them why they would find it to their advantage -- people like me who watch this and track it will be better informed. They will want to eat there because they know just how much of which item to get.

They responded saying that they will not be posting this information, because they consider their dishes proprietary.

Yah. I'm gonna figure out how to make one of their portabello sandwiches by knowing how much cholesterol and vitamin A they have in that particular menu item.

They did, however, give me a list of "lower calorie" items I could choose from, all of which were things like "lettuce, without the peanut sauce."

In other words, take any item, strip it of anything flavorful or filling, and you, too, can diet.

I replied that it's easy for me to go to any place in the US and order something off of a menu that is purported to be "lower calorie." Big whoop, I can order something that's merely 1000 calories instead of the usual 1500. I told them that the point was not to believe their enormous fat-laden portions were "lower" and therefore a dieter's item, but that I wanted to be able to order one of their lovely fatty things and know HOW MUCH of what I was going to get, and therefore how much I would want to consume there, and how much I would be taking home with me to enjoy later.

If it's "buyer beware", then it is encumbent upon the buyer to know as much as possible.

I will not be gracing the doorway of any Cheesecake Factory.

NOTE: This article was also posted to The Blob.

16 comments make for a lot of heat

Terminology: when is it pedophilia?

by gekko at 9:08 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

So when an adult male (who happens to have been a Congressman) exchanges naughty electronic messages with sixteen-year-old males, it's pedophilia. Yet, when an adult male (who happens to be a priest) indulges in sexual intimacy with then-twelve-year-old Foley, it's an "affair."

Gotta love the fuckin' media, innit.

4 comments make for a lot of heat

Entitled Peevishness

by gekko at 9:17 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

The curbside is painted bright red, the words "FIRE LANE NO PARKING" a bold and brilliant white. The fire hydrant looms, silent, yet obvious. Down the other side of the painted parking lot median stretched empty parking spaces.

Perhaps the late-fiftyish driver of the nineties-era Firebird felt he could mask the fact that he was parking in a fire lane by simply stopping his car in the middle of the driving lane and getting out, rather than pulling over to the far right, snugging up against the red curb. Maybe a cop would think the car was still moving. Or about to move. And not ticket him. In any case, I had to scoot over to my extreme left to avoid the opening driver-side door as the guy stepped out.

He scowled at me as I drove slowly past him, swung 'round into the parking area and pulled into a legal spot a few feet away from his car.

By the time I got into the place, he was at the cash register. He was still at the cash register after I'd placed my order and moved on to pay. The cashier was moving very slowly, and looked confused.

"It's $6.24, same as every day. A poppy-seed bagel with cream cheese, two strudels. It's what I always pay. Unless you guys raised prices since last Friday ... Usually you have the order waiting ..."

Peevish. This guy epitomized "peevish."

The cashier slowly pushed at the keypad, starting the transaction over. She looked at her display, and sighed. Without looking at him, she mumbled, "It says $6.26."

"Where is your manager? That little girl who runs this place?"

The cashier sighed again and waved vaguely off toward the back. "She's in. She's ... she's back there." She looked at the guy, finally, waiting for his response.

"Get your manager."

Still moving slowly, seeming befuddled, she wandered toward the back and stood for a moment, blinking. While she did that, the man tried to catch my eye. He made a "tsk" sound. I think he wanted me to agree that a two cent overcharge is outrageous. Or maybe he wanted me to sympathize concerning the confusion of the cashier. Whatever it was he wanted, I gave him no satisfaction because had I exchanged glances with him, he would've seen the look of extreme amusement on my face. Had I responded to his "tsk" I would've been tempted to say, "I am SO going to blog you, Mr. Entitlement. I am SO going to blog. Are you ready to be blogged?"

Finally the cashier signaled the woman who was taking orders. That woman came over to the cash register. "Good morning, sir." She started keying. "That's a bagel and shmear, two strudels, right?"

The man nodded. "A poppy seed bagel with cream cheese. And two strudels. And I'm in a hurry. I have to meet my van pool."

I would've given anything for a cop to show up and take his time ticketing the guy. I prayed extra hard, but I think God was laughing too hard at that moment.

6 comments make for a lot of heat

Wot's For Lunch?

by gekko at 11:00 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

In the land of fruits and nuts there is a school district that has hired a chef as their director of nutrition services. She has radically changed the menus for the schools in Berkley, reducing fat, calories, sugar, increasing fresh foods, vegetables, and yet also apparently keeping the kids in mind as she polls regularly, and experiments, and beta tests recipes.

My sister-in-law was a teacher at an elementary school in Arizona where they hired a local dad to do their cooking. He was into good tasting, highly nutritious foods and would make specialty pizzas, from scratch, or pasta primavera, also from scratch, and, again, fresh produce and real meat that the kids just loved. It was a small school, part of a charter.

Looks like former President Clinton's foundation is following the same course:

Five months after negotiating a similar deal with soft drink companies, the Alliance for a Healthier Generation -- a joint project by the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association -- announced Friday an agreement with five major food manufacturers to make school vending fare and other snacks healthier.

[...]

The companies -- Campbell Soup Co., The Dannon Company Inc., Kraft Foods Inc., Mars Inc. and PepsiCo Inc. -- agreed to promote products that use guidelines developed by nutrition specialists at the American Heart Association.

[...]

No federal law requires schools to sell only snacks that fit the new health specifications. But representatives from the five food companies say they are already planning new products or reformulating current products to meet the guidelines. The companies also have agreed to discourage schools from stocking junk food high in salt, sugar and trans-fats.

-- "Clinton, 5 food firms OK school-snack pact" October 7, 2006 Northwest Arkansas News

I like the tendency to keep the laws out of it, although the article reports that some groups are upset that there is nothing in place to bind the companies to keep their promises.

I'd like to see it go further. Why are they negotiating with companies? What about doing local growers and producers of food the service of increasing their business and getting real, fresh foods into place in all the schools? Balanced menus of nutritionally complete, low fat, low sugar, complex-carb'd foods that kids will want to eat?

Through grade school, my kids eschewed cafeteria food, although I did permit them to buy snacks from the machines or food carts ever so often. I don't know if they dumped the lunches I prepared for them (food they approved at home), and traded for pudding snax or whatever, but they started the day toting healthy, nutritional meals.

Not every Mom or Dad is going to do that, though. These are public schools, with public mandates. As long as we're forking over the cash by mandate, can we not demand that they make a better effort to feed our kids properly? I'd like to see Clinton's foundation go that extra mile.

4 comments make for a lot of heat

Dissin' the ho

by gekko at 3:58 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

A comment left by Steph in my previous poast had me thinking. The thought-provoking part began, "Do none of these religions have a voice of reason..."

And that's rather where the cheese is cut. What constitutes the "voice of reason"? Because the apologists are all "We must strive to understand their culture, because what they find reasonable differs from what we find reasonable!"

I read a novel set in the first century C.E., in Jerusalem. I don't know how accurate the portrayal of first century Jews was, but the cultural message was all about honor. You could lose an altercation, but if you kept your honor, and your loss involved the winner losing his honor, then you really did win. The implication was that that is the driving creed of the middle eastern cultures.

You disrespec' the man, you get to pay. That's the voice of reason.

It's gang theology. When you diss your opponent, his recourse is to try to hurt you, badly. That's how he maintains his honor. It's the macho cult. Call me a name, I slice you. I get my buddies behind me, and we beat you and your buddies up.

So, yeah. When the Religion of Peace is dissed, their culture says "kill them." It's no different from a street gang, or the Mob.

And that's what the apologists are saying. We have to understand that, they say. We have to expect it and accept it, they say. How dare we try to impose OUR notion of what's right on them? It's their culture! They're brought up in bad families. It isn't their fault.

Except.

It's wrong. It's just flat out wrong. It needs to be changed. All those who believe that killing someone, hurting someone, interfering with their ability to live full and productive lives because they say something you dislike, or live a lifestyle you disagree with, must change.

Their criminal, macho, gang mentality is wrong.

That goes for everyone who thinks and acts this way.

13 comments make for a lot of heat

Supercalihypocriticalexpialidocious

by gekko at 7:29 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Cali's being all weird:

California, taking the fight against global warming straight to the tailpipe, filed a lawsuit Wednesday against six of the world's biggest auto makers, accusing them of altering the state's climate, harming its resources, and endangering the health of its 35 million residents.
-- California sues six automakers over global warming - MarketWatch

So they gonna be consistent and sue themselves for permitting massive influx, poor traffic flow designs, building roads and freeways enticing drivers, not taxing automobile purchases heavily enough to disincentivize the purchase, etc.?

Yeah. Right.

7 comments make for a lot of heat

I am Spartacus

by gekko at 7:09 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

PJ r00lz. Blogtrolls suck pimply asses.

The image above has been recreated in many forms over the past five years, in print, in the marketplace, on television, in satire and in tribute. The image above has come to stand for both solidarity and an unwillingness to lay down and die.

Bless all who use it to remember.

3 comments make for a lot of heat

Fatties need not apply

by gekko at 6:38 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Hattip to Waynie.

The British Fertility Society is discriminatorily health conscious when it comes to deciding who gets to be a mom, and who does not.

British Fertility Society (BFS), a group of fertility experts, has recommended that women classified as obese should not be given invitro-fertilization (IVF) treatments funded by the National Health Service (NHS).

The group made many recommendations on who should or should not be given IVF. Part of their aim, reportedly, was to break down the political barriers with respect to the equality of access to treatment, and part of their aim was where it ought to have been -- making decisions based on health impacts.

So obese women, who tend to have health issues to contend with, are less likely to get pregnant, and have more difficulty with pregnancies, ought to be refused treatment, or encouraged to lose weight. The group also suggests women over forty not be admissible candidates.

"What we are saying is that they should be less stringent and more consistent with how they apply this," said BFS spokesman Richard Kennedy.

Indeed. But, lo! What have we here?

Among other recommendations made by BFS are [...] the age of the father-to-be should be removed as the criteria, smokers should not be banned from seeking the treatment [...]

So the age of the father-to-be -- the donor of the sperm that will become half of the child -- should be removed. Are they neglecting studies showing increases in miscarriages and increased risk of birth defects as sperm donors age?

Or studies concerning the effects of smoking on the development of the fetus, increase in premature births, increases in difficulty carrying the child to term, low birth weight, and health issues associated with children of smokers.

So much for being "more consistent with how they apply this."

Agreed Kennedy, who said that the recommendation on obese women was for ensuring the patient's safety and the treatment's success. "Obesity is known to influence fertility and the outcome of fertility treatment, as is being very underweight. We are trying to make sure the funds available are most effectively used," he said.

Well, yes, but maybe they ought to focus on health MORE than on politics.

The full article may be found here:
Lesbians, singles should get free IVF; obese women shouldn't: experts

10 comments make for a lot of heat

Hating Redheads, or Time On Your Hands

by gekko at 9:17 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

In the comments of my <name deleted> poast, Steph had eloquently commented:

Everyone says stupid crap when they are drunk. If he said he hated redheads, I can assure you, I would not be writing hate mail to him. If I had that much time on my hands I would kill myself.

We can expand that. Everyone says stupid crap. Everyone has assholes and everyone has opinions and sometimes they are informed, meaningful opinions. Informed/meaningful or not, all too often too many people feel a need to express those opinions.

Steph hits the oft' beaten nail on its cliched head, though.

Irrespective of the free, albeit often tasteless, expressions offered by the myriad, does the opinion of a movie star really matter that much?

Whether Wotsit, the guy whose delectible buns entranced so many wimmins (and prolly quite a few mens) in them Lethal Weapons films, is a genuine Jew hater or not, does it matter that awful friggin' much?

His statements frosted most peeps. There may've been one or two anti-semites and prob'ly a hellacious number of Palestinians out there applauding his tasty ass, but do the power brokers, the movers, the shakers celebrate him, or do they raise their eyebrows in horror, scrambling to figure out how they can leverage his faux pas into political gain?

I'm thinking, we need to openly "tsk" divisive and unnecessary hate speech. We do need to let everyone know that we don't think it's appropriate. Maybe spank the fuckers who indulge in it.

Then move on.

Spending your life and energy hating some poor schmoe (heh) who lets his misinformed mouth get away from him is a waste of perfectly good life and energy. You could be having sex with your sweetie, instead of worrying about the fuckwits.

Y'know?

5 comments make for a lot of heat

The Trouble With Mel, or "Everybody's Doing It"

by gekko at 1:05 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Posting about Mel Gibson is, like, the biggest thing now that Cindy Sheehan's a nobody, now that Brad and Jen have rilly broken up, now that Tom Cruise's kid's name has been entered into the dictionary of standard baby names, and so forth.

So I'm hoppin' on the bandwagon, and poasting about Mel.

Mel? I. Don't. Give. A. Fuck. About. You.

I don't care if you're an anti-semite. There are plenty who are, in this world, and you're all fuckwits.

I don't care if you're an alkie, seeking treatment. I mean, good on ya, but keep it to yourself. I got enough troubles of me own these days to worry about whether you go on a bender or recite the steps and the traditions.

I don't care if you are Catholic, old-school or new. I don't care if you're red. I don't care if you're blue. I will not care if you're in the rain, I will not care if you're on a train. I will not care for you here nor there, I will not care for you anywhere. Even if you're eggs and ham, I don't care 'bout you, old man.

And that's my final word on the subject.

4 comments make for a lot of heat

So it isn't hate?

by gekko at 8:50 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I've never been a fan of "hate crime" laws. I always felt that most murders are, in fact, crimes of hate and that the existing laws ought to be sufficient to punish those guilty of them. In spite of the wisdom of my viewpoint, however, we have hate crime laws, which are, presumably, laws that make it worse for the offenders of capital crimes when they commit their crimes out of racial or ethnic hatred.

Apparently, though, you can only be guilty of hating some demographic groups. Jews need not apply.

The man accused of barging into the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle and killing one woman and wounding five others will be prosecuted on state murder and attempted-murder charges rather than federal hate-crime laws, officials said. -- The Seattle Times: Local News: Community responds with sorrow, unity

I don't know why they're not pursuing this hate-filled man, who admitted to hating Jews, who admitted to seeking out a Jewish center so that he could kill Jews. Maybe they don't want the feds involved.

Or maybe it's because they want us all to be sensitive to the plight of the poor Islamic Arab-American who is permitted to hate. And, maybe, after all, it's not "hate" if it's just Jews.

Maybe.

I gotta say, I will be delighted to retract and amend my accusation if I learn that there actually is a solid reason for not seeking to punish this man for a "hate crime".

But so long was we have those laws, and so long as they presume to have meaning, don't you think they ought to be used?

3 comments make for a lot of heat

Sunday Peeve

by gekko at 10:27 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Mark's Aussie friend Steph had this to say about being at the gym:

Now, I'm not a chatty person in the gym. I don't go there to socialise or meet new people, but I'm finding that there are a lot of people who go there for this exact reason.

I go at an ungawdly hour, partly to get in and out before the crowds hit, but also to avoid the chatty cathies.

No good.

The other early morning crew has adopted me, including a guy who goes because he has no other social life. He yatters incessantly! And always the same topics, same unresearched, baseless, and wrong opinions about the telecom industry and gasoline prices.

Plugging into the iPod does no good. He chats away anyway, his voice overriding the loudest setting on the pod.

Luckily, he rotates the machines he does, so sometimes he's boring the shit out of the elliptical machine crowd, sometimes the stair stepper crowd, and sometimes the treadmill crowd.

I'm thinking maybe I could find him some companionship, you know? Someone who might keep him in bed in the early morning hours? I gotta figure out his orientation, though, before I proceed.

6 comments make for a lot of heat

Saturday Peeve

by gekko at 12:50 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

A dear friend and I were discussing shaving.

Guys, of course, many of 'em, shave their faces and necks. The tender spot beneath their nostrils. That really soft part where my Mom used to gently poke if I complained of a sore throat, to see if I had swollen glands. I think they avoid the hollow at the base of the neck. I'm not sure if hair grows from that hollow.

And women, typically, shave beneath their arms, and they shave the expanse of their legs, and maybe the tops of their feet, if they're prone to hobbit-esque fur.

Older women typically do NOT shave their faces, prefering instead to pluck, tweeze, wax or use chemical hair removers for those parts.

Then there are the other parts that are sometimes shaven (if not waxed, plucked, tweezed or chemically washed).

Mostly women, but some men are given to shaving their, um, bikini areas. Some may shave more than others.

And, believe you me, there are very delicate parts in those areas.

I noted, in my conversation, that razor manufacturers even make and market teeny little razors for the purpose of attending to those areas.

But I have a gripe.

Women's razors, including those teeny little bikini area ones, are designed to be chic, slick, feminine looking.

That means smooth and curvy.

Think about it. A smooth plastic handle, curved and slick.

Where do women usually do their shaving?

Standing, dry, over a sink?

Not usually.

No, we stand in steaming hot showers, or sit in soapy tubs of water.

Where smooth, curvaceous, hard plastic handles become even more slick.

This is why I buy men's razors. Yes, I'm missing out on the extra angle of the head that might help my hand position a tad as I scrape the blade along the curve of my calf muscle, or even if I do a little trim so I can wear a new bathing suit without embarrassment or feeling in a Euro way, I miss out on that curvature.

I also miss out on slicing myself open when my wet hand loses its grip on the slick, curved, slippery handle of the girly razor.

Which. Has. Happened.

2 comments make for a lot of heat

We'll have a gay old time!

by gekko at 6:47 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Stone age. Bush and his "base" are in the stone age.

CNN's Lou Dobbs has a beautifully eloquent bit on trying to get Congress on the banned wagon regarding the ultra important issue of gay marriage:

It's clear that cynical, patronizing White House political strategists are trying to rally a conservative base that they believe is more base than conservative. They're wrong on all counts.

We're fighting a war against radical Islamist terrorists with ongoing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're drowning in debt from our growing record trade and budget deficits and we're watching our public education system fail a generation of students. Congress has yet to act on an effective solution to our illegal immigration crisis as millions of illegal aliens flood our borders every year, and our nation's borders and ports are still woefully insecure, four and a half years after the September 11 attacks.
-- CNN.com - Dobbs:Gay marriage amendment sheer nonsense - Jun 7, 2006

Can't say it much more poignantly. So I won't. I will, however, wonder how they can contemplate (and wisely vote down) amendments banning the legal formation of family units, but won't even stop to think about what's happening to Batwoman!

18 comments make for a lot of heat

The Big Humdrum

by gekko at 12:27 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I don't know if this was their purpose, but I am beyond giving a shit about whether Britney Whoozit drops her baby -- the one outside of the womb -- or not.

I have no idea how that became Big News, or why the papparrazzi (or however you spell it) think Britney's hot enough news to send choppers to fly over her car as she drives with baby Sean in the car seat. I do not know, I do not care, and if the media felt that by oversaturating me with this kind of "news" item would help me get past a Britney fixation I never had, then they succeeded.

If there are peeps out there with Britney fixations, and who love to huff and sigh and feel superior to some child celeb's way of handling mommy-hood, then you have my full sympathy. See, I feel superior to you, which is a nice kind of feeling.

So. How 'bout them Da Vinci Code detractors/fans, hmmm?

2 comments make for a lot of heat

Do What Mother Tells You

by gekko at 8:28 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

To all those who gave birth, raised a child, pampered a spouse or significant other as though it were a child, or felt motherly toward someone or some thing at some point in your lives: Happy Overhyped Corporation Promulgated Yet Another Excuse To Kill Plants And Spend Money On People Because You Feel Obligated Day.

But this poast isn't about moms, per se.

Tell me something. When you were growing up, if your Mom said, "Lissen, you, I want you to avoid seeing that boy/girl/movie/book or going to that place because he/she/it is a bad influence/bad for you/evil/wrong" did you find yourself obediently agreeing with mom (or dad) and avoiding, at all costs, the person or event or thing they told you to stay away from?

How many avoided masturbating, may we see a show of hands after you've washed them?

If someone says "it's bad, don't go see it" then something in us says "Oh baby, I SO want to go see what THAT is all about" and we find a way to do it.

So how come a thousand-year-old (nearly) Church can't figure out that saying "Boycott the Da Vinci Code!" is not going to get the desired effect, hmmm?

I like the little mundane bible church up the road from us: they are embracing the Da Vinci Code. "Come in. We'll watch the movie, and then we'll show you where the errors are, and we'll teach you our beliefs concerning it!"

They may be just as wrong. Or they may be right. But they're doing it the right way.

7 comments make for a lot of heat

I Wanna Drink SODA!

by gekko at 12:30 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I've already blobbed about the decision to remove sugary drinks and junk food from school vending machines. But this article has something interesting in it:

"We are a educational facility. And we should provide good choices to our kids. And model what we want them to do," says Lincoln High School's Director of Food Services Julie Marie.
Distributors will only be selling water, juice, and low-fat milks to elementary and middle schools.
And they will only sell diet soda, un-sweetened teas, fitness water, and sport drinks to high schools.
But that makes some high school students like Ashley Lokken upset over the healthier new deal.
"Generally a lot of people in high school are 18 and 19. And if they have they ability to vote. They should have the ability to chose [sic] what to drink."
-- News - WAOW Newsline 9

Dear Adult-aged Students Who Seem To Still Be In High School For Some Reason,

You do have a choice of what to drink while you're finishing up your high school education.

Bring whatever non-alcoholic beverage you wish to drink with you. You can carry it in a liddle lunch pail.

Fuck sake.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!

I am pleased

by gekko at 6:11 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Life in prison. Because the maggot wanted to die, wanted to be a martyr. We should not be enabling that. So. I am pleased.

This is aside from the fact that state-sanctioned killing is simply a political justification for murder. That makes it little better than, say, an Ayatollah saying Allah sez it's okay to strap a bomb to your chest and go blow up some babies.

7 comments make for a lot of heat

I wanna be better than oxygen

by gekko at 8:38 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Bear with me here. I'm going on memory here, and I've not really done a lot of homework to back it all up. If you all know better, feel free to jump in.

'k, so there's like this drive to move us away from dependence on oil, which is a good thing, and to clean up our air, which is a good thing. And there are people who're pushing oxygenated fuels for our gas-guzzling vehicles -- cleaner emissions, they say. Less oil used, they say.

Except, well, little of that is especially true.

Oh, sure, the emissions from your vehicle and mine are probably cleaner when we're running with the ethanol-laced gasoline. But what are we doing, really?

Where does the ethanol come from?

It comes from grain. Corn, usually. And from whence cometh the corn? Well, fields, dur. Nothing could be more green, right? Except that that corn is fed with fertilizers. Most farmers in the US use ammonium-nitrate based fertilizers; it's tres cheap and abundant.

Ammonium-nitrate fertilizer is a product of petroleum production. In fact, nearly as much oil is used in the production of the fertilizer that feeds the corn that goes into your fuel tank as you would use if that oil was refined and pumped into your tank directly. Nearly. The energy used to refine the corn into ethanol is generally produced by oil or coal fueled facilities.
that the
overall use of petroleum in the production of corn is greater than the energy gained from corn. It would be worthwhile to note a considerable amount of oil is burned in the fields and in transport to the ethanol refiners. There's also the simple fact that ethanol contains only 67.7% of the heating value of gasoline meaning it can deliver no more than 2/3 of the horsepower to your wheels. Yah. You need to burn so much more E85 in order to travel the same distance as when you have non-oxygenated fuel.

You're not actually removing our dependence on petroleum products by oxygenation of fuel. So forget that argument, 'k?

So the stuff coming out of your tailpipe is a tad cleaner, which is nice. But all that fertilizer is running off into nearby rivers, seeping into groundwater, polluting, killing. And that ol' production of the corn into ethanol -- more stuff pumped into our air during that production.

You've saved nothing.

So tell me again why we wanna add extra cost to our fuel during this time of exceedingly high oil and gasoline prices?

11 comments make for a lot of heat

Waste of time

by gekko at 9:25 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I'm starting to feel, too late, like maybe Home Schooling is the best way to go.

My son will not be attending school today because they rearranged the entire school's class schedule in order to accomodate the State mandated standardized testing. This testing is required for all students to pass with a "B" grade minimum prior to graduating. Beginning in the 8th grade, they are taught a curriculum designed to help them memorize the information they need for this test. They get to take it over and over again, in 8th grade, in 10th grade, in 11th, 12th. If they pass it in 11th, they need not take it again, but the curriculum does not change.

My son has aced this exam each time he has taken it.

The week prior to the test being offered, they clamp down on activities in order to focus on cramming for the test. The day of the test, they squeeze all of the classes into 19 minute sessions. Every student gets to go, sit down for 19 minutes, and move on to the next class, then those who need to take the exam go take the exam. The others go home.

None of my son's teachers are planning to actually teach anything on test day, because 19 minutes is not long for anything meaningful and, besides, their entire curriculum is focused on that test. They're pretty much done by now.

As well, the school year is chopped up with half-days and days off so that teachers can attend "in service" training that amounts to workshops helping them deal with this testing.

Why is this testing so important? Well, because the schools themselves may lose funding if they don't have a sufficient percentage of passing students.

So _all_ students learn to memorize a _core_ set of knowledge that the _state_ has, in its bureaucratic committee-driven wisdom decided is a good kind of knowledge to have, and teachers learn how to force feed this core set of knowledge and everything is geared to this one goal.

Somewhere, though, the concepts of creativity, thirst for knowledge, critical thinking, logic, life lessons, objective observation ... somewhere all that is given short shrift. The slow learners don't get the attention they need to help them overcome what nature shorted them on. The much faster learners who grow so quickly bored don't get the challenges they need to give them what they need. The average learners learn to stay average.

The challenge is "how do I memorize this basic set of information?"

The challenge is not "how can I become the best I can possibly be, and what are the tools I need to do that?"

This is what our nation mandates, now. Thou Shalt Be Mediocre.

When it comes to public schooling, may God have mercy on our minds.

7 comments make for a lot of heat

Ask men?

by gekko at 6:11 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Caught a bit on CNN Headline news. They were quoting an AskMen.com article about "delicate" ways to tell your girlfriend or wife that she's packing on a few pounds.

Things like tell her you don't think that outfit looks good on her any more.

Yeah. No woman will take that the wrong way.

Or, "Your friend is not as attractive as she used to be, now that she's gained so much weight."

You are looking at my friend?

Here's my advice.

Sit down with your female sweetie. Fetch her a nice glass of whatever it is she fancies to drink. Rub her back a little bit. Look her deep in the eyes and say,

"Sweetheart? Light of my life? I have to confess to you that I am a shallow pig, unworthy of living on the same planet as you, and I consider your appearance to be far more important to me than, well, you. And, quite frankly, you're an obese slob. I'll be packing my toothbrush and spare BVDs and heading out now. With any luck, you'll find a real man, because, baby, I ain't it."

So, okay, I'm only half-joking. Quite seriously, if you're concerned about your friend's or family member's health, that's one thing. Tell them. Offer solutions, like joining a gym with them and you do the shopping and the cooking to get the healthy, low-cal, satisfying meals. If you really find their unsightly flab off-putting, then, man, you ought not be around them.

They're going to be porky, or they're going to decide for themselves that they need to do something about it. You can't tell a drunk to join AA, and you won't be able to "delicately" tell any woman you think she's too fat and ought to lose a bit.

We women have enough issues with our self-images, in general, and the last thing we need is some asshole who prizes the way we look more than he prizes our selves.

Dang. This article is Blob-worthy.

11 comments make for a lot of heat

No Baby For You!

by gekko at 6:44 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Catholic Charities, the Church-run non-profit that places children for adoption under contract with the state of Massechussets Department of Social Services (and probably other states) had announced a while back that it was planning to stop placing children with same-sex couples. It encountered resistance, because that goes against the state's anti-discrimination laws.

In a press release issued this afternoon, the organization announced it is getting out of the adoption business altogether, explaining, "we have encountered a dilemma we cannot solve." (The statement from C.C. President J. Brian Hehir and Chairman of the Board Jeffrey Kaneb is reproduced after the jump.)

And I'm thinking "why the hell shouldn't a non-profit religious organization run according to its principles -- no matter how wrong-headed those principles might be, so long as they're not (a) actively harming someone or (b) the only game in town.?"

Granted, they probably shouldn't oughta be using the government social services offices for their operation if they're going to go against the state's social laws, but ...

If there are other places for same-sex couples to adopt ...

The Bostonist editorial goes on:

UPDATE: No sooner did we dare suggest that this might be the end of an annoying political debate, than Governor Romney jumped in (from Tennessee, where he's speaking at a national Republican conference) with proposed legislation that would exempt religious organizations from anti-discrimination laws when it comes to adoption. Bostonist never thought we'd say this, but we kinda hope the uber-racist religion known as The Creativity Movement (formerly, and more famously, World Church of the Creator) comes to Massachusetts and gets into the adoption business, just so Mitt can be embarrassed when his proposal allows an agency to refuse to place kids with black couples.

Um. Again. So what if there's a group that would refuse to place kids with black couples, white couples, orange-with-pink-striped couples? Again, if they're not the only game in town, does it matter if there's specialization?

If adopting parents can specify preferences -- a black couple may not be required to adopt a white baby, for example -- then why can't adoption agencies also indulge in preferences according to the principles by which they operate?

For the record, I think it's stupid to refuse to let any committed, loving, otherwise qualified couple from adopting a child. Children need parents, and they need stable homes. The homes of homosexual couples are no less stable and loving than the homes of heterosexual couples.

Citations from Bostonist: Catholic Charities To Stop Doing Adoptions

26 comments make for a lot of heat

Multitask Driving

by gekko at 5:58 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

You know the stories about peeps who drive while yakking on the cellphone, don't pay attention, slow way down, speed way up, swerve, whatever.

You know the stories about chix putting on makeup while driving -- in fact some sullen blonde in Wales was caught on camera doing just that and was pulled over and fined.

In Australia some guy crashed his car, killing two teens, because he lost control of the vehicle while he was deleting a text message from his cellphone.

And we all think, "What morons! What idiots! When you're behind the wheel, Job #1 is to pay attention to driving your car and not do anything else!"

And, that's right. But before you hop into your car, grab your cellphone and dial up your Congress Peep to demand legislation, consider: do you drink coffee or soda or even a lovely bottle of Dasani while you drive? Do you talk to the other people in your car as you drive? Do you ... do you daydream while you drive?

Do you do anything in addition to maneuvering your vehicle?

I think we have sufficient laws to handle morons who forget to pay attention to what they're doing while they're piloting several tons of steel, glass, and explosive material at high rates of speed amid other people doing the same.

And, I think Job #1 is avoiding the morons.

Y'know?

6 comments make for a lot of heat

In a moment of crisis

by gekko at 9:04 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

When you're in an accident, or you do something to fuck up, do you get the details right at the beginning? When you witness an accident, or someone fucking something up, do you get it all right, right off the bat? Do you immediately do exactly the "right" thing, the thing everyone says, later, you ought to have done and would've done if you'd been on the up and up?

When you are involved in anything bad, do you?

At least, when you or I fuck up, chances are good we don't have most of an entire nation and a gigantic spin-doctoring media machine to scrutinize, criticize, and armchair-quarterback every minute detail of our fuck-up. If we're lucky, we have one or two people nattering at us as to how we OUGHT to have handled things, or things we SHOULD have recalled, or hammering on statements made at the moment that later proved to be wrong.

6 comments make for a lot of heat

"Responsible" Journalism

by gekko at 8:40 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

The NYTimes, and many other outlets are reporting that "An Australian television network has put yet more scenes of blood and savagery into circulation".

I guess the Muslim world is not inflamed enough. I guess they're not doing sufficient hacking off of heads, burning, rioting, and foaming.

Well.

At least we can rest assured that every last little bit of everything, no matter how little it actually adds to the good of the world, is displayed for the voyeuristic pleasure of it.

8 comments make for a lot of heat

Coupla Nits About the Sedition Nurse

by gekko at 8:34 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I do get picky about the way language is used, at least when someone else is using/abusing it and I get to shoot off my mouth about it.

That thingie about Laura Berg, the VA Nurse who wrote a letter to the editor in which she urged people to "act forcefully to remove a government administration"? One article is quoting, maybe accurately, maybe not, some peeps, and I have issues with the way they're wording things.

Berg signed the letter as a private citizen, and the V.A. had no reason to suspect she used government resources to write it, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, which last week asked the government to apologize to Berg for seizing her computer and investigating her.

Ms. Berg identified herself in the letter as a VA nurse. When I identify myself as an employee of the company for which I work, then I have implicated my company in the opinion I have authored.

Since the computer I use for my work at my company belongs to my company, they have every right to "seize" it, so to speak, and do whatever the hell they want with it, for whatever reason they want. If they want to search it to see if I broke any of their policies, that is within their right.

A person who is on work premises working for an employer using the employer's equipment and identifying him or herself as an employee is NOT operating solely as a private citizen, but also as a representative of that employer.

V.A. human resources chief Mel Hooker had said in a Nov. 9 letter that his agency was obligated to investigate "any act which potentially represents sedition," the ACLU said.

Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU of New Mexico, told The Progressive magazine: "We were shocked to see the word 'sedition' used. Sedition? That's like something out of the history books."

It's a perfectly valid English word, and has the meaning of "language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state."

Er. That could fit. Would one be attempting to spin something, by referencing, the fifties, hmmmm?

In a press release, Simonson also said: "Is this government so jealous of its power, so fearful of dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its policies with charges of 'sedition'?" -- Nurse Investigated for 'Sedition' After Writing Letter to Editor

The VA is not the "government" per se, but merely a minor administrative part of it, mostly dealing with helping veterans. I'd have to say that the VA, as a body of career civil servant types, is bloody well afraid of getting in trouble should one of its employees indeed be advocating the forcible removal of the legitimate government of the US. An investigation is certainly appropriate, if only to cover their asses.

Sometimes peeps like to blow things waaaay outta proportion -- whether it's imagining a nurse is advocating the overthrow of the government, or the ACLU imagining Bush is demanding the nurse be jailed.

6 comments make for a lot of heat

What if they take my PICTURE?

by gekko at 6:05 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Blowsy billowing bimbette breaks baby law!

'k, so while I'm sure photographers are pretty obnoxious and damned annoying, I gotta think the emotional response was just, well ... maybe Britney Spears oughta consider some counselling or maybe some Prozac.

She was photographed (by the ee-vil paparazzi) driving with her infant on her lap. The cops dropped by to lecture her about breaking the law 'n stuff:

"I had a horrifying, frightful encounter with the paparazzi while I was with my baby," she said in a statement. "Because of a recent incident when I was trapped in my car without my baby by a throng of paparazzi, I was terrified that this time the physically aggressive paparazzi would put both me and my baby in danger. I instinctively took measures to get my baby and me out of harm's way."

Listen to the spin. "My baby! My baby! Harm! Throng of aggressive paparazzi!"

A friend of Spears tells us that the singer had driven to a Malibu Starbucks with her bodyguard in the passenger seat and the baby strapped in the back. While her security guy was inside getting the java, Brit moved Sean to her lap.

So she's out in public in Celebrityville -- where photographers are known to, well, gather to take pics of celebrities -- and wisely sends her bodyguard to fetch her her caffeine fix. She takes the kid out of the restraints, she says, while she waits.

According to the friend, some paparazzi started to crowd around the car. When the bodyguard returned, Spears stepped on the gas without moving Sean.

Where "Sean" is the baby, not the bodyguard.

So she's in the car. She's, like panicking because some guys with cameras are coming around the car, but she waits long enough for the bodyguard to return -- without thinking "gee, maybe I should put the baby back into his seat, hmmm?" and then "panics" once the bodyguard who is hired to protect her, is safely in the car (with the coffee, one hopes).

So fuck the safety of her baby. She gets her coffee and protects her own sweet ass from a bunch of guys who might bump into her car, rap on her window, or make faces at her.

Right?

"The paparazzi continued to stalk us," said Spears, who reportedly drove for almost 2 miles holding the infant.

The photographers insist they did nothing aggressive.
-- Risky drive? Brit cites lack of photog restraint

"Stalk."

Evil bastards.

So I'm thinking that if I don't want a bunch of obnoxious asstards "stalking" me in public, I should maybe NOT aspire to be a celeb, live in a celeb town, and head out in public. If I'm that easily rattled by guys taking my picture, I should become a recluse, or find some other way to get my Starbux fix.

11 comments make for a lot of heat

Science Rant

by gekko at 5:51 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

This is a rant about researchers who have a goal in mind, and who find results other than what they want, release their report, and fall right back onto speculating and guessing as they deliver their scientific news:

American women got a big dose of disappointment Tuesday: A low-fat diet isn't enough to protect them from heart disease, colon cancer or breast cancer.

That means they may have to do more, said experts with the Women's Health Initiative, the largest study of women's health in the United States, which released its findings in Bethesda, Md.

But they made it clear: Don't abandon good health habits. Up the ante.
-- A low-fat diet is no shield for women

The article goes on to speculate: Maybe we did it wrong! Maybe we should've focused on reduction of the bad fats! Maybe we should have included exercise! Maybe we should've restricted the fat content even more! Maybe the study, which lasted 8 years, should've been for longer! Maybe they should've had veggies instead of fruits!

One of the women in the study lost weight, felt better, enjoyed focusing on herself for a change (she typically would put her family first and neglect her own health care). She was diagnosed with breast cancer during the study. Well, breast cancer, it turns out, runs in her family. Gee. Maybe they should consider genetics, too?

I'm thinking, why bother doing a wide-sweep study and publishing any results if you don't have answers? How about terminating the study, and starting afresh with the new hypotheses?

The reason I'm thinking this is because there are just so many people out there who don't bother to think.

"Honey, it sez here I won't avoid gettin' sick if I keep on my diet, so I'm just gonna head on over to Mickey D's and lard up again, 'k?"

2 comments make for a lot of heat

So we let them drive?

by gekko at 8:54 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

In trying to determine when, precisely, the human brain matures ...

Baird and graduate student Craig Bennett looked at the brains of nineteen 18-year-old Dartmouth students. A control group of 17 older students, ranging in age from 25 to 35, were studied for comparison.

'The brain of an 18-year-old college freshman is still far from resembling the brain of someone in their mid-20s,' said Bennett. 'When do we reach adulthood? It might be much later than we traditionally think.'
-- Study: When does the human brain mature?

Some of what they're considering is the amount of cognitive, social and emotional challenges a teen faces, usually in their first year away from home.

So that's today's young person -- a person we as a society (speaking of Euro-American society) have chosen to shelter until they're 18.

Do you suppose that the brain of a less-entitled young person is more mature, at an earlier age? What about the brains of youth in the long-ago, when at the age of 13 or 14 boys were expected to fight and hunt with the elders, and girls to bear children?

Of course, all of this explains why Zen's brain still hasn't matured ...

5 comments make for a lot of heat

Next up, door-to-door pelvic exams!

by gekko at 9:22 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I had no idea they segregated people in Missouri based on stupidity quotient.

On Friday night, a man went around knocking on doors in Springfield, holding a tattoo gun and offering his services.

One woman describes the gun as homemade, but still agreed to pay for a tattoo.

And she wasn't alone. Two other women in her apartment complex also agreed.

Tamra Eason got the tattoo and said, "It was wrapped with black tape, had a pin underneath it, had fishing wire going through it, you could tell it was a homemade gun." But she also said, "We just wanted tattoos and now we're paying for it."

All of the women have developed infections where they received the tattoos, one of them even had to be hospitalized.
-- KCTV5 - Women Get Infections After Tattoo From Door-To-Door Salesman

Do they have directories of where they let the stupid people live?

3 comments make for a lot of heat

Eh? What's that you said?

by gekko at 7:27 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Ya'll know, by now, of the class action lawsuit by some guy in Louisiana claiming to want Apple to fix the iPods to limit volume to no more than 100 dB. I'm not sure if this guy actually suffered hearing loss himself or not. I do think that 115 dB is too loud for playing music, but then, when I have those dinky earbuds in at the gym, I sometimes have trouble appreciating my music or podcast because the speakers on the gym's sound system are blaring with rap and whiny teen grunge and advertisements.

Apple's earbuds are not comfortable to wear, and they don't block outside noise. So it's no wonder people are apt to crank up the volume to the max and 115 dB will damage hearing.

However. Part of the suit claims that Apple fails to adequately warn users about the potential problem. I guess it depends on what you consider "adequate:"

The iPod user manual already warns customers about the potential for permanent hearing loss if the player’s earphones or headphones are used a high volume. But the complaint alleged that Apple did not advise users about what constituted a high volume or a safe level of noise.

I can't really see that complaint at all. To me, that's kind of like warning people not to put their hands inside of blenders when they have them turned on.

Yeah, there are stupid people out there who will shove their hands in to a blender that's jammed without turning it off, unjam it, and ...

Anyway. It's pretty much a given that if you shove little speakers into your ear canal and crank volume up, you're likely to damage you're hearing. We've known that since the Sony Walkman days, fuck sake! If Mr. Louisiana is only just now discovering something that's been known for many long years, I wonder if we should see about taking away his blender.

5 comments make for a lot of heat

Charge!

by gekko at 7:14 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

AOL and Yahoo are gonna charge peeps for preferred delivery of e-mail. If you don't elect to pay, you run the risk of them not sending your Auntie's image- and URL-laden e-mail through to you in a timely fashion.

I'm not sure I'm distraught over that, mainly because I'm hoping people will leave AOL and Yahoo in great throngs. Imagine my joy when my mother-in-law can no longer send me AOL-encrypted "Girls! Read This!" messages, enormous TIFs of her youngest grandchildren being "cute", and those html-encoded collections of pick-me-upper messages!

On the other hand, I don't like the idea that ISPs, who are already charging us for access and who certainly should do a better job at filtering viruses and spam than they're doing, will charge customers even more money just to guarantee the ISP will do its job.

Let's hope other big e-mail providers don't follow suit on this.

6 comments make for a lot of heat

If they're not terrorists, then ...

by gekko at 9:00 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Spot the irony:

COPENHAGEN, Denmark - Denmark warned citizens on Monday not to go to Saudi Arabia and Gaza gunmen said any Danes or Norwegians who came there would face attack, as Muslim fury mounted over newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.

Denmark has defended the Jyllands-Posten newspaper’s right to publish the satirical drawings that seemed to portray the prophet as a terrorist and which a Norwegian paper has run too.

Some Muslims, who deem images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures blasphemous, have reacted angrily, threatening Danes, calling for goods boycotts and demanding an apology.
-- MSNBC: Cartoons bring Muslim wrath

Everything I've read of the Prophet Mohammed, and a fairly strict reading of The Qu'uran (or however you spell it) tells me that Islam was not ever intended to be a religion of violence and hate, nor did the Prophet ever intend that, although the tribal peoples from whom he came have always had an undercurrent of violence and bloodshed in their history.

Yet, loud, vicious Muslims have taken that religion and turned it into something vile and violent.

If they dislike having an icon of their religion depicted thus, then why would they react thus, hmmm?

I'm thinking "mirror." Innit.

18 comments make for a lot of heat

He's been bashed enough

by gekko at 5:28 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

so I won't hop on the pile too heavily. I'm almost, but not quite, starting to feel sorry for the pitiable fuckwit.

12 comments make for a lot of heat

Pawns R Us

by gekko at 11:18 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I guess these "Fathers" are so emotionally overwrought about their "access" to their children that they suffered slight brain impairments.

Downing Street raised questions today about the way the media had portrayed Fathers 4 Justice as "pranksters" after news emerged of a possible plot to kidnap Tony Blair's son Leo.

The Sun newspaper reported last night that detectives had investigated discussions held by extremist elements on the periphery of the campaign group.

According to reports, the idea was to kidnap five-year-old Leo for a short period and then release him unharmed to highlight the plight of fathers denied access to their children.
-- Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | No 10 questions coverage of Fathers 4 Justice

Did these fuckwits not even once consider what such a stunt would do to the five year old child???

Do they actually have their heads shoved up their asses?

Inquiring minds need to know.

10 comments make for a lot of heat

My comment policy

by gekko at 12:11 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I have acted upon it.

A comment from a poast made long ago:

Dr Z wrote:

My view, for what it's worth, is that editing what someone said is the kind of lying I expect a repugnicunt to indulge in. The truth is something to fear for you.

[And on my own blog] I welcome comments, particularly given that I have the ability to edit them so that they are all complimentary.
Message-ID: <6mjhs1tr17oukehj8me7clddo9p66hrol3@4ax.com>

9 comments make for a lot of heat

The eAge

by gekko at 3:57 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I have two sets of friends/relatives. There are those I contact frequently, and those I do not.

The ones I do not contact frequently, though, are still friends and relatives, and it's nice to exchange Christmas/Hannukah cards with newsy letters in them.

Except I am not Martha Stewart, I work a full-time job and usually am swamped with holiday preparations, and hand-written notes, while polite and charming, are just not gonna happen.

To ease the pain of the year-end newsletter, I always strove to make it as brief and as humorous as possible. Touch on the highlights of the year, avoid the "brag" factor, don't get negative either, and keep it light and full of self-deprecating humor.

The second year I did this, one of our long-time and fairly close friends returned the card and newsletter to us. Shredded and stuffed back into its envelope, with a big ass "REJECTED BY RECIPIENT: DIE DIE DIE!" stamped by the USPS on it.

I had no idea the USPS had those kinds of stamps.

It was stamped in blood.

The woman to whom it was sent, I might add, works for the USPS.

That year is the year we bought the doberman and installed gun turrets, but I digress.

A few years ago I switched from printed, mailed newsletters to web site. I can do lots more with a web site than with paper and expensive printer inks and expensive USPS stamps and such. Peeps who had computers and Internet connections got the e-version. The elderly and infirm, the Luddites and unCool still got paper versions.

Most peeps liked the change.

Well.

THis is the *third* year that I've done an e-card and e-newsletter, and I got a nicely hand-written note from a long-time friend when she sent me a card with a hand-written, chatty newsletter on lovely stationery. "We got your e-mail. Thanks. We may visit your site when we have time. Perhaps we would be good candidates for a paper version of your newsletter, though, as we rarely have time to read web sites."

The paper version was an exact copy of the web version, except it lacked links and had smaller photos so that it would fit on one back-to-back sheet of paper.

At least she didn't say "Die! Die! Die!"

12 comments make for a lot of heat

PR for the Palestinians

by gekko at 1:07 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

The British "rights activist" who, with her parents, had been kidnapped, held, and released by Palestinian fuckwits in Gaza in the last few days plans to stay in Gaza to continue her work:

"Kate remains committed and passionate about working alongside the Palestinians to improve their external image [...] -- from CNN.com - Ex-hostage vows to stay in Gaza - Dec 31, 2005

I hope she realizes that the best way to do that is to get the Palestinians to fucking crack down on the criminal activities of their various hoodlums, terrorists, and militant activists. Not just that, but to also, on a world-wide basis, to start consistently, adamantly, nay vociferously denouncing the activities of same. All Palestinians, everywhere, from the highest of government and clerical officials to the most insignificant person, need to do this. I hope Ms. Burton both realizes that, and can convince them all to do that.

14 comments make for a lot of heat

Money Suckers

by gekko at 5:30 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I work for a company that designs cell phones. It sells the phones to service providers around the world. It makes all the various alphabetic flavors: CDMA, TDMA, GSM, GPRS, UMTS, and customizes the software and features for the providers who desire that -- which would be pretty much all of 'em.

I bought a GSM phone through my company. It was exclusive to a specific provider. The Spousal Unit wanted a phone like mine, so we switched him over, too. And The Teen Unit's phone contract was up, he wanted a new phone too, so we added him and now share family minutes. All one big happy family.

Then our provider got bought out. The company that bought them -- let's call them "Scamular" -- made the smart-for-them-decision to not support the other company's phones.

Oh, they didn't exactly shut you down -- the phones work and work well on the Scamular networks. You can log in to your account, see the new Scamular logos and everything, and you have your same plans, same minutes, same contracts.

But if your phone goes bye-bye? If it dies? And you need to replace it?

"Sorry, but we no longer sell the Other Company's Phones. We'd be happy to convert you over to a new shiny Scamular contract, at comparable minutes, rates, and we'll even kindly waive the contract conversion fees! But you'll need equipment."

I have three Old Company phones on one Old Company contract. If one person converts, all have to convert. Which means, according to the Scamular rep, that we need to purchase three new phones.

Heh.

I know for a fact that any GSM phone within the Scamular network frequency band will work. Pop your SIM card in, and you go, girl. I know this because the very smart guys who work at my company who make these phones do this ALL the time. They get one of the latest, hottest phones, pop their SIM cards in, and get to play with the new phone on a network that does not yet even know these phones exist.

I mentioned this to the Scamular rep when we were trying to figure out what was wrong with The Teen Unit's phone.

"Oh no. We just can't guarantee that will work on our network. We can't support that equipment unless it comes from us. You'll have to buy all new equipment for all three of you."

"I can't afford that."

"Well, if you have an old Old Company phone that no one is using? Maybe you could use that, then, rather than convert over. Just tell us the IMEI number and we'll get that phone set up for you."

"I don't have an old Old Company phone. We all just bought these phones a year ago. We still have a year to go on our Old Company contracts."

"Well, then, you'll have to convert."

"I suppose," I think aloud, "I could just find an Old Company phone on E-Bay ..."

"We could not guarantee that that phone would work on our ..."

"Excuse me? You just SAID that if I happened to have an old Old Company phone laying around, it would work!"

"Yes, but we can't guarantee a new one would ..."

"What is the difference between one that is laying around my house, and one that is laying around someone else's house but they're selling on e-Bay?"

The Scamular rep could not answer that.

She was full of company shit, of course.

I am now in the process of buying a phone on e-Bay for $5.00.

That's MUCH better than spending $150 to $300 for three new phones and two more years with Scamular.

17 comments make for a lot of heat

Happy December 25th!

by gekko at 8:09 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

This writer said pretty much everything I could say about the so-called "Christmas Wars" in Retailland:

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/13484581.htm

Excerpts:

But just allow me to point out that it's not particularly Christian for us to load up children with large amounts of new and expensive toys.

and

So to the extent that the retailers by their very nature promote the commercialization and trivialization of Christmas, I wonder if it wouldn't be better for them to drop the name. I'm perfectly happy to let the Targets and Wal-Marts of the world promote holiday gift giving in any manner they choose. I'm just not quite sure what all that has to do with the birth of Christ.

Rather than boycotting stores, I suggest that a better use of our time and energy as Christians would be to reclaim some of the spiritual meaning of Christmas for ourselves.

and

One final suggestion. Let's not be in such a rush. If we didn't have our shopping or Christmas cards sent out by Dec. 25, it's not a problem. As Christians, we should have the spirit of Christmas throughout the whole season and indeed the whole year, not just on Dec. 25. After all, there's only a 1 in 365 chance that Jesus was born on that day anyhow.

Anyway. I'm off to my daughter's, where I hope to be loaded up with expensive presents I don't need and they can't afford ... ;-)

Have a wonderful day, all a yiz.

4 comments make for a lot of heat

My Special Purpose

by gekko at 6:39 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

A quote from

Idea born of some scientists' gnawing doubts about Darwin | IndyStar.com:

Design theorists such as Behe believe that, in its purest form, ID is rooted in science first and foremost. But the ID community also includes people, such as the Rev. Fredrick W. Boyd Jr., who promote intelligent design based on religious beliefs.
Boyd, the leader of Zion Unity Missionary Baptist Church in Downtown Indianapolis, believes God is the intelligent designer. And he says teaching evolution alone leaves children with a sense that they have no more purpose in life than any other animal.

Some people clearly need an intelligent designer to help them find their special purpose.

But not everybody does.

There are, believe it or not, people on this earth who have a sense of purpose but who do not believe in a Creator, a Designer, or necessarily a god.

The "I Know What God's All About And He's A White Guy" middle-America view of science is amusing.

Anyway. My purpose in life is to irritate people. God told me so.

22 comments make for a lot of heat

I beg to differ

by gekko at 7:07 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Cali's governator refused to grant clemency to the founder of the Crips, a bloody, murderous gang. Stanley "Tookie" Williams had been convicted of several brutal murders. He has never admitted to them.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had lots of time, lots of press, and lots of information with which to make his decision. Here is what he claims was pivotal in making his decision to refuse clemency:

"Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise?" Schwarzenegger wrote less than 12 hours before the execution. "Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption."

There is a ... belief ... or value system in existence today that rests on the notion of atonement. List all those against whom you have sinned, or whom you have harmed. Seek to make amends -- not a meaningless, empty apology, but actual amends. Then you have freed your spirit from the wrongs you have committed, and paved the way for your own redemption. You have released within yourself the ability to move beyond your own resentments, and the sins/wrongs against you.

That credo exists in many religious groups, as well as within a variety of 12-step programs.

It is a sound one.

It is also, apparently, something Schwarzenegger believes in.

But that is insufficient for some:

"Too often I hear the governor and many who are around him talk about his values system," said NAACP President Bruce S. Gordon. "In this particular case, those values seem to be cast aside. There is absolutely no recognition given to redemption."

Sorry, but that statement is 100% wrong. I don't know what "values" Gordon thinks the governor has, but it's clear that the governor has based his decision on some set of values. It appears to me that they simply are not the same as what Gordon thinks Schwarzenegger should have.

Further, the statement "There is absolutely no recognition given to redemption" is incorrect. The governor has recognized redemption. He's set forth his opinion on what proof of redemption entails. Williams has failed to stand up to that proof.

I am, btw, against killing prisoners unless they act violently and the killing is done in defense of self or others. I do not believe Williams should die, but since it is the law, presently, in that state, then there's not much to be done regarding that. The law should be changed. It's better that Williams should live, forever imprisoned, than die at the hands of the state.

However, going with the knowledge that the law is what it is, and it's not up to the governor to set aside the law, then the governor has to decide, within the bounds of that law and a careful, introspective review of what it takes to offer clemency.

Williams never admitted to the killings, but for all of the good Williams has done since being convicted, has he made amends? Legally, officially, he is a brutal murderer. In fact, he enabled, encouraged, and created a wave of bloody violence and death. Has writing books, attempting to sway a generation of children atoned for that? Have amends been offered to the many victims of the death and destruction his actions wrought?

Apparently not.

So is Williams redeemed?

Had there been no death penalty, had his sentence been life without parole, would that same crowd be concerned about his redemption? Would they be clamoring for freeing him from prison?

Or have they founded their story of redemption simply on their abhorrence of killing, and sought a way around a law?

Is that one man's life equal to all the lives of all those who've died, either at his hands or at the hands of those who followed him and his urgings?

It is one man's life. To me, it is a sacred life, in spite of his abuse of it, and it truly is up to God to determine when that life should end. But it will never, ever be equal to the sum of the lives of those innocents who died in the crimes for which he was convicted. And bending the law to protect that one life, when none, not one of those people were concerned with the lives of the victims, or the anguish of the survivors, is wrong.

The above quotes come from:
ABC News: Schwarzenegger Denies Clemency for Williams

25 comments make for a lot of heat

Bah. Totally upfucked

by gekko at 1:37 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

The trouble with blogs is when you go blogging, and you find really cool stuff to comment on, and blog wars, and comment wars, and rumors of war, you just have a dickens of a time keeping track of it!

At least in Usenet you have threaded newsreaders and can, if you're clever enough to get a good newsreader, track followups easily.

I'll bet someone said something really nasty and juicy to or about me in some comment on some blog, some where, and I forgot about the conversation and haven't been to see it. And there it will languish, a miserable, lonely attempt to stir some really good nasty shit gone to waste.

Alas.

2 comments make for a lot of heat

Libelous Editing

by gekko at 10:56 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

In a comment regarding my, um, comment policy, billo wrote:

You can, of course, do whatever you want with your own blog. But even on your own blog, libel remains libel. And libel created by knowingly forging someone else is almost impossible to defend.

Interesting that you'd assume I would indulge in libel.

Let's look at what "libel" is, shall we?

There are various official definitions, of course, but they all tend to reference the same language, like this:

= a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person
= print slanderous statements against; "The newspaper was accused of libeling him"
= the written statement of a plaintiff explaining the cause of action (the defamation) and any relief he seeks

Defamation. Malice. False publication with intent to defame.

Now let's look at my comment policy, the relevant portion of which is:

I also reserve the right to edit it. Change it. Alter it. Turn it into something other than what the commenter intended.

As I said, I find it interesting that you'd automatically assume that I would alter the text so as to maliciously present a defamatory characterization of the person whose comment went against my clearly p ublicized comment policy.

But that's not what my comment policy states I will be doing, now, is it?

16 comments make for a lot of heat

Happy Festivus!

by gekko at 7:08 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I hate being behind the trends, but, dammit, I've opined on several blogs discussing this war on Xmas thinger and I guess it's time I set my thoughts down.

So over on Mark's blog I started a comment. I'd like to flesh it out here.

I had written:

So. The winter holiday season. And, in spite of some Xians advocating that we keep the Christmas in the word, um, Christmas, it is a winter holiday season. There are more holidays and observances and festivities going on during that time period than just one holy day that is special to Xians. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that, and including the rest of the world in our references.

OTOH, there's nothing wrong with refering to Christmas, either.

So let me ramble. 'k?

Some aspects of the "war" have to do with people finding offense in wishing someone a Merry Christmas or in having to endure a decorated tree or a song referencing Jesus over a loudspeaker at the mall. Other aspects have to do with people who think it's a God-given right to officially celebrate a day special only to them and that it is High Insult to suggest that maybe other groups should have official celebrations of their day, or maybe just dispose of the *official* celebration of that day, hmm?

My opinion on the whole matter?

The winter months, beginning with the winter solstice and extending through the darkest days have always, within written history, been considered a time for festivities, for a variety of reasons.

December and January, in the northern hemisphere, is dark. And cold. And peeps are prone to depression and isolation. They were way back when, and they still are today. So we have festivals of light, warmth, feasting, merriment, and gathering. Whether it's Mithrasmas, Christmas, or any other festival day, it is good to celebrate it. To find any reason to gather, bring food, find warmth and light. To use symbols and icons to help put us in the spirit of giving, warmth, food, festivity, spiritual-connectedness.

It's stupid to get offended over what you call it or what shape the icons take. If you're Christian, call it Christmas. If you're not, don't. If a vendor wants to put up a tree and a Santa, let 'im. If they want to put a giant mennorah up, let 'em. If they want to excise the word "Christ" from everything, hey, let 'em. How is it any skin off of anyone's nose?

As for days off from work, the government long ago set aside a specific number of days for its employees to take off, for a variety of reasons. They did this based on what the "majority" culture deemed important days to have off. Back then, it was Christian, so you had some of the main holy days of Christianity off. Good Friday. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

So someone's arguing over which day the day off from work should be?

You still need/want some official days off from work. If those days happen to be December 24th and December 25th, or days proximal to those days, does it really hurt you? OTOH, if they are not, does that really hurt you? Does it hurt anyone? They are days. They have meaning for some, not for others.

They're days off, fuck sake.

If you need a different day off for your own religious observance, negotiate with your employer. Enlighten him or her. Maybe the word will get back on up to the government that the national makeup is not exclusively Xian, and maybe official days of government shut down should reflect national concerns, not entitlements for a specific group.

4 comments make for a lot of heat

Soldiers, Homosekshuls and freezed peach

by gekko at 5:48 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

You've read the news. Supremes are hearing a case wherein law schools are protesting the law requiring them to permit military recruiters full access to the students, even though the law schools' by-laws prohibit groups who discriminate on the basis of race, creed, or sexuality from operating on their campuses.

The law schools can, of course, uphold their rules and keep the military recruiters off campus. But if they do so, the law, known as the Solomon Amendment, takes away any federal funding they're receiving.

ABC News: Campus Recruiting Battle Heats Up

The law schools in the case, Rumsfeld v. FAIR, argue that their right to free speech to protest the military's policy is being violated, since doing so could jeopardize their receipt of federal funds. Joshua Rosenkranz, arguing for the law schools, told the justices, "This is a refusal to disseminate the messages of the military recruiters."

I am not going to offer an opinion on the case itself, but I am interested in protesting the wording above. I have no idea if that is the basis of the "unconstitutionality" of the Solomon Amendment.

It's ridiculous. The schools most definitely have retained their right to protest, and they may even protest, loudly and at length, without losing their funding, if I understand things correctly.

Barring someone from coming onto a campus to talk to the students is not protest, nor is it an exercise of free speech. It is an exercise in the supression of the presumed "free speech" of that other person.

It is within their rights to suppress that speech on their own property, but that is a different right -- not a matter of their own free speech. And, if they choose to bar someone from coming into their establishment, so to speak, there is nothing saying that someone is still required to spend money at that establishment, hello.

Ah, these twisty lawyerly types!

5 comments make for a lot of heat

Lizard Dreams Comment Policy

by gekko at 4:09 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

All kinds of comments -- snarky or kind, mean-spirited or gracious, nasty or humorous, politics, religion, sex, disagreement, agreement, compliments, playfulness, lewdness, crudeness, dirty words, and sickly-sweet-syrupy pleasantness (gak!) -- are permitted on LizardDreams, however, be aware of the following:

1. If I don't like it, I get to hose it. Remove it. Banish it. Delete, destroy, shred, obliterate, mulch, liquify, bend, spindle and mutilate it. Toss it, even.

2. I also reserve the right to edit it. Change it. Alter it. Turn it into something other than what the commenter intended. I won't be doing this to comments I don't dislike. If you're worried about this, then maybe you should think twice about leaving a comment I might not like.

3. I dislike comments that are hurtful to people I don't think deserve to be hurt. Those comments will be hosed or altered to suit me.

4. I dislike comments that disparage people who are dear to me. Those, too, will be hosed or altered.

5. I dislike spam. That is, like, SO hosed.

I mean, it's my blog, hello. Enjoy your visit.

8 comments make for a lot of heat

If this is disturbing, what will they think of MySpace?

by gekko at 7:52 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I read the article cited below, and couldn't help but think about the stuff that's on, well, any young man's computer if he has an account on MySpace.com.

LITITZ, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The images are disturbing: A 14-year-old girl in various stages of undress; two gun-toting young men making plans to break into a house and kill everyone inside.

According to a court affidavit, police found the images on computers belonging to David Ludwig, the 18-year-old Pennsylvania man charged with shooting his girlfriend's parents and fleeing the state with her.
CNN.com - Police: Ludwig's computers hold crime plans - Nov 19, 2005

I took a look at my son's MySpace space -- with his permission. The pictures that these girls post to his site are, well, pictures of young women in various stages of undress. None of them are nude. But they are deliberately sexy.

The girls are taking these photos, and the girls are sending them to young men they do not necessarily know. And I have no idea how old these girls actually are. They may well be thirteen, fourteen years old.

So is Ludwig's collection -- the pics on his 'puter are of the GF whose parents he offed -- truly "disturbing"?

NB: I am NOT attempting to defend this guy's crime.

6 comments make for a lot of heat

Men

by gekko at 11:56 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

A buncha news outlets -- tv, print -- have been following the story of the 14 year old girl who "was allegedly abducted" by her boyfriend, who also allegedly shot the girl's parents. They almost all of 'em describe the situation this way:

A man wanted in a Pennsylvania double homicide and apparent abduction of 14-year-old girl [...] David Ludwig, 18

Sure, technically, according to the way we try to reckon things, because this "man" can go off to war and vote 'n stuff, he's a "man."

My son is 18.

I love my son, and he possesses many manly qualities. He undoubtedly thinks of himself as a man, could probably participate successfully in a hunt for a woolly mammoth, wield a warlike weapon well, and make a reasonably well-reasoned decision when it comes to voting, but, dammit, I have a very difficult time thinking of this sweet baby of mine as a man.

Even when I was that age and dating other 18 year olds, I didn't think of those still be-pimpled youths as men.

I'm just weird that way.

3 comments make for a lot of heat

The Practice of Hunting

by gekko at 9:14 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I was reading Mark's blog and some of the discussion in the latest of his gun poasts. Mark remarked, "I called the practice of hunting repugnant. It is. To me."

I have to wonder why.

Note that I do not now hunt, nor have I ever hunted. I am an advocate for responsible gun ownership, believe in limiting the amount of government control of guns to only what is necessary to attempt to ensure that gun owners are responsible, knowlegeable people, and think that owning guns for collecting, hunting, self-protection, sport, or otherwise are all fine, legitimate reasons. Hell, owning a gun just to say "I own a gun" is fine with me. I agree that everyone, even non-gun owners, ought to be knowledgeable where guns are concerned. They are tools.

'k, that was the lengthy disclaimer. Now here are my thoughts on hunting:

Aside from Vegans and vegetarians, we all eat meat. We all walk or drive to the store, or we have groceries delivered. We peruse the meat sections. We select the cuts and types of meat we intend to prepare and serve. We dine on animal flesh. Those animals are dead. They were killed. On purpose.

MOST of them lived short lives in pens, being fed cheap, vitamin- and otherwise-enhanced feed to bulk them up, and were then summarily slaughtered. Except for Kosher meats, the slaughter is not guaranteed to not induce unnecessary suffering on the part of the animal.

Maybe turkeys and cows have thoughts and emotions; maybe they do not, but I can't imagine that the life of a farm turkey is all that good. The life of a wild turkey, however, is that of an animal more or less in a natural state. It's ranging, foraging for its food as such animals had since before Man discovered fire. It grows, finds a mate, lives where it can and as it can, and eventually dies. Its death is likely to take place at the hands or claws of a predator. The predator that kills the wild turkey then eats that turkey.

So why would anyone (other than a PETAn or a Vegan -- I already know the reasons they give and thoroughly disagree with them) consider hunting -- a natural activity for predators -- repugnant?

It's part of being human. Humans are animals. Hunters, in fact. What is repugnant about doing what comes naturally? Animal's gonna die anyway, and being hunted by a human is no different than being hunted by a wolf.

26 comments make for a lot of heat

Smart

by gekko at 7:02 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

A burbling bubbly bleachette was being interviewed on CNN this morning. She was some kinda spokespeep for something to do with New Orleans. She was effervescing over the newly reopening parts of the French Quarter.

"Our forefathers were just so smart to build the city on the cliff, the highest part in that area!" If she'd've giggled and added a few <g><g><g><g>'s, I'd've thought her name was Suzi Cute.

Well, Suze. Here in the educated parts of the US, we consider that kind of "so smart" to be, um, dur.

I guess, too, our not-so-fore-siblings who figured to build the rest of the city in the swamp at the edge of the waterfront were not so smart, innit.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!

And in the "Get A Dictionary" Category ...

by gekko at 3:58 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

[Tip a the hat to one of my cow-orker peeps for alerting me to this]

This is a headline currently posted on CNN.com:

Weakened dam stable but 'extremely volatile'

sta-ble
adj. sta-bler, sta-blest
a. Resistant to change of position or condition; not easily moved or disturbed

vol-a-tile
adj.
a. Tending to vary often or widely, as in price:

I guess reading what you wrote is now optional for reporters at CNN.

2 comments make for a lot of heat

When to keep secrets

by gekko at 1:01 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

When I was in the fourth grade, I learned a valuable lesson: you don't betray a trust without a very good reason. The backstory involved my two then-best friends. Girl A confided in me that she was mad at Girl B. "But don't say anything to her." Well, this was too juicy. I trotted over to Girl B and told her. I dunno, maybe I thought I could help them patch things up, but, really, there was no good reason to betray Girl A's trust. Girl A could've handled her own affairs herself. The end of that story came with Girl B confronting Girl A, Girl A feeling betrayed, and the two of them excluding me from their lives as their friend forever more.

So now we have this anonymous Cardinal who handed his diary over to a Vatican journalist, so that records of the conclave that voted Cardinal Ratzinger in as Pope Benedictus Whatever would be published.

ROME (CNS) -- On the fourth ballot of the April 18-19 conclave to elect a successor to Pope John Paul II, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger went from being five votes shy of election to having seven more than the 77 needed.

The count, along with a few details of the brief conclave leading to the election of Pope Benedict XVI, was published Sept. 23 in Limes, a respected Italian journal usually focused on geopolitics.

On each of the four ballots, the magazine said, the prelate receiving the second-highest number of votes was Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires.

Limes said its information came from the diary of an anonymous cardinal who, while acknowledging he was violating his oath of secrecy, felt the results of the conclave votes should be part of the historic record.

-- Catholic News, 23 Sep 2005

So you're a part of a brotherhood, with well-established vows and protocols, and you choose to break one or more of them. That breakage comes about, not because you can serve some genuine common good (was Ratzinger's election rigged? Fraudulent? Dangerous to society as we know it? Was the anonymous Cardinal a genuine whistleblower?), but because you think they should be part of a historic record: read "I want to be important."

There are valid reasons to betray a trust: when doing so saves lives, or stops a wrong that is taking place.

Someone's brain doodles of a process that has, for hundreds and hundreds of years been done in secret and revelation of those secret proceedings don't do diddly is merely ego odery.

I hope they find that Cardinal and boot his ass out a there.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!

A Story

by gekko at 7:54 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Once upon a time there was a family of four with an impeccable credit rating and credit history. Any loan or card for which they applied, they received. They qualified for many of the "privileged" credit cards. Easily.

One day, The Woman received a piece of junk mail from A Large Bank's credit company. She had been "Pre-approved" for a 0% Platinum Card! This was in the days when "Platinum" was the premium card. Apply now, and they'd transfer the balance of the lower-rated card of her choice to the new Platinum card, for free! She would have the first six months at 0 interest, and then pay any balance owing at a low-low rate of 5.9% APR!

She looked over the fine print, and saw nothing scammulous, and she and her husband applied.

The Large Bank, however, claimed that she did not actually qualify for the nice Platinum card. No, she DID, however, qualify for the regular card, and they transferred the balance of her older Visa to their account and charged her 14% for the privilege.

She was outragd. There was something wrong. She had perfect credit. She checked her credit history and it was unblemished. She called The Large Bank, and they said "Don't Pay The Bill. We Will Investigate."

Well, many long months ensued, with one department saying "Don't Pay The Bill. We Will Investigate" and the credit collection department getting more strident in their demands that she Pay The Bill.

It came to a head when a Credit Scumlord, not-quite-a-collection-agency-but-close, called The Woman at her place of business. They were permitted to do this in spite of state laws prohibiting harassing people at work because they were NOT a collection agency, per se. They were a division of a company with whom The Woman had already contracted to do business, see. So it was OKAY to call her and harass her at work.

And so the faceless man who called himself "Steve" called The Woman at her place of employment and proceeded to not quite threaten her.

She patiently attempted to explain, ONCE AGAIN, the mix-up, but Steve would not let her continue her litany. He grew more strident when she suggested that the two departments communicate with one another and get their advice and stories straight, and he proceeded to lambast her. She shouted at him, telling him to BE QUIET, YOUNG MAN, because she would NOT be spoken to that way. The Young Man informed The Woman that he knew she could afford to pay her bill because she lived in a nice neighborhood, not far from where he lived. The implied threat in that was ... interesting.

In the end, The Woman demanded to speak to a supervisor. The Supervisor came on the line, played "Good Cop" to Steve's Bad, and eventually The Woman said: "I will pay your illegal bill of a paltry $500. You will, on your part, issue me the Platinum card you owe me, and erase any bad credit rating you may have put in my credit report."

The Supervisor agreed to all that.

Later, a denial from The Large Bank came: we cannot issue you a Platinum Card, because you have a bad credit rating.

The Woman checked: The bad rating came from The Large Bank.

The Woman objected. The Large Bank claimed they would place a letter in the file. The letter never materialized.

In all the intervening months and years, The Woman and her family applied for and received many loans. Not one has ever been denied, in spite of the one black mark in the record.

Today, The Woman received junk mail from the very same Large Bank. It informed her that she qualified for a 0% transfer loan, 7.9% low low APR rate Platinum Card from The Large Bank! Yay!

The woman shredded the guts of the mail, and wrote a terse note on a piece of paper:

"You have GOT to be kidding! You expect me to apply for one of your tawdry loans, after the way your unethical company cheated me and ruined my credit? Take my NAME off of your smelly list, and do not EVER run another check on my credit to send me your scams again!"

She placed these contents into the postage-paid return envelope and will mail it tomorrow.

It will probably have zero effect, over all, but at least she will have gotten some small satisfaction out of the actions.

The End.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!

Traffic Buttheads

by gekko at 5:36 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I am NOT a fan of control freaks.

There are three lanes, but a hundred yards past the light, the left-most lane ends. We all usually let the impatient types take that lane, and we KNOW they're going to scoot on ahead and try to break in in front of us. I figure, let them. Better to have that kind in FRONT of you than behind you, you know?

But, today, the two right-most lanes were full-up, the left-most one was pure empty, and the light was about to go green as I was approaching, so I shifted over to the left. That way, I wouldn't have to brake, see?

'Cept for the butthead in the white Whazziz, some SUV-wannabe thing. He was in the center lane, which was the lane into which the left-most lane would merge.

He slammed his foot to the metal, there, determined to make sure I did NOT cut in front of him.

'k.

Like I said, I don't want THAT kind of person behind me. So let him get in front.

Except as soon as I merged in behind him, he put his foot on the brake, and pretty much rode that brake pedal, keeping in line with the slowest car in the right-most lane. If the car to the right sped up slightly, SUV-Wannabe would speed up to match him. If the car to the right slowed, SUV-Wannabe slowed.

I knew that I'd get a break a few miles up, when a new left lane would appear. The guy could NOT take both lanes, not realistically. So I stayed behind him, watching his antics, until the new left lane appeared. I hung back, watching him. He stayed in the center lane, still even with the car to the right of him. I came up on his tail, then, and without signalling (there were no other cars on the road), shifted down, moved into the left, and accelerated my little Miata heart out, passing him easily while he was braking (because I was too close and he wanted to teach me a lesson, no doubt).

2 comments make for a lot of heat

Cracklin' Neil: They're coming to America

by gekko at 12:24 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

If there was a dictionary of hipness, Neil Diamond would be MIA. In the 474-page Rolling Stone History of Rock & Roll, he barely exists, dismissed as a singer who "sold millions of records to a market hungry for maudlin middle-of-the-road pop rock." He appeared in the Band's legendary 1976 farewell concert, "The Last Waltz," but few people seem to know why. Even Diamond himself says, "I don't fit in."

At 63, Diamond remains something of a musical vagabond, a singer and song-writer who has visited many camps, yet calls none of them home. Yet, as he head-lines two concerts Monday and Tuesday at the United Center, he stands as one of the most successful -- and surprisingly influential -- performers of the last 40 years.

-- Neil Diamond: Still cool after all these years Chicago Sun Times

Maudlin? Yeah, I guess. Middle-of-the-road? Sure. Pop rock? You betcha. And, apparently, it sums up what the maudlin middlin' 'Mericans want in music. I think there's room for edgey, ground-breaking, trend-starting stuff, and there's room for the stuff that the regular folk feed on, when it comes to music.

I confess that Neil Diamond's singing and his songs have been one of my guilty pleasures since childhood. I don't regret any of that. So just call me maudlin, already!

5 comments make for a lot of heat

Don't piss off celebs if you're in UK

by gekko at 1:57 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

cuz squirting PMSing actors can get you arrested.

ABC News has the story

So, I wonder. If someone had squirted me with water, and I decided to act all prima dona about it, would the bobbies've arrested the squirter and anyone nearby with a camera?

Ooh, got me one hot comment!

Pathos

by gekko at 8:14 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I have decided I am a sociopath.

I have failed to generate sufficient emotional interest in the outcome of the Michael Jackson trial. I've encountered someone who, I swear, was spitting as he expressed his rage over the acquittal.

And I watched, incredulous, as hundreds of people burst into tears -- actual tears! -- of joy at the announcement.

These are people who are not actually related to Jackson, his accusers, or any of the kids who spent time at Neverland.

I must be a sociopath.

4 comments make for a lot of heat

Rhetoric

by gekko at 7:55 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

What Howard Dean did not say:

Over the past week, Dean has described the DNC as "pretty much a colored, a-religious party" and said many Democrats "never made an honest living."

What he DID say concerned Republicans, about being white (it's all about race to those liberals) and Christians (and, of course, being Christian is ... what? A bad thing?).

Turns out he's right. The GOP is mostly white and Christian. 80% of the party. And I'm sure, depending on your definition of "honest living" (it slides around depending on the picture you want to paint), many Republicans do NOT farm, or work on an assembly line at a factory, but instead trade stocks or land, or work as executives in large corporate conglomerations.

Dean is fine. Dean should say whatever is on his mind, because it's refreshing to hear. So long as others don't get persecuted for characterizing radical Muslims as "pretty much extreme, violent people" and say that "many Welfare recipients never make an honest living," or whatever true but explosive rhetoric people want to say to paint their prejudices more sharply.

Yeah.

That'll happen.

4 comments make for a lot of heat

I did it.

by gekko at 8:11 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I did it. My friends did it. I remember seeing a note my daughter left in the laundry, so I know she and her friends did it, too.

Did you do it?

Probably.

"I'm sorry; I didn't mean for this to get this serious," the admittedly headstrong [13 year old] girl said. "We were just bored."

The list was written a month ago, she said, while she and some good friends were sitting in their language arts class. They had finished their work sheet so they started writing down a list of people they liked and disliked on a piece of notebook paper. Eventually, the list consisted of 18 students and six teachers, and by each one was also a code word, or nickname, the kids made up for each person.

Sometime the same day the list got folded into her yellow wallet among library cards and Tiger Bucks, used in the school's award system. That's where it remained until this week, she said. -- "Paper found in wallet not school hit list, girl, 13, says" Arizona Republic May 21, 2005

People, and school officials, have become hypersensitive since Columbine and other school shootings. Kids who express their dislike of others are now actively suspected of being killers-manque.

I don't know what school officials should do, or if they acted appropriately. I do know that people need to settle down. This girl's home phone answering machine was loaded with messages, and many of them were hate-filled. Once you release a story like this, and it gets exaggerated, people will assume the very worst, and even though they are no longer threatened, they feel it is appropriate to call a thirteen year old girl and leave a message of hate in her home.

Fear is an ugly, ugly thing.

3 comments make for a lot of heat

Hot Mamas

by gekko at 8:09 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Some moms are happy the image is changing from harried to hot. But others are wary. As they juggle conference calls, teacher meetings and playgroups, some feel the media pressure and think: I have to do all this - and look sexy, too? -- "Sexy, stylish moms gracing TV, Arizona Republic, May 8, 2005"

I am a victim of it. The need that womankind has imposed on itself for reasons unbeknownst to me, to chase the ephemeral beauty ideal. I distinctly remember the youthful daydreams I had of one day being a Miss America winner. Short-legged, not-terribly-pretty me had no chance, but I dreamed it. A miracle could occur, right?

The question is, why? What mechanism is it that fills girls and women with this drive to be lovely? Mom and Dad never required me to be beautiful -- it was the examples around me where the beautiful woman was celebrated and the dumpy and ugly were ignored that seems to have spoken most loudly.

The men in my life find me beautiful even though I do not look like Heidi Klum or Britney Spears. My son, my husband, those delightful men who've flirted with me through the years. Even when I was hugely pregnant and that one male co-worker took me by the hand and sighed, explaining that he wished I were single so he could woo me in earnest.

So if they found me to be a hot mama, why, when I looked in the mirror, did I not see that same woman?

That is symptomatic of the majority of American women and, I suspect, womankind all over the world. Whatever the standard for beauty and perfection and attractiveness is in whatever culture, you'll undoubtedly find the women of that culture striving toward it and unhappy that they haven't achieved it.

Why?

I am pleased to be a hot mama. I've lost the weight, and I see the appreciative looks and I'm female enough to revel in it. I also love having been a mother for these 21 years and I look back on those motherhood moments, when cuddling my children delivered a bright spark of joy in my soul. I am filled to the brim with a feeling of blessedness when I listen to my son work out a new composition -- his best yet! And when my gorgeous daughter, the bride-to-be, joins me in a secret mother-daughter joke and we share the laughter and the bond.

I just wish I didn't feel this drive to compete with myself and push myself toward an ideal that no one else seems to think matters.

5 comments make for a lot of heat

Suspension of disbelief

by gekko at 9:55 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

A Columbus, Georgia, student will return to class Monday after spending three days at home for an incident that began when his mother, a soldier serving in Iraq, called his cell phone while he was at school.

Kevin Francois was initially suspended for 10 days for what Spencer High School officials said was his use of profanity after a teacher interrupted a cell phone conversation he was having with his mother.

Her name is Sgt. 1st Class Monique Bates, The Associated Press reported.

The suspension gained national attention Friday, prompting a flood of e-mails to school officials. By Friday afternoon, they told Francois his 10-day suspension would be shortened to the three already served. -- CNN

The rest of the story is that school has rules: no cellphone use on school property during school hours, Mom called his cellphone while he was at lunch (not during class). Kid knows rules. Teacher asked him to turn over the cellphone. He swore at her (he denies having used profanity) and pitched a hissy. School maintains he did not tell them it was his deployed mother on the call.

The suspension was just and fair. He did not behave appropriately. He can learn how to behave: tell Mom not to call cellphone during his school hours, but if she does anyway, tell teacher "It's my mom, hold on a moment, please, she's in Iraq" instead of getting ugly about it.

Learning how to interact with people appropriately is a valuable life lesson. Belligerence and anger in teenagers may be expected, but it should not be tolerated.

His suspension should not have been shortened.

2 comments make for a lot of heat

Yakkity Airflak

by gekko at 6:32 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

This news article talks about the possibility of permitting cell phone usage inflight, and how the flight attendants are worried about it.

A lot of peeps are a bit annoyed that they have to turn off cell phones (and other electronic devices) during take-offs and landings (I mean, I MUST HAVE MY FREECELL GAME DURING TAKEOFF, DAMMIT!), and keep the cellphones off throughout the duration of the flight. How else are they going to tell Bernard and Daphne about the appalling conditions, being squashed between two WideLoads on the five hour flight while it's taking place?

The FCC and FAA say it's because cellphones might interfere with sensitive electronic equipment aboard the plane. They apparently never really tested it, though, until recently.

Late last year, the FCC said technological advances had reduced its concerns. And the FAA has launched a study of cell phone effects on cockpit control that is due early next year. If those concerns of interference go away, the two agencies could lift their respective bans in the next year or so.

That has flight attendants worried about the in-flight noise, which could interfere with a passenger's willingness and ability to follow safety instructions and possibly lead to ``air rage'' that they would be forced to police.

``We believe they can't consider this purely on a technological basis,'' said Pat Friend, president of the Washington-based Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, which co-sponsored the poll along with the National Consumers League. ``They have to consider the implications to on-board safety and the human factors. What effect would cell phone use have on the occupants of that airplane?''

Flying already can be a stressful experience, especially since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. When passengers have disputes -- mostly surrounding the overhead compartment space for carry-on luggage -- it's the flight attendants who intervene to keep people calm, Friend said.

``We believe cell phone usage will just create an even more stressful environment and lead to more disputes,'' she said.

But that really doesn't matter much, said FAA spokesman Donn Walker.

``The federal government is not in the business of banning things based on people's preferences,'' he said. ``It is of no concern to us whether people do or don't want cell phones on planes. We prohibit them right now because of safety issues.''

He also noted that, even if the ban is lifted, individual airlines still could put their own prohibitions in place -- possibly as a selling point for those who want to travel in a peaceful, cell-free zone.

All this "might" and "may" stuff. Aren't we supposed to be a data driven society?

Anyhoo, that's not my point. My point is that airlines could capitalize on this. Cellphone sections. Put one of those cubicle wall partitions in and sell cellphone seats at a slight premium. Jacks to plug in chargers. Headsets, even. Little curtains you can pull between you and your seatmate for more privacy.

Now, not only can they use the "We offer peaceful, cellphone-free flights!" as one marketing point, but they can use "You gab, we fly" campaigns.

Next up: baby bins. A sound-proof container into which irate passengers can stuff all crying, snivelling, screaming, giggling, LOUD children.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!

Blockbusted!

by gekko at 8:28 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

A news article got me interested, and further investigation got me to laughing in derision.

Blockbuster Video announced in January the end of late fees at participating stores. The Attorney General in NJ is suing the rental chain, claiming that they are misleading customers by charging additional fees that are hidden in the fine print.

In the article, Blockbuster defends itself:

Blockbuster points out that all of its rental terms are disclosed in its stores, on pamphlets handed to customers, and on its Web site.

“The fact is there are no longer late fees at Blockbuster. We're surprised that the New Jersey state attorney general never contacted us about this. We're disappointed in this action, because we believe it's a terrific program, and we've received a lot of positive feedback from customers and employees,” a Blockbuster spokeswoman told CNN.

So. I got curious. I went to Blockbuster's site to see about these rental terms.

The average consumer is greeted with an enormous, bright-colored banner promoting the end to late fees. They are invited to click here to learn more.

That page has this, and only this, to say about the rental terms (I'll note that the text is contained in a flash image, and so cannot be copy-pasted using text editing):

"There are no more late fees at BLOCKBUSTER.© And that's on every movie and every game in the entire store -- no matter how you rent. So if you need an extra day or two with your movies and games, go ahead and take 'em. Relax. Enjoy them without the stress of late fees."

There is more babblage about the cool ways you can rent from BLOCKBUSTER©. At the end of the hype, comes the invitation to "Click here" to find out even more on the end of late fees. Yes, but "clicking here" takes me to a customer service page, with a FAQ and an invitation to contact Customer Service to learn more.

Click, and click, and click. The average renter is probably NOT going to be clicking, but if they did, the very first question in the FAQ was

"Now that late fees are ending, can I keep the movie and game rentals as long as I want?"

The answer, if you click on that, is that the movie and game rentals are still due back by the date on the receipt. Okay, they're due on that date, but the hype said you could take a few extra days, so the question wasn't really answered, was it?

Aha! The truth is in the next question. Bear in mind, that I doubt most average renters -- not everyone is anal enough to go through this rigamarole -- would have gotten this far. The next question is a logical one, and smart peeps who are scratching their heads saying "Where's the incentive to return a movie?" will be interested in this one.

The question is:

"What if I forget to bring back a movie or game? Won't you charge me something at some point?"



Sure. They won't charge you a late fee. I mean, they SAID that they're not charging late fees, and they wouldn't, like, lie, now, would they?

The answer?

"If you still have a movie or game seven (7) days after the due date shown on your receipt, we will convert your rental to a sale. The movie or game will be sold to you at the selling price in effect at the time of rental, which is either the retail price, or, when available, at the previously-rented selling price, less the initial rental fee you paid."

So you do get a late fee, after all. The fee amounts to somewhere around $15 - $25. They've simply extended the late fee period from the due date, to seven days following the due date. Seven days times their previous $3 a day late fee charge was $21. Hmmmm. And they pretty much say "You just bought yourself a movie or a game, fella." Cool. Unless the movie was a piece of crap.

Well, thank goodness they have that covered! If you don't want the movie, you can return it, and get credited the sale charge.

"We will gladly let you return the movie or game within 30 days of the sale. If the selling price has been charged to your credit card, we will credit the amount charged to your credit card when you instruct us to do so in person (otherwise we will place this amount on your BLOCKBUSTER membership account). If this amount has been charged to your membership account, we will remove the balance. However, in both instances you will be charged a restocking fee plus applicable taxes."

But you STILL get charged a late fee. And, not only that, you have to instruct them in person to refund your money. That is, most people who, unaware that they really did purchase the movie, will probably dumbly dump the disk into their overnight slot and think nothing of it. Blockbuster gets to keep their $25.

The NJ Attorney General's playing nanny for people who're too dumb to read all the terms (or too impatient enough to find them, or too dumb to understand them). Which is nice. Someone's got to take care of the lazy and the stupid.

The terms are NOT spelled out in a very obvious fashion, at least on the website. I spoke with someone who rents from Blockbuster, and they were surprised to learn how it actually worked. They did read the terms, but understood that they had up to 30 days to return the movie, and wouldn't be charged anything. They apparently skimmed over the restocking fee. I have no idea what that fee is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't amount to a sum sufficient to keep Blockbuster sitting pretty, since it used to earn loads of ca$h charging late fees.

Note: I have no problem with a company charging fees if you're late in returning things you rent from them. They have to give incentive for you to return them, or they'd be out of business, and there's nothing wrong with earning a nice profit on people's laziness. I think the company should be very up-front in what it charges, and what the expectations are.

Blockbuster, in my opinion, is skating the edge. They spell it all out, but it isn't obvious enough for the average consumer. They'll still make their money, but they're doing it a bit more deviously.

5 comments make for a lot of heat

Where there's smoke, you're fired!

by gekko at 7:09 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

It is a disturbing trend.



A British newspaper, The Independent, along with other newspapers, carries this story about a growing trend among US firms to fire workers who smoke, or refuse to hire them if they admit to smoking. There are tales of breathalyzers to detect smoke on the breath. The reasons, they say, are rising healthcare costs. A larger and larger percentage, they say, of their costs are going to a small portion of their employees -- those who smoke.

It's true that smoking causes all kinds of health issues. Smoking is a stupid thing to do -- a very poor choice to make, albeit one that's often made when you are young and stupid. It's been documented that tabacco companies deliberately target the young with their advertisements, recognizing that if you hook 'em when they're stupid, you'll have 'em for life.

It's a harsh sentence, then, to be addicted to something you started doing when you were too stupid to know better, and not only face the health music for that poor choice, but be banned from employment in your area.

The libertarian in me says that it's every company's right to choose to hire or fire whomever they please for whatever valid business-based reasons they can. Things like the safety of other workers, or suitability of a particular individual to a particular job.

Refusing to hire drug addicts or alcoholics, unless they seek treatment and strive to live a life of sobriety, is a reasonable practice if it can be shown the addict is unreliable, or a danger to others.

Refusing to hire smokers, though. Firing them for lighting up at all -- even if they do so in the privacy of their car or their home -- because that's the only way you feel you can contain healthcare costs ...

... that's morally wrong.

You don't have to pay for their healthcare costs. Healthcare is a benefit package, a part of the negotiated salary. It's not a requirement. Just as insurance companies exclude "pre-existing conditions", an employer can have a policy in place that excludes paying for any smoking-related illness. They could choose to sweeten it by promising to pay for the therapy needed to help the smoker quit smoking, if they want to be angels. Or not.

7 comments make for a lot of heat

Here's your sign!

by gekko at 11:27 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I forget if it is Jeff Foxworthy or one of the other Blue Collar guys who does the "Here's your sign" stand-up routine. People who're stupid should be forced to wear signs. Some of the most stupid, according to one variation on the routine, include the people for whom warning labels are necessary.

Here for your giggling pleasure is this year's winner of the Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch (M-LAW) organization's Whacky Warning Labels contest.

Warning: If you find yourself scratching your head and saying "I don't get it. Why is that warning label whacky?", well ... Here's Your Sign ...

3 comments make for a lot of heat

Butts

by gekko at 3:19 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I like butts. Men's butts.

I'm not, like, obsessed with them. But as I might enjoy the sight of a gorgeous sunset, a starry night sky, a child's gleeful grin, so I enjoy the sight of a shapely, well-muscled, man's ass. Clad or unclad. I appreciate it.

But.

When anyone's butt is NOT shapely, well-muscled, firm, and nice to see, I'd rather prefer it be covered by clothing. Call me a buttist, but that's how I am. Saggy, fat, dimpled asses do not belong in the public space.

I mention this because of a guy out getting some fresh air this morning, in my neighborhood. It looked as though he dug his old gym shorts from the '80s out of some dingy drawer somewhere, skooched them on over his altogether, unmindful of the fact that since the last time he wore them he gained an elephant's worth of weight, and headed out the door.

The beam of my headlights glared off of the bulbous, oozing mass of flesh that bobbled out from the edges of those very short shorts.

I was grateful that his backside hid anything that might've been dangling from the frontside, is all I can say.

It took me this long to blog about it, only because I've been fighting off queasiness.

Listen: I keep my saggy boobs harnessed. You fat-assed peeps can do me the return favor, right?

Right.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!

Be It Resolved ...

by gekko at 6:47 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

that I shall not be making any new year's resolutions.

I simply do not believe in them. I think self-assessment and self-improvement ought to be a regular, on-going thing. Focusing only on January 1, making a big show of making a list of things, and then forgetting it by January 2 is a waste of time, for me.

But.

If I were going to resolve to improve right about now, it'd probably have to do with changing my tendency to be holier-than-everyone else.



Yeah. Right. Like that's ever gonna change.

4 comments make for a lot of heat

Customer Disservice

by gekko at 12:08 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Has anyone noticed that many, if not most, telephone customer service centers are pegging the politeness meters to the point that they nearly explode? They haven't managed to figure out how to deal with the hold music, though, and that's a major gripe.

I've been spending a lot of time calling the customer service desks of various companies, for various reasons. They're all overseas, now, and the ones I've had to contact have fortunately had representatives who could speak my language clearly, but there are a few quirks and oddities I'd like to point out. In fact, I'd like to help design a perfect, flawless customer service telephone plan for all of the companies to use. Starting with the moment I connect.

Automated Answering

Lose the cheerful, chipper-voiced automated voice system that tries to engage you in conversation. I feel like gagging when I hear the dulcet, mothering tones of a fembot say "Hello there, I'm glad you called Acme Amalgamated Telekinetics Research Laboratories and Meat Market, where business isn't just what we do, it's our passion! You may respond at any time with a short phrase that will help me provide you with the best possible assistance. Say things like 'I'd like to pay my bill,' or 'I need technical assistance.' Now. How may I be of assistance?"

Instead, I'd like to hear a clipped, professional sounding voice say things like, "Yo. You've reached Acme. We do good stuff for you. You can talk, or you can press buttons, but whatever you end up saying and doing, we're really going to route you to the same spot and make you wait 40 minutes. This is just a ruse to get you to hang up in frustration so we don't have you clogging up our lines. So, punch away at your keypad, and we'll eventually connect you to a service representative."

Hold Time

I really, really like it when they tell me what the estimated hold time is. I just wish they'd get it right. And, while they put me on hold, can they please do something about their hold music?

I think it's great that they play some noise while you're waiting. It lets you know that you've not been disconnected. I think it's fine that they almost all play advertisements about how wonderful they are, and invite you to visit their website where you can peruse their Eff Aye Kews in lieu of sitting on perma-hold, but my gawd!

Why do they all elect to play just 16 bars of some gakky little jazz number, badly recorded at that so it's scratchy and full of static, break off in the middle of a note, make a hiccup sound, and start the same 16 bars over again? Why do they break into their ads and music with an announcement that they're terribly sorry to have placed you on hold, all of their reps are still busy, yadda yadda yadda? The break-in makes it sound like you're about to be connected to a rep, and you get your hopes up, only to have them dashed when you hear, for the thirtieth time, that when they get around to you you'll be treated to the SAME courtesy their present customers are enjoying? The ones that actually waited out the perma-hold cycle and are now tying up your customer representative with doubtless inane, stupid stuff they could've gotten from the website?

I suggest they record entire songs, and play the entire recording. Use fade-in and fade-out. Lower the volume on the chirpy ads, and stop breaking in to apologize for keeping me on hold. In fact, just roll the apology into the ad cycle, or something.

Customer RepSpeak

As I said, they've gone beyond polite. They ask for your name and account information, then ask you if it's okay if they refer to you by the name you just gave them.

Hey, if I didn't WANT you to call me by that name, I'd've given you a different one, right? I wonder what would happen if I told them, "My name is gekko, but I'd like for you to call me Madame Midnight, Empress of The Seventh Constellation."

They ask if it's okay to put you back on hold while they run off to research something (and have a quick ciggie, I'm sure). What if I said, "NO NO NO! ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!"? Couldn't they hand the phone off to a lector who would read me stories?

If they end up not being able to help me after all, they darn near weep. I had to actually cheer up one rep, a nice Canadian man who was terribly upset that he was at the wrong office for my needs, and that the office I needed had closed for the day so he couldn't transfer me. "It's okay, Robert," I soothed. "Really. I'll call them tomorrow, honest. I'll put in a good word for you."

What do they do to reps who don't assist, to make them so apologetic? Whips? Scourges? Withhold their chocolates?

-~-~-~-~-

These are just a few suggestions. If you have any more, feel free to post 'em here.

Blog Security

by gekko at 9:51 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I'm a little bummed. Several of my blogging friends have been "attacked" on their own blogs by people leaving ugly comments. Comments my friends didn't like, and did not like having to go in and remove, or even change, as Zenners likes to do. (wee note: Zenners also likes to keep his archives short. The post in his blog that discusses his habit of changing comments left on his blog to suit him is no longer there).

Their solution to obnoxious peeps like Zen who cannot resist the urge to be as verbally offensive as possible is to lock their comments. You now need to log in to a site and get a "type key" or some other effort, if you wish to add comments to their blogs.

I figure, "Why bother?"

I did sign up for a "TypeKey" identity, but I can no longer remember what it was, and am just too lazy to go searching for it. Too lazy, these days, to sign up for a new one. Too lazy to jump through the hoops required to leave my thoughts on other people's blogs.

If they want me to comment, they'll make it easy for me. If they don't, then they won't. Simple as that. It's not like I have a compulsion to do this.

Still. I regret that

a) People like Zen, plus those who create 'bots that spam porn sites and on-line casinos into blog comment fields (not Zen), feel the need to do those things. They just don't have the decency to play nice when it comes to dealing with other peoples' creations.

b) People like my friends cannot learn to just let that kind of crap blow past them. Just delete the damned things, if you dislike them. Or ignore them, better yet. If they put links to their porn sites in, hell, remove them. Block the IPs. Whatever.

Anyway, if you put locks on your blog, and make me give you a seekrit passwurd to get past them, I'm likely to just not bother. Sorry, guys. I do read your blogs, sometimes. I just won't be conversing with you concerning them.

3 comments make for a lot of heat

School Concerts

by gekko at 7:51 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

My son, the Teen Unit, has been in choir ever since he developed a crush on a girl in the 6th grade and she convinced him to join choir in 7th grade, and he discovered he loves singing and loves being on stage. The crush is long since over, but the love of music is lasting.

So he's a junior in HS now, and this year auditioned for and got into the elite "Ensemble" choir. The choirs put on their big fall fundraising concert each year in October. "Broadway Under The Stars", and it features all of the choirs doing mostly Broadway, off-Broadway, movie music and some popular rock tunes. The Ensemble choir, members pulled from the more talented among the advanced choirs, has the most music -- I counted four lengthy medleys. Each one is choreographed. So there was not just singing, but dancing and some theatrics. His regular choir also had a choreographed medley.

This is a high school, but the performing arts section of this school has always been excellent. The teachers are top-notch, and they take it all seriously. They instill this sense of serious professionalism in the students they teach, too. Each kid up there worked his and her butt off, and, while not quite professional grade, they acted like professionals.

The audience, however, is composed of parents, grandparents, and students.

The choir directors always make an announcement prior to curtain time concerning proper behavior at concerts. No, they don't expect us to wear concert black. But they do ask that we turn off cellphones, refrain from cat-calls, remove crying or fussy children, excuse ourselves quietly during coughing fits, refrain from using flash photography, making rude noises, or moving about during performances. No calling out of individual students' names. Keep yer feet off of the chair backs. Behave.

Last night, during the three hour long concert, the students and most of the adults behaved. The little kids behaved. The babies all behaved. No one coughed heavily.

Everyone was great.

Except for the family in the row behind us.

Grandma and Grandpa, hard of hearing, decided to have conversations during the performances. Vocal Ease, the a cappella jazz group was doing their number and Grams and Gramps were chatting away. Gramps paused momentarily to notice that Sonny Boy was singing, so he whipped out his camera and fired off a few flash photographs, then went back to answering his wife's querelous questions.

"WHICH ONE'S SONNY BOY? I CAN'T SEE THROUGH THE GLARE!"

"HE'S SECOND FROM THE RIGHT. WITH THE CUTE YOUNG LADY IN THE RED SKIRT."

"IS HE SINGING? I CAN'T HEAR HIS VOICE!"

I refrained from turning around and saying "That's because you're fucking talking, you wind bag, now shut the fuck up and let them sing."

I don't know why I refrained from it.

Perhaps I should have worn a little badge that said, "Hi, my name is gekko" and then I would have been emboldened enough to ram Gramps's camera down his throat.

We did quiet them down by turning around and glaring at them a few times.

I heard Grams say that the concert was wonderful, except for the rude woman who kept shushing them.

I have another call ...

by gekko at 3:49 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I've seen this rant before, so I know it isn't just me (shaddap, Zen).

It's when you're on a phone call with someone who has call waiting, you converse with them, and then you hear that "clunkclick" sound, followed by "Oh, I have another call, gotta go, bye!" and they hang up on you. They don't ask if you want to hold. They don't offer to call you back later. They don't ignore the new call. They just ... go.

Rude, if you ask me.

I'm rilly tempted to call them right back, using a blocked phone so they can't see it's me, and see if they interrupt the call they just took to take mine.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!

Bride Mart

by gekko at 5:32 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

The Young Adult Unit, who has been known as "The Princess" on occasion, has either watched the movie "Pretty Woman" too many times, or is heavily influenced by her employer (a wealthy woman whose children the YAU watches). She has the idea that when you shop, the store staff should cater to your whims. She especially believes that to be the case when shopping for bridal gowns. She was introduced to reality yesterday.

This was the YAU's first bridal wear shopping trip. She had carefully researched on-line, finding the styles that attracted her, noting the designer, manufacturer, style number information. She discovered where in our town those dresses were carried.

One such place is what can only be termed The Wal-Mart of Bridal Wear. It's a low-cost one-stop shopping warehouse for bridal accoutrement -- everything you could ever want that has to do with brides, bridesmaids, mothers of the bride, flower girls, and ... stuff ... is there. Mostly gowns. Racks and racks of gowns, all bagged and hanging. Buy one off the rack for $99. Order a designer gown for far less money than if you went to the designer shop.

Once there, we discovered hordes wandering about. Not one staff person was unoccupied. We joined the hordes, wondering what to do, as there were chained off sections leading upstairs with stern signs "No Men! No Cameras beyond this point!" The YAU flagged down a man wearing a yellow t-shirt emblazoned with "Bride-Mart" and asked him how we should proceed.

Grinning and gesturing at the chained off stairway in front of us, he replied, "Just head on upstairs, and someone up there will help you."

'k.

Three seconds after reaching the top of the stairs, someone swooped over to us. "Excuse me! Just what are you doing up here?"

"A man downstairs sent us up here. He said someone would be along to help us."

"Well. All right. One moment." The swooper disappeared. A few moments later, Viper Woman appeared.

"May I help you?"

"We were directed up here. We'd like to try on some gowns."

"Very good. May I have your registration card, please?"

The YAU and I looked at one another. Registration card?

"You do not have a registration card? Did you not fill in a card downstairs?"

I spoke at this point, because I could see my daughter starting to get vexed. "Ma'am, it is a zoo down there. There was no one to tell us to get a registration card. No signs. No instructions. If we need to, we'll go downstairs and fill one out, but it would be more helpful for people to tell us what is expected when we walk in the door, don't you think?"

Viper Woman hissed and said, "Never mind. What gown did you have in mind?"

We looked around the main room -- there were many, many other rooms we could see through open doorways and labyrinthian corridors leading away -- at the long racks of wedding gowns. This was not going to be easy.

My daughter took out her lists. "I have these gowns that your store presumably carries that I'd like to see. How would I go about finding them?"

Viper Woman took the two lists and frowned at them. They were organized by manufacturer/designer, and there were a half-dozen to a dozen style numbers for each. She scowled harder when she saw one designer's name.

"We do not have anything by that designer. When they came here for a show, they took all their gowns back with them and would not leave samples here." She brightened, then, and for the one time that day, she put on a salesperson's face. "But, we could order those gowns for you."

My daughter shook her head. "I don't want to order a gown and not like it. I can't pay for that. I need to try it to see if I like it, first."

Viper Woman frowned again.

She sat at the computer, and with painful slowness as we stood behind her, typed in one number after another from the other designer list. "No, we don't have that one. Not that one, either. Oh, we had that one, but sold it. Nope, same with that."

Finally, as our legs were about to drop off and my bladder started to scream for mercy, Viper Woman found some gowns that matched one of the numbers. A blue one. An ivory one. A white one.

"These have no trains. If you want a train, you're out of luck."

My daughter shrugged.

Viper Woman paused longer. "We have a room filled with gowns with no trains. We could go there."

"Can you get the white gown listed there? Can we try it? It's a size 10, a little big, but we could at least see."

Viper woman nodded. "Feel free to look through the gowns here while you wait. If you see one you like, simply take it out and hang it on that rack there. Then I'll show you to a changing booth." She paused again. "But. I'm afraid all these gowns have trains." The woman was fixated on trains. Lordy.

We wandered through some rooms and found a few likely prospects. The YAU does not want poofy. No crinoline. No hoop. No belled out skirt. She wants the evening-gown look, or the mermaid look. Curve-hugging. Svelte. Crusted in crystals and lace appliques. The rooms we were in were nearly all poofed out Gone With The Wind style dresses. Only a few were the slinkier evening gown style.

Viper Woman returned. She held out an extremely poofy, trainless gown. It had big puffed up sleeves. It had almost no appliques or lace. It did have a very large bow on the back -- right above the ass. Yeah. SHOW me a bride who wants to accentuate her ass that way.

"That is NOT my gown." The Young Adult Unit was aghast.

"Yes, it is. That is the style number you gave me."

"No. That is not my gown. Something is wrong."

"You must have given me the wrong numbers."

"I don't think so. I gave you the numbers for Eden ..."

"Oh. This is not Eden. It's mumblesomething."

I give the YAU credit for not walking out of the store right then and there. "Well, we found these gowns to try. May we try them?"

She showed us to a booth and then disappeared. Thank God.

None of the gowns worked. By now the YAU was so disgusted with the process she wanted to go. We wandered through the maze and paused briefly by the bridesmaids dresses -- looking at one fuscia froo-froo fluff job that would look ideal on Goth Girl (see Bridesmaids). We both chuckled. Then we made our way out.

I told the YAU to schedule an appointment at one of those trendy, pricey shops where they pamper you, feed you bon-bons, serve your mother champagne, and tell you you look fabulous no matter what you're wearing. At least we can start having some fun through all this.

Although, I'm starting to wonder if we can bleach her prom gown ...

7 comments make for a lot of heat

FireFox

by gekko at 4:14 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Mozilla's Firefox is one cool browser. It's lightweight, meaning it is a browser, only, and fast to load, fast to run, doesn't take up a lot of your computer's resources. It's configurable (the geek in me demands that). It is secure (so far, at least). It is not a microsoft product and is supported by the computing community.

In fact, it's that support that makes it so cool -- people are out there coding their little heart's out providing "extensions" and gadgets you can add to FireFox to make it much cooler.

An automatic TinyURL tool that is similar to having the TinyURL thingie on your toolbar in IE, but gives you more options to create the TinyURL. A BugMeNot extension, too. A "cookie culler" that makes it easier to manage your cookes and protect the ones you want to keep, blow away the rest. A multimedia toolbar that sits along the bottom frame that lets you control your media player without launching the media player. A stock ticker that sits in the bottom frame. An ad block tool. A better pop-up controller. A bunch of better "bookmarks" or "favorites" managers.

I see Mozilla's got an e-mail client called Thunderbird they're developing. I haven't tried that, yet, as I've fallen in love with Ritlabs' "The Bat!" and Pocomail is another very nice mail client, but I might try Thunderbird.

One grouse, though: some sites code their java or javascript using scripts and processes that are supported ONLY by IE or Netscrap, and so they don't work on the better browsers, like Firefox, Opera, or Mozilla. I still have to keep IE around and use it for those sites, although one of the FireFox extensions is a nifty java tool that lets me right click on a link and select "launch using IE". That makes it just a bit easier, since I don't have to go find my IE icon, launch it, then type in the URL, or copy-paste the URL, or pull the URL from my Favorites folder.

5 comments make for a lot of heat

Bridesmaids

by gekko at 8:20 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

The Young Adult Unit has most of her wedding planned already, including bridesmaids.

She had a best friend when she was in HS four years ago. The young lady is still good friends with her, but they've drifted a bit apart. The Young Adult Unit is much closer to her fiance's sister-in-law. And it is the sister-in-law the YAU asked to be her matron of honor.

When the YAU asked the old HS buddy to be a bridesmaid, this friend, who favors the goth look these days, said, "Of course I'll be a bridesmaid! I'm gonna be your fuckin' maid of honor!" The YAU had to apologize and let Miz Goth know that she would not. Miz Goth got a bit pissy about it, but accepted it. On condition. Miz Goth would NOT wear pink or anything frou frou, and Miz Goth would HAVE to throw the YAU a bachelorette party, etc. The YAU was planning to use pink in her wedding. She may have to let Miz Goth wear black. She's a bit worried about the bachelorette party. Miz Goth is into some pretty funky stuff.

That exchange took me back to my own wedding.

When I was a freshman in college I'd been engaged to a young man I'll call "D" and roommates with a slightly neurotic woman named "C". "C" and I got to be good friends. We planned my wedding together. She would be my maid of honor, and wear peach taffeta. A few years later, and "D" and I had broken up, "C" had moved out to room on her own, and I moved on with my life. In the course of events, I met he who was to become The Spousal Unit. He and "C" did NOT get along. At all. A fundamentalist Shi'ite Muslim militant would get along better with a radical Israeli Jew soldier than did the SU and "C".

When the SU proposed, and we planned our wedding several years later, he did not even want to invite "C" to the wedding, but I convinced him otherwise. Since I'd been more or less out of contact with her for several years anyway, I didn't feel bad about not asking her to be a bridesmaid.

"C" was miffed to receive an invitation. She called me.

"I don't think I can make it."

"Why not?"

"Well, to tell you the truth, I expected to be your maid of honor. I'm disappointed that you didn't ask me. I'm not even a bridesmaid. I don't think I'd feel comfortable coming to your wedding."

Okayfine.

She did, however, send a gift.

The gift consisted of one peach colored towel. One peach colored hand towel. A peach colored washcloth. And a peach colored toilet seat.

I told the SU the toilet seat was for him.

3 comments make for a lot of heat

Pouting

by gekko at 7:34 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Zen is pouting. You may not realize it from looking at his blogging, but if you check out the links to other blogs, you'll see he's made a subtle change to one of them.

Meanwhile, if you go over to Paula's blog, you'll find everything shipshape and normal.

Hmmmmm. I guess there'll be no choc-chip k00kies for Zenners!

2 comments make for a lot of heat

Talk about your Desperado ...

by gekko at 1:25 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Linda Ronstadt exercised her freedom of speech by praising Michael Moore as a true patriot who ought to be listened to. The Aladdin Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, the venue at which she sang this song of praise, exercised their freedom of deciding who got to use their property by booting her butt. Locked her out of her suite, even. Manager bitched about how she ruined a beautiful evening, because the peeps watching her concert thingie booed her and stuff.

That's all cool. The Aladdinites can do what they want with their business, so long as it's legal. Ronstadt can worship Moore's antics as she wishes. It's truly Americana at its ... well, it's American, at least.

So Moore, ever wanting the limelight and to play the Jester, took the opportunity to do a Robert McClelland, clumb his soap box and ranted in real troll style in this letter to the manager, which Moore also posted on his website:

"What country do you live in? Last time I checked, Las Vegas is still in the United States. And in the United States, we have something called 'The First Amendment.' This constitutional right gives everyone here the right to say whatever they want to say. All Americans hold this right as sacred. Many of our young people put on a uniform and risk their lives to defend it. My film is all about asking the questions that should have been asked before those brave soldiers were sent into harms way," he wrote.

I love this hyperbole. People in uniform are dying so that Ronstadt can indulge her political views while being paid in a Las Vegas casino, right? But our soldiers are NOT dying so that casino owners can indulge their own views, apparently.

Hokay.

MooreFroth continues:

"For you to throw Linda Ronstadt off the premises because she dared to say a few words in support of me and my film, is simply stupid and Un-American.

Stupid? Dunno. Maybe. It was during an encore, so the show was over. Peeps weren't rioting, so the action seems egregious. Un-American? Hardly. It's as American as taking your business elsewhere when your provider fails to provide the service you expected. That is pure American, right down to its core. Ronstadt has the right to her opinion. Check. She has the right to express it freely in a public venue. Check. No one has the obligation to listen to her opinion, agree with her opinion, or suffer her presence on their property. Check, check, and check.

Moore sputters on:

  Frankly, I have never heard of such a thing happening.

Oh, come on. Is this hyperbole, or flat out lying?

  I read that you wouldn't even let her go back up to her room at your hotel!

I read that, too. Overkill, if you ask me. Dude had a 'tude. Graceless.

  Are you crazy?

No more so than anyone else in this world, I'd say. At least he didn't, like, ram an airplane into her home, or anything, so he's got SOME sanity.

  For crying out loud, it was a song DEDICATION! To 'Desperado!' Every American loves that song!

It wasn't the song, doofus.

  Sure, some people didn't like the dedication, and that's their right.

Some people, including Timmons, it would appear.

  But neither they nor you have the right to remove her from your building

BZZZT! Wrong.

  when all she did was exercise her AMERICAN right to speak her mind."

As it is an AMERICAN right to decide you don't want someone on your property, hello.

She was paid to entertain. She entertained, then she failed to entertain when she decided to speak her mind. Paying customers objected. She was an employee. She was fired. Can't get more American than that.

10 comments make for a lot of heat

My Condolences

by gekko at 11:28 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I overheard two men talking -- they had just met. They know one another peripherally and through a work-related connection. One had apparently just lost a relative to death. The other, while shaking the first's hand in greeting, said, "Nice to meet you, and I'm sorry about the death of your relative."

Okay, I know he was being polite, and was using a quickie shorthand way of expressing himself. It was a little odd for me to hear that, though, and I thought (I do this. Really),

"He isn't REALLY sorry. He doesn't know the guy, didn't know the circumstances. So what term would be a good one to use in a situation where you want to acknowledge you're aware of a sad situation, want to be polite about it, maybe score a half a point with the person if you're into suck-up stuff, and yet still be truthful and accurate?"



Well, condolences is exactly the right term. It means "I sympathize with your grief." I'm assuming, of course, that the speaker really does sympathize to some degree. I guess it also assumes the person is experiencing grief, but I figure if someone mentions "Yo, my dad died." and doesn't add "good riddance, the nasty fucker." there's a strong chance the person is experiencing SOME sense of loss.

Then, today, I read something on the newsfroup that was just a lovely way to express one's sympathy over a death:

My sincere condolences to you. May her memory forever be a blessing to you and your whole family, and may you know no further sorrows.

Fact is, the death of the family member -- as in the case of former President Reagan -- may be a blessing in itself because the living through an illness had been such a hardship on all concerned. The comments above, modified from what Davida Chazan had said to Marg, says it rather sweetly, without assuming the passing was a bad event, and acknowledging that the survivor is undergoing some level of grief or sense of loss. A well-wishing, too.

I like it.

3 comments make for a lot of heat

Fundraisers

by gekko at 3:38 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I've always hated 'em.

While Girl Scouts have, for as long as memory serves, always had their ever-popular cookie sales, the idea of pimping kids to go door-to-door selling mostly useless items in order to raise a few cents per sale for their school's parent-teacher organization appears in my memory to have first arisen when I was in Junior High School.

We sold magazine subscriptions. We, the students, would try to get prizes. The more subscriptions you sold, the better the prize you could claim. I didn't even make first cut, but some kid whose father was a doctor got to take his order form to the medical complex and hospitals where Daddy worked and the kid drove away in a brand new El Camino. Little shit was only 13.

I think that's what gave me the bad attitude regarding this form of fundraising.

Don't get me wrong -- I love that PTA's are there, and that they acquire funding they then use for good, school-related projects that the schools would either do without, or we taxpayers would be burdened with. I love going to the school carnivals and blowing tons of cash on stupid games and purchasing soggy hot dogs and limp cotton candy, because I know that the carnival is the largest fundraiser the school has.

I just hate the sales.

I hated it when my coworkers would bring their kids' order forms in to the office. I especially hated it when their kid was, like, one year old and in a daycare that was trying to fundraise! Chocolate bars, cookies, jugs of cheese-like substance, calendars, magazine subscriptions, gift wrap and stupid plastic angel figurines, I hated them all.

Then my relatives would hit me up. How do you tell your niece to fuck off when she hands you her cookie order form at the family Thanksgiving dinner table?

Then I had kids, and suddenly I was faced with having to either coerce the coworkers, neighbors and relatives, or telling the sprog there was no living way in hell she would ever win that prize because she wasn't going to be selling diddly.

I'm afraid I chickened out. The Spousal Unit and I came to an agreement. We'd let the kid hit up Grandma (she's a sucker for that kind of thing anyway), and we would purchase something. We'd donate a sum of money to the PTA. And, we'd purchase the prize she was angling for (short of the brand new Jeep Cherokee) if she would NOT try to sell anything.

Okay, so we did have to find a place to stable the pony, but it seems to have worked: we did not piss off any coworkers, the kid was happy, and the PTA had its money.

What could be better?

4 comments make for a lot of heat

Time

by gekko at 3:06 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

Value it. Don't squeeze it. I'll be thinking more about this theme as I'll probably get an article out of it, but that's the topic for now.

It comes from an article I read about companies that have done the massive layoff thing, and are still doing layoffs, even though their stock is now rising and the economy looks better. They've discovered, they think, that they can still accomplish the same things with fewer people.

I'm one of those people who're being spread thinner and thinner. What is happening is not that they're truly getting more done with fewer peeps. What's happening is the few peeps left doing the work are not doing as thorough a job. How can they? There're only so many hours to a day, and with burn out on top of it, you cannot devote as much time to any one project when you have too many.

Something's gotta happen now or something's gotta give, it'll come, it'll come, it'll come, it'll come ...

6 comments make for a lot of heat

We are more like those we disdain ...

by gekko at 3:36 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

... than we are different.

One of the pastors at my church -- the liberal leaning girl pastor, as a matter of fact -- nailed it when she uttered that phrase.

And, perhaps that is why interactions on the Usenet newsgroup wherein I do my hangin', can be so seemingly virulent.

We are more like those we disdain than we are different. And, recognizing that likeness, we project our own expectations on others, then upbraid them for daring to fall short.

Mebbee.

3 comments make for a lot of heat

To the designers of women's restrooms ...

by gekko at 6:19 PM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I'll bet you think this is going to be another rant on the lack of sufficient numbers of toilets, don't you?

Well, you're wrong.

I would like to give you some insight into what being a woman is often like, however. It may provide you with a better idea of how to go about designing women's restrooms in the future.

As you well know, women, from the age of roughly 13 until the age of roughly 55 undergo a monthly discharge known as menses. What you may not have considered is that the onset of this flow may come as a surprise to some women. The content and volume of this flow may also vary greatly from woman to woman, from month to month, day to day. In short, there is no predicting when a woman will become aware that she may need the use of sanitary products. It may come to her awareness when she is actually *in* the bathroom stall, in a state of undress, that she may have inadequate protection.

Given that, perhaps the next time you design a loooong bathroom with lots of stalls and a lovely privacy wall separating the door from the stalls, you might want to rethink putting the sanitary products dispenser right next to the door 300 yards away from the nearest stall.

Thank you, and have a lovely day.

In a Pig's Eye

by gekko at 5:45 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

There's a new-ish shopping complex that went up on a corner nearby. I pass it each day on my way home from my morning workout. It is slowly being filled with tenants. This morning I noticed a new sign: "Eye Clinic for Animals".

Given that I rarely, if ever, see cats groping about on the floor in search of lost contacts, or dogs wiping the smudges off of their spectacles, I have to wonder if such a business can really do well.