World of Suck

I've had a few bizarre incidents involving Jewish people and phones in my life. The one that stands out the most was when I was at college. It was a Friday, late afternoon, and I was in a suite belonging to another student who was semi-orthodox Jewish. I say semi because while he and his roommates lived by the letter of the law, they clearly didn't think much of it's spirit imho. In a nutshell the suite housed 6 people - 5 semi-orthodox Jews and an Indian guy. At first I thought this was a more or less just random arrangement, with the 6th person just having been assigned there. When the phone rang I found out otherwise.

It seems that while they were religious enough to subscribe to the prohibition against using electrical devices after sundown on Friday, there were not against keeping someone there to do it for them. When the phone rang, someone yelled for the Indian guy who immediately scuttled over and put it on a speaker phone for them so they could use it. Same deal with turning on the lights, opening the fridge, driving a car.

Anyway, seems that the idea of "kosher" has gone now to cell phones.

What's a kosher phone? Well it's a phone that's been approved by a rabbinical society as meeting the appropriate social constraints. This means that there's no camera, no text messaging and no, repeat NO way to upgrade the firmware or hardware. Finally it would censor the user from dialing into any prOn or chat lines. Well ok, so the idea is they want the freedom of a wireless phone to use anywhere any time - but at the same time they also want to enforce "moral values". These phone are currently available in Israel, and being considered for marketing here in the US.

I don't get it. It goes back to the Indian guy with the phone. On the one hand people want to embrace their religion and follow it's rules to be reminded of what their ancestors thought, felt and decreed as spiritually uplifting. On the other hand they want what their ancestors never had, the latest technological toys and the freedoms offered by a modern society.... but only the freedoms that someone else with religious authority has approved based on strictures that never anticipated advances modern technology.

If you're not going to movies, and not playing DVD's, why exactly should you need a cell phone? To me it sounds like a case of having your pastrami and eating it too....

It doesn't come as much of a surprise to me that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that gay people can only get married in Mass if it would be legal in their home state. It's pretty intuitive actually. If something is not legal in your state, you can't use the authority of another state to force it to be legal.

Putting aside the whole good/bad argument on gay marriage, I would say that if being married to your partner is an essential issue for the two of you then simply move to a state that supports it. It's not a question of what's morally, ethically or emotionally right - it's a just the fact that people who live in a state have the rights and authority to say what should or should not be legal. This goes as much for bars that have to sell liquor in nip bottles as it does for gay marriage. If the voting majority in a state says that dressing up as a Care Bear is profane and need to be banned along with Barney and Teletubby impersonations then so be it. Just because it's legal in another state doesn't mean you can get their permission to dress up as a Care Bear and come back to your state and demand acceptance.

It's true that the process for changes to state law is a long, slow and lengthy process, but it's that way for a purpose. It means that for a state to have decreed that marriage can only be defined as a union between two people of the opposite sex, proponents of the measure had to follow the rules. They created initiatives, they found sponsors, they achieved a voting majority. At any point in this process detractors had the opportunity to change voters minds. If they didn't, well - the majority rules, that's how the game goes.

I know there will be some crying from the gay community that their rights are being squelched and some victory dancing from the conservatives that 'reason' has once again held sway but imho they're both wrong. It's simply a matter of what is legal where you -choose- to live. See that word there? Choose. As I said before if you choose to live in a conservative state, don't go running to a liberal one and expect them to fight your battles for you. Yes it's hard, but asking one state to force its laws on another just isn't the way it works. Either move, work to change local opinion or accept the laws of the state you live in.

It's human nature I suppose to want to understand why events happen. This is certainly true when the event is the result of human actions. I wandered down this particular path of thought yesterday while I was reading about the guy who went into a rave loaded with ammo and started shooting people at random. Why?

He shot and killed a lot of kids and when confronted by police - he shot himself. And no one seems to have any clue as to what motivation he had for this behavior. The neighbors all said he was a nice kid. He has an identical twin brother, who again, has no insight to offer. On the surface this is just a young man who went and bought a load of ammo and some guns and decided to make a statement. Only no one really knows what that statement is, since he's dead and didn't bother to leave any messages.

There have been several prominent cases in the media lately - serial murderers who commit as a final act of crime a complete lack of explanation. Victims families want to know for what reason was my relative targeted? Why did you kill my friend? Why? It's a last bit of power to excercise over someone not to provide a reason. It's not related to remorse, it's just a final act of defiance - "I know why I did this, but I'll never tell you". Of course if the culprit is dead, then there's no opportunity for explanation.

I'm sure in the next few days there will be a lot of speculation. Media will interview everyone from his family to people who might have known him. There's no case to build, so there will be no reason to withhold information. Our society has a morbid fascination with the concept of 'why' horrendous crimes are committed. We gobble it up in the news, we watch made-for-tv movies that re-create the horror. Wow that was bad, man it must have been awful to have been there, but here I am safe in my living room eating my snacks and drinking my beer... I sure feel bad for the families if they had to watch this.

It's difficult as a human to accept that there actually might not 'be' a reason. For the kid who killed the ravers, he just did it. Because. Because they were there. Because he had the means. No motive, just means. It may not be enough, but sometimes that's all there is.

I thought "gauche" was a French word originally. For those of you unfamiliar with the word it means:

(gOsh)adj.
Lacking social polish; tactless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French, awkward, lefthanded, from Old French, from gauchir, to turn aside, walk clumsily, of Germanic origin.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gauchely adv.
gaucheness n.

One might take it from this that the French, having invented this word, would be the most attuned to circumstances of its use. More to the point, you'd think that the French would know how not to be "gauche". But then again, when it comes to language snobbery I suppose not.

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- France has grudgingly made room for English as the dominant language in the European Union. But French President Jacques Chirac was not ready to hear a Frenchman speak English at the EU summit -- he walked out instead.
When top business executive Ernest-Antoine Seilliere announced to the meeting of the EU's 25 government leaders that he would ''speak in English, the language of business,'' Chirac had heard enough.
Together with French Finance Minister Thierry Breton and Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy, Chirac promptly quit the ballroom where European leaders were meeting and returned only after Frenchman Seilliere, the head of the UNICE business lobby, stopped speaking.

So Mr. Chirac walked out on his on compatriot, not due to the content but because the manner in which it was presented.

Gauche?
Mais Oui!

I tend to stay closer to home, but the ignorance overwhelms.

French President Jacques Chirac and his delegation walked out of an EU summit meeting today.

He said he was highly offended and profoundly SHOCKED. SHOCKED he said. Wow. Must have been a really bad meeting.

What could have caused it? Did someone tell a 'yo momma' joke? Insult his mother? Maybe make fun of his accent? Make a joke about the over compensation of the Eiffel Tower? No.

They spoke English. A spokesperson for the EU Business lobby gave a speech and at one point switched from his native French to English.

OH HORRORS!

Well, Mr. Stick-up-his-bum got offended, despite the fact that English, French and German are the most common languages spoken in summit meetings.

The most tragic part of it all? The speech was urging leaders to “resist national protectionism in order to avoid a negative domino effect”.

So Mr. Chirac… Fuck you. Get that pole out of your ass for a little while.

For once, this is not a personal experience rant. Not really at least. I'm ranting on behalf of my coworker today. You see, he went out to the bar last night. Sitting at the bar getting a drink, he began talking to the very attractive bartender. It's a pretty slow night and she seems interested in keeping the conversation going. They talked for 45 minutes or so.

Now, here comes the part where he gets in trouble. You see, she's wearing a very low cut shirt. (Important note, this was not a uniform of any sort). He describes it as "barely covering the nipples, leaving more of the breast exposed than covered." On top of that, she has that glitter lotion across her chest. To make matters even worse, she continuously shook her shoulders back and forth, with cleavage results as expected.

From time to time, during these motions, his eyes would get drawn down. According to him (I know, not a trustworthy source), he always made sure they didn't linger and shot immediately back to her face. At some point, she must have caught him, because she gave them a huge shake and said "Helloooo, my eyes are up here" and pointed to her face.

Now, ladies. I love you. You know that. But, as I've told you many times, men are simple creatures. We never really get much past "ooo shiny". Breasts, motion and glitter are a more or less a lethal combination for attracting our eyes downward.

You know that. We know that. So, I recommend that if you don't appreciate the occasional glance, you take note of it and either cover up a little more, or at the very least, knock it off with the shaking and glitter bit.

Just a thought ladies.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sucks. Apparently they have taken their duties to a new level. They swept 30 bars and arrested 36 people last weekend for public intoxication.

Mind you, these people were not making a lot of noise. The bars in question didn’t feel they were out of hand. The people were not driving. Some of them were pulled out of hotel bars where they had rented rooms for the evening.

They were arrested just because the police wanted to arrest people.

The law is on the cop’s side though. The law says they can arrest people “anywhere” for public intoxication. Basically, if you’re not inside your own house, and your BAC is over .08, you’re subject to being arrested.

The police said that the sweep was in order to preempt drunken driving incidents.

Still, it’s obnoxious. If a person is drinking and not causing a problem, he should be allowed to continue as he is. Once he becomes a ‘problem’ drunk, feel free to come on down and drop him in the drunk tank. Once he gets behind the wheel, feel free to pull him over.

But pulling him out of the bar just so you can make a bust? That’s BS. Legal, but bullshit.

Muslims all over have been complaining that they are being painted in a bad light by the media. It's a pretty difficult argument to support with quotes like these....

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to ''pull him into pieces.''

The concept that you would murder someone for switching religons is bizarre to most first-worlders. As far as I can understand any religon that needs to keep people by threatening them with capital punishment has a basic issue with maintaining people through quality faith.

President Bush signed a new cap on the national debt Monday. The raised cap adds another 781 billion dollars of leeway for a maximum debt of nearly nine trillion dollars.

He had to do this because the US government was in danger of defaulting on treasury notes for the first time in history. If spending patterns are not altered dramatically, an additional increase will be required next year.

Now, a lot of that debt comes from the 9/11 related repairs and initiatives, the hurricane clean-up and, of course, the war in Iraq. Now, regardless of your opinions on those subjects, it’s clear we have a serious fiscal issue here.

There are tons of pork projects that simply need to go. Bridges in Alaska that need to be cut. Defense spending that has needed to be re-examined for better efficiency. Social programs that don’t accomplish their stated goals. Education spending that is out of control and horribly misappropriated.

In fact, that seems to be the general theme for much of the federal government’s spending plans. Too much money going out to the wrong places. Or in the rare cases that it goes in the right direction, it’s hijacked along the way so that it still doesn’t work out.

The problem seems to stem from the conservatives we have in office. Apparently they only read the first part of the conservative handbook. Cut taxes. They did that. They’ve gotten very good at that. But they seem to have skipped the second part. Cut spending. Reduce the power of the federal government by removing their influence.

Partly, there is an understanding with government. When faced with a economic slump, you need to lower taxes and increase government spending to help the economy grow. But there is a limit to this concept.

We put 8.1 trillion dollars on the credit card, and the interest payments alone will eventually break the economy far worse. They had to raise the debt cap so they could pay out Treasury notes. That is to say, they had to take on more debt to pay for the interest on the old debt.

Think about that.

Then, tell me where the fiscal conservatives are.

Foamy the Squirrel - Tech Support

If you actually took the time to watch this cartoon you'd understand in a heartbeat why the hell there's a problem with the latest news from Dell. "DELL TO DUMP MILLIONS MORE DOLLARS INTO INDIA WHILE CUSTOMERS SUFFER SHITTY TECHSUPPORT FROM PEOPLE MASQUERADING AS EUROPEANS". Actually it was "Dell to double workforce in India". Same diff. Ok listen up Michael Dell, I don't want fucking crappy-ass service from India. I'd rather have some half-trained American whose name really IS "Albert" than some Indian pretending to be one. Here's a quick top 5 list of why it sucks to need Dell support today:

1. Being Lied To. - Your name isn't fucking Mary, Tom, Sam or Beth. It's something most Americans would have difficulty pronouncing. I'd rather be stumbling over someone's REAL name than using something that's so obviously bullshit. Call a spade a spade ffs.

2. The accent. (see #1 above). I know when I'm talking to someone from India ok thanks. If I'm calling tech support then I'm already peeved about something being wrong or broken that I needed to fix before it broke in the first place. Dealing with the accent on top of the name crap is just more fuel for the fire. I'll take a southern twang or nasal Boston accent - those I'm prepared for. But again, I'm not interested in talking to someone named "Bob" with an Indian accent.

3. Canned bullshit sequences. Apparently every fucking support scenario starts with the same retarded questions - "Have you rebooted your computer?" "Have you reinstalled every piece of software?" They don't listen, and won't listen until you satisfy the litany of basic bullshit even if it's TOTALLY unrelated to your problem. Watch the cartoon pointed to the link above, you'll get the picture.

4. There are Americans somewhere in the tech support chain, but they're like pearls hidden deeply within the bain-dissolving substance of support.dell.com. How do I know this? Because on rare occasions I've encountered them and you know what? I've always solved my problems with them and usually in less than a quarter of the time. They're not mindless support drones trying to communicate technical issues in a non-native language. These are living, breathing, problem solving humans. They help me. I want more of them not less.

5. Well how about spending some of your money HERE? I don't have anything against the Indian economy but I don't want to support it either. Their economy, their problems. Why the fuck can't we pay Americans to provide tech support? Because it's more expensive? Because they think out of the box? Because they're subject to American employment laws and need to be paid a decent wage?

Yes I have Dells but getting support fucking sucks.

03/08/2006 08:53:52AM Agent (Vivek_0134051): "u235, please let me know, that the drivers you updated for your system, did you download them for our Support web site?"
03/08/2006 08:54:06AM (me): "from Dell"
03/08/2006 08:54:20AM (me): "they are the file you have listed currently under downloads for my system"
03/08/2006 08:54:30AM (me): "the file was pushed to me from your tech support"
03/08/2006 08:54:36AM Agent (Vivek_0134051): "Okay."
...(much time spend on hold)
03/08/2006 09:14:11AM Agent (Vivek_0134051): "u235, I do not know that which drivers version have you installed, so the only option left with us is to reinstall Windows first, and then drivers, to resolve the issue. By performing this action the wrong drivers you have installed will be removed from"

I recently returned to my old university for a nostalgic look-see. As we drove around I couldn't help noticing that every rock over the size of a pumpkin was now painted. Well ok, in principle there's nothing wrong with that, although in a natural setting (which most of these were in, being situated between trees, amongst flower beds, etc.) garish blobs of glossy paint in primary colors is mildly disconcerting. This wasn't some attempt at scenic improvement, it was the product of the ritual claim-staking of the various fraternities that had been allowed back on campus.

Yes allowed back. See over a decade and a half ago the fraternities had been banned from the university campus for instigating unrest, fighting, petty crime and general stupidity. After banning them for a few years they were allowed back, much to the surprise of many of the staff. At once the stupidity returned. The pseudo-militant attitude of the frats really added nothing positive to the campus, and only caused problems. The public humiliations of the pledges - jogging in lines, carrying painted cinder blocks, disrupted meals and classes. Campus parties suddenly required metal detectors, something unheard of. The frats brought with them unwelcome outsiders from the City who brought with them knives and guns. There were shootings, and even deaths.

To me this is what the rocks represented, the loss of innocence where 16 - 22 year olds partied by listening to loud music, guzzling beer from mini-kegs or mixed drinks from huge garbage pails, having sloppy sex and maybe getting a pron movie confiscated by the building monitors. The rocks are constant reminders that what was once naive over-indulgence was now replaced by money, guns and hard drugs. Back when I was a freshman the biggest worry was someone sneaking grain alcohol into the punch and the victims waking up one dorm over in bed with a double-bagger. Not OD'd on smack or forcibly raped by someone older and shopping for fresh ass.

I'm sorry my University allowed them back. It was a better place without the divisiveness of the fraternities. Like the rocks they forced the barriers between people who should be spending a short time in their lives in pursuit of studies, friendship and youthful inebriation. There's enough time in life after college to decide where to pigeonhole your loyalties, why do you have to brand yourself (literally in case of many frats) as a teenager?

It's true you can never go back, but what makes it really sad is not wanting to. I had a good time and got a great education. I'm sorry that no one else can have that experience. But I suppose if they can't compare it to what I had they won't know the difference.

Just when I thought I had handle on what "safe sex" was, a gentleman expanded my horizons.

I chatted with this guy for a few weeks. He was (and imagine still is) a 50 yr old virgin. He kept lamenting how he wanted to meet a nice woman. I think to, eh, solve his unusual status.

Well, we get chatting about stuff. He starts talking about "safe sex". I'm not entirely comfortable with the conversation but I listen a bit longer. It all of a sudden becomes apparent that he mean "mutual masterbation" as "safe sex". Granted, you can't get much safer and still have naughty fun with the opposite sex, but I have a hard time calling it "sex".

Thanks, but no thanks. My hand knows what to do, don't need just your hand, hon.

In the modern world of VCRs, TiVo, on-demand television and DVR technology, some people have gone to great lengths to watch TV shows on their schedule, not the networks.

I applaud such efforts in some ways. Honestly, there are few shows that I feel that strongly about, but I can appreciate the annoyance of having missed an episode. This is especially true when you're dealing with an evolving plot line or a much anticipated event.

If I know someone does that, I’ll avoid discussing the show in their presence. However, I do have a rant here. There are some instances that a spoiler-free expectation is perhaps a bit naive. Certainly there is a reasonable time frame involved. And there is even a certain societal awareness level that has to be factored in.

Today, I was subjected to a huge rant by some TiVo crazed lady at work because someone had causally mentioned the Soprano’s season opener. They weren’t talking to her either. She was eavesdropping. It should be noted that was on Sunday night and it is currently FRIDAY. She blew a gasket because they had ruined the show for her. This huge twenty minute tirade before the floor manager took her aside and told her to calm down.

By the same token, there was a gentleman here that was pissed off because CNN showed the score of the SuperBowl the morning after. He had worked the overnight shift and hoped to watch the game after work, but CNN popped the score up before he could do that. I feel his pain, particularly if he was really looking forward to the game. But if you’re that serious about that, you need to cut yourself off from things like CNN, ESPN, and morning papers. Just like it’s reasonable for me to try not to spoil things for others, it’s reasonable that some of the effort is required on the part of the viewer.

Enjoy your TiVos, by all means. I do my best not spoil movies and shows for people that missed them. But there are certain levels that it’s no longer my responsibility to protect your viewing habits. There comes a point where things should be accepted as common knowledge. And it’s your job to avoid it, not our job to cut you off.

It's Saint Patrick's day again. I hate this holiday. It's just an excuse for people to throw a big stupid party. It's not even just for Irish-Americans anymore; everyone's expected to wear green and care about a minor saint's day. Also, the celebration isn't even authentically Irish. In Ireland, people traditionally celebrated by praying and getting together with family. No green beer, no wild parties, no leprauchan decorations. But Americans had to turn it into a faux-Irish Mardi Gras.

Fuck you if you can't take a joke.

Especially after helping make similar jokes about everyone else.

So, Isaac Hayes quit South Park after something like eight years. He provided the voice for the character of Chef, and had some of the shows more memorable lines.

Why did he quit? He says it's because he can no long accept the shows take on religion. A common topic, the show pokes fun of Jewish, and Christian religious ideals with regularity. Kinda makes you wonder, though. He said he can't support that type of show, but he was a member of the cast for eight years? So, what changed?

Well, they made fun of HIS religion. Scientology. It is a religion that BEGS to be made fun of. There have been few religions in the world that beg to be made fun of more than scientology. It has all the makings of a standup joke. It ranks right next to "Two Jews walk into a bar..." jokes. And apparently, it’s all fun and games until it’s his beliefs in the crosshairs.

It's hypocritical. Not surprising perhaps, but it's still pretty messed up IMO.

It's a joke. Either you get it or you don't. If you don't, you had no place on that show eight years ago.

Ok, just when you thought it was safe to read the news because Terri has been well and truly dead... well it's NOT because she (like Freddie Kruger) is back to haunt us. This time through dueling books! Huzzah. Yes yes, first we have Terri's family with their book (ooo that evil husband of hers, he MUST have been the one that sent our darling saint, our little money and media getter to the grave). Then we have Michael with his book, more or less one supposes, reiterating his position that she never wanted to be kept alive. Really I have only 4 words for both sides of this never ending battle...

SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Thank you.

Imagine if you will, that you live in Mississippi. I know... I know.. bear with me. You live in Mississippi and you're a hunter. Now, let's say in this hypothetical situation that you get eaten by a bear. That sucks. The date doesn't really seem important in this situation does it? Turns out, it is a little important. If it's before June 30th of this year, all the normal events occur. If it's after, well... things become odd.

You see, if you're a hunter, eaten by a bear, after June 30th of this year, your official cause of death may not be released into the public record. A new law makes it a secret. But it has to be a hunter A truck driver gets eaten by a cougar on the side of the road? No big deal.

You're going to ask why, right? I honestly don't understand it. But here goes the defective reasoning. The idea is that some ambulance chasing lawyer will search out public records and newspaper headlines and discover the event. Then he will somehow try to sue gun companies for culpability in the accident.

Uh huh. Yeah, that’s pretty flimsy, in my opinion.

It’s even more flimsy when you research more and discover that Mississippi already has a law that prevents that type of lawsuit.

The public doesn’t gain anything, but it does lose something. You see, headlines and news of hunting accidents raises awareness of the potential dangers and how to prevent them. It can cause the public to push for better safety training before a license is issued. It can tell people not to go walking around in the woods because there is a hungry bear in the woods. Publicity of the events has a number of good consequences. And as far as I can tell, there are no negatives. Even to the gun companies this seems directed to ‘protect’. They’re safe from lawsuits regardless of the publicity.

Politicians make my head hurt. They really do. I need a drink.

Let the buyer beware.

Or rather, in this case, let the buyer protect himself. You have to be worried about more than just the thing you decided to purchase. You also have to defend your life. Not in the life or death sense perhaps, but the privacy of your life is under constant bombardment anymore.

When we buy things, we step up and give them money. Back in the day, this was a simple cash for product exchange. Now, we have bank cards, credit cards, checks. All of them contain a little piece of data about us. But we give up that little bit because there are laws that protect it, in some manner, from being misused. We take them on their word and accept it.

But the companies want more. They want to know more about us. More details on what we’re buying. Since the law prevents them from taking it forcibly, they have taken to tricking us for consent. They’ve been very subtle about it. It started very slowly and impersonally. They wanted your zip code.

Most people waved it off because really, your zip code doesn’t mean much by itself. It also wasn’t really required. You could say no, or just make one up. But as time has passed, cashiers have grown more insistent. A handful of places have begun to refuse sales with out info. Or otherwise made the checkout process even more complicated with twenty questions. Best Buy, for example, asks for a zip. Even if you refuse to give it up, they ask you to sign up for a “free” magazine, which is a not-so-clever ploy to get your whole address through the subscription process. Then, even with a double refusal, they have the unmitigated gull to ask for a phone number. What the hell here guys.

They don’t need any of that. They WANT it. They want it so bad they can taste it. They want to take you apart and figure out what makes you tick so they can sell… Sell… SELL!! Personally I consider that an invasion of privacy and I’m fed up with it.

So here’s my thought. Let’s fuck with them. Let’s break their database some and piss off their managers. When they ask for a zip code, give them one. From Germany. I think Berlin’s post code is 1. Just… 1. Some of the British ones are similar things. Go nuts. Their database will not like that. Then give them a phone number. German numbers are nice and freaky. Give them the country code too. Like this: (011-49) 30-70-32-34. Let’s see their database try to deal with that.

I know I shouldn’t take out my annoyance on the poor minimal wage cashiers and lowly store managers, but quite frankly, I think it’s the first step in showing other people that these stupid questions are annoying. And when you annoy customers, they may be willing to make your day at work more aggravating.. Like giving you data that your database won’t accept. Hell, I’m thinking of making individual item purchase from now on. Go through the line six times and make each process excruciating.

Of course, I won’t. I’m an asshole, but not that much of one. But I still refuse to hand over information about myself just because some corporate weasel thinks it would be helpful.

We're all safer now that the faithful have a place in defending our Homeland. Lets get out there and write some proposals people! I want us red, white and blue, God-fearing, hardworking Christians rolling in free government dough by the end of next year

Well it is a free country isn't it? So what rule is there to stop Walmart from planting pro-Walmart bloggers on the net? None of course, that's the joy of the net, the joie de vivre, the raison d'etre, the last truly wild west, anarchistic frontier.

So what exactly are they doing and how are they doing it?

Apparently Walmart maintains a list of pro-Walmarters (call 'em ProWals for short) to whom they release news and development tidbits before they hit the main stream media. They suggest topics and issues for the less-creative to fill in, kind of like your first grade teacher with a writing assignments (old-magazine cutouts not included). Of course the inevitable happened... one might even say that the type of ProWal blogger that would sell their soul to promote a Megalocorp like Walmart could not be the cream of the e-crop... and bloggers just cut, pasted and posted directly from the Walmart propaganda. Suddenly the same phraseology started popping up on various sites making it pretty clear that the material was more or less planted. It didn't take long for a news service (again props to the Times) to notice. Nor did it take much sniffing out apparently - because before long the times had copies in hand of emails being sent to ProWals.

Some of the ProWals are pissed at being found out - tho there's not much they can do about it. (Again, I'm missing the 'pride' aspect at being an fanboy for a company that's known for hiring and abusing illegal aliens, or doing everything they can not to pay health care for their employees, etc..) They're upset because they're now clearly identified for filching material someone else wrote - which - in blogger terms is a no, no unless you give credit to the original source. In essence, if you're getting hits for re-printing someone elses email, what value is your blog?

So why sell out? Are they being paid? No, it doesn't appear so. Which again raises the question that if they're not all Walmart employees then why the hell would they provide PR free of charge (other than again, maybe they're just all retarded). Is it the lure of getting numbers and figures before they're published in formal press releases? I can't say - I mean just how interesting IS the fact that some Walmart in Bumfuck NM received 500 applications for it's new store? Maybe it's a "oooo I'm a member of a super-secret club with a decoder ring and 3d vision glasses and you're not!" mentality. Hard to say, since I don't cut and paste from pre-digested material myself without proper credit (usually distinguished by quote boxes or italics).

Regardless of why ProWals are doing it, it clearly is a success for Walmarts propaganda engine. They've taken some of the more annoying aspects of the last election and turned it into a technique that Goebbels would have appreciated. In the end I don't know just how effective it could really be - since the type of person who would just instantly believe what they read is not your typical blog-reader. Net-dwellers are a far, far more paranoid and suspicious lot and while it may sound like a relatively cheap form of advertising to some executive, it probably won't have much, if any impact on the more savvy types who read and post their own blogs.

Q.E.D.

He's the Washington Post TV critic. And he's a jackass. The best way to find something to watch is to read Shales' column and do the exact opposite of what he tells you.

Here's an example: He praises a new show on ABC because it's nothing like "Arrested Development." Apparently this show doesn't have complex jokes, interesting characters, or engaging storylines. Instead, it's another generic family sitcom. And supposedly that's a reason to watch it? This isn't the first time Shales has done this; I remember another review where he complimented a show for not being AD. That show, which was more of a bad AD ripoff than anything else, has already been canceled.

Basically, he loves bad sitcoms. He'll praise any crappy new sitcom that comes along by saying something like "Finally, it's a classic old-fashioned sitcom!" He doesn't want innovation. He doesn't want anything he hasn't seen before. He just wants to laugh at the same old jokes while insulting anything that doesn't fit his preconceived notions of what a TV show should be. Oh, and he hates Jon Stewart. So next time you're watching TV and there's nothing good on, remember that it's all Tom Shales' fault.

Binge.

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

It’s a peeve of mine that goes back to college. Somewhere, probably a long time ago, decided that drinking alcohol was inherently immoral because it reduced inhibitions of people. My freshman year of college, my school came under the crosshairs of an organization that ascribed to this mindset. They did studies and tried out anti-drinking programs. They put out propaganda and made efforts to curtail the bars and stores in the area that catered to the large drinking population of students.

One of their little focus points was the concept of binge drinking. As they defined it, binge drinking was anytime a single person consumed five or more alcoholic drinks in the course of one evening.

That has never sat well with me. Anyone who knows me knows that I enjoy drinking. Not just a little, but a lot. If I’m not working the next morning, there is a good chance I’ll toss back a few drinks easy. But very rarely do I actually get stupefying piss-drunk. Besides, I don't think it can possibly count as binging when I do it regularly.

There are a number of reasons I don’t buy that definition. First off, it’s clinically inaccurate. Five drinks in a night? Shit, even for amateur drinkers, that’s not difficult. All you have to do is examine the length of time involved. Just between 6pm and midnight, you’ve got less than one drink an hour. That’s not even enough to get a buzz, much less maintain one. But you're still a 'binge' drinker according to this defintion.

Clinically, binge drinking is defined as the following:

A period of continuing intoxication lasting at least two days during which time the binger neglects usual life activities (work, family, etc.)

Now, one of those definitions is dramatically more serious than the other. One of them I would consider potentially worrisome. The other I would view as a good time. Ok, I lied. I view both of them as a good time, but I can respect the view that multi-day benders could be viewed as symptomatic of a larger problem.

So, what possesses people to define binge drinking by the five drink rule? Morality police. I know, I know. You’ve read my complaints on them from the moment I started posting on this site. But there is no other excuse. It’s an asinine standard that doesn’t correctly identify the problem, or the abuse. What it really does is allow you to widen the number of ‘binge drinkers’ in any given survey sample. And people, who don’t think about this moronic reasoning, will assume there is a big problem with that sample’s drinking habits.

By reducing the standards for binge drinking to that level you don’t help identify or help the problem drinkers. You light torches and grab pitchforks looking for a witch hunt. You push so many people into the problem drinking category, that you can classify them as a problem and try to enforce your morality upon them with legislation and social stigma.

Fuck 'em. Raise your pints and give them the finger. God damn puritians.

So, I started reading a book series. Bought the first two from the store and liked them. So, I went off to Amazon and picked up the next two, along with some other series I was interested. The girlfriend hits me up for a couple of books she wants as well. Total of 8 books. No problem. I go submit my order. By coincidence, all of the ladies books will be shipped from a different location than mine. No biggie.

So, By another amazing coincidence, both shipments arrive the same day. I grab both boxes and start opening them. Open hers; I see three books, a packing certificate and one of those packing bubbles they use to keep stuff safe. Just like normal.

Open my box. I see my five books, a packing certificate, and one of those bubbles. Plus one other item. Now, to fully appreciate my annoyance, you have to realize what I have ordered. Those five books are Star Wars books. I’m not proud of that, but there you have it. I’m a nerd. I recently started reading a nerdy series. Bite my ass.

The final item in my box however, annoys me. It’s a free sample. Generally, I like them. However, I feel that placing a free sample of deodorant in my ‘nerd’ books is wrong on many levels. I see humor in it, but it’s annoying me too. It seems to send the wrong message. It wouldn’t be o bad if it was in every box (hers and mine). But it’s not. It’s not even every order. I just bought books from Amazon. Normal non-nerdy books. No deodorant. Nerd books… I get deodorant.

Should I be offended? No. And I’m not really. But I still think there is a little something of stereotype enforcement there. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they just saw that those books are typically purchased by men and threw in the sample. Maybe it was random. Doesn’t mean that my first reaction upon opening it was to be slightly offended that they thought that my enjoyment of those books meant they thought I was somehow... smelly.