Rou

I swear to God, I'm sick of it. I'm so fucking sick of it, that I'm breaking my long standing moratorium concerning politic-centric posts.

When I discuss politics, I'm pretty moderate. I fully support come conservative motions, particularly small government motions. And some liberal, particularly social values. In general, I actually think about an issue before I step into it. Part of my thinking about it is actual genuine discussion about it. Get opinions, facts and impressions, take them and use them to guide my thought process.

Of course, over the last six years, many of the political discussions have focused on Bush. I don’t like Bush much. I won’t lie about it. I don’t think the country has improved because he’s our leader. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say I think we’ve taken a few steps back.

When I discuss whatever the political flavor of the day is with my neo-conservative friends, we seem to fall into a pattern. I bring up a topic, say... the NSA wiretapping, and within a few minutes, the only thing they want to talk about it is Bill fucking Clinton. Cries of ‘But Clinton did’ this and ‘Yeah, but Clinton did’ that. Drives me up a fucking wall.

My goal is not to discuss the previous 42 presidents and particularly not the last one. I could give a flying rats’ ass how Bush’s support of Terri Schiavo was much like something Clinton did. Nor did I feel like comparing current military recruitment levels with those of Clinton’s era. Likewise, there is not a single iota in my body that sees the relevance of the Lewinsky perjury when compared to a discussion of Bush’s claims about WMD.

Quite frankly, I’m sick of it. So, here is my official rule from here forward. Any attempt to derail an discussion of the current President’s policies by comparing them to non-similar policies of ANY former President will result in my immediate and total discounting of your point of view on the subject. If the Presidents involved are Bush and Clinton, that brush off may overflow into all of your political views and not just that lone topic. Further, I will strongly recommend, to your face, that you should perhaps consider dying in a fire. For the good of the species.

They want to stop porn. They think pornography leads to rape and sexual assault, so they want to stop it. That's the theory behind some folks in Jackson County, Indiana at least.

They’re a pretty conservative group. They have been unsuccessful stopping the businesses from getting licenses and permits. Not luck preventing the sale of porn in court. So they have decided to fall back on an old classic.

Shame.

They take pictures of people going into and out of nudie bars and porn shops. Then they post the pictures online so that the community can see who frequents the place. In theory, he’s so ashamed, he stops going to said establishment, stops buying porn and because of that will never rape a woman.

Couple points.

First off: people go to porn stores still? Heh. Silly non-internet using fools.

Secondly, shame is a good tool. It works really well. But only if your victim... I mean… target is actually ashamed. Me, I’d give them the middle finger, put a big smile on may face, and hold up my porn for the picture. I’m not ashamed of porn, or my porn collection. Thus, their efforts would be wasted on me.

Finally, even ignoring all of the above, the entire concept is based upon a misconception of the cause of rape. Rape is not a crime of lust. People that are horny all the time are not driven to rape. People that masturbate all the time aren’t serial rapists waiting to happen. Rape is a crime of violence and control. Not of sexual attraction. It’s enforcing your will over others. Control and domination. Not sexual gratification. Removing porn from your community will not somehow make women safer from rape or sexual assault.

But hey, maybe the people buying porn out there are more ashamed of their porn than I am. I know I’m not as risk for raping someone, despite… ahem.. years of experience. I also know that I don’t care if someone takes a picture of me. Maybe I’d be slightly annoyed if they attached my name, but that’s just because I don’t like my name on the internet in any form. But I’d have no special annoyance because they attached my name to a picture of me buying porn.

Maybe I’m just not ashamed.

Our parents love us. It's a basic precept that most people would agree with. Parents may get angry. They may say hurtful things. But for the most part, it's unconditional love. Or it’s supposed to be at least.

Which is why I don't understand the backlash so many people receive when they come out to their parents. Why does this affect mothers and fathers so greatly that they would say and do things so heinous as to irrevocably damage their relationship with their children? More than that, that rejection often leads people to seek out therapy to help them deal with the damage caused by their parents.

The topic comes up as I read a thread that has horror story after horror story about parents’ reaction to discovering that their child is homosexual. More importantly, regardless of why you believe it’s a sin or disgusting or whatever, why would you ever go so far as to cast your child out of your life? More importantly, what do these parents seek to accomplish?

Has a parental screaming fit ever made a lesbian suddenly become attracted to men? Or has a gay man, upon being told he was damned, ever decided the home decorating isn’t his thing anymore (I kid, I kid). I have a hard time imagining anyone’s sexual preference being altered by parental decree. I can see some people deciding to hide their preference again under the terror of parental alienation. But I have a hard time picturing a case where Bobby really decided that he wasn’t interested in Jimmy anymore because his parents told him so.

Part of it is, no doubt, that my parents were some of the best parents in the world, so I can’t see them reacting that way were I to decide to switch teams. And that blind spot prevents me from totally understanding many of the problems other people have with their parents. But even more than that, I try to put myself in their position. I try to envision the position these parents are in, and why they make the choices they made. And then I try to envision my child coming to me and announcing they were gay.

No matter how many times I run through the scenario, I never come up with ‘demand my child go away and never return’. Maybe I just don’t fully understand the parents. But if you want them to change their ways, I don’t see how ostracizing your child helps that. It just takes away the influence you might have had on them.

Maybe this is just their way of expressing their unconditional love. Maybe they really think screaming and banishing their children will somehow correct them. Maybe they think that correcting a child is more important than being there for them. I don’t think a parent has to support or condone the choice. But I think a parent needs to be a part of their child’s life if they really love them.

But apparently, not everyone agrees with that.

Video games are a form of entertainment. Some games are intended for youth audiences. Others are not.

The ESRB ratings are an industry standard that rate games to make it easy to determine which games are appropriate for what audience. They offer the parents the ability to quickly and easily determine if a particular game is right for their children. Clearly marked on the container, the rating indicates both what rating the game has been given, and why that rating was assigned.

Now, many people, particularly legislators, have focused on video game legislation recently. The goal seems to be to make it illegal for stores to sell violent products to minors. There are a number of problems with this concept from a legal perspective including First Amendment issues stemming from the idea that violence should be treated as obscenity. I’m not a lawyer and I can not speak on that idea authoritatively, but it seems to me that violent video games aren’t the same as pornography. Clearly, it’s not treated that way in other entertainment industries. I have trouble imagining a relevant difference that should apply to video game violence as opposed to other types of media, such as books, music, movies and television. If you apply that same standard to those media, the restrictions on the free expression of the citizens seem obvious.

The average age of a video game player has been increasing for years. Already, that age has passed 30 years old according to the Federal Trade Commission’s study on the subject. Nearly half of all Americans play some form of video game. These adult gamers have expressed, through their purchases, a desire for games that include violent content. The industry has responded by creating titles that cater to these desires. If legislation is passed to enforce ESRB ratings, I think the industry will react by reducing the number of games available for these adult consumers. It will do that because the producers and retailers will be leery of frivolous lawsuits stemming from this type of legislation.

Parents have asked for legislators to do something about these violent video games. In truth, the problem is not the law. It’s parenting. It is not the role of government to play the part of nanny to the children of this country. The role belongs solely to the parents. Those parents need to step up and take responsibility for their children, their purchases and their recreation.

I support the concept. I don’t believe that children should be able to buy games that are rated for mature audiences. However, I sincerely believe that the best way to achieve this goal is not legislation. The best method would seem to be the model that the TV and movie industries have pioneered already: self regulation by the industry.

Already, parental controls are being built into the next generation of game consoles. These controls allow parents to prevent their children from accessing content based on the ESRB ratings in much the same manners as the television v-chip. Most of the major video game retailers have policies that prevent the sale of games based upon the ESRB rating. In my opinion, this is the direction that we must follow to preserve both the parental protection of children and the freedom of expression for adult gamers.

In closing, let me just reiterate my position. This type of morality legislation is unwarranted. The industry is moving rapidly toward self regulation, just as other industries have done before it. Legislation restricting the sale of media is a bad precedent, and damages both the industry, and the consumers.

Thank you for your time.

Heh. I thought the ad was a spoof. No one could be that stupid.

Let me back up. There is a little non profit organization called CEI or Competitive Enterprise Institute. Basically, they’re a conservative mouthpiece. Limited government, free market type deal. Pretty boiler plate stuff that is unworthy of scorn or rantage.

But you see, sometimes groups do stupid stupid things. This group decided it was their time.

They made an environmental awareness ad. Normally such things are no big deal. Talk about what corporations are doing to keep the environment clean. Plant a tree. Search for new alternative fuels. Right? That’s what I expected.

No.

That would be… worthwhile. I failed to grasp that this little organization was going to be a corporate shill.

No, the ad they put out had a stream of images of national parks and kids playing, and such things. The voice over went along these lines:

There is something around you, that you can’t see. It’s essential to life. Plants breath it in. We breath it out. The fuel it gives us help us get away from back braking manual labor. It’s called Carbon Dioxide. CO2. Allowing us to create and move the things we need. Now, some politicians are trying to label it a pollutant. Imagine if they succeed. What would our lives be like then? They call it pollution. We call it life

What the mother fucking hell. Then the other one:

You’ve seen those headlines about global warming. Glaciers are melting. We’re doomed. That’s what some studies say. Others say the exact opposite. You never hear about those studies. The glaciers are growing, not melting. These environmental alarmists blame carbon dioxide from the fuels we use. They want us to cut back. But we depend on those fuels. We use them to light up our lives and protect our families. As for carbon dioxide: it’s not smog or smoke. It’s what we breathe out and plants breathe in. Carbon Dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life.

I’m almost at a loss for words. First off, they call it a pollutant because it IS. If they doubt that in some manner, I welcome them to close there garage, turn on their car and hang out for a few hours. Or hang out on top of a smokestack.

If they want to argue that CO2 doesn’t lead to global warming, go for it. I disagree with those studies that they claim prove otherwise, but I welcome their input. But it’s pollution pure and simple either way. Calling it LIFE, is bullshit. It’s certainly part of the natural cycle of life. Plant need it to live. But you know what? They don’t need the god-awful amounts that the industrial nations of the world put out. And seeing as we’re chopping down forests, there are fewer trees there that can convert it into oxygen. Hence, more and more CO2 in the air. And that’s BAD. Even throwing out global warming, take a tour of downtown L.A., and ask yourself how those CO2 emissions are effecting your breathing. Can you feel it there in the back of your throat? I know you used to corporate cock there, but this time, something else tickling your tonsils.

Not a pollutant? Not a pollutant? Are you fucking insane? I mean seriously, do you have good elbow pads? Because you certainly bent over for the oil industry here. I suppose they at least give you lots of KY, right?

Secondly, the ad is filled with bullshit imagery that has nothing to do with CO2 production. Lots of panoramic views of huge forests. Some brief glimpses of people cycling in a park. Some close ups of people and dogs breathing. Not many huge industrial complexes. Not so much on bumper to bumper traffic jams.

There are a million ways to put out a pro industry ad about global warming. Show some proof that global warming isn’t as bad as they said. Put up some information showing what is being done to curtail pollution.

Telling the customer that pollution is good for them? That’s fucking wrong. It’s unconscionable.

You call it life? I swear. Fuck you. Just… fuck you.

But you did it anyway. Welcome to my 'Disgraceful Abuse of the Public Trust' List.

Down in Louisiana, the House just passed HB 1381. Basically, it makes the video game rating enforceable by law. If I store sells to underage, they get fined. If the game appeals ‘to the minor's morbid interest in violence’ or is determined to be ‘patently offensive to prevailing standards’, a judge may remove the game from stores entirely. Now, this type of thing has been smacked down as unconstitutional in 6 separate states now due to First Amendment issues. Hell, lemme give you the text of it:

A. An interactive video or computer game shall not be sold, leased, or rented to a minor if the trier of fact determines all of the following:

(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence.
(2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.
(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

I’m not blasting them for the bill. I could, but I won’t. The fear mongering Jack Thompson and the Parents Television Council worked their art and scared the House into the vote. It was unanimous. 102-0. Not one member of the House dissented and no one avoided the vote. This is important.

Now, if they actually believed the law would help, I could forgive them to an extent. I’d rant at them for being stupid, but I’d at least understand.

Nope. What gets me is that many of the House members freely admit it will not survive a constitutional challenge. You know, while it’s the court’s responsibility to ensure laws are constitutionally acceptable, there is an onus on the lawmakers to craft laws to meet those same guidelines. And the Louisiana House members just failed their duties to their voters. It’s totally disgraceful.

It’s not even just the time and money they spent crafting the law, talking about it and voting for it. It’s the concept that they think it’s worth wasting the industry’s time and money fighting it. It wastes the court system’s time and money smacking it down. All of those costs get passed down to the citizens.

Admittedly, this is just the House bill. There is a separate bill in the LA Senate that is far more reasonable. The House bill can’t pass muster. The Senate bill has a chance, but it is unlikely.

Regardless, the people in Louisiana have been done injustice by their representatives. You’d think they’d have better things to do down there than try to pass illegal laws. Maybe they could look into rebuilding a levee or something..

Sometimes people baffle me. Ok, to be fair, I'm baffled by people more often then I like to admit. But I blame them because well... they are strange.

This story is not my own company but comes to me from an online colleague. His company is doing away with paychecks. Physical ones at least. All future payments will be direct deposit online. Now, this isn’t a surprise. It’s been announced for over a year and the company has gone to great lengths to make sure everything goes smoothly.

So now, as the deadline approaches, more and more people are becoming vocal about the issue. A quick poll of the employees discovered that about 500 of the 1500 employees don’t have a bank account to link up with the direct deposit.

I’m at a loss here. Even my poorest, most fiscally irresponsible friends have bank accounts. I’m not entirely certain how I would get by without one. No checks to pay bills? I guess they use money orders? And go to check cashing places every Friday?

And this isn’t exactly a ghetto company. It’s a software firm with an average salary in the 60-80K range.

I do have to hand it to this company though. They’re making the effort to get people signed up. They had ‘Banking Day’ with a few dozen local banks dropping by to set up accounts for people. A handful of signups. Didn’t even make a dent in the problem. The company announced afterward that if no account was specified by date required, the company would set up free savings accounts with the local bank in the name of the employee and it would be up to them to get their money from the bank.

Now, I’m not certain the legality of the push for direct deposit is, but that’s not really my point. According to my colleague, the union there is ok with it, even though many members are up in arms.

I just don’t know how someone in this day and age successfully gets through life without some form of savings to fall back on. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been really thankful to have a nest egg behind me, even if it’s not a huge one. And to do all of your bills out of cash? Insane. Most banks have free checking. USE IT!

I just don’t get it.

It was a nice conversation. Talking about the general aspects of our job and some interaction between co-workers. Standard deal. Then it changed. Very suddenly

You see, when you're standing in front of me, facing me, and speaking, I have a very silly reaction. I assume you're still speaking to me. Or, at least, attempting to speak to me.

Then, low and behold, I see the glowing blue light sprouting from your ear.

You know what? Fuck you.

Take your little blue tooth enabled, geekier-than-thou headset; walk your ass ten feet away and continue your conversation over there. Because you know what?

That’s fucking inconsiderate you miserable piece of shit. At least gives me a heads up when you get a call. A little hint that your attention has gone elsewhere. I mean, it’s still rude to interrupt a conversation, but it’s much less then going into Borg-mode and standing in front of me non-responsive.

Oh, I’m sorry. Are you done talking to the collective? You want to finish our discussion? Sorry. I’m busy. Writing this post actually. Fuck off. And stop reading over my shoulder ass pirate.

So, there is an increasing push in the "I don't feel like being a responsible parent"™ section of society. They want a new warning label. This year’s target? Televisions.

Brain cancer? Obese children? Bad vision? An addiction to anime? Spending habits from the home shopping network? A desire to scrape your ears out if that 'Cops' song comes on again?

Nay.

They want a warning label to warn people that the TV could fall on them causing potential for injury and possibly DEATH.

I’m boggled. Honestly.

Gravity causes items to fall. The heavier and higher it is, the more potential for damage there is. This is simple physics. Most children grasp the concept to a lesser extent around the time they learn to walk.

So, what prompted this concern? Well, bad parents of course. Though I’m sure they’re looking to pass the buck. Take our first contestant.

A 4 year old girl was killed when a 27 inch TV fell off a rolling stand, crushing her. Somehow, I’m going to make two bets. First, the TV manual says to place it on a sturdy support base. Second, the rolling stand has a warning not to place objects over a certain weight and dimensions on it. Now, you see what the parent did there? Improper usage. Ding Ding Ding!

Number two involved yet another rolling cart. This time a 3 year old boy was killed trying to reach the VCR on top of the TV. Shock, and surprise, this situation failed the same damn way as the last one. Imagine that.

In March, a 2 year old was killed when a 36 inch TV fell off a dresser. Have you seen a 36 inch TV? They don’t just tip over and fall unless they’re perched pretty close to the edge. And I dunno about your dresser, but I don’t think I could balance anything near a 36 inch TV on mine.

Ok, so what we have is improper usage resulting in deaths that are tragic, preventable and the result of poor planning by the parental types. Some stats for you, the National Consumer Product Safety Commission claims that approximately six children are killed by falling televisions in the United States every year. Six whole kids. That certainly requires nationwide legislation immediately.

They want warning labels. They want manufacturers to be forced to put in wall attachments to prevent these deaths. And they want the money from the law suit and the ability to blame someone else for their child's death.

Let’s be fair here, the problem is that we can’t attach a warning label to gravity. It happens, but there just isn’t a place for that label. Likewise parental stupidity seems to be missing that attachment point. I wouldn’t mind attaching a label of some sort to parental responsibility, but it seems to be harder and harder to find these days.

It’s an old story. Few weeks ago, I meant to write up my rant on it. But I get easily distracted by shiny objects.

So, down in Georgia, a lady has a problem with the book selection at her school’s library. You see, they have the Harry Potter series. And like any good religious nutter, she knows that Harry Potter is a gateway to Satanism. She admits she never read the books before filing her complaint because “she was busy.” But it gets better. This part isn’t needed for my rant, but it’s too funny to leave out:

I think it would be hypocritical for me to read all the books, honestly. I don’t agree with what’s in them.

The irony abounds.

Setting that aside, let me quote her objection, Harry Potter promotes

evil themes, witchcraft, demonic activity, murder, evil blood sacrifice, spells and teaching children all of this.

Fine. That’s bullshit, and most people know it. Many teachers even use the series as a way to foster reading comprehension because of how well liked the books are. But I respect her right to hold that dumbass ideal. I will, for one time only, forgive her idiocy in challenging the books right to be in the library.

However, it’s the rest of her thoughts that really put a bug in my bonnet as it were.

It’s her idea for a replacement: “C.S. Lewis’s “Chronicles of Narnia”

Now, you might raise an eyebrow here if you compare the themes from that series to the objections listed on her form. I mean, come on now. Anyone who has read Narnia has seen all of those same themes.

Now, I’ll end with the fact that it’s not my intention to paint all Christian with the whacko brush. She represents a narrow portion of idiots that are a subclass of the more respectable religious ideology. Honestly, I should make this paragraph into a sig file for most of my rants.

I'm really sick of it. Day after day, we're inundated with it: products, shows, movies, music. All of it claiming to be more extreme or adventurous then the product before it.

Well, I’m here to let the world in on a little secret. Your tortilla chips, regardless of the amount of fake cheese added… are not extreme. Nor will they aid you in becoming extreme, unless you mean extremely fat. Your SUV will probably not help you in being extreme because there is a 99% chance you’ll never take it off the asphalt. Your health insurance, never extreme. In fact, by definition, it’s the opposite of extreme. It’s cautious. Your hair gel. Not extreme. The TV show ‘Lost’? Not extreme. Mission Impossible 3? Not extreme.

Simply put, I’m tired of everything and its great aunt Fanny trying to sell me on the idea that their thing will somehow spice up my life and make it EXTREME!!!! Those product will not somehow magically alter my life, or the life of anyone else and make them into a cliff climbing, alpine skiing, skydiver. Sorry to burst your bubble of mediocrity.

Maybe I'm weird. If you ask my girlfriend, she'll say there is no maybe about it. I am weird.

And this is a case of something that just irks me. The place I work is a 24 by 7 place. We share the same desks and workstations. Due to the nature of the shared environment, we each have our own set lockable of drawers to hold personal items, paperwork, that sort of thing.

So, if you recall from an earlier rant, we have to wear headphones if we want to listen to the radio, so that the noise doesn't bother other people on the floor. I have a set of ear buds. I prefer ear buds because I can put one in and have my other ear free to hear the other people I work with.

Now, apparently, at the end of last week, I forgot to lock my cabinets. Totally my fault. However, what annoyed me is that when I came in today, I found that my ear buds had been used. I know, because I carefully wrap them up and twist tie them, and I found them casually strewn about. Plus... well.. let's just say there was wax.

Ew.

So, today, I'm more or less SOL. I'm kinda unwilling to use these buds again. Unless I can figure some way to clean them. Doubtful.

The gist of my anger here is that it's personal space. Not just someone else's property that this guy used. But it's something that goes in my ears. I don't know about the rest of you, but that's my personal space, and it's more of a violation than if they had borrowed some of my books or other supplies.

I suppose it's not obvious to everyone. Maybe I'm just weird.

The law is simple. Almost any given human interaction has at least one unforeseen reaction. Sometimes minor, sometimes major. This is particularly true when dealing with nature. Anything you do could have far reaching and irreversable effects that may not be things you want to occur.

It’s a well known rule of thumb; one causes many environmentalists to shiver late at night. The counter to this law is well thought out, and well researched planning.

Thus, I have to say I’m surprised we I read about people that don’t put more consideration into their actions. For example, take Indiana Congressman Mark Souder. He considers drugs to be a major problem in our country and he wants to do something about it. Or at least, wants to be seen trying to do something about it.

He’s got an idea. It’s a really…. special idea.

He wants to start a biological war against marijuana plants. He wants to spray a fungus (Fusarium oxysporum) on drug fields.

This fungus will more or less kill most marijuana and poppy plants, as well as retard their ability to reproduce.

One small problem. You see, this fungus isn’t exactly stable. It mutates quickly and regularly shifts structure to attack other types of plants and trees.

Wait, wait, there’s more. You see, research has also linked this fungus to a recent increase of an eye disease! So, to recap: it kills drug plants, but may lead to massive environmental damage and a possibility of damaging innocent human vision. Nice.

He has a response of course. He doesn’t want to do it in the US. No, he wants the CIA to do this in OTHER countries, particularly those in South America. Now, I could be wrong, but that sounds awfully close to a biological attack on a foreign nation. Not quite because it’s not designed to target humans, but even if it only effects it’s intended target, it’s pretty messed up.

On the plus side, the CIA has balked at the request saying that it was unethical to use a fungus on a foreign national that we are unwilling to use on our own soil. It really says something when we count on the CIA to be the moral stop guard for our Congressmen.

I imagine the voters in his district never anticipated this consequence. I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that others in government service have a little more intelligence than this guy.

Or at least we should. So, do you think we can stop talking about how high gas prices are? At a minimum, perhaps hold our discussions on these topics to under twenty minutes?

It would be one thing if you were discussing the oil industry, its tax shields, or the political ramifications of those high gas prices. But you’re not.

You’re simply bitching about paying three bucks a gallon for your H3 gas guzzling monster. You’re bitching that you remember thinking it was high when it went over one dollar, let alone two.

This conversation, at most, takes two or three minutes. Tops. There simply isn’t anything else to say without stretching out into something like the topics I mentioned earlier. But you don’t. You simply sit around and say shit like this.

A: Man, I had to pay $3/gallon today.
B: I did that yesterday.
C: Full tank costs me $35 bucks man.
A: Yeah, that’s about what mine cost
B: My truck costs $55. It sucks.
A: Wow. That much? How many gallons?
B: 18.
C: Yeah, that’s about right.
A: Sucks dude.
B: Remember when it passed two?
A: Yeah. I even remember one.
C : God these prices suck.

Now continue that for another half hour and you’ll see why I want to bash their heads in with a shovel. My god, people. There are hundreds of possible conversations that you could have working off the topic. But you refuse to budge from your own self absorbed financial misery.

Gas it expensive. And the price has been rising recently.

WE GET IT.

Seriously. We all noticed. And if we lived under a rock and walked to work, we still caught the thousands of news stories. And political chest thumping. And we saw the signs on every gas station in the country. And, if nothing else, you said the same fucking thing yesterday. And the day before. And the day before.

I'm SICK of it.

I KNOW GAS IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN IT USED TO BE

So shut the fuck up already. If you don’t I swear I’m bringing a shovel tomorrow. Dual purpose. Useful both for assault and concealment. Think long and hard about that next time you feel like discussing how much your gas cost this morning.

I moved into my house last summer. I was very pleased. Things were great. One downside: despite moving less than 3 miles, I could not transfer my old number to my new place. So, I had to get a new number. A minor irritation, but it wasn’t a huge deal.

However, we’re coming around to summer time again. Almost a full year in my new home with my new number.

And I’m still getting calls for this bitch. Carol. I hate you. I hate you so much, that mere words can not convey my loathing. I can only hope that hell exists, and that you have reservations.

You see, Carol had her service turned off. I’m sure that this happened just as many other such bills went unpaid by Carol. Because day after day, call after call, company after company calls here looking for you. Credit cards of all shapes and sizes. Garbage company. Credit cards. Cabinet makers. Carpet centers. Collection agencies. Did I mention credit card companies? Because they call a lot.

8am. 9am. Noon. 6pm. 8pm. All hours of the day or night. For full effect, remember that I work a rotating day and night schedule, and even days that I don’t work, often stay up very late drinking. Now, consider that 8am call again.

For months now, I’ve been telling them as calmly as possible that no, Carol does not live here, because this number has been reassigned. I neither know her, nor where she lives. It was assigned to me by the phone company randomly. No I don’t have her new number. Believe me when I tell you that it’s in Carol’s best interest not to let me know where she lives.

The worst part about these calls is that they are very pleasant people for the most part. I realize they’re doing their job. I also realize that despite their assurances to the contrary, they do no ‘update the database’ to reflect the number change. I know that because they call again days later. Fundamentally, I understand that logic, as many debtors dodge phone calls. But after 8 months of hearing the same song and dance from me, do you think you could maybe take a chance and believe me?

Please?

Additional side note to the person I bought my house from. It’s common practice to leave a forwarding address either with the new owner, or via the post office. Without it, I think you should know that I throw your mail away. On a good day, I’ll drop it back in the mailbox with a “doesn’t live here” mark, but for the most part, you should consider that mail as lost. Except for that porn catalog. My girlfriend laughed for nearly an hour about the products in that.