Theater Etiquette

To honor the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (or, as my 6 year old calls him, "Dr. King Luther ... uh ... Martin ... Jr?" with a look of utter confusion as to why someone would have quite so many names), my family went to the movies on Monday. Our small town theater is rarely crowded, but since it was a holiday and a kid movie, we weren't surprised to find that in order to get four seats together, some folks who were already there were going to have to squish a little. Fortunately, a man almost all the way in the back saw me doing a seating scan and beckoned us up, doing that total-strangers-sign-language thing that we all recognize to let us know that his family would move down one and we were welcome to come sit by them.

I mention him because I really appreciated that little courtesy, as it seems that people are really concerned about their movie buffer zone. I don't mind buffer zones when the theater is relatively empty, but I think if you go to a showing that you know is going to be crowded, you should gracefully accept the situation and be prepared to share an arm rest. Buying a ticket to the theater does not entitle you to an extra seat that you need in order to pile all of your coats or to just not have to touch another icky human. If it works out that way, great, but if you can't handle it, get a Netflix subscription or pick your showtimes wisely.

I also mention him because his courtesy was in stark contrast to several people who were sitting right behind us. Keep in mind that we're at Hoodwinked and being a parent, I expect a little amount of random noise from children. I'm definitely not of the expectation that children should be completely silent during movies - indeed, the sound of a kid laughing is one of my favorite noises, but throughout the movie, the people behind us - the ADULTS - spoke at normal conversational volumes. Discussions about the movie, the animation, the story line, the plot holes (it's HOODWINKED, for crying out loud), the music - it was like watching a DVD with director's commentary. There was also the seat kicking, my own personal super ultra extreme pet peeve. That came mostly from a couple of kids that looked to be perhaps 11 or 12, so way too old to not know better, but at least it wasn't the adults.

So, in light of the apparent fact that there are people out there who don't get how rude, crude and socially unacceptable our current slate of "acceptable" theater behaviors are, let me lay it out - and if you recognize yourself in any of these statements, then all I have to say is "you're welcome" because I'm sure you'll make an effort to do better in the future.

1. You're not in your living room, so be quiet. This seems so obvious, but perhaps as we progress through generations of on-demand and DVR viewing options it's gotten more conf. If you're confused on this point, I would offer this little test - if you had to pay money to go into a big dark room full of chairs, you don't have a remote control in your hand, and you didn't get your popcorn for free, it's not your house. You are in a movie theater, and you are in there with a lot of other people who did not pay to hear your comments. A few years ago my theater viewing of Fellowship of the Ring was practically ruined by a guy one row back who felt a need to explain every difference between book and film to his daughter. Just shut up. Talk later, after you've left the movie. If you can't remember what you wanted to say, that's just extra proof that your ramblings were unnecessary.

2. The seat in front of you is not an ottoman. This is an ottoman. If that's not a pretty reasonable facsimile of the fabric covered piece of furniture in front of you, don't put your feet on it. It's also not a wall, so when you need to adjust yourself, don't push against it with your feet. It should go without saying that you shouldn't be kicking it, but damn - DON'T KICK IT.

3. Movie theaters are not big trash cans. If you brought a big-o-tub of popcorn into the theater, surely you can haul the empty back out, and ditto with your soda kegs. Maybe you get a thrill out of making people clean up after you - or maybe you're just a big rude slob. Those are really the only two possibilities, so you decide.

4. If you know you have a bladder the size of a Tic Tac and have some control over your seat choice (I do realize this is sometimes difficult), please sit near an aisle. I promise the picture is not THAT much better if you sit in the middle of the theater and besides, the movie probably isn't that great anyway. Your enjoyment is not going to be ruined by sitting off to one side and the people you would otherwise have to crawl over will mentally thank you as they watch you head off for your fifth bathroom break.

Only four major rules. It's really not that difficult, right?

By the way - about Hoodwinked. Unless you have a Red Riding Hood fanatic in your house, my suggestion is to wait for the DVD. I've seen Shrek, I know Shrek by heart - this is no Shrek. It's not even a Shrek 2. The animation is amateurish, the humor is spotty, and it just doesn't have the wit of other recent animated offerings. It also has way too many musical numbers for my tastes. I'm sure my kids enjoyed it, but they didn't shell out the almost $50 for tickets and treats, know what I mean?

Sundaes and Science

"Sundaes and Science" - that was the name of the school function I went to tonight with my fourth and first graders, two little boys. Oh my, oh my.

I'm not a huge kid person. I love my kids more than life itself but there are only a few "other people's kids" that I care to be around much. When people bring in their babies to the office, I'm never among the cooing, touching, "let me hold the baaaaaaaaaybee" crowd. Our house is not the one where the whole neighborhood kid population congregates - we don't have a Playstation anymore, don't have the latest crazy toys, and our back yard sucks for kids because it's steep and xeriscaped, although not nearly as beautifully as the picture in that link. Bottom line, I can handle one or two extra kids sometimes but am never going to go out of my way to invite the marauding hordes that some other parents seem to enjoy.

So, it is with some amount of dread that I go to these school functions. The idea of a hundred elemtary school kids running around a gym (do the people who design school gymnasiums deliberately make them as loud as possible?) makes me want to crawl in a hole. But - I go, I have to, they want to go and that's what's important.

Tonight was a twofold event - first, give the kids a bunch of sugar in the form of ice cream sundaes, and then tell them to sit down, be quiet and watch a presentation. People who go to school to educate and manage children's activities thought this was a good idea, right? OK.

So, ice cream first. My 6 year old was literally shaking as he ate his ice cream. He was THAT wired - but I'll admit that a lot of it was excitement about the program coming later.

The Science portion of the evening was an hour long commercial for an after school program the school is selling. Six weeks, an hour each session, for kids to learn science stuff - it looks like a bunch of fun but it's $75 per kid so we won't be doing it but the presentation was fun nonetheless. The "Mad Scientist" was a goofy woman, her props were good, and she managed to get a couple of Newton's Laws into the program in a fun manner. All of which is well and good except that the 100 or so sugar buzzing kids sitting on the floor (mine included!) were just nuts. I never did figure out who it was, but there was one little guy who kept doing an almost ululating "om" chant the entire time, there were pockets of kids who never stopped roiling (my take on what I would call a mosh pit for 7 year olds who are technically sitting but never stop moving), and every so often the whole group would start yelling and SQUEALING at the top of their lungs.

It was all kind of interesting to watch at times - the times that I was able to disconnect enough from my own urges to squeal and run - because I'm sure there are some neat child mob psychology analyses that could be made if I had more time and less of a headache. As it is, the boys are in bed and I think a very stiff drink is in order. Can't wait for the spring dance in a couple of weeks...

Flashlight Scare

In case you missed it, a Starbucks in San Francisco had a bit of a scare on Monday. It seems that a homemade bomb was found by an employee in a bathroom. The store and immediate area were evacuated, police came in, the bomb was removed from the bathroom (a unisex bathroom, one story pointed out for no apparent reason), detonated, and the search was on for the nefarious schemer with a grudge against, I guess, overpriced and ridiculously complicated "coffee."

One accounting of the event had this to say about the bomb:

Gittens would not describe the device or its size other than to say it "would have caused damage if it exploded.''

Don Henschke, sales manager at Ellis Brooks Auto Center across the street from the coffee house, said a police officer had described the bomb to him as "a portion of a flashlight and a fuse."

Sounds pretty cut and dry, doesn't it? No speculation there, this was definitely a bomb, a person of interest was found, and for most of us the whole incident blipped right out of conscious memory and we went on about our day.

As it turns out, though, it wasn't a bomb. It was just an old battery that a homeless man had accidentally dropped in the bathroom. A homeless guy who says he loves that Starbucks, no less, because they give him coffee for $.50. No grudges, no evil intent, and no bomb.

My first response when reading about the error this morning was, of course, relief. The world would not suffer - and especially not San Francisco - with one less Starbucks but bombs are bad and all.

That reaction was almost immediately replaced with a fair amount of irritation, though. Why were the police making such concrete statements about the nature of this device before they had time to actually examine and analyze it? Why did they state, before an investigation, that this device could have injured or killed someone if it had exploded? On what basis was this conclusion made? How could they be so irresponsible?

Easy. We live in a highly developed culture of fear. We need to feel like we're under attack or so many things that are going on today in our country make very little sense. We have to believe that terrorists are out to get us because without that, it harder to accept the sacrifices our Dear Leader has asked of us in the last several years. It's much easier and more comforting to think that some bad, foreign boogie men are out to get us than to consider the thought that maybe we voted some pretty shady characters into office and now we're stuck with the consequences.

The media doesn't help, of course. I'm sure they were all over that corner of San Francisco like froth on a latte. The competition for news in our internet soaked world is fierce and we shouldn't trust them very much anymore. Whether we watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, or whatever other outlets are currently available, we're not being given news - we're being given commentary. The talking heads are here to entertain us, not to inform us. We want to hear spins that conform to our beliefs and the news outlets know it. I wouldn't be surprised if the questions posed to the police were intense, aggressive, and probably leading. That doesn't excuse loose lips from the police department, but I can't entirely blame them.

I don't know that I ultimately have a point here, this feels more like a rant. Take it for what you will.

Overheard in the Grocery Store

Teen Bagger to Teen CheckOut Guy about "Come Sail Away" playing on the in-store tape: "Have you ever heard this song before? I really like it. I don't know who sings it though."

CheckOut Guy: "Yeah, I've heard it before too, I think it's really old. Not bad, I guess."

Wimper.

More and more often, I am feeling not young. I don't feel "old" yet, but definitely not young. For the most part, it's confined to comparisons between myself and celebrities - media, sports, music, etc. I've gotten over the inner groans when I see 20 year olds making millions and have come to appreciate the graceful aging of older celebrities, which just means that I have convinced myself that older stars are better looking than younger stars. I find myself laughing at shows like The Real World, which is currently in its eleventy-millionth season, and thinking that the cast members these last few years are getting more and more immature. Oh, and Britney is a tramp but Madonna wasn't.

In the last year or so, though, it's gone way past that. In every day life I am beginning to see the huge gap between me and "those damned kids." Now when I notice girls I'm not thinking, "I wonder where she got that top," it's more like, "Why the hell did her parents let her out of the house wearing that?" and teenage boys look like hoodlums (HOODLUMS, I tell you) with their jeans hitched up all the way to their ... knees.

All that aside, this grocery store incident was particularly painful. Why? Because only two nights before, I was listening to Napster radio and had a nostalgic moment over "Come Sail Away." It was nice. Sweet. Warm and tingly. And now - all dashed to geezer hell.

Smells like ...

I'll just say right up front that I don't like Hummers and probably don't like the people who drive them. I'm also fairly comfortable saying that I won't like someone who drives a Hummer with a "Support Our Troops" sticker on it, and I'll even go on record as guaranteeing that if the guy driving it is a large man with a shaved head and a goatee (translation, "I'm fat but if I look mean then fat just equals big strong tough guy), we are not going to be friends.

It's not just that these things are gas whores, although that definitely comes into play with the "Support Our Troops" stickers. It's not that they're ugly - there are plenty of ugly cars on the road. It's not even that they're big, because they aren't anymore. It's that Hummers are everything bad about SUV's, all wrapped up in one convenient package. They're aggressive tough guy trucks that probably don't ever leave a paved city street 99% of the time, they're overhyped and overpriced (which is a bit of genius, especially for the first ones - I'll give them that), and they're the ultimate example of a perceived need because really, nobody "needs" one of these but I'll bet that almost everyone who has one can give you a 25 words or less speech as to why they are the exception to the rule.

BUT ... in case you don't have the cash to go buy one of these monstrosities or feel like maybe 10 mpg isn't a wise choice for fuel economy, you can still be part of the Hummer Hype ... or at least smell like it. Go get your fragrance on ...

Sanitizomania

Yesterday we ran a few errands, including a stop at one of our local grocery stores for a few sale items. As we entered, I noticed a short, trim, generally well kept older lady walking in next to us. We both did that quick mental dance you do in society when you're both going for the same general destination, in this case the shopping cart bay. I slowed down a bit to let her go first and then watched with a little interest to see where she'd go because of the four carts that headed their little cart lines, only one didn't have trash in it. As a quick aside, this is another one of those "were you born in a barn?" pet peeves - random grocery store remains in the shopping carts. Almost always, it's some bakery related item, such as the little pieces of tissue you're supposed to use to get a cookie or something like that. To me, that usually says that there was a child involved and there was some appeasement going on. Besides the problems that I think come when you try to shut a kid up by giving him sugar and telling him to sit still in a cart, there's also the little lesson being taught to the kiddos that shopping carts are trash cans. But anyway ...

As expected, she did take the cart that didn't have any trash and then headed over to the newest created need in grocery stores. It's a little stand with antibacterial wipes right near the carts so that you can disinfect the cart handle before you do your shopping. Sure enough, she stopped, grabbed a wipe and gave a quick once over to her cart and to her credit, she did throw the wipe in the trash and not into the cart. That was the last I saw of her except for one moment over in the bread section where she snapped rather viciously at her husband and then caught me looking at her (really, I wasn't giving her a nasty look - I just turned to see who was having such a bad day), but I kept thinking about those little wipes.

I have no doubt that the installment of these sanitizing stations was done at the behest of the wipe manufacturers, not because of a demand from customers. I'm sure that those who are prone to germophobia are already bringing their Purel to the grocery store, know what I mean? But I also have no doubt that now that they are there, more people are thinking about germs and actually using these things, and then going over the to chemical aisle and buying some for their homes and cars.

I think there are several social points of interest in this. There are people who really don't care about germs, aren't particularly worried about them, but will use the wipes because they think that others will think they are somehow dirty if they don't. There are other people who already have a known compromised immune system and have to be very careful - maybe there ARE germs on these carts, but I suspect they'd have to be pretty hardy to survive a stint on a cold, dry piece of plastic. Who knows. But then there are people, and here I think we'd find big percentages, who use these wipes because they're concerned about their health, but then proceed down the aisles and buy the most unhealthy crap that the corporate food conglomerates have to offer. Filling up the cart with Lunchables, Hamburger Helper, Oreos and soda probably isn't going to get you a special mention on Willard Scott's birthday segment but hey, at least your grocery cart handle is sterile for a few minutes.

My personal belief on health when it comes to things like colds and flu is that you don't get sick because of germs, you get sick because your immune system is not up to the challenge. You can use your Purel, your Oust (my personal favorite in the "most ridiculous product" list - how do you sanitize AIR, outside of an industrial or medical clean room?), your anti-bacterial soap, your disinfectant household cleaners, etc. all you want, but if your immune system is shot, you're still going to get sick. I think this happens to people all of the time and their response is to become even more paranoid about germs, which is just nuts. I knew a girl at my previous job who kept a tissue over the mouse at her desk because she was afraid of germs. On her own mouse, at her own desk. I don't know what she thought was happening at her desk when she wasn't around, but I think therapy is in order.

Anyway, I know this is a pointless rant. People don't want to actually take care of themselves, they just want the illusion of taking care of themselves. Corporations are happy to fill that need, and there's probably not anything I can do about it because I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one. It just stayed on my mind all through yesterday and even overnight, so I figured I should get it out of my system.

MPAA

What do these movies have in common?

Spider-Man
X-Men
Pirates of the Caribbean
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
School of Rock
Meet the Parents
Bend It Like Beckham
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
The Triplets of Belleville
Best in Show
and
The Ring Two

Nothing jumping out at you? Well, I've seen them all, for one thing, but that's no big deal. With the exception of Meet the Parents and The Ring Two, they're also all movies that my 10 year old and 6 year old have seen. The main reason they're all listed here, though, is that they're all rated PG-13.

Now, I know that PG-13 means "some material may be inappropriate for children under 13," but I don't think there is a rational basis for some of this. For example, we recently saw Goblet of Fire and unfortunately I had forgotten exactly what that year at Hogwarts was about until we were already in the theater. Had I been more prepared, I would have warned my 6 year old that Cedric was going to die. As it was, he got a little teary eyed and for a few days said he didn't want to see that one again. He's over it now and wants to buy the movie, but still - definitely a darker toned movie than the previous ones and I should have paid more attention.

Then there's Spider-Man, which is PG-13 for "stylized violence and action." Um, OK. Spider-Man is pretty darned clean - I'd let the 6 year old watch that before I'd let him watch CSI, Numb3rs, Law & Order, or any of the other cruelty and death series on prime time television.

But - The Ring Two?? Who the hell came up with the bribe money for this one? It never would have occurred to me to allow either child to watch this movie, and to be honest, I didn't want to watch this movie. I don't like being startled and in general don't like horror movies. Every so often I have to watch one, though, because my husband likes them but he won't get them if I won't watch them with him - it's not rudeness on his part, it's that he won't want to get something if we can't cuddle while watching so I deal with it so he can watch something he really wants to see. One of those little things you do in a relationship.

Anyway, we watched The Saw several months ago (hated it), Devil's Rejects a few weeks ago - more of a straight up psycho slasher flick than horror and oddly interesting - and then last week The Ring Two. It's rated PG-13 for "violence/terror, disturbing images, thematic elements, and some language." There is no way - no freaking way - that this movie could possibly be in the same rating world as any of the other movies above. Sure, it doesn't show anyone being explicity carved into pieces in a torture chamber like Hostel (rated R for "brutal scenes of torture and violence, strong sexual content, language and drug use"), but this is the stuff that months of nightmares and family bed arrangements are made of and it really pisses me off that it's only rated PG-13.

That's all I have to say about that.

The War on Christmas

This whole War on Christmas hysteria really needs to stop. Those who are caught up in it are doing nothing but make themselves look like jackasses and help John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly make more money. Why does there need to be a "war" about this, anyway? Could we please tone down the catchphrases? No, of course not, because that doesn't sell as many books or commercial time.

Yesterday, one of our reps called me to ask a question and he started out by saying, "Merry Christmas or Happy Hannukah or - well, I just don't know what to say anymore, so Happy Holidays." I told him he couldn't say that either because that would mean that he's helping in the War on Christmas. He laughed, as well he should, because it's DUMB.

And then today I opened our free local newspaper and saw this gem of a column from our resident right wing apologist. He's usually good for little more than a somewhat shrill recap of the week's talking points and this week was no exception. I won't recap it, the link's there if you want it, but I mention it because it really was the final straw. There is no war on Christmas, there is just a recognition by most everyone that there are millions of people who celebrate different winter holidays. It's that simple. Someone saying "Happy Holidays" to me suggests that they respect the possibility that I might not be Christian, and I appreciate that. Those who whine about a War on Christmas probably don't give a damn that others may not be Christian and their insistence on "Merry Christmas" being the default message is highly disrespectful. Beyond that, it's petty and stupid and I think Jesus would be ashamed of His followers for their behavior.

So ... now I have to go write a letter to the editor.

Cell Phone Rudeness

Last night I had an opportunity to teach my 10 year old son a valuable lesson. At first it appeared that the lesson would simply be about cell phone etiquette (timely, since he had earlier asked if he could have a cell phone with actual local access and not just the old one we gave him with 911 access to see how long he could go without losing it), but very quickly I realized that it was really about much more than that. It was about people just being completely unaware that the universe, as our mothers all told us when we were little, does NOT revolve around us.

I know that every generation feels that the next generation's values & manners are in a sad state and I hate to sound like a codger at the tender age of 36, but dang if it doesn't appear to be true. If it's any consolation, my opinion of my own generation is pretty low as well, especially out here in suburbia where the sense of entitlement is overpowering and the coddling of precious can-do-no-wrong-aren't-they-so-CUTE-when-they-screech-like-that children is almost a competition among the SAH's (Stay At Homes). But I digress.

Here's what happened: Last night, EasyE and I went to WallyWorld to try to find a Christmas present for his stepdad. We didn't find anything, but I did pick up some cough drops for a co-worker who has been battling a severe cough this week, and a 2 liter of soda. Since we only had the two items and every lane had quite a line, I figured we'd give the scan-it-yourself lanes a shot.

Now, I have to go into what might seem like a subset issue of this whole thing when it comes to the scan-it-yourself lanes, but it's really all part and parcel of the big problem. In a nutshell, if you've never tried using one of these lanes, the time to NOT do it is when there is a line. If it's really on your list as one of life's must-try's, give it a go on a Monday afternoon at the grocery or something - not on the weekend, and not during the holiday season after work hours. Ditto for letting your kid work the scanner. It's fine to do so if there is nobody waiting in line, but the minute people are going to have to wait for your child to drag that can of soup across the scanner for the fifth time, it's time to take over and wrap up that transaction.

So - back to last night. There were only four stations open for self-serve, which kind of baffled me until I remembered that Wally's self-serve stations don't really work and there is an attendant constantly in motion voiding this, overriding that, and looking vacantly at the monitor with no idea what to do the rest of the time. There was only one woman so I suppose more than four stations would have been difficult.

At one station I pondered going to, there was a woman with at least 25-30 items (limit 20!), having a lot of trouble and getting flustered by her inability to scan. I chose to get in line behind one couple who were finishing up, a cute blonde girl in riding attire (horse, not bike), and another young hippie-ish girl. No problem, we'd be out of there in a flash!

Wrong. As Equestigirl stepped up to start scanning her items, she took her cell phone out and CALLED someone. She didn't answer a call, she dialed and started talking. The other girl in line looked at me with the ever readable facial "what the hell?" look, and then we both settled in to watch this completely unaware person check out her stuff. Unfortunately, she had a bunch of bags of candy, which meant that she didn't have clear, flat surfaces to run over the scanner. This wouldn't be a problem with two hands but she didn't HAVE two hands. She had to struggle with trying to do all of this with her free hand, and of course it didn't work well.

On her second bag, the machine wigged out and went into "call attendant" mode, which took a few minutes because of the aforementioned worker chick's other lane obligations. OK. Try again. One bag scanned, next bag - not so much. Call attendant. This time she had the good grace to at least take the phone away from her ear while she talked to the attendant with the obligatory looks of innocence and bewilderment as to why this wasn't working, she didn't know what happened, etc. Next. At this point, I did say to the girl ahead of me, in a voice that I hoped was audible but not obnoxious, "bet this would be easier with two hands." She snorted.

Time to pay for the purchase. This prompts her to end her call, which I will be doubly grateful for in a moment. Oh, would this be a good time to get out your card? Apparently so. Now me, I have it out before I even get to the scanner but I'm starting to think I'm in the minority with this. She opens her purse, gets out her dayplanner, gets out her card, and swipes. She then extracts her checkbook reconciliation book. She writes in the date ... and "WalMart" (I assume) ... and the amount ... and then does her subtraction ... and puts her card back in her dayplanner, puts it back into her near bursting purse, zips it up, and then looks at the screen which has been waiting for her all this time so that she could - enter her PIN. She gives a bit of a look of surprise, which is completely baffling since I find it hard to believe she's never used her debit card given how many pages of transactions were in her checkbook, enters her PIN, waits for the signature prompt, gets her receipt and bags and turns to us and says, "sorry."

Girl in front of me gets her transaction done in warp time, and we get ours done at similar speed. The guy behind me waited probably half the time for two people to do their stuff as we all did for her.

So, several points of rudeness here. Her cell phone call starts everything off on a bad note and while there is actually a part of me that gives her some benefit of the doubt that she is unsure of the technology and would prefer to look rude over looking slow and stupid, I just don't think that's the case. Cutting her call short as soon as her scanner started acting up would have helped the situation but she chose not to do that - point two. And again, who knows, maybe she was checking in on her terminally ill mother at some predetermined time to make sure that Mom took her medication and was doing OK. Or maybe not. Taking the time to write down her transaction instead of waiting until she was done and out of line? Totally rude. I'm pretty sure that in the time she walked to her car she would not have forgotten the date, the place of the transaction, or how to subtract. She even had a handy dandy receipt that would have reminded her of two of those variables, plus the amount of the transaction. And finally, the lame "sorry" that she gave when she finally left. She didn't give a rat's patootie about her behavior up until then, so the "sorry" rang a little hollow.

In the grand scheme of things, this is not a big deal. It's not earth shattering, and I get that. This one experience is not the issue, it's the aggregate impact of millions of people doing this that causes the problem. Whether it's a matter of truly and consciously feeling that nobody else matters or it's completely oblivious behavior, it's still rude and points to a lack of proper upbringing. And worse, the next generation will be brought up with an even lower expectation bar.

On the other hand, I started this post with the note that I had a chance to teach my son a lesson, so maybe she did me a little favor. And so it goes...

Customer Service

Honestly. I'm so sick of dealing with customer service folks. It's getting to the point where I'm beginning to wonder if I have offended the karmic customer service gods or something. Maybe this is my life test - to learn how to go through an hour of phone transfers, reps, disconnections, "enter your phone number" instructions, hold messages, neckaches, smooshed ears, etc., without just completely losing it on the poor person who eventually ends up with me on the line.

Today's adventure was the culmination of a six month hate affair with Packet8, a VOIP provider. It also involves Comcast and Verizon, to some extent, which means I'm a broad phone spectrum hater, I guess.

More later..

Quiet month?

Wow, it's been over a month since I've visited here. Odd, considering how often I think about something that I want to mention. There are plenty of events that have made me simmer, but I don't feel like getting into those today. Instead, I think I'll ponder my son's 10th birthday.

I'm sure every mother feels and says this but wow - ten years sure went by quickly.

There are so many things I wish I could have done differently for him, and I'm constantly amazed at what a wonderful kid he is in spite of me. He's healthy, intelligent, polite and (generally) kind. He's the only child in his fourth grade class who goes to the fifth grade room for both reading and math, he has a good circle of friends who are generally "cool" - from a Mom's perspective, that means polite, articulate, and generally not trying to hard to impress.

As he gets older, I've noticed that he's getting a lot more affectionate. It's almost like he's got some understanding that soon he'll be out of that time in his life where he will be able to cuddle on the couch and he'd better get what he can now. I also think he realizes that he missed out on a lot of snuggle time when he was younger - back in the days when I was in a marriage that was unhappy and I was emotionally unavailable a lot of the time, and also just because he was never an overly touchy/feely kid.

There's so much more I could go on about here, but I won't because it'd turn into a big mess. I'm practically crying as it is, and that's just thinking about the past. If I start pondering too much about how the next ten years will likely whip by just as quickly and then he'll be gone and out of the house ... well, I just can't have that happening while I'm at work, so maybe I'll add more later. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to leaving here in an hour and a half so I can go home and give him a huge hug.

Snnnnnnnnlush! And Corn, and W&G ...

The first slush of the season has arrived. We knew it was coming, there's been a winter storm warning out for a few days already. Saturday was gorgeous, one of our usual unreal blue sky days, high of about 80, then yesterday it started to cloud over. It started to rain as we were driving over to the
Corn Maze, but that was OK since gloomy fall weather is what you SHOULD have when you're walking through dried up corn fields, right? Unfortunately, the lowest common denominator factored in and the Maze was closed down about 20 minutes after we went in - turns out that someone in the past has fallen in the mud and gotten hurt, so of course if there is any sign of slipperiness, everything must shut down. Stupid logic as I'm guessing that lots of unsafe activities have gone on in the maze - mostly after dark, if you catch my drift - but oh well. They were cool enough to give us our money back, so I was happy.

With some time on our hands, we decided to go check out Wallace & Gromit. At 95% on the Tomatometer, I figured it was a slam dunk. Plus, I didn't want to see Corpse Bride, after being underwhelmed by Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I wasn't about to get away from Helena Bonham Carter, though - she's in W&G too, doing the voice of Lady Tottington. Anyhoo, it occurred to me as we were walking into the theater that reviewers might favor W&G simply because it's supposed to be more intelligent, and that might mean that it's really just dull. The first half of the movie served well as proof of this theory, offering up only a few chuckles. After that, though, it tipped to the funny side and I woke up (literally - I leaned over on Bill's shoulders and closed my eyes a couple of times). There were quite a few roars of laughter from the adults during the second half of the movie, accompanied by looks of confusion from the kids who didn't know what had gotten into the parents. Bottom line - funny, but doesn't need a big screen, especially if you don't have kids.

So then about this snow. It's a messy sort of snow, not something that gives over to visions of sleigh bells and hot chocolate - more like dreams of car washes and mud room additions. One of our apple trees is now a goner, split down the middle from the weight of snow on branches that haven't lost their leaves yet, and our front yard tree (no idea what it is) will suffer some damage but will make it through. Most of the other trees in the cul de sac look like they got hit a lot harder than ours. Usually the snow would have stopped and even melted by now, but this front is stalled. There's none of our usual Rocky Mountain sun and dry air to suck it back up into the atmosphere until tomorrow, so the drive home will be a mess. Still, it's the kind of weather that makes you want to curl up on the couch with a blanket and a kid, so it's not all bad, right?

Brain Freeze

This morning we got our first really cold night - cold being barely dipping below freezing - and it knocked me all out of whack. I didn't think to turn on the heater last night so when I got into the shower this morning, it was a brisk 58 degrees INSIDE. Uh, brr. Seriously need to work on insulating the house better. And then once out of the shower, I realized that this weekend will have to include a little clothes shopping, as I have no winter office wear, and my distraction with a lack of wardrobe caused me to completely forget to put on makeup. Not even a smidge, I am completely nature girl here today. I didn't notice until almost 11 and have basically stayed hidden since then. It's not that I'm hideous without makeup, it just implies a lack of care about my appearance that I don't want emphasized.

Definitely ready for the weekend.

Depressing!

Carolyn, Donald Trump's blonde colleague on The Apprentice, is my age. I have taken some seriously wrong career turns!

Miers

It's hard not to be cynical when you're thinking about politicians, but the nomination of Harriet Miers is just so bizarre that you can't help it. Bush has always done exactly what he damn well pleases and as a lame duck, you'd think he'd throw that into high gear. Instead, he's nominated someone not nearly conservative enough for his hard right base, and unknown enough to at least concern and/or baffle his moderate base and the Democrats. He's once again being accused of cronyism - something that we know doesn't really bother him but now seems so aggressive that even his supporters think it's over the top.

I haven't read a ton of blogs or articles about her (yet) but a few things have jumped out so far - no comment on the already beat-to-death debates on the lack of judicial experience and materials that could be used to figure out who the heck this woman is and how she thinks.

1. Cheney headed up Bush's quest for a running mate and then became his running mate. Miers headed up his quest for a Justice and then got nominated. Surely this isn't the case - please let it not be the case - but it almost looks like the man just gets lazy and tired of the process. "Hell, you just go ahead and do it."

2. She's known Bush for 20 years - I wouldn't put it beyond Bush's ego to want a direct personal impact on the court after he's gone. Her devotion to him has been noted several times, and he certainly loves attention.

3. She could be a "win" for Bush whether she's confirmed or not. If she IS confirmed, I've no real doubt that she'll fall to the right. Certainly you wouldn't expect Bush to nominate otherwise. It seems unclear what she'd do with Roe v Wade challenges, but I think it would be unwise to focus on that issue. It's so EASY to focus on it, which is why I wonder if there isn't a longer end game with some other cases in mind down the road. But if she is NOT confirmed, it still might be a win. Bush will be able to say that he tried to nominate someone moderate so as to reach out across party lines, and darn those Democrats, they just wouldn't cooperate. They're obviously obstructionist. And as for the right that he's alienated with this nomination? Well, it may come to pass that there are several midterm candidates who will end up beholden to him for awakening the sentiment out there for the hard right (and maybe even some folks who are conservative but are losing faith in Bush) to keep control of Congress.

In general, I'm disappointed in the reaction and focus on the weakest chinks in her armor. There's more to this, and I'd like to see some experts dig deeper - I think I'm feeling all Pelican Brief-y here - into what is way out on the horizon and why she's Bush's choice.

Bankrupt Citizen? Piss off. Oil Company? Step Right Up ...

I hate starting my day off angry.

Yesterday I posted a story regarding the new bankruptcy bill and how many hurricane victims are going to be subject to further insult and indignity because of this predatory and extremely transparent kiss ass to big lenders.

This morning, one of the first stories I saw posted on my politics list was about new Republican pushes to rollback environmental rules in order to increase oil production, and it's just appalling:

House Republicans on Wednesday will launch a rapid-fire assault against environmental protections on the pretext of helping the U.S. oil and gas industry recover from hurricane damage, environmental groups charge.

I hate to call the media on a liberal bias, but using the word "pretext" certainly implies this writer's opinion. Since I share it, I don't care.

The resources panel, led by Richard Pombo of California, wants to lift a ban on Florida offshore drilling, promote oil shale and sell a dozen national parks for energy development.

Several things wrong with this.

1. FLORIDA offshore drilling? Are you kidding me? Let's invest millions into more rigs that will get blown over next year, and the year after that, and the year after that?

2. Oil shale is still a pretty controversial prospect. Apparently Shell has developed a new extraction method that may not turn Colorado, Utah and Wyoming into ugly strip mined messes, but even the government recognizes that there are serious environmental issues that need to be addressed. There is also the matter of the tremendous amount of water that is apparently used in the extraction process. Even if there isn't an eventual loss or contamination of water (and I'll bet there is), there would still be diversions of water in order to use it for the extraction and in case nobody's noticed, one natural disaster we have out here is wildfires. Why? Because we don't have much WATER. My water bills for a mostly xeriscaped small lawn with drip lines and a house with low flow shower heads runs about $100/month in the summer, thank you very much - I don't need to see that rise just so we can delay the inevitable demise of the oil age. Besides, I kind of think Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah are pretty and I don't trust oil companies to keep it that way.

3. Sell national parks for energy development? No. How about responsible energy development that isn't based on destroying habitats, places of beauty and wonder, and entire ecospheres just so people don't have to worry their pretty little heads about maybe not buying an Excursion for every day grocery store trips. Besides, didn't Bush just ask us to conserve?

Texan Joe Barton's energy committee wants to expand U.S. gasoline production by loosening federal rules that limit pollution when refineries or coal-fired power plants are expanded. U.S. gasoline supplies have tightened since hurricanes Katrina and Rita roared across the U.S. Gulf Coast, closing up to one-fourth of the nation's refining capacity.

Ding ding ding ... Joe Barton. There's a surprise.

Bush specifically criticized the relatively obscure "new source review" rule administered by the Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Clean Air Act. It aims to protect public health by ensuring that refinery expansions do not increase acid rain and smog.

Environmentalists perked up their ears at Bush's remarks, noting that he rarely mentions the program.

"You know darn well that the president doesn't have a clue what new source review is," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch. "It's clear that there's a coordinated effort between the White House and Congress to put key environmental protections on the chopping block."

I think I just got a little crush on Frank O'Donnell.

There's more to the article, go read it. And then contact your Representatives and Senators.

Lay Back and Enjoy It

If you are a hurricane victim, have lost everything (including your job) and can't get back to your filing district by October 17, be prepared to get screwed. Big time.

The new bankruptcy bill takes effect on October 17th, you see, and unless you file before then, you're going to be subject to the new regulations, including having to pay back part or all of your debt if your income meets certain requirements (even if you no longer have that job).

You'd think that in extreme circumstances, our government would reconsider the effective date of this legislation or offer exemptions - and indeed, some have. But this gem of an elected official says it's a bad idea:

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, rejected the notion of reopening the legislation, saying it already included provisions that would ensure that people left "down and out" by the storm would still be able to shed most of their debts. Lawmakers who lost the long fight over the law, he said, "ought to get over it," according to The Associated Press.

Now, when I was a teenager, we had this guy in Texas who ran for governor name Clayton Williams. He was amusing at times, but one statement got him into a big heap of trouble when he said, regarding rape, that it's kind of like a rainstorm - "If it's inevitable, just lay back and enjoy it." If rainstorm is to rape what Katrina and Rita are to bankrupt Americans, it looks like Mr Sensenbrenner would agree with old Clayton, and that just shouldn't be tolerated.

Stop Driving!

Now that Bush has offered tax cuts to the folks who don't need them, spent a couple hundred billion on a war with no end in sight, approved a bulging pork sandwich of a transportation bill, told credit card companies he's fine with them crushing the customers they solicit relentlessly, continued to push his expensive medicare/medicaid program, and almost gotten his social security privatized, he finally has the answer for our economic woes ... STOP DRIVING!

With fears mounting that high energy costs will crimp economic growth, President Bush called on Americans yesterday to conserve gasoline by driving less. He also issued a directive for all federal agencies to cut their own energy use and to encourage employees to use public transportation.

Sure, the transportation bill sets aside a big chunk of money to develop public transportation, but it should have been addressed a long time ago. I'm willing to give Bush a bit of a pass on this one since science and industry have known for decades that oil shortages were going to be an issue eventually and we've just chosen to ignore it.

Of course, Bush & Co never really wanted us to conserve:

Mr. Bush's comments, while similar to remarks he made shortly after the disruption from Hurricane Katrina pushed gasoline prices sharply higher, were particularly notable because the administration has long emphasized new production over conservation. It has also opted not to impose higher mileage standards on automakers.

In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy." Also that year, Ari Fleischer, then Mr. Bush's press secretary, responded to a question about reducing American energy consumption by saying "that's a big no."

"The president believes that it's an American way of life," Mr. Fleischer said.

But that's all in the past. The American Way of Life can't ignore facts, apparently, and the facts are that we can't exist indefinitely at our current standard of spoiled rottenedness when the engine (literally) of our consumption is a finite resource.

So here's a big "duh" shoutout to all who voted for this guy based on his transparent lies and overtly greedy agenda - enjoy that Hummer, I hope you choke on your $1000/month gasoline bills.

Office Depot

If you need to get a reality check on how our society has lost all common sense, just pick up an Office Depot catalog and start flipping. Thousands and thousands of products, and they still won't have that one thing you're looking for. It's a little depressing.

TEOTWAWKI

Just called my relatively well off, white friends in the Woodlands (just north of Houston) and they have decided to stay put. They've got full tanks of gas, batteries, food, beer, and most of their neighbors are staying as well so they have some support for each other in case a tree falls on someone's house. They do NOT have flood insurance, but I'm guessing they won't get flooded - their biggest threat will probably be trees or tree branches - "The Woodlands" isn't randomly named. They decided that the disaster that has been the I-45 evacuation just wasn't worth the hassle, even though apparently right now the roads are deserted. They're going to a friend's house to play poker and hang out tonight and generally sounded completely unworried about the whole thing.

Of course, up here in Colorado all we can do is watch these disasters and feel slightly guilty for our picture perfect weather. Sure, we have wildfires and the occasional snowfall, but our number one weather related killer is lightning - not something that usually sends the general public into a panic.

So, given that I can't wrap my brain around the immediate impacts of Katrina and Rita for those down on the Gulf Coast, I keep finding myself pondering the long term effects. Certainly I'm not alone, it's all over the media that gas prices will go to $4-5/gallon, but I wish they'd start talking about some of the more long term ripples. The incremental impacts of increased prices for anything that is made of a petroleum based product or relies on petroleum for transportation is just mind blowing. If I look around, I see that I am surrounded by petroleum in my clothes, my home, my office, my car - everywhere. The roads, consumer products, healthcare (tubes, syringes, IV bags). Heating and electricity for my home, airline travel to see my far flung family. Everything.

What's going to happen? What will happen to people who can't afford to heat their stupidly oversized homes (I'm guilty of owning one myself)? What will happen to people who are upside down on car loans for SUV's and can't afford to spend $200 to fill up their 40 gallon tanks but now can't unload them? What will happen to all of those people who have created a huge investor based real estate market but can't keep tenants because of energy costs or have to take losses on their investments and don't have any bankruptcy protection anymore? What will happen to Wal-Mart?

Long term, I think this is not all bad. I will be happy to see a return to more rationally sized cars and homes. My husband would love to have a cool Jeep type car but knows that the only time he'd use its "Jeepness" would be for a very occasional trip to the mountains - most of his driving is a commute and it doesn't make sense to pay more for gas just to commute. Both of us have wanted to get out of our big house for a while but financial circumstances don't allow it, oddly enough. We have to ride things out for a while and hope for the best, but we CAN look at making sure that we tighten up the efficiency of the home. My kids will have to learn what it was like when *I* was a kid - there was no turning up the heat, there was "put on a sweater," or "get a blanket" when it was cold in the house. We'll have to spend money to save money and start looking at compact fluorescents to replace lights in our home, motion detectors for the exterior of the house so we don't leave lights on all of the time, and super efficient appliances when it comes time to replace. Of course, making those investments may mean we end up staying in the house even longer since we'll want to see the eventual savings come back to us, but we'll see. We probably have another year that we can last in one car, maybe three in the other - hopefully by the time we start looking to replace, hybrids will be much more efficient than they are now (meaning - "not really) and society will have gotten over its penis compensating need for a huge car.

Looking even longer term, I wonder what will happen to families. Will they start moving back together? If we are looking at the beginning of the end of oil, will I just expect the boys to live with us through college? There is a community college within bicycle distance, will they go there for a couple of years and then transfer to another college to finish up? Will that be a bad thing or a good thing? I probably would have been better off in the long run if I had stayed home for a year or two, actually. Will families turn away from TV and towards tending a garden and canning? Will bicycle companies have record profits? Will obesity get better or worse - if food's more expensive, then highly processed crap may become more of a part of people's diets, but on the other hand, if people skip going to movies and spend more time taking walks, getting to know neighbors, taking up hobbies, maybe they'll eat less. Speaking of movies, will they get better or worse as movie companies clamor for audiences that have to become choosier about when they're going to spend $8 a ticket. Will movie makers shift more towards indie quality flicks (probably not - those can wait until the videos come out) or even bigger budget kablowie movies (more likely)?

Will Colorado, Wyoming and Utah become the new hope for oil with our vast oil shale reserves? Will it be the new fight with environmentalists? SHOULD it be done at all or should we just start moving towards alternative energies and give up on oil as soon as possible?

Who will fill in for the United States on the world stage if our economy takes a tumble, and will we ever regain our dominance again?

Or ... does any of this matter if the avian flu washes across the planet and takes out billions of people?

We live in interesting times...