I was talking to someone over the weekend who said he was thoroughly disgusted by people who choose to chew gum. His argument was that it is akin to a cow chewing his cud.
Now, I will agree that it is perhaps odd to put something in your mouth that you chew and chew and chew but never swallow. It's a lump of mushy stuff that you infuse with your saliva and the bacteria that accumulate in your mouth and then you either stick it to the underside of a table to piss other people off or spit it out into a garbage receptacle where it will remain permanently adhered to the receptacle, never actually being disposed of. Gum chewing is not part of the digestive process, though, and is not semi-regurgitated matter mixed with stomach acid that has come up for a second go-around. And the kicker is, there are actually quite a few benefits to chewing gum. Particularly sugar-free gum. Particularly mint gum. Which happens to be what I chew when I chew gum.
The person who made this bold statement that chewing gum was gross also happens to be a smoker. Did I mention that? Yeah, he is. The person who inhales nicotine and tar that turn his teeth yellow and rot his lungs thought that chewing gum is more disgusting than smoking.
Now, I think we all know the dangers of smoking. And I think it is safe to say that most smokers don't give a rat's ass. In Europe, they put giant labels on cigarette packages with pictures of diseased lungs or that say, "Smoking Kills" and people keep smoking them anyway. For some, I'm sure it's turned into a "collect them all!" game with the warning labels. But from the very basest, very simplest, most mundane perspective, smoking makes you smell bad. We can tell you've been smoking because of the foul odor that accompanies you when you walk back inside. The stench that lingers in the air. And maybe that stench isn't the bit that is going to give me cancer, but I still have to smell it, the same as I have to smell my coworkers cooking their Lean Cuisine lunches in the kitchen. It is a distinctive, unpleasant smell that follows you everywhere, no matter how much perfume or cologne or body spray you try to use to cover it up. It just smells bad. You smell bad. And heaven forbid you try dating a smoker and feel the urge to kiss them...now you get to lick the tar and nicotine out of the inside of their mouth. Sounds like fun, yes?
I'll admit it - I've kissed smokers. And I'll also admit that regardless of technique, I'm tired of it. I'm tired of doing things like brushing my teeth, eating mints, chewing minty gum, or putting on lip balm to make the experience more pleasant for my kissing partner if he's just going to light up and taste like an ashtray to me.
I don't know that I've had much on my "dealbreakers" list before, if anything, but let's put this on there. No smokers. I'm done with it. I'm done with overlooking that "character flaw" when it comes to interviewing life partners (I'll overlook it for friends and casual acquaintances, but not for life partners). But I'll offer a deal to any smokers out there who were considering applying for the position - I'll give up chewing gum if you'll give up smoking. Deal?
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
July 10 - Transit
Okay, this one is going to get squidgy, but it needs to be said.
There is a certain road within the City of Chicago that has been notoriously bad for bicyclists, yet one of the most popular roads for bicyclists to use. My guess is that a lot of the sort of people who choose to ride their bikes to work live along this road, so they see it as a good thoroughfare for their commute. In the last month or so, the City of Chicago repainted much of this road to include bicycle lanes going in both directions, often times on the opposite side of the parked cars from the moving traffic. While I think setting up separate bike lanes is a good idea, I don't think much thought was put into making this stretch work well, as it also involves a couple of the worst intersections in the City of Chicago, where now motorized vehicles (including public transportation vehicles) are stuck and stalled for a mile or so, waiting for all of the bicycles to pass so someone can turn right. I'm not saying I have a better solution; I'm just saying this one doesn't seem particularly well thought-out.
There is one particular intersection, though, where they did give it some thought, as there are an inordinate number of cars that need to turn right in that spot, and a large number of bicycles going straight. This intersection is maybe 400 feet from the light preceding it, which is a six-way intersection, so to have all of the motorized vehicles wait for all of the bicycles at this intersection...it would end up messing up three major roads in Chicago, not just one. So they installed a traffic light specifically for the bicycles - it has red, yellow, and green bicycles that light up to indicate when the bicycles have the right of way - and next to it a turn lane with a right turn arrow light (red, yellow, and green) to indicate when the motorists have the right of way. This is the one intersection where I think they did things right.
So on my way home today, traffic in that general area was particularly bad, so a certain motorcyclist decided that since his vehicle has only two wheels, it was appropriate for him to ride in the bicycle lane. One of the bicyclists stopped at the intersection in front of the motorcycle (maybe more of a scooter, but still), turned around and informed him that the bicycle lane was for human-powered vehicles only, not motorized vehicles. The motorcyclist moved slightly into the motorized vehicle lane to get through the light, and proceeded on to the next light - the one where there is a bicycle light and a right turn light. I was about three cars behind them at this point, and I saw that the right arrow light was green and the bicycle light was red. The bicyclist in question had moved over in front of the right-hand turn lane, blocking the motor vehicles who had the right of way at this point. In moving out of the way of the oncoming traffic, the bicyclist turned very widely to the right. The motorcyclist also turned right, but more directly. The motorcyclist hit the bicycle's rear tire and the bike went down. I don't think anyone was seriously injured, but the bicyclist was certainly pissed off as he brushed off his knees checking for injury. I just kept driving. My curiosity to find out if they were okay was overwhelmed by the desire to get out of my car and scream at them both, so I figured it was best for everyone involved if I just kept going and didn't disrupt the flow of traffic further. Because honestly, who is more infuriating: the motorcyclist who thinks it's okay to ride in the bicycle lane, or the bicyclist who thinks the giant red bicycle stop light doesn't apply to him?
I know, I know, bicycles have lower emissions and cause less damage to the roads and take less space to park and yadda yadda yadda. And I know I am going to get screamed at for this, but I hate bicycle riders in the city. As the driver of a car, I know I check before I change lanes or turn in front of a bicycle, I wait for bikes to pass before I open my parked car door, I wait for bikes when I'm turning left and they are part of the oncoming traffic. I know not every car looks out for bikes, but I do. And yet, bicyclists have nearly run into my car at least three times (while I was stopped waiting at a light), and I have nearly been run down by bicycles as a pedestrian more times than I can count. Even this morning. The thing is this: it feels like bicyclists think they have carte blanche to ride however and wherever they please, following some sort of hybrid car/pedestrian rules, picking and choosing which rules they want to follow when. That's not how it works. We all have to work together to use the roads properly so we can all get where we're trying to go, no matter if we are in a car, on the bus, on a bike, or on foot. Everyone has to look out for everyone else.
And while we're at it, people have to take a class and pass a test before they are allowed to drive. There is no such testing for bicycle riders. Hell, I'm guessing most of them haven't even read their city or state laws on bicycle riding. So before you get too snippy with me, please check out the Illinois Bicycle Rules of the Road, the Municipal Code of Chicago concerning bicycles (pay special attention to this bit), and the Illinois Highway Code concerning bicycles. I've read them. Have you? Do you know how many laws you broke riding your bike to work this morning? I'm just saying. And no, a cursory glance over your shoulder where your head moves three degrees to the left does not qualify as "signaling."
The public roadways are for everyone to use, on the vehicle of their choosing or without any vehicle at all. We all need to realize that we are not the only person on the road, and that our destination is not the only one that matters. If we all look out for each other, and everyone obeys the signs and signals that apply to them (yes, bicyclists who run red lights because they don't want to stop, I'm looking at you), we'll all get where we need to go in a reasonable amount of time with minimal incident.
And to the motorcyclist and the bicyclist who got into that accident today, a pox on both your heads. I saw it coming a mile away - why didn't you?
There is a certain road within the City of Chicago that has been notoriously bad for bicyclists, yet one of the most popular roads for bicyclists to use. My guess is that a lot of the sort of people who choose to ride their bikes to work live along this road, so they see it as a good thoroughfare for their commute. In the last month or so, the City of Chicago repainted much of this road to include bicycle lanes going in both directions, often times on the opposite side of the parked cars from the moving traffic. While I think setting up separate bike lanes is a good idea, I don't think much thought was put into making this stretch work well, as it also involves a couple of the worst intersections in the City of Chicago, where now motorized vehicles (including public transportation vehicles) are stuck and stalled for a mile or so, waiting for all of the bicycles to pass so someone can turn right. I'm not saying I have a better solution; I'm just saying this one doesn't seem particularly well thought-out.
There is one particular intersection, though, where they did give it some thought, as there are an inordinate number of cars that need to turn right in that spot, and a large number of bicycles going straight. This intersection is maybe 400 feet from the light preceding it, which is a six-way intersection, so to have all of the motorized vehicles wait for all of the bicycles at this intersection...it would end up messing up three major roads in Chicago, not just one. So they installed a traffic light specifically for the bicycles - it has red, yellow, and green bicycles that light up to indicate when the bicycles have the right of way - and next to it a turn lane with a right turn arrow light (red, yellow, and green) to indicate when the motorists have the right of way. This is the one intersection where I think they did things right.
So on my way home today, traffic in that general area was particularly bad, so a certain motorcyclist decided that since his vehicle has only two wheels, it was appropriate for him to ride in the bicycle lane. One of the bicyclists stopped at the intersection in front of the motorcycle (maybe more of a scooter, but still), turned around and informed him that the bicycle lane was for human-powered vehicles only, not motorized vehicles. The motorcyclist moved slightly into the motorized vehicle lane to get through the light, and proceeded on to the next light - the one where there is a bicycle light and a right turn light. I was about three cars behind them at this point, and I saw that the right arrow light was green and the bicycle light was red. The bicyclist in question had moved over in front of the right-hand turn lane, blocking the motor vehicles who had the right of way at this point. In moving out of the way of the oncoming traffic, the bicyclist turned very widely to the right. The motorcyclist also turned right, but more directly. The motorcyclist hit the bicycle's rear tire and the bike went down. I don't think anyone was seriously injured, but the bicyclist was certainly pissed off as he brushed off his knees checking for injury. I just kept driving. My curiosity to find out if they were okay was overwhelmed by the desire to get out of my car and scream at them both, so I figured it was best for everyone involved if I just kept going and didn't disrupt the flow of traffic further. Because honestly, who is more infuriating: the motorcyclist who thinks it's okay to ride in the bicycle lane, or the bicyclist who thinks the giant red bicycle stop light doesn't apply to him?
I know, I know, bicycles have lower emissions and cause less damage to the roads and take less space to park and yadda yadda yadda. And I know I am going to get screamed at for this, but I hate bicycle riders in the city. As the driver of a car, I know I check before I change lanes or turn in front of a bicycle, I wait for bikes to pass before I open my parked car door, I wait for bikes when I'm turning left and they are part of the oncoming traffic. I know not every car looks out for bikes, but I do. And yet, bicyclists have nearly run into my car at least three times (while I was stopped waiting at a light), and I have nearly been run down by bicycles as a pedestrian more times than I can count. Even this morning. The thing is this: it feels like bicyclists think they have carte blanche to ride however and wherever they please, following some sort of hybrid car/pedestrian rules, picking and choosing which rules they want to follow when. That's not how it works. We all have to work together to use the roads properly so we can all get where we're trying to go, no matter if we are in a car, on the bus, on a bike, or on foot. Everyone has to look out for everyone else.
And while we're at it, people have to take a class and pass a test before they are allowed to drive. There is no such testing for bicycle riders. Hell, I'm guessing most of them haven't even read their city or state laws on bicycle riding. So before you get too snippy with me, please check out the Illinois Bicycle Rules of the Road, the Municipal Code of Chicago concerning bicycles (pay special attention to this bit), and the Illinois Highway Code concerning bicycles. I've read them. Have you? Do you know how many laws you broke riding your bike to work this morning? I'm just saying. And no, a cursory glance over your shoulder where your head moves three degrees to the left does not qualify as "signaling."
The public roadways are for everyone to use, on the vehicle of their choosing or without any vehicle at all. We all need to realize that we are not the only person on the road, and that our destination is not the only one that matters. If we all look out for each other, and everyone obeys the signs and signals that apply to them (yes, bicyclists who run red lights because they don't want to stop, I'm looking at you), we'll all get where we need to go in a reasonable amount of time with minimal incident.
And to the motorcyclist and the bicyclist who got into that accident today, a pox on both your heads. I saw it coming a mile away - why didn't you?
Tuesday, July 09, 2013
July 9 - Beauty
I watched part of an interview with Dustin Hoffman today wherein he talked about what it was like to try out the make up for Tootsie. He talks about how they made him look like a woman, but he then asked them to make him a beautiful woman and was told that they had done the best they could with his facial features. He cried to his wife, lamenting how he thought he was an interesting person as a woman, but he knew he would not have talked to himself as a woman had he met himself in a bar, and he wondered how many interesting women he has not talked to in his life because we are all brainwashed into thinking that only the beautiful people are worth our time. Take a moment and watch the video - he gets choked up talking about it. And what is brilliant, is that they titled the video "Dustin Hoffman Breaks Down Crying Explaining Something That Every Woman Sadly Already Experienced." Because we have. Women experience this Every. Single. Day.
I know there are those of you who would argue and say I'm one of the pretty people. Thank you for that. I am only now coming to the realization that people see me that way. I've not always been pretty, and it still kind of freaks me out to say I am because I know I am not Hollywood pretty, not Hollywood shaped, etc. Whatever. That's not the point of this.
What is striking to me about it is exactly how pervasive this is in our culture, even in places you wouldn't really think to notice it. Like actors. Think about the male actors you like and make sure to go see their films. I bet a bunch of them are "traditionally hot" - Brad Pitt, Chris Hemsworth, Taye Diggs, etc. Guys with muscles and symmetrical faces and soulful eyes. But there is probably someone in there who you adore who isn't traditionally hot. Dustin Hoffman is a great example. Or Tim Curry. Or Steve Buscemi. Or Phillip Seymour Hoffman. These men have also made brilliant careers for themselves with the odd tooth or the larger than average nose or the pot belly or whatever. We are so willing to give non-traditionally-hot men a chance in Hollywood, and we buy them in all sorts of different roles (hell, even Willem Dafoe has played a romantic lead). But then take a look at the women in Hollywood. Right now, we have the super skinny, super beautiful women who get lead roles, and then the other women who play supporting roles but who are also attractive. Melissa McCarthy is beautiful, but since she is heavier than some of her cohorts, she gets the buffoon roles now. Even if you look at former Saturday Night Live cast members (back when they had female regulars), Amy Pohler is gorgeous, Tina Fey is gorgeous, Kristin Wiig is gorgeous, Maya Rudolph is gorgeous, Gilda Radner was gorgeous, Jan Hooks is gorgeous, Cheri Oteri is gorgeous, Victoria Jackson is gorgeous, Molly Shannon is gorgeous, Jane Curtin was gorgeous, and all of these women were of a certain size and shape. The one woman I can think of in recent SNL history who is not traditionally beautiful is Rachel Dratch, and let's look at her career next to, say Tina Fey's. I'm not saying they are the same woman or they have the same talents, but one has to wonder, with so many funny women from SNL becoming A-listers, where is Rachel Dratch? Why isn't she along for the ride? I don't know - maybe she doesn't want to be or maybe she's miserable to work with or maybe it is because she is not as traditionally beautiful as the women around her so Hollywood doesn't know what to do with her. I don't know. But maybe.
We love seeing the ugly, nerdy guy kissing the super model in a Super Bowl commercial, but the thought of an ugly, nerdy woman kissing a hot guy (or anyone, really) is deemed repulsive and wrong and implausible. Anyone else see how messed up this is?
I want to know when it was decided that women aren't worth as much as men. I want to know when it was decided that a slightly odd looking man can still be a good guy with a heart of gold, but a slightly odd looking woman is crazy, undesirable and untouchable. I want to know why we are so forgiving of the genetic rainbow of male traits, and so disdainful of the genetic rainbow of female traits. Does it go back to caveman days when women would die in childbirth while men were out killing animals? Does it date back to when people figured out that men were involved in the procreation process and they decided they didn't want to rear someone else's kids so they had to put the lock-down on "their" woman? Because female repression dates back a lot farther than one might think and it is still very much alive and well in today's world. I'm not even talking about the horrors that women in some other countries have to endure; I'm talking about the raging debate in the United States about what women should and should not be allowed to do with their own uteri. Decisions being made by people who don't have uteri, for the most part. Frankly, I'm tired of it. I'm tired of all of it.
When I tell my friends that they are beautiful, I am talking about their souls as I see them - they are beautiful people. And my friends come in all different sizes, shapes, and colors, and I see them all as beautiful exactly they way they are. When are we, as a culture, going to embrace the beauty that is the female form with all of its variations and nuances? Because truly, to be female is to be gorgeous. We create life. What could be more beautiful than that?
I'm sorry. I'm rambling and ranty now. It just pisses me off that today, in 2013, as equal rights are being fought for and won for all sorts of minority groups, that it is still culturally acceptable to hold women (the majority of the population, by the way) to unattainable, outrageous standards. I'm tired of holding myself to those standards and hating myself when I don't meet them. I'm just tired of it. Can we be done with it now? Please?
I know there are those of you who would argue and say I'm one of the pretty people. Thank you for that. I am only now coming to the realization that people see me that way. I've not always been pretty, and it still kind of freaks me out to say I am because I know I am not Hollywood pretty, not Hollywood shaped, etc. Whatever. That's not the point of this.
What is striking to me about it is exactly how pervasive this is in our culture, even in places you wouldn't really think to notice it. Like actors. Think about the male actors you like and make sure to go see their films. I bet a bunch of them are "traditionally hot" - Brad Pitt, Chris Hemsworth, Taye Diggs, etc. Guys with muscles and symmetrical faces and soulful eyes. But there is probably someone in there who you adore who isn't traditionally hot. Dustin Hoffman is a great example. Or Tim Curry. Or Steve Buscemi. Or Phillip Seymour Hoffman. These men have also made brilliant careers for themselves with the odd tooth or the larger than average nose or the pot belly or whatever. We are so willing to give non-traditionally-hot men a chance in Hollywood, and we buy them in all sorts of different roles (hell, even Willem Dafoe has played a romantic lead). But then take a look at the women in Hollywood. Right now, we have the super skinny, super beautiful women who get lead roles, and then the other women who play supporting roles but who are also attractive. Melissa McCarthy is beautiful, but since she is heavier than some of her cohorts, she gets the buffoon roles now. Even if you look at former Saturday Night Live cast members (back when they had female regulars), Amy Pohler is gorgeous, Tina Fey is gorgeous, Kristin Wiig is gorgeous, Maya Rudolph is gorgeous, Gilda Radner was gorgeous, Jan Hooks is gorgeous, Cheri Oteri is gorgeous, Victoria Jackson is gorgeous, Molly Shannon is gorgeous, Jane Curtin was gorgeous, and all of these women were of a certain size and shape. The one woman I can think of in recent SNL history who is not traditionally beautiful is Rachel Dratch, and let's look at her career next to, say Tina Fey's. I'm not saying they are the same woman or they have the same talents, but one has to wonder, with so many funny women from SNL becoming A-listers, where is Rachel Dratch? Why isn't she along for the ride? I don't know - maybe she doesn't want to be or maybe she's miserable to work with or maybe it is because she is not as traditionally beautiful as the women around her so Hollywood doesn't know what to do with her. I don't know. But maybe.
We love seeing the ugly, nerdy guy kissing the super model in a Super Bowl commercial, but the thought of an ugly, nerdy woman kissing a hot guy (or anyone, really) is deemed repulsive and wrong and implausible. Anyone else see how messed up this is?
I want to know when it was decided that women aren't worth as much as men. I want to know when it was decided that a slightly odd looking man can still be a good guy with a heart of gold, but a slightly odd looking woman is crazy, undesirable and untouchable. I want to know why we are so forgiving of the genetic rainbow of male traits, and so disdainful of the genetic rainbow of female traits. Does it go back to caveman days when women would die in childbirth while men were out killing animals? Does it date back to when people figured out that men were involved in the procreation process and they decided they didn't want to rear someone else's kids so they had to put the lock-down on "their" woman? Because female repression dates back a lot farther than one might think and it is still very much alive and well in today's world. I'm not even talking about the horrors that women in some other countries have to endure; I'm talking about the raging debate in the United States about what women should and should not be allowed to do with their own uteri. Decisions being made by people who don't have uteri, for the most part. Frankly, I'm tired of it. I'm tired of all of it.
When I tell my friends that they are beautiful, I am talking about their souls as I see them - they are beautiful people. And my friends come in all different sizes, shapes, and colors, and I see them all as beautiful exactly they way they are. When are we, as a culture, going to embrace the beauty that is the female form with all of its variations and nuances? Because truly, to be female is to be gorgeous. We create life. What could be more beautiful than that?
I'm sorry. I'm rambling and ranty now. It just pisses me off that today, in 2013, as equal rights are being fought for and won for all sorts of minority groups, that it is still culturally acceptable to hold women (the majority of the population, by the way) to unattainable, outrageous standards. I'm tired of holding myself to those standards and hating myself when I don't meet them. I'm just tired of it. Can we be done with it now? Please?
Thursday, April 25, 2013
April 25 - A Bone to Pick
It is a pretty widely held opinion that John F. Kennedy was a good man and a great President. Okay, not everyone thinks so, but a lot of people do. He did good things and was a great orator and had a fascinating personal life. I'm not going to debate any of that. But I do have a bone to pick with the former president.
Hats.
Specifically hats worn out of doors.
Prior to Kennedy's term in office, people wore hats outside. It was considered polite and appropriate, and people knew (especially men) that it was proper to take your hat off when you went inside. But JFK and his wife were fashion icons and he stopped wearing hats out of doors. He had quite the fashionable quaff and didn't want to cover it up or something, I guess, so he stopped wearing hats out and the rest of the country followed suit
And we know this is an American thing because hats are still worn in other countries, at least to fancy events. Just look at the amazing fascinations they wear in the UK. But in the United States? We have stores that carry "every hat under the sun" which amounts to baseball caps from every major league sports team. That doesn't count! Hats have brims all of the way around; caps have bills. What about cloche hats and bowlers and newsboy caps and pillbox hats and top hats sombreros and fezzes and fedoras? You can't say you carry ALL THE HATS if you only carry technicolor baseball caps. You're missing out on dozens of amazing hats.
I love hats. I like wearing hats. I like wearing hats out of doors. Baseball caps are not the best hats for my noggin, and I believe the lack of hats in modern American culture can be traced back to John F Kennedy's presidency when America stopped wearing hats. And somewhere along the way, we decided that baseball caps were appropriate headgear for any occasion, including spending time indoors. No. I want a better selection of hats to be readily available these days, and I wish we, as Americans, took better advantage of this fashion goldmine.
So thank you, Mr. Kennedy, for all of the amazing things you did for this country. But could you bring back the hats out of doors? If, for no other reason, so rich white guys will stop wearing toupees that are sad attempts to recreate your luscious headsuit *cough*DonaldTrump*cough*?
Thanks!
Hats.
Specifically hats worn out of doors.
Prior to Kennedy's term in office, people wore hats outside. It was considered polite and appropriate, and people knew (especially men) that it was proper to take your hat off when you went inside. But JFK and his wife were fashion icons and he stopped wearing hats out of doors. He had quite the fashionable quaff and didn't want to cover it up or something, I guess, so he stopped wearing hats out and the rest of the country followed suit
And we know this is an American thing because hats are still worn in other countries, at least to fancy events. Just look at the amazing fascinations they wear in the UK. But in the United States? We have stores that carry "every hat under the sun" which amounts to baseball caps from every major league sports team. That doesn't count! Hats have brims all of the way around; caps have bills. What about cloche hats and bowlers and newsboy caps and pillbox hats and top hats sombreros and fezzes and fedoras? You can't say you carry ALL THE HATS if you only carry technicolor baseball caps. You're missing out on dozens of amazing hats.
I love hats. I like wearing hats. I like wearing hats out of doors. Baseball caps are not the best hats for my noggin, and I believe the lack of hats in modern American culture can be traced back to John F Kennedy's presidency when America stopped wearing hats. And somewhere along the way, we decided that baseball caps were appropriate headgear for any occasion, including spending time indoors. No. I want a better selection of hats to be readily available these days, and I wish we, as Americans, took better advantage of this fashion goldmine.
So thank you, Mr. Kennedy, for all of the amazing things you did for this country. But could you bring back the hats out of doors? If, for no other reason, so rich white guys will stop wearing toupees that are sad attempts to recreate your luscious headsuit *cough*DonaldTrump*cough*?
Thanks!
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
March 27 - I Just...
I have an email address that, apparently, many many many many many many many many many many many people wish they had. Sorry, kids, it's mine. I got there first. And because of the way that this particular email service works, even if you put a period or a dash or something between the words in the email address, the email still comes to me. Which means I get a lot of emails that are not intended for me.
I know, I know, you're thinking, "Those are called SPAM messages, and it's okay to delete them." I'm not talking about spam. I'm talking about people's order confirmations from All Things Edible that include home addresses, full names, itemized lists of what was ordered and what it cost, and telephone numbers. I'm talking about emails that say, "Hi, Parent. Your child has signed up to play Innocuous Learning Game Number 6 and needs your approval to set up an account." I'm talking about emails that say, "Your phone number 919-xxx-xxxx {phone number removed by me for privacy purposes} is almost at it's data limit for this billing cycle and will be charged $1.69 for every extra kilobyte of data." These are not spam messages. These are messages meant for someone who input the wrong email address when signing up for a service of some sort.
Now, recently, I switched cell phone providers because there is a certain cell phone company that I despise that I wanted to get away from. Everything was fine, I'm okay with my new provider, but then I started getting emails from my old provider in regard to an account that was not mine. I got a full name, a full address, and a couple of phone numbers - apparently, it's a family plan. I marked these emails as spam so I wouldn't have to receive them anymore. Nope. They still arrive in my inbox every month. So I tried texting the phone number associated with the account to ask them to update their email address on the account and remove mine in the process. Didn't hear anything. Got another email. Then another. Then another. I even tried calling the phone number in the email to ask them politely on the phone to update their preferences. They sent me to a voice mail box that hasn't been set up yet.
I'm at the point where I don't know what else to do. I'm trying to help this person protect their own personal information by making sure the right contact information is in their account, in addition to trying to stop being contacted by a cell phone company I hate for something that has nothing to do with me. If I was a less honest person, I could very easily get into their account and gain access to their personal, identifying, or financial information. I'm not that person. I don't want another person's identity. I don't want to screw with someone's life like that. But I would really really really like these emails to stop.
So I'm starting a spam text campaign against the offending phone number. Random facts sent with the intent of getting this person to change their email address. Things like, "All 10 million bricks in the Empire State Building would love it if you took my email address off of your phone account," and "It is physically impossible to lick your own elbow, but it is very easy to stop these texts - remove my email address from your cell phone account." Informative, and hopefully just annoying enough to get this person to wise up and use their own email address instead of mine. Because seriously, why haven't they updated their account yet?
If you have any suggestions for texts I can send to this person (I would prefer to avoid profanity and threats of violence), please share them in the comments. Thanks!
I know, I know, you're thinking, "Those are called SPAM messages, and it's okay to delete them." I'm not talking about spam. I'm talking about people's order confirmations from All Things Edible that include home addresses, full names, itemized lists of what was ordered and what it cost, and telephone numbers. I'm talking about emails that say, "Hi, Parent. Your child has signed up to play Innocuous Learning Game Number 6 and needs your approval to set up an account." I'm talking about emails that say, "Your phone number 919-xxx-xxxx {phone number removed by me for privacy purposes} is almost at it's data limit for this billing cycle and will be charged $1.69 for every extra kilobyte of data." These are not spam messages. These are messages meant for someone who input the wrong email address when signing up for a service of some sort.
Now, recently, I switched cell phone providers because there is a certain cell phone company that I despise that I wanted to get away from. Everything was fine, I'm okay with my new provider, but then I started getting emails from my old provider in regard to an account that was not mine. I got a full name, a full address, and a couple of phone numbers - apparently, it's a family plan. I marked these emails as spam so I wouldn't have to receive them anymore. Nope. They still arrive in my inbox every month. So I tried texting the phone number associated with the account to ask them to update their email address on the account and remove mine in the process. Didn't hear anything. Got another email. Then another. Then another. I even tried calling the phone number in the email to ask them politely on the phone to update their preferences. They sent me to a voice mail box that hasn't been set up yet.
I'm at the point where I don't know what else to do. I'm trying to help this person protect their own personal information by making sure the right contact information is in their account, in addition to trying to stop being contacted by a cell phone company I hate for something that has nothing to do with me. If I was a less honest person, I could very easily get into their account and gain access to their personal, identifying, or financial information. I'm not that person. I don't want another person's identity. I don't want to screw with someone's life like that. But I would really really really like these emails to stop.
So I'm starting a spam text campaign against the offending phone number. Random facts sent with the intent of getting this person to change their email address. Things like, "All 10 million bricks in the Empire State Building would love it if you took my email address off of your phone account," and "It is physically impossible to lick your own elbow, but it is very easy to stop these texts - remove my email address from your cell phone account." Informative, and hopefully just annoying enough to get this person to wise up and use their own email address instead of mine. Because seriously, why haven't they updated their account yet?
If you have any suggestions for texts I can send to this person (I would prefer to avoid profanity and threats of violence), please share them in the comments. Thanks!
Friday, March 15, 2013
March 15 - Tips
If you are driving, and approaching an intersection, and there is not enough space on the other side of the intersection for your car, DO NOT GO THROUGH THE INTERSECTION.
I cannot stress this enough. If there is no space for you, I don't care what color the light is, don't go.
As much as we would like to think driving is a personal experience, it is not. It is a shared experience. As a driver, you have to share the road with other cars, bicyclists, pedestrians, construction crews, and occasionally wildlife. The best way to keep things running smoothly for everyone is if everyone works together to keep things running smoothly. This means if there is no space for you, don't go. If you go, you'll end up filling space that should rightfully go to someone else, so they'll honk and get irritated and the people in front of you will try to inch up because they feel bad that you're being a dick but they've go nowhere to go so they get impatient, or you'll move into the bike lane preventing cyclists from going on about their day and they'll yell nasty epithets at you, and the people in the houses and businesses around the intersection will have to listen to the honking and the yelling which disrupts their day, so really all you're doing by going through the intersection when there is no space for you on the other side is being a dick. And as our beloved Wil Wheaton says, "Don't be a dick."
So listen to Wil Wheaton* and the transitive property. If you go through an intersection when there is no space for you on the other side, you fuck things up for everyone else; fucking things up for everyone else is something a dick would do; so by going through an intersection when there is no space for you on the other side you're being a dick. Q.E.D.
Don't be a dick. Wait until there is space before you proceed.
*This message has not been endorsed or approved by Wil Wheaton in any way.
I cannot stress this enough. If there is no space for you, I don't care what color the light is, don't go.
As much as we would like to think driving is a personal experience, it is not. It is a shared experience. As a driver, you have to share the road with other cars, bicyclists, pedestrians, construction crews, and occasionally wildlife. The best way to keep things running smoothly for everyone is if everyone works together to keep things running smoothly. This means if there is no space for you, don't go. If you go, you'll end up filling space that should rightfully go to someone else, so they'll honk and get irritated and the people in front of you will try to inch up because they feel bad that you're being a dick but they've go nowhere to go so they get impatient, or you'll move into the bike lane preventing cyclists from going on about their day and they'll yell nasty epithets at you, and the people in the houses and businesses around the intersection will have to listen to the honking and the yelling which disrupts their day, so really all you're doing by going through the intersection when there is no space for you on the other side is being a dick. And as our beloved Wil Wheaton says, "Don't be a dick."
So listen to Wil Wheaton* and the transitive property. If you go through an intersection when there is no space for you on the other side, you fuck things up for everyone else; fucking things up for everyone else is something a dick would do; so by going through an intersection when there is no space for you on the other side you're being a dick. Q.E.D.
Don't be a dick. Wait until there is space before you proceed.
*This message has not been endorsed or approved by Wil Wheaton in any way.
Monday, March 04, 2013
March 4 - A Little Bit of a Rant
I went to the movies last night with a couple of friends, and I had decided long before I even got to the theater that I was going to buy some candy to eat during the film. Going to the movies is still sort of an indulgent experience for me. You spend more money than you want to spend to get lost in some fantasy world for a couple of hours, and you might as well have a snack while you're doing it, right? At the very least, a beverage so you can stay hydrated while watching the movie (despite the fact that almost all available beverages at the movie theater are known to dehydrate people, but whatever. You know what I mean).
So my friends and I had a beverage or two in the bar before going into the theater, and I stopped at the concession stand on the way in, looking for Dots - those little gumdrop thingies - because in all honesty, I miss gummy candies. I don't eat gelatin, and most gummy stuff contains gelatin, so I miss it because I used to love the squishy sort of texture. Dots do not contain gelatin, so they are my go-to for when I want something chewy. So I went to the concession stand and looked at the boxed candy and almost didn't see the Dots because they came only in a 2.25oz box. Something smaller than a box of cigarettes. I was looking for the 16-20oz box they usually have a the movie theater. The box big enough to share with your friends. The box big enough to put you into a sugar coma and make you feel ill. The box big enough to make sure every single tooth in your mouth gets covered in gummy goodness that you have to use your tongue to peel off throughout the film and halfway home afterward. I almost missed the 2.25oz single-serving box - the box smaller in size than what you find at your local drug or variety store - hidden between the Twizzlers and the chocolate covered peanuts. But I found it, and bought it - two dollars.
Now, I realize that in general, candy sizes have gotten smaller to save movie theaters money and to discourage people from overeating. Like that whole outlawing of super sized soft drinks thing in New York City - people figure if only smaller portions are available, people will consume less. This may be a valid point - since I only had one serving of Dots to eat, I only ate one serving, as opposed to the two or three I would likely have eaten if the larger box had been available.
But at the same time, I was incensed that my movie candy was now only available in mini. What if I want to indulge at the theater? What if I want to gorge myself on sugar and get really hyper? What if, god forbid, I wanted to share with my friends? This tiny candy portion discourages sharing, unless you and your group are each okay with eating two Dots. Who wants to eat just two Dots? Yes, I know I could have purchased more than one box, but that then falls into the shame spiral - an effective method to keep people from overeating. And at a movie theater that still offers a 32oz soft drink and a vat of popcorn the size of a six-year-old's head, it seems a little odd to shrink the size of the candy boxes so drastically. If we're trying to prevent people from consuming so much sugar, shouldn't a 12oz or even a 20oz soda be the limit? It's like drinking a diet soda while eating ten glazed donuts - why cut back on one but not the other?
I realize that this totally falls under the heading of First World Problems. There are millions out there who don't have enough to eat in the first place, so the thought of getting a candy treat now and again is completely foreign and something they maybe dream of. Complaining that there isn't enough candy to eat themselves into a diabetic coma is the last thing on their minds. I know I have no right to complain. It just struck me as odd and cheap and a really strange marker of these changing times in which we live.
Now, if movie theaters wanted to start serving hummus and veggies in an effort to make things healthier, I'd be all over that. Until then, allow me my sugar coma. Please?
So my friends and I had a beverage or two in the bar before going into the theater, and I stopped at the concession stand on the way in, looking for Dots - those little gumdrop thingies - because in all honesty, I miss gummy candies. I don't eat gelatin, and most gummy stuff contains gelatin, so I miss it because I used to love the squishy sort of texture. Dots do not contain gelatin, so they are my go-to for when I want something chewy. So I went to the concession stand and looked at the boxed candy and almost didn't see the Dots because they came only in a 2.25oz box. Something smaller than a box of cigarettes. I was looking for the 16-20oz box they usually have a the movie theater. The box big enough to share with your friends. The box big enough to put you into a sugar coma and make you feel ill. The box big enough to make sure every single tooth in your mouth gets covered in gummy goodness that you have to use your tongue to peel off throughout the film and halfway home afterward. I almost missed the 2.25oz single-serving box - the box smaller in size than what you find at your local drug or variety store - hidden between the Twizzlers and the chocolate covered peanuts. But I found it, and bought it - two dollars.
Now, I realize that in general, candy sizes have gotten smaller to save movie theaters money and to discourage people from overeating. Like that whole outlawing of super sized soft drinks thing in New York City - people figure if only smaller portions are available, people will consume less. This may be a valid point - since I only had one serving of Dots to eat, I only ate one serving, as opposed to the two or three I would likely have eaten if the larger box had been available.
But at the same time, I was incensed that my movie candy was now only available in mini. What if I want to indulge at the theater? What if I want to gorge myself on sugar and get really hyper? What if, god forbid, I wanted to share with my friends? This tiny candy portion discourages sharing, unless you and your group are each okay with eating two Dots. Who wants to eat just two Dots? Yes, I know I could have purchased more than one box, but that then falls into the shame spiral - an effective method to keep people from overeating. And at a movie theater that still offers a 32oz soft drink and a vat of popcorn the size of a six-year-old's head, it seems a little odd to shrink the size of the candy boxes so drastically. If we're trying to prevent people from consuming so much sugar, shouldn't a 12oz or even a 20oz soda be the limit? It's like drinking a diet soda while eating ten glazed donuts - why cut back on one but not the other?
I realize that this totally falls under the heading of First World Problems. There are millions out there who don't have enough to eat in the first place, so the thought of getting a candy treat now and again is completely foreign and something they maybe dream of. Complaining that there isn't enough candy to eat themselves into a diabetic coma is the last thing on their minds. I know I have no right to complain. It just struck me as odd and cheap and a really strange marker of these changing times in which we live.
Now, if movie theaters wanted to start serving hummus and veggies in an effort to make things healthier, I'd be all over that. Until then, allow me my sugar coma. Please?
Thursday, February 28, 2013
February 28 - Question
There have been dozens of comedy routines written about the travesty that is the hot dog to bun ratio imbalance at the grocery store, but not one about the chip to salsa disparity that plagues this great nation. Why is that? And why is there never enough salsa for all if the chips? Why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)