Kvetching

Friday, May 21, 2004
 
Hi Nick!

:o)



Monday, February 09, 2004
 
[School + Sleep + Work (when there's time) = very little time to blog]

Now that I have the excuses out of the way, I'll get to the point-form kvetching.

- Speed is not killing us. SPEED VARIANCE is killing us. There was an excellent article in the paper last week about this. The problem is not that people are going too fast. The problem is that there are too many people going at too many different speeds. A highway designed for 140 km/h speeds should not have a posted limit of 80 km/h. This makes for people doing 120 and people doing 60.....that's a lot of variance. That's bad. I haven't the time to explain the finer points of speed variance. I just wanted to say it publicly in case some sunday-drivin jackass happens upon my blog. I'll do my best to quote the last paragraph of the aforementioned article. It was in response to those morons who write in to the paper saying 'I'm always going the speed limit and people are flying past me! They're the problem!'

Dear Sir/Madam:

You are not the solution.
You are part of the problem.

Love,
People who know how to drive

PS. Catch the fucking bus!

(I added a few things at the end but you get the point)

- Janet Jackson's boob. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH boy here's a topic that just won't go away. Why (and I mean WHY!?!??!) is this such a big deal? So we saw some boob. Have we not all seen a little boob before? Big deal!!! I must say it's rather insulting to have Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake apologize (repeatedly!) for this. They have both sworn up and down that it was an accident. BULLSHIT! Am I the only one that noticed the song goes '...I'm gonna have you nekkid by the end of this song...' and then at the end of the song she did, in fact, get a little nekkid!??!?! Sounds like a planned thing to me. The point: it's obvious they meant to do it, it was just some boob, who cares.

- Some lady wrote in to the paper today complaining about people who want to actually build things in this city (in most places that would be called 'progress'). I will attempt to quote her.

'Tall buildings and other building-like things don't make people care about their community. We should leave everything the way it is. No more buildings.'

That's pretty close to what she said. I shall wait a moment until you stop laughing.

~ a moment ~

Now you may be asking yourself 'what the fuck does that mean?'. I asked myself that very question. It's not as if I haven't heard that theory before, but I still don't get it. Buildings make us mean? Stuff makes us not think about each other? The more storeys on a building, the more likely a person is to kick dirt at a street person? I'm really not sure. I just can't find the logic so I have come to the conclusion that there isn't any. I think that, where this lady is concerned, the best thing to do would be to steal all of her pens, paper, and stamps. That way, she wouldn't be able to send letters to the newspaper and thus wouldn't be able to take up valuable 'letters to the editor' space. I'd suggest that a group of sane individuals go try to reason with her but I'm pretty sure she's too far gone for that. If you have any other suggestions, please let me know.

Alrighty that's about it for now - I just needed to get a few things off my chest.

Love,

Laurie

PS. I got into a 'Michael Moore' conversation today with some people at school. In case you were wondering, I still can't stand that friggin commie.


Sunday, August 10, 2003
 
Hey there! I haven't been on in a long while (yet again). I'm not going to waste time with updates...I have a couple unrelated topics on my mind so I thought I'd spill 'em in point form. Here goes...

- I went out to a stag (are you supposed to say 'stagette' when it's for a girl?) last night and had a really good time. We got a limo (big-ass Lincoln Navigator) which was really fun. It was equipped with a bar, a kickin stereo, funky lights, karaoke and more. Even with all that stuff to amuse me I realized that the funnest (is that a word?) thing about being in a limo is not being in the limo but rather yelling obscenities at the people who are not in the limo. This was apparent to me when, 2 minutes after getting into the vehicle we started driving away and I yelled 'SEE YA LATER SUCKAS! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!' at the people outside the bar. I continued to yell such things out the window at nearly everyone I saw throughout the night. Fun times!

-There are forest fires burning all over BC. Many people have lost their homes and many more evacuees are still hanging in the balance waiting to find out what's left of theirs when they're finally able to return. One of the forest fires was apparently set by some guy who threw a lit cigarette butt out his car window. I heard on the news the other day that the powers-that-be have decided to give a fine of up to $1,000,000 to any person who throws a cigarette butt out a window and/or up to 3 years in jail. After this story came out quite a few people were talking about it at work.

'Oooh did you hear!?' they said, 'You can get fined up to a million dollars and go to jail for 3 years for throwing your cigarettes out the window!!'

'Pshaw!' Says I.

Bewildered looks follow. Does Laurie think she's above the law? What's with all this pshawing? Well, I'll tell you what it's about. Nobody has a million dollars. Okay not nobody, but certainly not the average person. Why in the HELL would they fine someone a million dollars for that? NOBODY gets fined for throwing a cigarette butt out a window. You're supposed to get fined when your dog takes a shit on public property and you don't take a pooper scooper and pick it up. When the hell does that ever happen? Nobody gets fined for nuthin. And if they do they deny, rebut, appeal, cry, sneeze, spit and do whatever else it takes to get out of it. Then we end up spending tax dollars trying to deal with these people in court. Money which could have been used to FIGHT FOREST FIRES! ARGH!

About the 3 years in jail: Nobody is going to jail for throwing a cigarette butt out a window. Ever. Everevereverever. We often cannot manage to send murderers to jail for three years. How the hell would a butt-thrower ever get sentenced to do time? It won't happen.

I have cleverly come up with an alternative to the fine/jail time punishment. Chain gangs. Nothing wrong with that. If you're going to throw stuff out your car window, then your sentence should be pickin up shit on the side of the highway. I think that's fair. We have garbage we need picked up on the side of the road, and they need a punishment that's realistic. It's perfect. Why do these things only occur to me? Why am I typing this in my blog instead of getting paid $100,000 a year to tell some committee? Why do men have nipples? Email me at kvetch_at_laurie@hotmail.com if you've got the answers. I'd really like to know.

Well I guess that's it for now. I could go on (as always) but my ass misses the couch, and today my ass is boss. It's only fair. My conscience gets to have its way all week.

I'm not going to leave you with promises of frequent updates. Nobody likes being lied to. Well, some people do, but I think you deserve better than empty promises. I'm sweet like that. Until next time....



Tuesday, July 15, 2003
 
Holy Shiza! Another three months have passed since I posted. I should really get back into this. But now's not the time...gotta run!

~kisses~ to you all! :o)


Saturday, April 05, 2003
 
Ooooooooooh its been a long time. To those of you who check this site (and I know there are millions), I apologize for not posting for nearly 3 months. I got a new job and that has kept me very busy.

My schedule is as follows: I work monday to friday 6:30am to 3:00pm, I go to school monday and wednesday night 6:30 to 9:30, I have homework to do throughout the week, I try to go tanning at least twice a week, to the gym 3 times a week, and still maintain some sense of order and cleanliness to my place. Oh, and I try to get some socializing time in there somehow. So you see? I have a valid excuse for not posting. Even so, I'm going to attempt to update this site more frequently. As you may notice by the time posted below, I'm up rather early on Saturday mornings after 5 days of 4:30am wake-ups so I can at least post once every week at this time.

Okay, so, what shall I kvetch about today? The obvious big news in the last 3 months would be the war but I don't think I'll take that on at the moment. That would be a looooooong post. Besides that, I'm waffling on the subject. That's no fun. I like to be sure of my kvetches. I could definitely post about protestors but I've done that before. The situation never seems to change. Maybe I'll get to the specifics of war protestors in a future post. You should be looking forward to that one. It'll be good. :o)

~time lapse: 45 minutes~

I just wrote a great kvetch about drivers. Then when I went to post there was an error and it was gone. FUCKIN GREAT!! I'm off to drink coffee and smoke. I might attempt this again some time but for now I'm all kvetched out. Hmph.



Friday, January 17, 2003
 
Don't like what you read here? Would you love to argue with me personally? Now you can! Put those woolly socks on, strap on those sandals, grab your favourite soy snacks and gimme what you got.

kvetch_at_laurie@hotmail.com


(Above is my email address. I'm not going to make it a link. If you can't figure out how to put it in the 'to' section of the email you plan to send me, I'd really rather not hear from you anyway.)

PS. Messages of a non-argumentative nature are also welcome :o)


Wednesday, January 15, 2003
 
I received my union membership magazine today.

The cover says 'Fighting For the Family Farm and Rights for Agriculture Workers'. A lovely cartoon accompanies the title. The picture is of a giant white guy in a suit smoking a cigar. He's stomping through a farm. In one hand he has a big bag of money, in the other is half a silo. He has just stomped on a barn and is chasing some people off the land. There's also a positively terrified-looking goat near his left foot. I think maybe the goat is the most terrified because he's stuck behind a fence. There's just no escape for him. In addition to the goat and the fleeing people, there's a chicken and a dog doing their damnedest to get the hell outta there. They don't look as distraught as the goat, but the chicken does appear to have lost some feathers in the melee.

My response after seeing the above picture: 'ARGH!!!!!!!!!!! Fucking Communists!!!!!!!!'

Why do people have such resentment towards those who make money? What is the fukkin problem here!??!!?!? Why is a person who makes money automatically accused of being a selfish prick who cares for nothing but his own bank account?

If I work hard to get into a career that pays well, and my skills are in demand, and I'm good at what I do, why shouldn't I be rewarded for that? Shouldn't a computer programmer get paid more than a person who works at McDonald's? Of course they should.

These people seem to think that the wealthy have money because they're lucky. While not everyone who is wealthy had to work hard for their money, not everyone who is wealthy had it handed to them either. I'm willing to work for my money, and I will feel absolutely NO shame for the money I make. If these people who sat around bitching and moaning about how little they have would get their shit together and work at getting somewhere in their lives, we'd all be better for it. It may be harder for some people than others to get an education and a good job, but hey, that's life. We are NOT all equal. As much as some would like us to be, we are not. That's the way it is. So what do you do when you come to that realization? You accentuate your strengths, work to improve your weaknesses, and do the best you can to take care of yourself without looking for someone to blame for what you don't have.

Ahhhhhhhhh sweet logic. I love the way I think.


Saturday, January 11, 2003
 
Okay folks, it turns out I've stolen a kvetch from my own best friend. Some months ago, he shared with me his opinion about the 'minor difficulties' message on msn messenger's .net service status page. He also showed me a copy of the scathing email he sent off to MSN about it. What he said in that email is along the lines of what I said in Thursday's post.

Colin, if you're reading this, I want you to know how sorry I am. I'm ashamed of myself. I really did forget that you kvetched about that first. In the future, I hope you can trust me not to plagiarize your kvetches. Since nothing says 'I'm sorry' like a bottle of Johnnie Walker Red Label + a Medium Sheep, I've ordered this gift for you. I hope it makes up for everything.

Love,
Laurie

PS. You do have a medium-sheep-sized mailbox, right?


Thursday, January 09, 2003
 
MSN Messenger is down again. When I say 'again' I don't mean again in that exasperated way that some people would say it. When one is irritated, there is a tendency to exaggerate. I'm not doing that. One or two interruptions in service each month or sometimes each week really isn't that bad when you consider that messenger often runs for weeks (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) with no problems. I'm not saying it's great, but I wouldn't say it's terrible either. (note the fact that I didn't say '24/7' back there. I hate that. This is not Teen Beat Magazine)

Here's what bugs me though: In all the time that I have been using messenger, every time it has gone down, the same message shows up on the .Net Service Status Page. Beside 'Msn Messenger', it says 'Minor Difficulties'.

Uh....minor difficulties? If what you are providing is an instant messaging service, and the users are unable to instant message one another, isn't that classified as a 'major difficulty'? I mean, I realize that compared to world hunger and the plight of the hairy-nosed wombat it's not such a big deal....but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about this program's intended purpose, and the way in which it is currently performing.

I know damned well that the people who decided on the content of the .Net Service Status page thought that if they put a little message like 'minor difficulties', when in fact the whole service was not operating properly, people would be calmed by the fact that the word 'minor' was in there. These are the same kinds of jackasses that think lowering speed limits and adding speed bumps will calm traffic.

I wish these pricks would just be honest with me. I'd feel a lot better if I saw a message that said something like 'Look, we fucked something up over here and we have no idea what the hell's going on. MSN Messenger may be working again in 5 minutes, or it may be 5 days. We really don't know. We apologize. In the future, we promise not to release updates to our program all willy nilly before we check for bugs. Love, the fine (and apologetic) people at MSN. '

~sigh~

Okay I feel better now. Oh, and messenger is working again. I must go chat. Good to know msn messenger wasn't experiencing a 'minor' core meltdown.


Wednesday, January 01, 2003
 
I saw Bowling for Columbine a couple nights ago. It wasn't really my cup of tea, but I'm glad I saw it anyway. I don't regret spending the $7.50. Michael Moore did a pretty good job of tugging at the heartstrings. I suppose I should give him some credit for that. On the other hand, if I was making a movie that included footage of innocent people being killed, that wouldn't be a challenge. Anyway.....

This movie has been marketed as a documentary. It is not. It is a movie. A documentary is defined as follows:

(1) It must attempt to tell a true story in a non-dramatic fashion; (2) it must appear to do so by presenting only factual evidence; (3) it must not attempt to re-create the truth (though some would defend the validity of this method); (4) it must claim objectivity; (5) most importantly, (and perhaps most difficult to ascertain) it must, as closely as possible, present all factual evidence in its original context.

Bowling for Columbine does none of the above. What it does do is serve as a tool to educate the masses of Mr. Moore's left-wing agenda. I can only assume that that was his greatest goal here, at which I'm sure (at least with some) he has succeeded. Calling it a 'documentary' helps to perpetuate the myth that he's 'the good guy', just giving the people the facts. He's on our side and damnit he's going to expose everything that's wrong with this world! All the things those rich white bastards are keeping from us. (Note: Michael Moore is rich, white, and probably, at times, a bastard.)

The movie lost points with me in many areas. Following are my top 3 strikes:

Strike 1: You don't sabotage Charlton Heston. Ya just don't. When you show up at Charlton Heston's house, you ring the buzzer, he answers, you ask for an interview under the guise of discussing the NRA, and he very kindly offers to meet with you the next morning, you don't then show up, talk briefly about the NRA, and then pummel the man with questions as to why there is so much gun violence in the United States. You don't pursue the man on his own property, carrying a picture of a child who was killed with a gun by a 1st grader, who got the gun from his uncle's home, and beg him to just look at the child's precious face.
Try as I might, I could not see what this had to do with Charlton Heston. In attacking Heston, Moore is saying that there would never have been a gun lying around for that little boy to take if there wasn't an organization such as the NRA. That argument, of course, is a shitty one. The connection between the two is minimal, at best.

Strike 2: You don't sabotage Dick Clark. You don't run up to a van that he's sitting in, and ask him why a child took a gun from his uncle's house and shot another child. This is somehow having to do with Dick Clark because the gun-toting child's mother is poor and must take a very long bus ride to go to work at one of his restaurants as part of a welfare-to-work program? Should Dick Clark have taken it upon himself to pick up his restaurant, and drop it next door to the home of this struggling mother so that she could be steps away from work? Is Moore suggesting that if she did not have a long commute to work she would have been home that morning and thus could have stopped her child from taking that gun? That's certainly possible, but how does he know the kid wouldn't have gotten it out of the house without her seeing? He can't know. So, he goes for what he knows. This woman lived in poverty. So did her kids. Let's play on that. Let's make Dick Clark look like a jerk. Because, God knows, we have to blame someone.

Strike 3: As pointed out by the fine gentleman with whom I attended the movie, Michael Moore took on way too many topics for a two hour documentary. One cannot expect, in two hours, to explore the cause, effect, and possible solutions to; gun violence among Americans (especially youth), the media's role in creating a nation full of fear, the United States' agressive nature on the world stage, poverty, racism, and all the ways that rich people suck. What he did was take bits and pieces of all these topics, and show only the statistics and isolated incidences that appeared to support his theories. Again, not a documentary.

In addition to my three strikes, here's another great article from James Lileks.

Go. Read. Enjoy.



Sunday, December 22, 2002
 
The billboard of self-righteousness....most of us who haven't been living under a rock for the last two weeks know of it.

This would have been a very easy kvetch for me, but before I started in on it, I found this article.

It contains all that I wanted to say on the matter, plus some stuff I hadn't even thought to include. Besides that, typing a few lines of intro and linking to someone else's article is far less work for me. I haven't had time for blogging lately. I've been busy enjoying the gluttony, envy, insincerity and greed that is Christmas.


Wednesday, December 11, 2002
 
If ya can't stop the criminals, throw tax dollars at them.

While channel-surfing the other day I came across a speaker's corner segment. I've seen speaker's corner many times before and am quite aware that 9 times out of 10 the person yakkin into the camera is a moron, but I thought I'd watch it anyway. I look at it this way: If the person turns out to be an idiot, it's fodder for a post. If they turn out to be brilliant, I am re-assured that there are still people in this world with a couple brain cells to rub together. Either way, I benefit.

In this particular clip, a guy was giving us his advice on Vancouver's problem with street-racing. He was making a plea to the provincial and municipal governments of this province to band together to fight this dangerous behaviour. The guy was passionate. I think I could even go so far as to say he was angry that his idea had not already been put into practice. He said that if the government would just build these kids a race-track then the street-racing would stop. When, he asked, are the politicians and the community going to come to the realization that we have to build a place for these kids to race? If we don't, we'll be subject to the terror of street-racing on our downtown streets from now until the end of time!

This idea got me thinking. We could really clean up our streets if we put this theory into practice with other crimes. I mean, if we would all band together and build a place where people could legally take things they hadn't paid for there wouldn't be so much shoplifting going on. And if we'd just make a bank with an open vault where people could walk in and take money we'd eradicate all those armed robberies at real banks. And what about car theft? Why doesn't the government pay for some nice cars, park them in high-crime areas (unlocked, of course, with the keys in the ignition), and just let people take them? I bet there would be a serious decline in car theft convictions.

Oh this idea just keeps getting better. I can't believe none of us ever thought of this before. It's a damned good thing we have cameras on street corners where, for a buck, genius' such as this gentleman are able to grace us with his wisdom.

Fucking brilliant.



Friday, December 06, 2002
 
I've had site meter on here for a while now and let me tell you it's more fascinating to check who's been to my site than to actually post anything. Thus, the lack of recent posts. I must give my thanks to Google for making my blog the 8th site returned when searching for 'kvetching'.

In the past week I've had some visitors from the US (one from Morgan State University...doing a research paper on kvetching Canadians?), a visitor from Estonia (that's the country just north of Latvia), and someone from uscourts.ca.....the United States government. I guess they're watching me. It's a good thing I've had that 'yay capitalism!' post up for over a week. They know I'm down with em.

What better way to start a weekend than to know you are quite far down on the United States government's list of 'people to be smoted'? I bet Saddam and Osama are wishing they were in my shoes. I never thought I'd be the envy of terrorist leaders. As noted in my Nov. 24th post, it's doubtful that wonders will ever cease.



Monday, November 25, 2002
 
' [The capitalist] is the great liberator, who in the short span of a century and a half has released men from bondage to their physical needs, has released them from the terrible drudgery of an eighteen-hour workday of manual labour for their barest subsistence, has released them from famines, from pestilences, from the stagnant hoplessness and terror in which most of mankind had lived in all the pre-capitalist centuries and in which most of it still lives today in non-capitalistic countries.'

Ayn Rand


Sunday, November 24, 2002
 
Wu the hell are you? Not sure? Find out here. I'm 'Spunky Misunderstood Genius'. You may refer to me as such from now on.

How could they have known all that about me with only my first and middle names to go on? Will wonders ever cease? I think not.



Friday, November 22, 2002
 
Ya know, people are really stupid. Having known that for some time now, I’m unsure as to why I’m irritated when that stupidity comes to my attention. But I am. Case in point:

I saw 8 Mile last weekend. I was impressed with the fact that Eminem can actually act, unlike some other artists who attempt to crossover into movies and fail miserably. 8 Mile received excellent reviews, even from critics who I fully expected would give it a poor one just because Eminem is who he is.

I picked up a Province newspaper Sunday. Who’s staring back at me when I turn to the ‘letters to the editor’ page? Eminem….alongside this letter:

“‘Shocked and Repulsed’ by 8 Mile" <-- this link did take you to the letter....but the province only keeps letters to the editor on file for 2 weeks so it's gone now. I'll type it out some day when I'm not so lazy.

~big sigh~

I was going to pick this letter apart point by point, but decided against it. This woman writes based on a philosophy – so I’ll just attack the philosophy itself in an attempt to keep this post under 5000 words. Let’s set aside any opinion of Eminem. The entertainer here could be anyone ‘controversial’ (read: not enough country, a bit too much rock n’ roll).

Here’s the philosophy: ‘It takes a community to raise a child. On a larger scale, it takes a society to raise a child. Therefore, if my child turns out to be a jackass, it’s society’s fault.’

Now, to blow this theory out of the water, let’s look at myself as an example.

The formative years:

I listened to a lot of ‘questionable’ music growing up. I was into bands such as Slayer, Sepultura, Fear Factory, Suicidal Tendencies, etc. along with an albeit small but still ‘controversial’ selection of rap music. I watched twisted movies. On a weekly basis, I watched men beat the shit out of each other on WWF (at the time I thought it was real). I could go on here but I’m sure you get the point. I was exposed to all sorts of the horrid influences many believe are warping the minds of our children.

Nowadays:

I am an intelligent, responsible person. My command of the English language has not been destroyed by the lack of proper language so prevalent in rap music. Writing and speaking well has, and always will be, very important to me. I do not sacrifice goats to appease Satan. I am not inclined to ‘pop a cap’ in anyone’s ass. I have never been arrested. I do not solve my problems with violence. I am respectful to my parents and other adults (save for the asshole in the grocery store in the Nov. 11 post….an insolated incident). I am respectful of my property as well as the property of others. I don’t do drugs. I am respectful of my body, and as such do not behave like a whore.

How is it possible that I was exposed to countless violent/sexually explicit/gory/horrifying movies and tv shows, ‘satanic’ music, and vulgar rap music throughout my childhood, and yet somehow I came out the other side with my intellect and morals intact?

Well…I have these two wonderful people in my life called ‘parents’. They did this thing called ‘parenting’. They managed to teach me the difference between reality and the entertainment world without censoring what I watched/read/heard.

My parents knew that if they were consistent with me, I would learn what was and what was not acceptable behaviour, regardless of outside influences. Being consistent taught me who was in charge (them, not me), and that there were consequences for my actions. Brilliant isn’t it? That’s just like in real life when you do something stupid.

My parents never for a moment let me believe that when I behaved poorly it was anyone else’s fault. Because I have learned to be accountable for my own actions, I do not see it as an acceptable excuse for others to blame their failures on their ‘poor influences’. Also, it’s not acceptable for a parent to blame somebody else for the poor decisions made by their children. The blame rests on the child - and the parent for raising that child to be an idiot. Certainly, as a child gets older, there is a shift in responsibility. I don’t believe that a 20-year-old can blame all their actions on their parents. But it can certainly be said that their behaviour is in part a result of their upbringing, just as it can be said that an adult who is successful is often so because they were raised properly.

Those with the philosophy that entertainers have the ‘responsibility’ to show children what it means to be respectable, upstanding human beings are passing the buck. I believe those parents should have the following message tattooed to their respective foreheads (backwards, of course, so it can be read in a mirror):

If your child is a hellion, it is YOUR FAULT. You can’t blame it on anything else. I don’t give a shit if he has had ‘bad influences’ at school, on tv, on the radio, at the movies, wherever. It is YOUR responsibility to teach that child right from wrong. You chose to have a child, and so YOU must take responsibility when that child turns out to be a stupid, law-breaking, ignorant jackass.


I am not saying that raising children is easy, and that anyone should be able to do it well. On the contrary, I believe it is an extremely difficult job. It is one that takes hard work, dedication, intelligence, consistency, love, and patience. It’s a job that should be taken seriously.

Since it’s not legal to sterilize people based on their lack of intelligence, I’m hoping that, through the wonder that is the information superhighway, this post will reach millions. Let's hope stupid people can be lectured out of said stupidity. I know, it’s doubtful, but I’m doing my part to make a difference in this world. What have YOU done for the children lately?

In closing, a quote. Mr. Mathers gets what I’m talkin bout…


‘…don't blame me when lil' Eric jumps off of the terrace,

you shoulda been watchin him - apparently you ain't parents...’


- Eminem ‘Who Knew’



Wednesday, November 13, 2002
 
Today's blog is short
For once I am being brief
Now read the Haikus:

Went to work today
Didn't swear at anyone
I am not complete

Numbers can't fool me
I am a mathematician
Class was good tonight

I have the munchies
Must pretend to like health food
Fuck I love carrots

It's time for bed soon
Off to the gym tomorrow
Sweat and sweat and sweat



Monday, November 11, 2002
 
Something said, not good.
(but it felt good, and sometimes that's all that matters.)

I went in to work to get a few things this afternoon. I'm usually really efficient when it comes to shopping but I had a long workout this morning so I was quite content to take it slow and easy. I can't help but think that I was meant to browse for as long as I did. Otherwise I wouldn't have been at the checkout I was at, at exactly the right moment. It was perfect timing.

Before you read of the incident, a little background: I work for a company that makes policy after policy that pisses off the customers. I realize that there are plenty of mis-managed businesses out there, but I think this one stands out. While many businesses are mis-managed from an employee's standpoint, they are great places to go from the customer's standpoint. You know, like McDonald's. Everyone knows you're gonna get what you want when you go there (no, you're not getting a steak if that's what you want. I mean, they'll get the order right or compensate you if they screw it up). It may suck to work there, but they please their customers. That's not the way it is where I work. One of the latest brainstorms by management is the 'walk around rule'. This means customers cannot walk between the tills to get into the store. This is probably difficult to imagine without seeing the store so I'll break it down for you. The layout of the front end is such that the customer has to walk an extra 50 feet or so around all the tills plus a merchandise section just so they can get to the groceries. Management expects cashiers to inform customers of this rule when they try to cut through the spaces between tills and head straight to the food. Yup, it's stupid.

Back to the incident:

So I got up to the checkout and there was one old guy ahead of me. All he had was a canteloupe and a coupon. While the cashier rang up the fruit and scanned the coupon he started complaining about the 'walk around rule'. The total was 3 cents, but he wouldn't hand over the money. Why? Cuz then he wouldn't have had an opportunity to keep bitching. The transaction would be complete and it would be on to the next person. Anyway, the cashier explained that she couldn't do anything to change the policy but if he'd fill out a comment card at customer service it would be a great way to let management know of his concerns. He ignored her reply and continued on, saying the same thing he said to begin with. The guy had no new points, he just wanted to bitch. So the cashier explained again that it wasn't her policy and that if he'd like to go to customer service and fill out a comment card then hopefully management would change the store layout. To which he replied: 'well it doesn't matter who you talk to in here, they're all the same.' Meaning: 'I can't get anyone in here to listen to me bitch. They're always giving me solutions. Such as comment cards.' So again the cashier said 'Sir, I'm sorry but it's not my policy. I'd like it changed too. Submitting a comment card would inform management of your concerns'. Then he had the nerve to say 'well if you can't change it then why don't you just shut up and listen to me instead of giving me all this static?'

At that point, I had had enough. So I turned to the old bastard and said:

'Hey! Shut the fuck up!'

As you may well imagine, he was caught off guard. He did, in fact, shut up. He picked up his fruit and walked away without another word. The people behind me were laughing. They thought it was great. They were like most people, understanding that policy is policy. You don't bitch to the cashier about a policy created by management - it's pointless.

Now, that wasn't the classiest thing I could've done. I could've turned and politely tried to explain the situation to him....but I knew that wouldn't have done any good. The cashier was already trying to do that. And since I wasn't in uniform and couldn't get in shit for it (not that I really would anyway cuz I'm protected by the union. I'd have to physically harm a person to get canned), I had to take the opportunity to say what was on my mind. What I said really wasn't that bad. I was holding back. If I hadn't been, I would've said something like this:

'Listen you miserable old prick, this cashier doesn't give a flying FUCK whether you don't like walking an extra 50 feet to get into this store. More importantly, she can't do anything about it. The rule you're arguing is NOT HER RULE. She didn't make it up. In fact, if you knew anything about businesses such as this one you would know that staff rarely EVER have a hand in any policy-making. If they did, they would change policies like this one. If not to fill a personal desire to see policies that make sense, then because it would stop assholes like YOU from constantly bitching and moaning.
She gave you a solution to your problem; fill out a comment card. If you don't like that, then too fuckin bad. That's the option. And by the way you steaming pile of monkey shit, if this store is so awful, SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE! YOU HAVE OPTIONS! Now, some of us have things to do today, so pay your 3 fucking cents, take your fruit, and get the fuck outta the way!'

So really, when you consider the alternative, my saying 'shut the fuck up' was quite nice.

Hmmm...what's the witty/humorous/clever moral of this story? I really don't know. I just wanted to bitch about asshole customers and let it be known that I got to tell one off. Finally.

No wait, there IS a moral.

'If you have found yourself unable to remain classy in an irritating situation, make the best of it. Don't waste the opportunity to swear at a stranger.'

Yeah yeah, it's not a moral. Tough shit.



Sunday, October 27, 2002
 
Played any nutty headgames with yourself lately? Come on, don't bs me. I know you do. We all do. You know what I'm talkin about. They're those absolutely ridiculous games you play with yourself in your head that you never share with anyone cuz a) they'd think you're crazy and/or b) they wouldn't understand (not because they don't play these games themselves, they just don't play the same ones. Everyone makes up their own 'personal headgames').

I have this thing where every time I walk into the bathroom and lock the door I have to jiggle the knob exactly 3 times to ensure it's locked. It's not like I stop and think about it beforehand - it just happens...and it has to happen. If I only jiggle it twice then I start thinking about it. My brain won't let me rest until I go back and give it another just to be sure. I can't get rid of the compulsion and I don't fight it. I mean, it's not like I'm putting anyone's life in danger, I'm just ensuring my privacy. I don't fret about these little quirks cuz I know I'm not the only one who does stuff like that. Here's one that's a bit more complex, but still along the same lines.....

One of my girlfriends told me a couple years ago about one of her personal headgames. Now I warn you, once I tell you how it works you won't be able to not do it for some time. Eventually you'll work it out of your head but every now and again you'll come back to it and won't be able to stop. Remember, you were warned.

Here's how it works....

Picture a square in your head. At each corner of the square is a corresponding number. The numbers look like this: (just imagine the other 2 sides of the damned square!)

1----------2

3----------4

Now, every time you say a sentence, a syllable corresponds to a number, like this:

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

(I had the corresponding numbers under here but when I post they get all squished together. ~grumble~ Just go along and put a number down for every syllable.)

As you can see (hopefully), this sentence ends on a '3', so, the square is not complete. She told me that she sometimes gets stuck in this game with herself and has to count out every sentence she hears using the number/square game. The problem is that she can't really rest until she finishes on 1. It's not that she makes up more sentences so that she ends back at 1, it's just that there's no sense of finality (much like me with the 3-jiggle rule) until she gets back to the beginning of the square. So she continues about her day having her regular conversations until her (or someone else's) sentence ends on 1. Then she quickly tries to banish the game from her head before she gets stuck on 2, 3, or 4 again.

When she told me about it I didn't even bother trying to pretend that it sounded insane. As I said earlier, we all do these crazy things. I never did anything like the number/square game, but that's only cuz nobody admits these games, and so it would be rare to find two people that do the exact same ones. With nobody talking about it there's no opportunity to be influenced by another's personal headgames - and also no opportunity to be assured you're not the only one who does these things.

I think it's high time we all go around telling each other about our personal headgames. I'm not saying I want to hear about weird-disgusting compulsions (I'm not gonna give an example, I'm sure you can think of something), I just want to hear the ones we can all relate to.

Hmmm...the more I think of this the better the idea gets. I could start a 'you're not crazy' support group. Screw that obsessive-compulsive label! You're safe-crazy! Nobody's getting hurt just cuz you can't ever leave the tv or stereo's digital volume display on an uneven number! Let's get together and talk about syllable-counting and lock-jiggling!

Ahh...another day, another blog, another million-dollar idea. :o)

(That last sentence ended on '3'. Damnit!)



Wednesday, October 23, 2002
 
What do you say to a guy that likes you but is so damn nervous all the time you suspect that if you said the wrong thing he'd explode? There's this guy in my math class that sits behind me. He seems to blush over nothing - all the time. I swear he likes me. I know that could come across as conceited but I'm telling you he keeps giving me hints. It's not like me to assume these things so the fact that I get this vibe from him has to mean something.
At first we just said the odd 'hello' in passing and I didn't think much of it. Then one day during a break we were talking about previous jobs/schooling and he seemed over-interested. You know how it is....when a person says 'wow' to something you said that is not deserving of a 'wow'. Interesting, yes. Wowing, no. That's when I started to get the hint.
So anyway last week I turned around to help him with something (he's always poking me in the back with his pencil asking me for assistance - another sign) and guess what he said? He didn't actually need help with a question.....

He said: 'Ummm...I know this may sound a bit crazy but can you see this big whitehead on my face right here?' ...and as he said it he pointed to the area.

What the hell was I supposed to do at that point? Being the sweet girl I am I laughed it off and said 'no, don't worry about it I can't see anything' cuz I didn't want to embarass the guy....and that wasn't a lie anyway. I really couldn't see anything there. So I wouldn't have been embarassing him by saying 'yes, I see a big fat zit'. I'm just assuming it would've been embarassing for him if I had said 'why, exactly, are you asking me whether I can see your zits?' I mean, I'd be embarassed if the roles were reversed. Wouldn't you?

Anyway, being the logical person I am I had to come up with a reason for him to have posed the zit question. I'm pretty sure he was thinking 'omg I have this zit and I can't hide it so I have to work with it. I know! I'll ask her if she can see it just so she knows I know it's there.' Either that or he was just trying to make conversation but I think that's a long shot. I mean, was there nothing he could come up with besides blemishes? I was a bit dumbfounded. And embarassed for him to some degree. You know that feeling, when somebody says something incredibly stupid and you want to crawl under a rock for them?

Anyway that's it for now. I've gone on about a zit and a silly question for much longer than I had intended. I'll keep ya posted on the situation. (the guy and his liking me and such - not the progress of the zit on his face)



Monday, October 21, 2002
 
I listened to a bit of Tom Leykis on the way to school tonight. He is THE MAN. If you haven't heard of him you're missing out. If you're a feminist woman (and by that I mean 'femi-nazi') you'll probably hate him....but that is what makes the man rich and famous. He's irresistable whether you love him or hate him. Millions of people tune in to his show every day because a) he makes them really angry or b) cuz they agree with nearly everything he says. There's not a lot of in between.

I have a girlfriend who is thoroughly offended by him. I've tried to understand her point of view but I just can't. Okay, I understand why she arrives at her conclusions, but I can't relate. So many of Tom's beliefs ('teachings') bother her. One of which is his belief that when a woman is pregnant and 'denies' sex to her husband because of her physical state, it is her duty to 'take care of him'. This translates to blowjobs a-plenty...or maybe just handjobs. Whatever it takes to get the job done. Tom believes that the man shouldn't have to be sexually frustrated just because the woman is pregnant. Now, some are shocked and appalled at the very idea. Many women, after hearing such a theory, would gasp and say it's degrading. They of course would go on about how the man should be waiting on the woman hand and foot because she is carrying his child and it's difficult and yadda yadda. (sorry I can't help yadda yadda'ing sometimes. you get the point.)

The men who agree with Tom, for the most part, just think it's cool: 'Heh heh, heh heh, Tom says I should get some' ~grin~ Sorry guys but I just don't picture you really finding any logic in this opinion. I'm not saying there couldn't be any logic, I'm just saying you really don't care if it's there or not. Ya just get as far as knowing you're gonna get some and that's all the convincing you need.

Now back to the women vehemently disagreeing with such a notion: My whole theory is that if that's not how you want to live your life, and that's not something you would ever do to please a man, then don't do it. What exactly is there to be angry about here?

I can only come up with one logical explanation for the anger:

- These women are scared that Tom is teaching a nation of men to think about women in unequal/unfair/subhuman ways...but more importantly, they're afraid they're going to 'end up' with a man like that.

Here's the key that these women have overlooked:

***Tom teaches men how to get more tail - NOT how to be caring, considerate, loving, mature relationship-type guys.***

So, when you consider that, there's really nothing to be offended about. A woman can only blame herself for being with a moron who can't think with anything but his penis.

Ladies, if you want a man that treats you like gold, then DON'T try to make a boyfriend out of a guy that's using Leykis 101 as it was intended: to get some tail. If you can't admit that it is YOUR fault that you're with a loser, and you have to blame it on somebody else (Tom), well, you're in denial. But perhaps more importantly, you're an idiot.

You're only good for cookin and cleanin. Oh, and sex if he needs/wants it.

~grin~



Sunday, October 20, 2002
 
Hey there...I skipped a day to let that first kvetch sink in. That or I was just too busy yesterday to post.

Update on my saturday: went to the gym bright and early (felt good! YAY ME!), went shopping/browsing downtown with some girlfriends in the afternoon. I saw the Degrassi Junior High shirt I wanted a long time ago but forgot to go back and get so I think I'll do that on payday. Wasn't that the best show!? I just loved it. Spike was cool cuz she was rebellious but not a weirdo like her friend Liz. Remember her? The one with the shaved head. She was a bit out there. Joey was my favourite guy. I always thought he was cute despite the silly hat and that t-shirt with the tuxedo printed on the front. Oh and I never understood his attraction to Caitlin. Nice girl and all but come on.....she was so greenpeace-ish. Remember when she hooked up with Claude and got busted spray-painting a building? I think it was about animal rights. The cops showed up and Claude took off, Caitlin got her coat caught on the fence and couldn't get away before the cops nabbed her. So she was busted and he wasn't when it had been his idea all along. That bastard!

Okay enough of that. After the shopping I went out and got PISSED. Ooooooooh baby I was loaded. I felt like SHITE this morning. Didn't do much today - couldn't really. I mostly lounged in the living room. Ahhhhhh the perfect sunday. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was on. Pretty good movie...although I'm not quite sure why there was such a big fuss about it. The Oscar-worthiness of it was lost on me. It was good, but I wasn't floored. But then, I also don't see how Moulin Rouge even got to the silver screen never mind winning awards. Perhaps I'm too picky.

Okay about the first kvetch: I said at the beginning that I was here to kvetch and only kvetch. I must take that back now cuz it has occurred to me that sometimes I might not have a kvetch to put in here. Well no it's not that I won't have one, it's that I won't feel good about only briefly mentioning the issue, and since the alternative is to write lots and lots and lots I may be too lazy/tired to do it. In which case this blog will double as a journal. Much like today.

Well that's it for now. I'll leave you with a quote off a shirt I saw while shopping yesterday. I considered getting it but the Degrassi one calls out to me more. This one deserves honourable mention though:

'Stereotyping Saves Time'

Tee hee.



Friday, October 18, 2002
 
Hello and welcome to my blog. For those of you not familiar with yiddish, here's what kvetch means:

Kvetch (kvech), Slang-v.i. 1. to complain, esp. chronically. -n. 2. Also, kvetch'er. a person who kvetches

Alright I'm not much for introductions, I'm just gonna start kvetching. If you wanted an intro and some background on me well tough shit. I'm not here to do an autobiography, I'm here to complain (chronically). All you need know is that I'm young and beautiful. It will soon become evident that I'm incredibly intelligent, funny and witty to boot. Oh, and modest. Let's not forget that.

So anyway, I have thought long and hard about my inaugural kvetch. It's not at all that I couldn't think of something to kvetch about, it was that I couldn't choose which kvetch to start with. This first one is a big deal. It could be the kvetch that makes or breaks me. Okay maybe it's not that serious. I just wanted to be moved by the topic. And then I was watching the news yesterday and I felt this urge to rip my own hair out and scream so I thought hmmmmm, that's pretty moving. So here goes...

Recently in these parts there has been a rash of unruly 'homeless' people taking over abandoned buildings and refusing to leave unless the government commits more money to social housing. Okay, it hasn't been a 'rash' (only two or three that I can think of). But still, it's enough to take note. Oh and by the way I say 'homeless' in quotes like that because some of them are the 'fairweather homeless'. Or shall I call them the 'badweather homeless'? You know, the ones who really have a place to live (while it may be wreaking of soy and all things granola, it's still a place to live), yet they choose to pretend they don't for the sake of the current protest. So they get the old campin gear together and head down to the protest of the week to show their solidarity. They're not homeless but damned if that's gonna stop em! So anyway, they all head down there, paint banners, play bongo drums, chant, snear at police and do whatever else comes to mind.....whatever it takes to spread the word that us fat cats have failed them and society in 'denying' them affordable housing. This usually includes the use of megaphones because, as we all know, saying a stupid point loud makes it a valid point. (Question: How do they afford megaphones? How much does a megaphone run ya these days? That's a lot of panhandling)

This situation plays out the same way every time: 'homeless' take over building (always on a slow news day), media covers event, media covers and re-covers event giving homeless opportunity to tell the world how downtrodden they are, police warn them they are trespassing and must leave, constant media updates follow, 'homeless' point at police and say to media 'see? see how we're being abused!?!?!', police obtain warrant to enter building and remove 'homeless', 'homeless' lose.

Okay so having said that do we think that perhaps the 'homeless' and whatever other crazed hippies feel like protesting that day might take a different approach if what they REALLY want is change. Oh no sir! That's not the way it works. They don't want change. What the hell would they do with themselves if they moved UP in the world!?! WORK?!?! ACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which leads me right into this....

I was watching the news yesterday at noon. A reporter had gone down to this occupied building and was interviewing the 'forgotten ones'. One man described the plight of his people and pointed to sad little tents set up inside the building, side by side, and the little makeshift kitchen down in the corner of the room. Twas all very heartbreaking and yadda yadda. Following this, the reporter asked the man 'so why don't you have a job?'.

The man's response: 'uh....uh....' ~eyebrows lift~ ~eyes pop out a bit~ '....well...uh.....that's a good question.'

I kid you not my friends. That is exactly what the man said and how he reacted. The guy was blindsided.

A good question indeed.