108 posts tagged “rants”

The other day while out driving, I was monitoring the Neal Boortz show, looking for ranty blogging fodder.  And, as is almost always the case, I found what I was looking for.

Because it was Veteran's Day, he was relating anecdotes with that theme in mind.  He told a story about a man attacked by four muggers in an alley in Milwaukee.  They stripped all his belongings from him, but when the gang's leader went through his wallet, he found the man's military ID card.  Seeing this, he told the other muggers to give everything back to the man.  After this had been done, the leader apologized to the man and thanked him for his service before leaving him to go about his business.

I'd thought this was a nice feel-good story -- and it was -- until Boortz had to open his big mouth at the end and turn it into a political opportunity.

I don't recall the exact words, but he said something to the effect that wasn't it something that these criminals had more respect for our troops than most liberals did.

What a fucking moron.   Many liberals may not support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it doesn't mean we don't support the people over there putting their lives on the line every day.  Many of us have family members serving in the military and who have previously served or have served themselves at some point in time.  My father served in WWII, as well as several of my uncles.  I had cousins and younger uncles who are Vietnam era veterans.  The fact that I am proud of their service doesn't make me any less of a liberal, nor does my being a liberal make me any less proud of their service.

I did find it interesting, however,  that on the highlights of November 11th's show on his website that the reference to this story did not include the crack about liberals that went out over the air.  Instead, it said:

  This story caused me to think ... to wonder if all of us give our men and women in uniform and our veterans the respect these criminals did.  I think that generally we do ... I certainly hope I'm right.

If he'd said exactly this on the air, I'd have had no problem with him and I'd not be reporting about it today on my blog.

The difference was that the printed version was inclusive and the broadcast version was divisive.   But Boortz doesn't gain listeners by simply reminding everyone that our veterans deserve respect; rather, he appeals to the lowest common denominator by appealing to their baser instincts, thus throwing the jab at liberals in so his listeners could project their feelings out onto some group they could be self-righteously against.  He doesn't inspire people to think, but rather he whips up the amorphous outrage of the masses.

The other day, I stopped in at a fast food joint to get something to eat.  I gave my order to the person standing behind the cash register, who did not acknowledge the order in any way and made no move to enter it into the cash register.  Instead, he was looking around me, silently trying to get the attention of someone out in the dining area.  No customers were standing in line, so I figured it had to be someone already seated.  The person behind the register moved down the counter, still gesturing to some unseen person, extending a hand, but did not call out to whomever it was.  Nor did he say anything to me, such as "I'll be right with you."

Slightly put out, I waited as the person returned to the cash register.   Again, I gave my order, and again, the person ignored me, still looking around me at some unknown person.  Now completely pissed, I asked him, "Are you going to wait on me or are you going to talk to somebody else?"

Finally, the clueless clerk spoke.  "I was just trying to give him his change!" and showed me three pennies.  First of all, there was no "him" to be seen -- the ordering area had been empty of people the entire time I'd been inside the restaurant -- and secondly, you don't get that invisible person's attention by gesturing silently, however much you stare and wave your arms.

Thoroughly irritated by this time, I said, "Fuck it" and stalked out, getting my meal elsewhere, from a place where I was actually able to get someone to take my order.

While out driving on Halloween the other night, I drove through a neighborhood in full trick or treat mode.  Though a minority of older kids walked from house to house, most kids were driven by their parents to each house, getting in and out of the vehicle (mostly ubiquitous minivans) ever 25 feet or so.

This meant that the road was clogged with pausing and slow moving vehicles, which made it very difficult for through traffic to drive down the street.  It also made it more dangerous for drivers like me because it made it harder to see kids on foot, and made it more dangerous for the kids, as it made it harder for them to see through traffic, and because of the unpredictable movements of the minivan parade.

I don't know why the parents of small children just didn't park their vehicles and get off their lazy asses and walk with their kids to each house.  And the parents of older children should have been home giving out candy and let those kids travel in groups to trick or treat on their own.  It seems to me that if you're ten or eleven, having to spend the night getting in and out of a car with your parents there the whole time would suck all the joy right out of Halloween.

Halloween is totally different now for kids than it was when I was a kid trick or treating back in the sixties and early seventies.  For one thing, only the smallest children had parents going with them to trick or treat, and even then the parents walked with their kids, they didn't drive them from house to house.  And from about the second grade onwards (age 8), kids trick or treated on their own in groups in their own neighborhoods and the parents stayed home to hand out candy to other kids. 

I lived in a huge subdivision where nearly every house participated.   My mother would give me a king size pillow case and I'd fill that up, then return to get another one to fill.  Trick or treating typically began at dusk, and continued for a few hours. 

It was a lot more fun for us than it is for kids nowadays and I kind of feel sorry for kids now because they won't experience Halloween like most Baby Boom era kids did.

It seems as if I have a homing device to attract the religious of all stripes.  I don't know what it is; perhaps it's my air of disrepute that attracts them like moths to a flame.

Recently, they hired a new guy at my place of employment, a squeaky-clean, straight arrow kind of person.  I didn't have a problem with him until he started peddling his religion on me.  He'd heard that I liked music and had some formal musical training, so he used that as a way to start preaching to me.  Starting out innocently enough, he told me that he was the "praise leader" at his church, in charge of providing the music for their services, blah, blah, blah.

After a few moments of this, he got to his point of the entire conversation -- he wanted to know where I went to church. All the fundies do this, as they believe it's their duty to sell their religion to one and all.

Not really caring to discuss my opinion about religion with him, I simply told him that I didn't go, hoping to leave it at that.

No such luck.

He invited me to attend his church, telling me that I could be an asset to their "praise team" with my musical training.

I nearly choked and laughed myself to death all at the same time.  Hell, talk about barking up the wrong tree!  I'd probably burst into flames if I ever set foot into his smarmy, fundamentalist church.

Still not wanting to discuss religion in a work setting, I merely declined, citing the fact that I'm scheduled to work every Sunday. 

Fortunately, at this moment, he had to get back to work, so I was spared being more blunt with him.  But I'm guessing that some time soon, I'll have to tell him to fuck off in no uncertain terms.

I've noticed that our society gets hung up on trendy buzzwords, which are used to death for a period of time, then slowly disappear only to be replaced by the latest buzz word du jour.

When a word or a phrase is hot, one will encounter it everywhere: in want ads, names of businesses, product names, hear it on TV, and so on.

One of the more recent trendy buzz word seems to be "solutions". As if everything in life is to be viewed as a problem that one must find a "solution" for.

I've seen an employment agency listed in the want ads called "Staffing Solutions". I've also encountered, "Hair Solutions", "Breakfast Solutions", "Landscape Solutions", and the like.

Entering "solutions" at the Yahoo search engine brought up, among many others:

Ecommerce Solutions

Network Solutions

Privacy Solutions

Solutions for Your Home

Google Business Solutions

Climate Solutions

And so on, ad nauseum.

I remember back in the early 80s, one of the buzz words then was "interface". I'd see this word constantly in want ads, as in "Must interface well with others". Mercifully, this trend did not last long, and we no longer see "interface" used as a synonym for "get along with".

I imagine that "solutions" will have an equally short lifespan of trendiness, when it will be inevitably replaced by the latest inane banality.

Last night I was listening to the radio and came upon yet another right wing talk show.  I didn't recognize the woman's voice; all I knew was that it wasn't Ann Coulter, as I've heard her voice, ad nauseum, on several different shows, on both radio and TV.

This unknown woman had the unpleasant quality of sounding both indignant and nervous at the same time. She sounded quite like she'd consumed an entire pot of coffee singlehandedly just before the broadcast.   You know the sound: voice slightly raised in pitch, a haughy, prim tone, with a hint of a nervous tremor in her voice.   Her voice almost hummed as she engaged in an inner battle as to what emotion would win: (self)righteous indignation or nervousness.  

Though her voice was grating, I had to listen until she revealed her identity, as I wanted to hear the name of the woman who almost made Neal Boortz seem reasonable.

It was Monica Crowley, who, oddly enough, is the sister-in-law of Alan Colmes, the liberal half of Hannity and Colmes.

Anyway, enough background for now; let me get to the point of this post.

When I tuned in, Crowley was in mid-rant about health care reform.   The thrust of her argument was that the Democrats are "lying through their teeth" about how much health care reform will actually cost.  She mentioned tort reform. citing that malpractice insurance that doctors must carry was one of the biggest offenders in the cost of health care.

All right, I'll grant that this is no doubt a factor affecting the cost of health care in this country, but she completely lost me when she continued her argument.

She went on to say that the Democrats are against malpractice law reform simply because a large number of trial lawyers supported the Democrats in the last election and for no other reason.  Paranoid, much?

If I thought I'd get a fair chance to air my opinion, I'd have called and asked her, "If malpractice laws are abolished, what do you propose be done to protect patients who are the victims of genuine malpractice and gross medical negligence?"

Naturally, she did not address this concern on her show and I'd guess that she really doesn't much care.

Thoughts?

Most people by now have heard of the justice of the peace in Louisiana who recently refused to marry an interracial couple.  When I first heard the news, it boggled my mind, as I could not imagine such a thing happening anywhere in the United States in 2009.  I'm not at all surprised that such racism still exists now, but it was a shock to see such an overt expression of it.  One would think that he would be well aware of the Supreme Court decision of 1967 which made interracial marriage legal in all fifty states.

The judge, Keith Bardwell, said, "I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves.  In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."  Yeah, they might grow up to be, oh, President of the United States or something.

He added that he came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, Bardwell is also of the opinion that that most interracial marriages do not last long.

My disgust for his racist attitudes aside, what business of his is it to speculate on how long any individual marriage will last, regardless of race or any other characteristics, or to predict how any children born of that union will fare?  He's a justice of the peace, not a social critic or a psychiatrist/psychologist, and it's his job to conduct marriage ceremonies for anyone who requests it who meet the legal requirements, regardless of his personal opinions.   If he will not perform a legal function of his office, then he needs to find another line of work.

Thoughts?

I haven't done a language rant in awhile, so here goes.

The offense of the day is:

"Alot"

This spelling abomination is used by people to mean "a lot".  It's a mistake I didn't see years ago, even by people with generally atrocious spelling and grammar.  It apparently is a fairly "new" mistake, that I'm seeing more and more.  And what makes "alot" different from other language errors, is that I'm seeing it used more often by people who generally don't make frequent spelling and grammar mistakes.

I've often wondered why people in increasing numbers have started to run the two words "a lot" together.  First, let's look at the definition of the phrase "a lot".

A lot

Very many, a large number; also, very much. For example, A lot of people think the economy is declining, or Sad movies always made her cry a lot. It is sometimes put as a whole lot for greater emphasis, as in I learned a whole lot in his class. It may also emphasize a comparative indication of amount, as in We need a whole lot more pizza to feed everyone, or Mary had a lot less nerve than I expected. [Colloquial; early 1800s]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin.

Is it that they don't understand what a word "lot" means?  Here's a couple of definitions of the word "lot" that relate to the phrase "a lot":

Lot

a piece of land having the use specified by the attributive noun or adjective: a parking lot; a used-car lot.

a distinct portion or parcel of anything, as of merchandise: The furniture was to be auctioned off in 20 lots.

a number of things or persons collectively: There's one more, and that's the lot.

Often, lots. a great many or a great deal: a lot of books; lots of money.

I'm guessing that they're confusing "a lot" with the bona fide word, "allot", which is a verb that has an entirely different meaning from "a lot":

Allot

to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel out; apportion: to allot the available farmland among the settlers.

to appropriate for a special purpose: to allot money for a park.

to assign as a portion; set apart; dedicate.

Personally, I think the rise of "alot" has quite a bit to do with the fact that increasingly fewer people read regularly, so they are spelling "by ear", rather than imitating what they've seen in print.

So ends the spelling lesson of the day.

What’s the hardest part about looking for a new job?
Sponsored by Monster.

I think it's all the insincerity involved and the idea that I have to "sell myself".

I hate writing resumes, trying to sum up my entire work life on a single page having to use obfuscating jargon to do so.  As an example, one writes: "I coordinated all company communications", when you really mean, "I answered the phone".

I hate having to act as if I care a flying fuck about whatever widget/product the company I'm applying to deals in.  I hate having to pretend as if I'd get off from working for that company and that it would be my reason for living.

The truth of the matter is, the employer is seeking someone from whom they can get the maximum amount of work out of while paying the least amount they can get away with and, with perhaps the exception of creative jobs, the job seeker is looking for a job that they can get the maximum amount of pay from by doing the least amount of work. 

The best one can hope for is a healthy compromise between what the employer wants and what the job seeker wants.  And I'd prefer to do it with the least amount of bullshit possible, but I know that's impossible because bullshit is what makes the work world go 'round.

And to be truly honest, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to never have to spend another hour having to work for money ever again.