Okay so I know that the official policy of any restaurant is "the customer is always right." If you've ever actually worked in food service or (I'm assuming) retail, you know that this is a bold-faced lie. That's not what we think. You know what we think, what our "unofficial policy" is? "The customer is always a tool." Make no mistake, if you make more than one complaint you will be automatically hated by the entire staff, right up to the managers. Of course, we give the nice customers their due; we love friendly customers. But if you're one of those people who constantly complains, makes a million alterations to your order, or is always trying to find something wrong with the food because you're hyper-critical or so tight with money you squeak when you walk, the restaurant industry is a miserable place to work because of you.
At the Deli where I work, we have a woman who comes in once a week to get a sandwich. She orders a turkey and cheese sandwich, but makes so many alterations she winds up with a chicken salad sandwich with extra cheese and bacon. She does all that to make it cheaper. Every week she does this and every week she gets enraged that all of the extra she ordered--which the menu clearly says costs extra--actually costs extra. And then, if you please, she wants us to take her to-go order out to her car because she's got two children in the car. We don't do curbside orders and if she's really too worried about her children in the car she ought to bring them into the restaurant with her where it takes fifteen minutes to take her ridiculous order.
And it's not just the custom orders which causes the restaurant employees to sigh and roll their eyes.
If you're at a restaurant where you stand in line to order and there is a large menu erected behind the counter, take advantage of the brief wait and read it. If there are descriptions of the dishes which interest you, read those too. That way, when you get to the front of the line you won't have to stand there asking the cashier, "so...what's this...? And this?" They're busy, they're not interested in your life story, and they don't even really care about what you want. They care about putting your order in correctly so you don't complain and getting the next person in line. Come to think of it, that's what waiters and waitresses have the same concerns. You're paying their check, that's all; they don't actually care.
If you need something and someone else at your table needs something as well, tell your server at the same time, no matter what sort of restaurant you've chosen. This goes for refills as well. They're very busy and don't want to have to make multiple trips for the same table.
We understand you're engrossed in your conversation, but take time to say "please" and "thank you" when your server brings your food. And don't give them that incredibly imperious look as if they should be grateful they have the incredible opportunity to bring you food because you're too lazy to make it yourself.
This is the biggest one: dirty tables. If you seat yourself, take notice of the tables. Do some of them have something at the end, like a salt or pepper shaker or one of those little mini menus in the hard plastic (table tents)? Is it only some of them and not others? If so, don't sit there. That means that the table needs to be wiped down and if you sit there they have to interrupt your conversation in order to wipe down the table. If there are other tables available, but there's one conveniently near which is dirty, go to another clean table. Don't hover around the busser like a vulture, waiting to swoop down on the just-cleaned table only to make it dirty again. It goes double if they haven't wiped down the table yet; then not only have you been hovering and making them nervous, but you've got the previous problem of them having to interrupt you to wipe down the table.
As a food service unfortunate, I ask only that you treat restaurant employees with the same respect you treat everyone else. Just because they can't get another job (because believe me, if they could they would) doesn't mean they're any less human than you.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Cartoon relationships make no sense...
"Of course they don't, silly hobbit! That's why they're cartoons!" ~You, the reader.
No I mean like...in context of the real world, there are just some cartoon romances which make absolutely NO sense! The shouldn't even exist because it's all based on a relationship which would never happen! I mean, sure you have relationship that make sense like Belle and the Beast, Mulan and Shang, Simba and Nala. They actually spent time together, developed first a friendship then a relationship. Y'know, the way real people (and...er...talking animals...) do. But since I'm so incredibly cool that I spent my Sunday watching Disney VHS tapes, I've noticed something...
Many of the relationships are based on lies or looks. Starting out with the obvious: Cinderella and Snow White. They marry total strangers because it's the first boy they kissed. If I had married the first boy I kissed...well, lets just say there would be a very messy divorce involved within the year. Snow White has something extra to worry about with her Prince Charming being a necrophiliac. I mean seriously...everybody thought she was dead and he kissed her anyway? Sleeping Beauty's prince at least had a hint in the name. But I'd be kinda cautious when accepting a proposal from a guy who goes around kissing corpses.
Glancing at the top row of my bookshelf at the movies, I'll go to the next relationship which might not be so obvious in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Quasimodo loves Esmeralda because she's beautiful and saved him from the cruelty of crowd at the Feast of Fools. Frollo loves Esmeralda because she's mysterious and exhotic and he's a sexually repressed priest. Phoebus loves Esmeralda coz she's hot. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that this is about as close to the book by Victor Hugo as the Disney movie gets. Now, let's take Frollo out of the equasion because he's old and creepy and wants to kill Esmeralda. We're left with Quasi and Phoebus. Quasi loves Esmeralda because not only is she beautiful, but she's nice; she stood up for him when no one else would. Furthermore, Frollo always taught him that gypsies are evil, and that's simply not the case so it's just another pleasant surprise. Esmeralda is friends with Quasi because he looks weird and creepy, but he's really this sweet, kind-hearted man who helps her and is just really an all-around nice guy. Phoebus loves Esmeralda (we think) because she's sassy and hot. Esmeralda loves Phoebus (again, we think) because even though she hates soldiers he's really hot and all Captain-y. So who does she go for: the hot guy, or the deformed but really sweet guy? Yup! Women are shallow whores, everyone! But, to be fair, so are golden-haired Captains-of-the-Guard. The only chemistry they have is that they both hate Frollo and want to save the gypsies...which is also something Esme and Quasi totally share.
But perhaps you'll point out to me that the plot of that movie wasn't based entirely on the relationship (except it totally was, where Quasi's concerned ;P). So...how about Aladdin. Aside from the villain's plot to rule everything, a lot of the story was based on Aladdin and Jasmine's relationship...which was based on lies and deceit. Jasmine lied (by omission) about not being the princess just before Aladdin lied about being a prince. And THEN Aladdin lied about lying by omission (he was a prince in disguise as a street rat in the market place). Jasmine was surprised to find that Aladdin was actually the street rat he'd "pretended" to be before?? He saved Agraba because it was kinda obligatory at that point...seeing as the whole thing was all his fault in the first place. Yet...they get married. "No, Jasmine! I wasn't at Aaminah's house! I told you...I was visiting my erm...brother...yeah...And his wife. That's what the perfume you smell is..."
The most staggeringly non-sensical award, however, goes to...a tie! *Audience gasps* The Swan Princess and Thumbelina, both Don Bluth animations I believe (correct me if I'm wrong; I know the latter is I'm not sure about the former), make absolutely no sense romantically speaking. Starting with The Swan Princess because I love it anyway and was watching it last night: Derek and Odette are engaged pretty much at birth. Their parents being nicer than real-life royalty and actually caring about whether they were dooming their children to a loveless marriage decided to get them used to each other by spending every summer together. As explained in this musical number, they don't get along at first, and as they grow up they continue not to get along until their mid-to-late teens where they sort-of get along, then at the convenient-to-the-story age of 18 they find they like each other. That's pretty normal, actually. Happens all the time. So when they finally realize they love each other the lines are "(Odette:) I see him smile and my knees start buckling,/ I see inside him and my doubts are gone. (Derek:) She started out as such an ugly duckling,/Then somehow suddenly became a swan." So off the bat we've got Odette looking at the inside while Derek sees that she's beautiful. After the musical number, Derek announces that they should arrange the marriage! Happiness! But oh, silly Odette. She wants to know why Prince Derek loves her, silly girl. Derek's reply? "You're all I've ever wanted! You're beautiful!" "What else?" "What else...? *durhur look*" After a moment's hesitation and prodding from his mother, his answer is, "What else is there?" Even the conductor knows this is the wrong answer! So Odette decides they can't get married. Yay! A strong female lead! ...Nope, no, sorry. Forgot the part where the bad guy (a smart bad guy for once, at that!) kills Odette's father and taking her hostage. She's forced to be a swan by day and human only when the moonlight touches her wings while she's on a specific hidden pond. The bad guy will break the spell when she agrees to marry him (because he's tried taking it, but "once you take something by force, you spend your whole life fighting to keep it." See? Smart bad guy). Suddenly, she's in love with Prince Derek and would marry him tomorrow. Derek hasn't changed; he doesn't mention anything about how smart or funny she is. He just keeps obsessing about swans and The Great Animal. Odette, however, is suddenly just hopelessly in love with him even when nobody's looking. How does that work??
More baffling is Thumbelina, which I also love, for the record, and watch multiple times anyway. So Thumbelina is this little wingless girl the size of your thumb who thinks she's the only little person in the whole world and the fairies in the stories her mother tells her don't exist. Still, it's nice to dream so she has her "mother" lay her little walnut bed on the windowsill with the book open so she can look at the pictures and play pretend while she falls asleep. Suddenly, Cornelius the Fairie Prince hears her singing and decides to stop in, unannounced. Thumbelina freaks out over having someone her size and fairies existing (both understandable) and asks him all about it until she gets frightened by the sound of his pet bumblebee. He offers her a ride, and through the course of another, shorter musical number, they fall in love. Naturally! After a toad mistakes her innocent blown kiss as a confession of ever-lasting love as she and the fairie prince buzz by the lilypad, Mrs. Toad (who has a pair of enormous boobs instead of a torso like normal toads because she's animated Charo) kidnaps her so she can marry Grandel (the toad). Cornelius then spends the rest of the movie trying to find Thumbelina--reasonable--so he can marry her. Erm...what?? They just spent three minutes flying around the block and that was the determining factor in their getting married? And it's not just the prince under the impression that they're going to get married, either. Thumbelina's reasons for not marrying Grandel are "I love Prince Cornelius! I think I'm gonna marry him..." Seriously. Does nobody else see anything wrong with this?? Thumbelina here is as bad as Cinderella!
I mean really...I know that selling colorful fairy tales to children is their job but they should if not make it believable, at least set a good example for children. Seriously guys...do you work for Disney Chanel or something???
No I mean like...in context of the real world, there are just some cartoon romances which make absolutely NO sense! The shouldn't even exist because it's all based on a relationship which would never happen! I mean, sure you have relationship that make sense like Belle and the Beast, Mulan and Shang, Simba and Nala. They actually spent time together, developed first a friendship then a relationship. Y'know, the way real people (and...er...talking animals...) do. But since I'm so incredibly cool that I spent my Sunday watching Disney VHS tapes, I've noticed something...
Many of the relationships are based on lies or looks. Starting out with the obvious: Cinderella and Snow White. They marry total strangers because it's the first boy they kissed. If I had married the first boy I kissed...well, lets just say there would be a very messy divorce involved within the year. Snow White has something extra to worry about with her Prince Charming being a necrophiliac. I mean seriously...everybody thought she was dead and he kissed her anyway? Sleeping Beauty's prince at least had a hint in the name. But I'd be kinda cautious when accepting a proposal from a guy who goes around kissing corpses.
Glancing at the top row of my bookshelf at the movies, I'll go to the next relationship which might not be so obvious in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Quasimodo loves Esmeralda because she's beautiful and saved him from the cruelty of crowd at the Feast of Fools. Frollo loves Esmeralda because she's mysterious and exhotic and he's a sexually repressed priest. Phoebus loves Esmeralda coz she's hot. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that this is about as close to the book by Victor Hugo as the Disney movie gets. Now, let's take Frollo out of the equasion because he's old and creepy and wants to kill Esmeralda. We're left with Quasi and Phoebus. Quasi loves Esmeralda because not only is she beautiful, but she's nice; she stood up for him when no one else would. Furthermore, Frollo always taught him that gypsies are evil, and that's simply not the case so it's just another pleasant surprise. Esmeralda is friends with Quasi because he looks weird and creepy, but he's really this sweet, kind-hearted man who helps her and is just really an all-around nice guy. Phoebus loves Esmeralda (we think) because she's sassy and hot. Esmeralda loves Phoebus (again, we think) because even though she hates soldiers he's really hot and all Captain-y. So who does she go for: the hot guy, or the deformed but really sweet guy? Yup! Women are shallow whores, everyone! But, to be fair, so are golden-haired Captains-of-the-Guard. The only chemistry they have is that they both hate Frollo and want to save the gypsies...which is also something Esme and Quasi totally share.
But perhaps you'll point out to me that the plot of that movie wasn't based entirely on the relationship (except it totally was, where Quasi's concerned ;P). So...how about Aladdin. Aside from the villain's plot to rule everything, a lot of the story was based on Aladdin and Jasmine's relationship...which was based on lies and deceit. Jasmine lied (by omission) about not being the princess just before Aladdin lied about being a prince. And THEN Aladdin lied about lying by omission (he was a prince in disguise as a street rat in the market place). Jasmine was surprised to find that Aladdin was actually the street rat he'd "pretended" to be before?? He saved Agraba because it was kinda obligatory at that point...seeing as the whole thing was all his fault in the first place. Yet...they get married. "No, Jasmine! I wasn't at Aaminah's house! I told you...I was visiting my erm...brother...yeah...And his wife. That's what the perfume you smell is..."
The most staggeringly non-sensical award, however, goes to...a tie! *Audience gasps* The Swan Princess and Thumbelina, both Don Bluth animations I believe (correct me if I'm wrong; I know the latter is I'm not sure about the former), make absolutely no sense romantically speaking. Starting with The Swan Princess because I love it anyway and was watching it last night: Derek and Odette are engaged pretty much at birth. Their parents being nicer than real-life royalty and actually caring about whether they were dooming their children to a loveless marriage decided to get them used to each other by spending every summer together. As explained in this musical number, they don't get along at first, and as they grow up they continue not to get along until their mid-to-late teens where they sort-of get along, then at the convenient-to-the-story age of 18 they find they like each other. That's pretty normal, actually. Happens all the time. So when they finally realize they love each other the lines are "(Odette:) I see him smile and my knees start buckling,/ I see inside him and my doubts are gone. (Derek:) She started out as such an ugly duckling,/Then somehow suddenly became a swan." So off the bat we've got Odette looking at the inside while Derek sees that she's beautiful. After the musical number, Derek announces that they should arrange the marriage! Happiness! But oh, silly Odette. She wants to know why Prince Derek loves her, silly girl. Derek's reply? "You're all I've ever wanted! You're beautiful!" "What else?" "What else...? *durhur look*" After a moment's hesitation and prodding from his mother, his answer is, "What else is there?" Even the conductor knows this is the wrong answer! So Odette decides they can't get married. Yay! A strong female lead! ...Nope, no, sorry. Forgot the part where the bad guy (a smart bad guy for once, at that!) kills Odette's father and taking her hostage. She's forced to be a swan by day and human only when the moonlight touches her wings while she's on a specific hidden pond. The bad guy will break the spell when she agrees to marry him (because he's tried taking it, but "once you take something by force, you spend your whole life fighting to keep it." See? Smart bad guy). Suddenly, she's in love with Prince Derek and would marry him tomorrow. Derek hasn't changed; he doesn't mention anything about how smart or funny she is. He just keeps obsessing about swans and The Great Animal. Odette, however, is suddenly just hopelessly in love with him even when nobody's looking. How does that work??
More baffling is Thumbelina, which I also love, for the record, and watch multiple times anyway. So Thumbelina is this little wingless girl the size of your thumb who thinks she's the only little person in the whole world and the fairies in the stories her mother tells her don't exist. Still, it's nice to dream so she has her "mother" lay her little walnut bed on the windowsill with the book open so she can look at the pictures and play pretend while she falls asleep. Suddenly, Cornelius the Fairie Prince hears her singing and decides to stop in, unannounced. Thumbelina freaks out over having someone her size and fairies existing (both understandable) and asks him all about it until she gets frightened by the sound of his pet bumblebee. He offers her a ride, and through the course of another, shorter musical number, they fall in love. Naturally! After a toad mistakes her innocent blown kiss as a confession of ever-lasting love as she and the fairie prince buzz by the lilypad, Mrs. Toad (who has a pair of enormous boobs instead of a torso like normal toads because she's animated Charo) kidnaps her so she can marry Grandel (the toad). Cornelius then spends the rest of the movie trying to find Thumbelina--reasonable--so he can marry her. Erm...what?? They just spent three minutes flying around the block and that was the determining factor in their getting married? And it's not just the prince under the impression that they're going to get married, either. Thumbelina's reasons for not marrying Grandel are "I love Prince Cornelius! I think I'm gonna marry him..." Seriously. Does nobody else see anything wrong with this?? Thumbelina here is as bad as Cinderella!
I mean really...I know that selling colorful fairy tales to children is their job but they should if not make it believable, at least set a good example for children. Seriously guys...do you work for Disney Chanel or something???
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Flash Addicts Anonymous
Councilor: Group, say hello to our new member!
Group: (dully) Hi.
Me: Hello, group. I um...I have a problem.
Councilor: And what is this problem, Special New Member?
Me: I have...an addiction...*deep breath* an um...an addiction to flash games! *wince*
This addiction has grown so serious as to cause me to neglect my blog, however few readers' attention it holds. There should seriously be a Flash Addicts Anonymous group, because these things are dangerously addictive. http://www.puffgames.com/ should be brought up on charges for negligence and aiding and abetting addicts who can't help themselves.
Because of puffgames, my fingers twitch from excessive Super Crazy Guitar Maniac Delux 3, the online flash Guitar Hero knockoff. I press the same keys (asdf and directional arrows) with the song on mute over and over until I finally get a gold star...it bothers me immensely until I do. Thanks to The Adventures of Fancy Pants Man 1 and 2, I have the strangest desire to play golf via kicking snails and buy ridiculously colorful pants. Skullkid makes me never want to work in an office. Ever. If I do, I'm carrying a semi-auto; that guy's the hardest to kill. Desktop Tower Defense and Bloons Tower Defense 3 are great time killers for those who are strategy game enthuisists...but not quite good at strategy, like myself. Boneless is great to just have in the background while surfing Facebook, blogging, balancing your bank account, whatever.
You know what's also great to run in the background? Pandemic 2 (I haven't played Pandemic 1). It's fantastic for multitasking; I'm even playing it right now. It's disturbingly addictive and I've got the strongest urge to kill all of Madagascar. Seriously, it won't get infected. Ever. On the leader board, one person even named their disease "Madagascar must DIE!" it is THAT hard to kill. Twice now I've killed the entire world...except Madagascar.
I suppose I should explain what the whole game is about, shouldn't I? You get your own disease; you can pick virus, bacteria, or parasite. I personally suggest parasite because I've had the largest success rate with it. You can name your disease and pick out symptoms. Each symptom, however, has a price. As your disease takes over the world and infects and kills people, you earn points. These points going to buying symptoms, transmission types (rodent, insect, water, and air), and resistances (cold, heat, moisture, and drug with four levels of resistance). As the game progresses it takes longer to earn points, which is what makes it great to just play in the background (not on realistic, however). It's strangely cathardic, watching as each government closes its borders, starts burning bodies, shuts down airports, hospitals, and shipyards. You don't win, however, unless you kill the entire planet. Madagascar is so easily spooked, it's almost impossible to kill. Last night, I even had a dream about infecting that God-forsaken island.
So yes, that's where I've been. Other time wasters I approve of? http://www.cracked.com/, http://www.deargirlsaboveme.com/ , Head Trip comics , and http://www.notalwaysright.com/ .
Group: (dully) Hi.
Me: Hello, group. I um...I have a problem.
Councilor: And what is this problem, Special New Member?
Me: I have...an addiction...*deep breath* an um...an addiction to flash games! *wince*
This addiction has grown so serious as to cause me to neglect my blog, however few readers' attention it holds. There should seriously be a Flash Addicts Anonymous group, because these things are dangerously addictive. http://www.puffgames.com/ should be brought up on charges for negligence and aiding and abetting addicts who can't help themselves.
Because of puffgames, my fingers twitch from excessive Super Crazy Guitar Maniac Delux 3, the online flash Guitar Hero knockoff. I press the same keys (asdf and directional arrows) with the song on mute over and over until I finally get a gold star...it bothers me immensely until I do. Thanks to The Adventures of Fancy Pants Man 1 and 2, I have the strangest desire to play golf via kicking snails and buy ridiculously colorful pants. Skullkid makes me never want to work in an office. Ever. If I do, I'm carrying a semi-auto; that guy's the hardest to kill. Desktop Tower Defense and Bloons Tower Defense 3 are great time killers for those who are strategy game enthuisists...but not quite good at strategy, like myself. Boneless is great to just have in the background while surfing Facebook, blogging, balancing your bank account, whatever.
You know what's also great to run in the background? Pandemic 2 (I haven't played Pandemic 1). It's fantastic for multitasking; I'm even playing it right now. It's disturbingly addictive and I've got the strongest urge to kill all of Madagascar. Seriously, it won't get infected. Ever. On the leader board, one person even named their disease "Madagascar must DIE!" it is THAT hard to kill. Twice now I've killed the entire world...except Madagascar.
I suppose I should explain what the whole game is about, shouldn't I? You get your own disease; you can pick virus, bacteria, or parasite. I personally suggest parasite because I've had the largest success rate with it. You can name your disease and pick out symptoms. Each symptom, however, has a price. As your disease takes over the world and infects and kills people, you earn points. These points going to buying symptoms, transmission types (rodent, insect, water, and air), and resistances (cold, heat, moisture, and drug with four levels of resistance). As the game progresses it takes longer to earn points, which is what makes it great to just play in the background (not on realistic, however). It's strangely cathardic, watching as each government closes its borders, starts burning bodies, shuts down airports, hospitals, and shipyards. You don't win, however, unless you kill the entire planet. Madagascar is so easily spooked, it's almost impossible to kill. Last night, I even had a dream about infecting that God-forsaken island.
So yes, that's where I've been. Other time wasters I approve of? http://www.cracked.com/, http://www.deargirlsaboveme.com/ , Head Trip comics , and http://www.notalwaysright.com/ .
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Avon Walk For Breast Cancer (please, if you read nothing else, read this)
The following isn't a random forward I got and it isn't a scam. It was written by my mother, who has been working very hard towards her goals. I'm extremely proud of her and wish with all my might for her to succeed. Even if it's just $5, every penny counts. If you're unable to donate at this time, please share this with someone you think or know can. Even if you don't think they would, send it to them anyway; the worst they can say is "no."
"It's official - As of today I have 30 days until I walk 39.3 miles to raise money (and awareness) for breast cancer treatment and research.
I have 30 days to raise $820. So far this is more money than I have ever raised in my whole life and I’m so grateful to everyone who has helped. By donating, forwarding my e-mails, telling others, you are the ones who keep me motivated. You are the ones who will help me reach the end of the walk! Thank you!
Those of you who understand the rush of personal fitness (not that I’m in any way fit, but I hope to be) will understand that I also have personal goal in all this:
39.3 miles in 2 days. It’s broken down into 26.2 miles on Saturday (a full-marathon) and 13.1 miles on Sunday (a half-marathon). In May – with the help of my most AWESOME sister-in-law, Amanda - I was able to complete a half marathon in 4 hours (with only about one month of training). This means, if I can keep up the pace, I CAN DO THIS! I am SO excited about the possibility of finishing this!!!
But if I don’t raise the money - $1,800 total – I don’t walk.
I also have a more personal stake in this. In 2006, at 35, I went for a mammogram just to be on the safe side because I take hormone replacements. I didn’t suspect anything, I just wanted to be sure.
After the mammogram, I was asked to wait in the waiting room, as is normal, so they could look at the film. I knew this was just a formality in-case something went wrong with the imaging and they needed to perform another one.
I was asked not to change back into my clothes, but to come back in for another one. There was a spot they couldn’t identify and wanted to see if it was just the film. I was a little nervous, but having worked with and seen mammograms performed, I knew this could, indeed, be just a spot on the film.
Following the second one, I returned to the waiting room. They asked me to gather my clothes and follow a woman to radiology. I knew this was not “standard procedure”.
I was REALLY scared. Once there I had an ultrasound. After the ultrasound I was told there was an unidentified mass. I was sent home with a scheduled biopsy in two days.
To say I was freaked out would be an understatement. Two days later I had a biopsy with ultrasound and for the next two weeks I was sick at my stomach waiting for the results. Fortunately, gratefully, blessedly they were negative.
I never have, and don’t ever want to, imagine what it would have been like to be told anything other than “The findings were negative”.
Not everyone is as fortunate as I am. This walk is for those whose findings were not “Negative”. The money I raise in this particular walk is not only for research but treatment for those who otherwise couldn’t afford it. From a simple ride to a test or treatment, to the treatment itself and everything in-between.
Not everyone is as fortunate as I am. I have insurance. Yes, it’s expensive but I have it. If I needed the treatment, I could get it. With the insurance I could afford it. Not everyone is as lucky as I am.
The walk is for me, the money is for them. Please help us both.
Go to my page: avonwalk.org/goto/jens.walking and click on the pink “Donate Now” button. It’s easy and tax deductable.
Thank you for your time and
Thank you for your care"
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
This is why we can't have nice things!
So obviously Washington ignored my post about the DADT repeal...Because they totally see that sort of stuff and it changes their mind. *nods seriously* Anyway, I blame three people for the repeal being defeated: Harry Reid, John McCain...and Lady Gaga.
Lady Gaga doesn't have much to do with it, actually. She lead a rally yesterday in favor of the repeal...but things could have gone better. Remember those fabulous gay pride people I talked about, the ones who make the social conservatives worry (rightfully so) that our military will go the way of Rupaul's Drag Race? Yeah, perfect example. Some people will be mad at me because they thought she was amazing. Though a few of my friends were at the ralley and I wasn't, I have managed to find a few excerpts from her speeches. One which seems to be prevalent in the press (who seems to be treating her as having any sort of actual political experience...which confuses me to no end) was "Our new law is called 'If you don't like it, go home!'" Am I the only one to whom that sounds more like something screamed at a pepralley by the head cheerleader than a political statement? Also she compared America to a cut of prime rib and claimed she wasn't getting as much out of it as she could. Even on a planet where that statement makes sense, she wasn't the death knell of the repeal, but she definitely didn't help.
As much as I'd love to blame Maine for all of our problems, I don't even blame Republican Senator Susan Collins, who changed her mind last minute to vote the bill down. Considering the circumstances, she had every right to do so. Front and center in the absolute failure of this whole thing are Senators Harry Reid (Majority leader) and John McCain. I'm not bothering to pull up any links or anything, I'm just going to state my opinion: they are both enormous tools.
McCain, for one, is a grouchy old man which automatically makes him opposed to change. It's in the Grouchy Old Man Handbook. For another, and something based slightly more in fact, he seems to oppose anything the Democrats want just for the sake of opposing them. If he can't have the presidency, then the Dems can't have anything they want. Nahny nahny boo boo.
Then there's Reid, who I know next to nothing about except he seems to like poking at the GOP with a stick. I think if the DADT repeal were the only thing on the military spending bill, it probably would have gone through. Then an ammendment was added having to do with military abortion clinics. Then he wanted to allow illegal immigrants who had been here since before age 15 and gone to college or served in the military to become citizens. It's like he decided to pick social conservatives' three big issues and tack the word "military" on somewhere in there to make it all related, then refused to let them debate further on it. Nevermind he pushed it at a time when elections were so close and nobody really wanted to go into it. Now it could be years before DADT gets another reasonable chance at repeal unless the Pentagon study due December 1 comes back extremely favorably. You dropped the ball, Harry...Ever heard of the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?
This partisanship, this voting things up and down just to spite each other, is why America can't have nice things.
Lady Gaga doesn't have much to do with it, actually. She lead a rally yesterday in favor of the repeal...but things could have gone better. Remember those fabulous gay pride people I talked about, the ones who make the social conservatives worry (rightfully so) that our military will go the way of Rupaul's Drag Race? Yeah, perfect example. Some people will be mad at me because they thought she was amazing. Though a few of my friends were at the ralley and I wasn't, I have managed to find a few excerpts from her speeches. One which seems to be prevalent in the press (who seems to be treating her as having any sort of actual political experience...which confuses me to no end) was "Our new law is called 'If you don't like it, go home!'" Am I the only one to whom that sounds more like something screamed at a pepralley by the head cheerleader than a political statement? Also she compared America to a cut of prime rib and claimed she wasn't getting as much out of it as she could. Even on a planet where that statement makes sense, she wasn't the death knell of the repeal, but she definitely didn't help.
As much as I'd love to blame Maine for all of our problems, I don't even blame Republican Senator Susan Collins, who changed her mind last minute to vote the bill down. Considering the circumstances, she had every right to do so. Front and center in the absolute failure of this whole thing are Senators Harry Reid (Majority leader) and John McCain. I'm not bothering to pull up any links or anything, I'm just going to state my opinion: they are both enormous tools.
McCain, for one, is a grouchy old man which automatically makes him opposed to change. It's in the Grouchy Old Man Handbook. For another, and something based slightly more in fact, he seems to oppose anything the Democrats want just for the sake of opposing them. If he can't have the presidency, then the Dems can't have anything they want. Nahny nahny boo boo.
Then there's Reid, who I know next to nothing about except he seems to like poking at the GOP with a stick. I think if the DADT repeal were the only thing on the military spending bill, it probably would have gone through. Then an ammendment was added having to do with military abortion clinics. Then he wanted to allow illegal immigrants who had been here since before age 15 and gone to college or served in the military to become citizens. It's like he decided to pick social conservatives' three big issues and tack the word "military" on somewhere in there to make it all related, then refused to let them debate further on it. Nevermind he pushed it at a time when elections were so close and nobody really wanted to go into it. Now it could be years before DADT gets another reasonable chance at repeal unless the Pentagon study due December 1 comes back extremely favorably. You dropped the ball, Harry...Ever heard of the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?
This partisanship, this voting things up and down just to spite each other, is why America can't have nice things.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
A Quasi-Review of Hamlet, Pt II: "Hamlet," Better Entitled "Horatio: FML"
So, I feel bad for Horatio. I mean, really really bad. He's Hamlet's best friend so the prince trusts him to remain loyal to him; the guards trusted him with the secret of having seen Old Hamlet's ghost; Claudius and Gertrude trust him to be loyal to them. He's got a lot riding on his shoulders. He's helpless, really.
I mean, first of all he's been called back from his studies in England to attend his best friend's father's funeral...slash his best friend's mother's wedding. All together now: "Awkward Turtle." Now he's got Bernardio waking him up in the middle of the night to come see some BS apparition that--HOLY CRAP IT'S A GHOST! It's the middle of the night, he's in Denmark on unpleasant business anyway, he's tired, he's cold, and now he's just soiled his doublet. Also, he has to be the one to tell Hamlet, "M'Lord I saw your father yesternight." After getting scared out of his wits a second time, having to let Hamlet go off with the ghost of his father, and standing there again freezing, the ghost feels the need to get all Big Rumbly Voice on him, telling him to swear on Hamlet's sword. And this is just the first act.
Throughout the rest of the play, he's feeling totally awkward with Hamlet acting absolutely bonkers around him while knowing (or, at least, hoping) that the prince is completely sane. In the end, SPOILERS everyone's dead and who's left standing? Horatio. If it weren't for the room full of courtiers, the bloodbath with the body count at a whopping three royals and a noble (not including Polonius and Ophelia from earlier) would probably have given birth to the first episode of Criminal Minds. Poor Horatio has the patience of Job to have to see and hear and do such things, to have to be a part of this awful tragedy, and not just cut his own wrists. Surely Shakespeare must have some pity on him right? Being the last one standing, surely he at least has the honor of the last lines of the play?
Nope! Not even Horatio gets a happy ending. Because when Shakespeare wanted to kill people, he was a tool about it. No noble deaths for the doomed ones, and no dignified, honored ending for the survivors. You know who gets the last lines of the play? Fortinbras! Yeah, the king of Norway's nephew who was mentioned, like, twice in the entire thing! Hamlet's last lines include instructions to tell everybody what happened and that Fortinbras gets to be king since everyone else is dead. Horatio has a small lamentation speech and you'd think that'd be the end of it. Noooo...Cue an ambassador and Fortinbras. All the ambassador has to say is "Well that's too bad...I was just sent all the way from England to tell Claudius that his orders to kill two random peons who showed up on our doorstep have been carried out." Fortinbras isn't much better. His reaction is "holy crap guys! This is a blood bath! Horatio, what happened?" "Well, it's kinda obvious...everyone's dead. Hamlet said you get to be king." "Great! Where's my crown? Oh I mean...um...Right, it's very sad Hamlet's dead." The end!
Seriously, that's how it ends. Horatio gets no reward that we know of for his patience, his loyalty to everyone involved in so far as he could keep it, nothing. He's just the random background guy, like Benvolio. The only difference is that Benvolio disappears after Act III because the Romeo and Juliet double-suicide was kinda really public. If Horatio hadn't stuck around there wouldn't be anyone to explain this random death crap and it'd be like one of those legendary ghost ships you hear about that were just floating in the water with no one on board.
Horatio's life sucks. I demand a rewrite where he at least gets some sort of monetary compensation for being the one to deal with everyone's emotional BS. Where's the shoulder for Horatio to cry on, hmm?? Where was Hamlet when Horatio felt like acting a little nutty? Where was Claudius when he needed someone to be a spy? Poor Yorick?! Alas, poor Horatio! Seriously...Rosencrantz and Guildenstern got their own amazing spinoff, I demand one for Horatio, too!
I mean, first of all he's been called back from his studies in England to attend his best friend's father's funeral...slash his best friend's mother's wedding. All together now: "Awkward Turtle." Now he's got Bernardio waking him up in the middle of the night to come see some BS apparition that--HOLY CRAP IT'S A GHOST! It's the middle of the night, he's in Denmark on unpleasant business anyway, he's tired, he's cold, and now he's just soiled his doublet. Also, he has to be the one to tell Hamlet, "M'Lord I saw your father yesternight." After getting scared out of his wits a second time, having to let Hamlet go off with the ghost of his father, and standing there again freezing, the ghost feels the need to get all Big Rumbly Voice on him, telling him to swear on Hamlet's sword. And this is just the first act.
Throughout the rest of the play, he's feeling totally awkward with Hamlet acting absolutely bonkers around him while knowing (or, at least, hoping) that the prince is completely sane. In the end, SPOILERS everyone's dead and who's left standing? Horatio. If it weren't for the room full of courtiers, the bloodbath with the body count at a whopping three royals and a noble (not including Polonius and Ophelia from earlier) would probably have given birth to the first episode of Criminal Minds. Poor Horatio has the patience of Job to have to see and hear and do such things, to have to be a part of this awful tragedy, and not just cut his own wrists. Surely Shakespeare must have some pity on him right? Being the last one standing, surely he at least has the honor of the last lines of the play?
Nope! Not even Horatio gets a happy ending. Because when Shakespeare wanted to kill people, he was a tool about it. No noble deaths for the doomed ones, and no dignified, honored ending for the survivors. You know who gets the last lines of the play? Fortinbras! Yeah, the king of Norway's nephew who was mentioned, like, twice in the entire thing! Hamlet's last lines include instructions to tell everybody what happened and that Fortinbras gets to be king since everyone else is dead. Horatio has a small lamentation speech and you'd think that'd be the end of it. Noooo...Cue an ambassador and Fortinbras. All the ambassador has to say is "Well that's too bad...I was just sent all the way from England to tell Claudius that his orders to kill two random peons who showed up on our doorstep have been carried out." Fortinbras isn't much better. His reaction is "holy crap guys! This is a blood bath! Horatio, what happened?" "Well, it's kinda obvious...everyone's dead. Hamlet said you get to be king." "Great! Where's my crown? Oh I mean...um...Right, it's very sad Hamlet's dead." The end!
Seriously, that's how it ends. Horatio gets no reward that we know of for his patience, his loyalty to everyone involved in so far as he could keep it, nothing. He's just the random background guy, like Benvolio. The only difference is that Benvolio disappears after Act III because the Romeo and Juliet double-suicide was kinda really public. If Horatio hadn't stuck around there wouldn't be anyone to explain this random death crap and it'd be like one of those legendary ghost ships you hear about that were just floating in the water with no one on board.
Horatio's life sucks. I demand a rewrite where he at least gets some sort of monetary compensation for being the one to deal with everyone's emotional BS. Where's the shoulder for Horatio to cry on, hmm?? Where was Hamlet when Horatio felt like acting a little nutty? Where was Claudius when he needed someone to be a spy? Poor Yorick?! Alas, poor Horatio! Seriously...Rosencrantz and Guildenstern got their own amazing spinoff, I demand one for Horatio, too!
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Bringing America into the 21st Century: The DADT Repeal
Putting "Hamlet" on hold for a moment (coz I got sleepy last night), I've decided to post this. I wrote it up for a group on facebook, but thought it might make a nice blog topic as well.
**Links annotated with numbers
So the title is a little misleading; DADT hasn't been repealed yet...but I have no doubt it will be within the week. For those of you who don't know, DADT stands for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a policy put in place by the Clinton administration in 1993 which was set in place as a compromise to lift the ban on all non-heterosexual members of the military. To his credit, he had at first promised to allow all citizens to serve openly regardless of sexual orientation.(1) "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" allows gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to serve in the military only so long as they don't reveal their sexual preferences or talk about any sort of homosexual relationships, partners, marriages, etc.
Article 126 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) lists sodomy as an offense punishable by court marshal. Sodomy is defined as "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense."(2) This, by the way, includes consensual sex and is sandwiched between the definitions of rape; forgery; and maiming and arson; extortion; and assault. I've already been sworn in, and they gave us a piece of paper informing us that the UCMJ banned any sort of homosexual act, including sex, kissing, hand-holding, and any other sort of intimate act one might do with their partner, straight or gay. That's right, no hand-holding. All of this, by the way, you can't do in the privacy of your own home. No cuddling, no kissing, no hand-holding in public or your quarters.
Last Friday, September 10, 2010, a California judge ruled DADT unconstitutional, having a "'direct and deleterious effect' on the military by hurting recruitment efforts during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members who have critical skills and training."(3) She ruled that it restricts the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and right to due process. A court marshal, you see, is less a trial and more a sentancing. That sentance for being gay, by the way, is two years in Ft. Levenworth, KS (prison) without pay, a $5,000 fine, and dishonorable discharge. Once said accused is finally out of the Hell that is Kansas, they'll be lucky to get a job waiting tables never mind a decent one.
The House already voted in May to repeal the ban, but the Senate has been dragging their feet. With this ruling, however, the pressure was on and the vote is now set for Tuesday, September 21. Good ol' Senator John McCain, however, "has said he may filibuster the bill in opposition to the repeal."(4) There's been a Pentagon study to assess how a repeal would effect the military's readiness, which includes interviewing military members and their families.
I'd really like to know why social conservatives in general and the military are so afraid of gays. Are they afraid they're going to be un-business like with their red, white, and *FABULOUS!*? I mean, yes DADT stopped the witch hunt for men in body glitter (sort-of; in one article I read, a man was discharged because his buddies were snooping, unauthorized, through his personal email), but I mean really. It's the 21st century; we're aware that gay people exist and that they don't have cooties. Never mind we're behind a whole bunch of other countries who allow their gays to serve openly. Yeah, we expect places like Canada and UK to allow it since they're all Communist hippies, and Germany doesn't count coz they like David Hasselhoff and ABBA (jokes)...but what about Israel? What about South Africa? (5)
Apartheid in South Africa ended as recently as 1992 and their first deomcratic elections where all races were allowed to vote was 1994.(6) I'm sure all of you know, but for those of you who may not, Apartheid in South Africa was much like the United States before the Civil Rights Act of 1964...only worse. So...We'll split the difference and say it's 1993 that Apartheid really and truly ended. That's within my lifetime and I'm perfectly aware that nineteen years is a very short time to have lived. We consider ourselves a pretty forward-thinking, forward-moving country, right? I mean, we got over our severe racial issues and we've got affirmative action in place and all that. We're not racist! We've even got a black president! Oh wait...South Africa's beat us to that too...in 1994...by 14 years...after being under white rule longer than we've been a country.(7)
Any way, racial equality isn't the issue here. If we're a superpower and we're so progressive...why is it South Africa is more progressive than us when it comes to gays in the military? I mean, the same country who instituted such a horrible thing as Apartheid actually understand that gay isn't contagious, so why can't the people running the greatest country on Earth get it? When will they not understand that not all gay people are these guys. That one in the plaid flannel by the way? Woman. Yeah, stereotypical butch lesbian.
Also, the UCMJ calls for the dismissal of ANY homosexual member of the military, no matter what their occupation. I'm going to be a linguist in the Air Force, which are in high demand right now, so let's create a hypothetical situation shall we? I don't know what language I'll be assigned to until halfway through BMT, but let's say for the sake of argument I get Pashtu, one of the most commonly-spoken dialects in the Middle East. I'm good at languages; I used to go to Mosque with my friend when I was little and at her Sunday school took to Urdu like a fish to water. Though I’ve since forgotten because I’m out of practice, I could read and write passably in another language by the age of eight. The point is I'm good with languages. Now let's say I'm a lesbian--I'm not, but that's why this is a hypothetical situation--and I've got a girlfriend. One day I'm on AIM with her on my laptop on a weekend flight out to see her (my "best friend") while stationed somewhere. My buddy decided to hop a flight with me coz he's got family back stateside, and unbeknownst to me he's decided to read my conversation over my shoulder. It soon becomes unmistakable that this girl isn't "just a friend." He decides to report me, which leads to a court marshal. Now I've lost everything because I love a girl.
Is that fair? I ask the politicians in Washington, the commanders at West Point and Annapolis, every commanding officer I'll ever have...What if it were them? Let's turn the tables for a moment and say that DADT applies only to straight people. Now suddenly, they can't hold their wife's hand in public, can't even be married to her and have someone know. Do they want that sort of life for themselves and their family? To have to live in secret, lying to everyone they know (also against the UCMJ) just because they love someone? Think about that.
So, let’s bring it back away from the “everyone else is doing it” and “it just isn’t fair” arguments, because clearly those haven’t worked in any sort of official capacity. Regardless of which countries are doing it or whether or not those opposed would be too pleased that they couldn’t have a spouse of the opposite gender, it’s a civil rights issue. The United States Military is a multibillion dollar business just like any other: they have standards, expectations, dress codes, a chain of command, a certain way they operate. On most applications, you’ll see somewhere that the company you’re applying to does not discriminate based on sex, age, religion, disability, color, or national origin. This is thanks to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has presidentially appointed commissioners. They don’t protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but many other federal agencies, states, and municipalities do. For example, according to Executive Order 13087, “It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, or sexual orientation”.(8) It is also illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation in twenty states and the District of Columbia. If there aren’t state laws, there are also laws which vary by city or county.(9) Granted, the military holds itself to very high standards. I wonder why, then, it cannot seem to hold itself to the same standards as nearly half the states and Washington D.C. itself.
Some may argue, and perhaps rightfully so, that it’s because the gay rights activists are too in-your-face about their sexuality. They hold parades because they love someone of the same sex when you don’t see straight people holding parades for their own sexuality. The face of the gay rights movement most often looks like this or this . So what’s to keep them from doing the same in the military, right? The last thing we want is the United States Military to turn into a production of The Birdcage. Well, would you like to see a picture of military gay rights supporters? Link look familiar? It’s from the Washington Post, link 4. The same protesters, but with CBS news. The less flamboyant breed of gay rights protestors isn’t quite as popular, so I couldn’t find many more suitable images.
The fact is that military personnel are trained to be professional and business-like in their conduct. They represent not only themselves and not only their country, but also their employer. A business in the private sector won’t hire someone to put in the public eye who they think is going to bring some sort of disgrace upon the company. The employee would be fired or disciplined, and so would sequined and leather-clad protestors more than likely be court marshaled under UCMJ article 133; Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman or article 134; General Article, which states “Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital… according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”(10) See? No need to even make a provision in the UCMJ for them.
The military disapproves of deviancy of any sort and I understand that. They’ve got provisions in the UCMJ for everything right down to faking sick to get out of work.(11) The unfortunate thing is that the only side of the gay rights movement you see is the flamboyant side, the side who throws their sexuality in your face. You don’t introduce yourself as “hi I’m John and I’m heterosexual,” but they might as well say, “hi I’m John and I’m flamboyantly homosexual.” A person is so much more than their sexuality. They’re a personality, a system of beliefs, an entire life and way of living. While some would argue that homosexuality is a conscious choice, I’d argue that heterosexuality is too. Others say that homosexuality isn’t something you choose, and so I would say that neither is heterosexuality. Honestly, I don’t know what causes you to be gay and what causes you to be straight and science can’t be 100% certain at this point, either. Though sexuality isn’t everything you are, it -is- a lifestyle.
My parents have been married for more than twenty years; they were married right out of high school. I feel blessed that unlike so many of my friends and so many of the other children around the country, I live with my two original parents and those parents still love each other after being together for more than twenty years. Their love is a beautiful thing. But it’s a lifestyle they chose for themselves. If my father were in the military, they could walk down the aisles of the commissary holding hands because they’re husband and wife. Taking the same hypothetical situation I set up earlier, I couldn’t do the same thing with my girlfriend. It would be illegal. Even if we had been together since high school, dating for five years, regardless of whether or not gay marriage within the military was permitted I would not be allowed to hold her hand in public, to show that small display of affection. Just as I don’t want to know what goes on behind closed doors with anybody’s parents, especially my own, and they’re certainly not going to share, so I wouldn’t share what went on with my girlfriend. I would just want to be able to hold her hand, to show that yes, we’re together and we love each other very much. To show that I want with her the sort of life my parents have lived together; a happy and loving one.
My point with that example is that I’m aware that gay rights activists often ask for not just equal rights, but more rights than straight couples. That isn’t what I think that should happen. That anyone should get any more rights than anyone else is wrong, it subscribes to “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” (Animal Farm, Orwell, 1945) Which is why I simply think it’s silly not only to not allow homosexuals and bisexuals to love whomever they wish, but to punish them for it. There are provisions in the UCMJ for disorderly conduct such as these crazies you see running around in San Francisco in bondage gear and fuzzy purple cowboy hats, even if military personnel -did- do something so foolish, which I don’t believe they would. The sorts of people who would do that more than likely wouldn’t join the military in the first place. I don’t believe in people parading their fetishes and what they do in bed out in public, but I believe in those people having a right to hold hands, to kiss (restrainedly). Holding hands, a peck on the cheek, they’re small signs of affection but to the couple they matter immensely. They’re not disruptive, they’re not rude, but they’re special to those couples. Why should a person be punished for holding hands?
Some may also argue that if we allowed gays to serve openly in the military, it might lead to more gays getting beaten up. They’ll get beaten up anyway for one reason or another. If it’s legal to be openly gay and they’re beaten up for being gay, that’s a hate crime. Why is a hate crime more severe than a regular crime? I don’t know. Not the point. Also, if a man or woman is beaten up for being gay then they wouldn’t be afraid to report it because they wouldn’t have to fear their livelihoods. They report the crime to the proper authorities, then the perpetrator can be dealt with properly; either punished or discharged according to the severity of the crime.
The repeal of DADT would also more than likely decrease the occurrence of lesbian baiting because sexuality would be a non-issue. Lesbian bating is the act of accusing a woman of being a lesbian if: she refuses to grant sexual favors, she reports sexual harassment, she rebuffs come-ons, and other such occurrences. It’s a form of sexual blackmail, and it -is- a problem in the military.(12) It’s a danger not just to lesbians but to straight women as well. Even if they’re found innocent, their reputation is marred and it opens up the doors to further harassment by her peers and coworkers.
The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, while better than the witch hunts which used to be conducted in the military, has outlived its usefulness. It now restricts the personal freedoms and rights of not just gay couples but heterosexual men and women who can be blackmailed for that sort of thing. There won’t be a burst of fabulosity once gays are finally allowed to serve openly and if there is the military has the habit of quashing those sorts of things before they really gather up much steam and can do so legally. It’s time we bring America into the twenty-first century and allow gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to serve just as openly as heterosexuals do.
**Links annotated with numbers
So the title is a little misleading; DADT hasn't been repealed yet...but I have no doubt it will be within the week. For those of you who don't know, DADT stands for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a policy put in place by the Clinton administration in 1993 which was set in place as a compromise to lift the ban on all non-heterosexual members of the military. To his credit, he had at first promised to allow all citizens to serve openly regardless of sexual orientation.(1) "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" allows gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to serve in the military only so long as they don't reveal their sexual preferences or talk about any sort of homosexual relationships, partners, marriages, etc.
Article 126 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) lists sodomy as an offense punishable by court marshal. Sodomy is defined as "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense."(2) This, by the way, includes consensual sex and is sandwiched between the definitions of rape; forgery; and maiming and arson; extortion; and assault. I've already been sworn in, and they gave us a piece of paper informing us that the UCMJ banned any sort of homosexual act, including sex, kissing, hand-holding, and any other sort of intimate act one might do with their partner, straight or gay. That's right, no hand-holding. All of this, by the way, you can't do in the privacy of your own home. No cuddling, no kissing, no hand-holding in public or your quarters.
Last Friday, September 10, 2010, a California judge ruled DADT unconstitutional, having a "'direct and deleterious effect' on the military by hurting recruitment efforts during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members who have critical skills and training."(3) She ruled that it restricts the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and right to due process. A court marshal, you see, is less a trial and more a sentancing. That sentance for being gay, by the way, is two years in Ft. Levenworth, KS (prison) without pay, a $5,000 fine, and dishonorable discharge. Once said accused is finally out of the Hell that is Kansas, they'll be lucky to get a job waiting tables never mind a decent one.
The House already voted in May to repeal the ban, but the Senate has been dragging their feet. With this ruling, however, the pressure was on and the vote is now set for Tuesday, September 21. Good ol' Senator John McCain, however, "has said he may filibuster the bill in opposition to the repeal."(4) There's been a Pentagon study to assess how a repeal would effect the military's readiness, which includes interviewing military members and their families.
I'd really like to know why social conservatives in general and the military are so afraid of gays. Are they afraid they're going to be un-business like with their red, white, and *FABULOUS!*? I mean, yes DADT stopped the witch hunt for men in body glitter (sort-of; in one article I read, a man was discharged because his buddies were snooping, unauthorized, through his personal email), but I mean really. It's the 21st century; we're aware that gay people exist and that they don't have cooties. Never mind we're behind a whole bunch of other countries who allow their gays to serve openly. Yeah, we expect places like Canada and UK to allow it since they're all Communist hippies, and Germany doesn't count coz they like David Hasselhoff and ABBA (jokes)...but what about Israel? What about South Africa? (5)
Apartheid in South Africa ended as recently as 1992 and their first deomcratic elections where all races were allowed to vote was 1994.(6) I'm sure all of you know, but for those of you who may not, Apartheid in South Africa was much like the United States before the Civil Rights Act of 1964...only worse. So...We'll split the difference and say it's 1993 that Apartheid really and truly ended. That's within my lifetime and I'm perfectly aware that nineteen years is a very short time to have lived. We consider ourselves a pretty forward-thinking, forward-moving country, right? I mean, we got over our severe racial issues and we've got affirmative action in place and all that. We're not racist! We've even got a black president! Oh wait...South Africa's beat us to that too...in 1994...by 14 years...after being under white rule longer than we've been a country.(7)
Any way, racial equality isn't the issue here. If we're a superpower and we're so progressive...why is it South Africa is more progressive than us when it comes to gays in the military? I mean, the same country who instituted such a horrible thing as Apartheid actually understand that gay isn't contagious, so why can't the people running the greatest country on Earth get it? When will they not understand that not all gay people are these guys. That one in the plaid flannel by the way? Woman. Yeah, stereotypical butch lesbian.
Also, the UCMJ calls for the dismissal of ANY homosexual member of the military, no matter what their occupation. I'm going to be a linguist in the Air Force, which are in high demand right now, so let's create a hypothetical situation shall we? I don't know what language I'll be assigned to until halfway through BMT, but let's say for the sake of argument I get Pashtu, one of the most commonly-spoken dialects in the Middle East. I'm good at languages; I used to go to Mosque with my friend when I was little and at her Sunday school took to Urdu like a fish to water. Though I’ve since forgotten because I’m out of practice, I could read and write passably in another language by the age of eight. The point is I'm good with languages. Now let's say I'm a lesbian--I'm not, but that's why this is a hypothetical situation--and I've got a girlfriend. One day I'm on AIM with her on my laptop on a weekend flight out to see her (my "best friend") while stationed somewhere. My buddy decided to hop a flight with me coz he's got family back stateside, and unbeknownst to me he's decided to read my conversation over my shoulder. It soon becomes unmistakable that this girl isn't "just a friend." He decides to report me, which leads to a court marshal. Now I've lost everything because I love a girl.
Is that fair? I ask the politicians in Washington, the commanders at West Point and Annapolis, every commanding officer I'll ever have...What if it were them? Let's turn the tables for a moment and say that DADT applies only to straight people. Now suddenly, they can't hold their wife's hand in public, can't even be married to her and have someone know. Do they want that sort of life for themselves and their family? To have to live in secret, lying to everyone they know (also against the UCMJ) just because they love someone? Think about that.
So, let’s bring it back away from the “everyone else is doing it” and “it just isn’t fair” arguments, because clearly those haven’t worked in any sort of official capacity. Regardless of which countries are doing it or whether or not those opposed would be too pleased that they couldn’t have a spouse of the opposite gender, it’s a civil rights issue. The United States Military is a multibillion dollar business just like any other: they have standards, expectations, dress codes, a chain of command, a certain way they operate. On most applications, you’ll see somewhere that the company you’re applying to does not discriminate based on sex, age, religion, disability, color, or national origin. This is thanks to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has presidentially appointed commissioners. They don’t protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but many other federal agencies, states, and municipalities do. For example, according to Executive Order 13087, “It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, or sexual orientation”.(8) It is also illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation in twenty states and the District of Columbia. If there aren’t state laws, there are also laws which vary by city or county.(9) Granted, the military holds itself to very high standards. I wonder why, then, it cannot seem to hold itself to the same standards as nearly half the states and Washington D.C. itself.
Some may argue, and perhaps rightfully so, that it’s because the gay rights activists are too in-your-face about their sexuality. They hold parades because they love someone of the same sex when you don’t see straight people holding parades for their own sexuality. The face of the gay rights movement most often looks like this or this . So what’s to keep them from doing the same in the military, right? The last thing we want is the United States Military to turn into a production of The Birdcage. Well, would you like to see a picture of military gay rights supporters? Link look familiar? It’s from the Washington Post, link 4. The same protesters, but with CBS news. The less flamboyant breed of gay rights protestors isn’t quite as popular, so I couldn’t find many more suitable images.
The fact is that military personnel are trained to be professional and business-like in their conduct. They represent not only themselves and not only their country, but also their employer. A business in the private sector won’t hire someone to put in the public eye who they think is going to bring some sort of disgrace upon the company. The employee would be fired or disciplined, and so would sequined and leather-clad protestors more than likely be court marshaled under UCMJ article 133; Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman or article 134; General Article, which states “Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital… according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”(10) See? No need to even make a provision in the UCMJ for them.
The military disapproves of deviancy of any sort and I understand that. They’ve got provisions in the UCMJ for everything right down to faking sick to get out of work.(11) The unfortunate thing is that the only side of the gay rights movement you see is the flamboyant side, the side who throws their sexuality in your face. You don’t introduce yourself as “hi I’m John and I’m heterosexual,” but they might as well say, “hi I’m John and I’m flamboyantly homosexual.” A person is so much more than their sexuality. They’re a personality, a system of beliefs, an entire life and way of living. While some would argue that homosexuality is a conscious choice, I’d argue that heterosexuality is too. Others say that homosexuality isn’t something you choose, and so I would say that neither is heterosexuality. Honestly, I don’t know what causes you to be gay and what causes you to be straight and science can’t be 100% certain at this point, either. Though sexuality isn’t everything you are, it -is- a lifestyle.
My parents have been married for more than twenty years; they were married right out of high school. I feel blessed that unlike so many of my friends and so many of the other children around the country, I live with my two original parents and those parents still love each other after being together for more than twenty years. Their love is a beautiful thing. But it’s a lifestyle they chose for themselves. If my father were in the military, they could walk down the aisles of the commissary holding hands because they’re husband and wife. Taking the same hypothetical situation I set up earlier, I couldn’t do the same thing with my girlfriend. It would be illegal. Even if we had been together since high school, dating for five years, regardless of whether or not gay marriage within the military was permitted I would not be allowed to hold her hand in public, to show that small display of affection. Just as I don’t want to know what goes on behind closed doors with anybody’s parents, especially my own, and they’re certainly not going to share, so I wouldn’t share what went on with my girlfriend. I would just want to be able to hold her hand, to show that yes, we’re together and we love each other very much. To show that I want with her the sort of life my parents have lived together; a happy and loving one.
My point with that example is that I’m aware that gay rights activists often ask for not just equal rights, but more rights than straight couples. That isn’t what I think that should happen. That anyone should get any more rights than anyone else is wrong, it subscribes to “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” (Animal Farm, Orwell, 1945) Which is why I simply think it’s silly not only to not allow homosexuals and bisexuals to love whomever they wish, but to punish them for it. There are provisions in the UCMJ for disorderly conduct such as these crazies you see running around in San Francisco in bondage gear and fuzzy purple cowboy hats, even if military personnel -did- do something so foolish, which I don’t believe they would. The sorts of people who would do that more than likely wouldn’t join the military in the first place. I don’t believe in people parading their fetishes and what they do in bed out in public, but I believe in those people having a right to hold hands, to kiss (restrainedly). Holding hands, a peck on the cheek, they’re small signs of affection but to the couple they matter immensely. They’re not disruptive, they’re not rude, but they’re special to those couples. Why should a person be punished for holding hands?
Some may also argue that if we allowed gays to serve openly in the military, it might lead to more gays getting beaten up. They’ll get beaten up anyway for one reason or another. If it’s legal to be openly gay and they’re beaten up for being gay, that’s a hate crime. Why is a hate crime more severe than a regular crime? I don’t know. Not the point. Also, if a man or woman is beaten up for being gay then they wouldn’t be afraid to report it because they wouldn’t have to fear their livelihoods. They report the crime to the proper authorities, then the perpetrator can be dealt with properly; either punished or discharged according to the severity of the crime.
The repeal of DADT would also more than likely decrease the occurrence of lesbian baiting because sexuality would be a non-issue. Lesbian bating is the act of accusing a woman of being a lesbian if: she refuses to grant sexual favors, she reports sexual harassment, she rebuffs come-ons, and other such occurrences. It’s a form of sexual blackmail, and it -is- a problem in the military.(12) It’s a danger not just to lesbians but to straight women as well. Even if they’re found innocent, their reputation is marred and it opens up the doors to further harassment by her peers and coworkers.
The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, while better than the witch hunts which used to be conducted in the military, has outlived its usefulness. It now restricts the personal freedoms and rights of not just gay couples but heterosexual men and women who can be blackmailed for that sort of thing. There won’t be a burst of fabulosity once gays are finally allowed to serve openly and if there is the military has the habit of quashing those sorts of things before they really gather up much steam and can do so legally. It’s time we bring America into the twenty-first century and allow gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to serve just as openly as heterosexuals do.
Friday, September 17, 2010
A Quasi-Review of Hamlet, Part I: The Comparisons
So take one part Doctor Who, one part Captain Picard, one part Shakespeare. Throw them in a pot, stir well, and what do you get? Quite possibly the one production of Hamlet most geared toward the nerdy audience rather than trying to pull in people who wouldn't ordinarily watch Shakespeare. The funny thing is, in doing so they actually got some decent actors for once. I'm not saying that other actors who've done Shakespeare have done badly; Kenneth Brennaugh is one of my favorite for adaptations (such as his musical version of Love's Labors Lost or his hysterical Much Ado About Nothing), and I find Julia Stile is particularly well-suited. However, it's not often that you get an entire cast, down to the extras, in a Shakespeare play and especially a production of Hamlet...who actually know what they're saying!
When people think "Shakespearian tragedy" or, more accurately, "Hamlet" or "Romeo and Juliet," they think sad. It's the default position for any of the characters in either of those plays. When they're not sad, they're angry or contemplative. For the two former, the louder they shout their lines, the better the actor. For the latter, the more we have to turn up the volume, the deeper and the more the actor "gets" the character. Not so. My problem with people who try to film Shakespeare is that while they do great on the comedies, tragedies for some reason seem to make people play his characters as more wooden and solemn. They're people too! They've got dimensions like anyone else!
Let's take the great "To be or not to be" speech. Let's look at Ethan Hawke's Hamlet, for instance. Go ahead and watch, I'll wait. Now...did you know what was going on? Forget what was going on, did you even pay attention?? Me neither. I've got four tabs open; while I was listening to Hamlet mumble his way through Blockbuster I checked facebook and searched youtube in another tab for our next clip. He's disengaged from the audience and he just sort of runs through his lines as if he doesn't know what to say, he just knows he's supposed to be sad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not prejudiced; I love Ethan Hawke. His character in Dead Poets Society is particularly dear to my heart. However, I don't think he did the speech justice. David Tennant's version of the speech, however, engages the audience. In this soliloquy and most of the others throughout the film, he spends at least 50% of his lines looking straight at the camera. This is what Shakespeare wrote the soliloquy's for; to break the fourth wall in a way and engage the audience in the action.
The "To be or not to be" speech, however, is still a little difficult to follow no matter who's delivering the lines unless you're an English teacher or just better than you ought to be at Shakespearean English. I'm neither and I'm sure most of the viewers aren't, either. How about Brannagh!Hamlet's buddy Yorick? Okay, so Ken Branagh is brilliant and who doesn't love Billy Crystal? I mean seriously. But even our dear Mr. Branagh seems to favor the moody angle, which doesn't sit well with me. For one, who holds an outdoor funeral at night, especially in Denmark in what we assume to be the winter or fall as the cold weather is mentioned several times. It's simply there for ambiance. Also, Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is the brooding kind. True, Hamlet does plenty of brooding throughout the play but I don't think this was one of those times. I think it was more the thought-provoking sort of one-sided conversation about life and death one often hears among Bohemian college students in coffee houses (which isn't to slander said students; many of them are my friends and I enjoy such conversations). Check out David Tennant's musings. They're less "I'm being moody and thoughtful because I'm being taught in an English class" and more "I knew this guy! Seriously, I used to play with him when I was a kid. Good times...poor guy."
According to most, including Branagh, Hamlet's thoughts are "death, death, death, Ophelia, death, death, revenge, death, Dad, death, death, death, revenge, etc." They forget that Hamlet's a person too and while yes, he's looking to avenge his father, he's also trying to keep his relationship with his girlfriend working, deal with his disgust with his mother, gain the throne, avoid letting anything slip to his most trusted friends which he wouldn't want repeated to the king, and avoid being killed first. I don't care who you are, that's a lot to deal with! And this is just a sort of time for Hamlet to slow down and reminisce about better times. Y'know, before his dad was killed by his incestuous uncle (and possibly mother).
It's not just David Tennant, either, who I commend in this. I think Polonius's character was portrayed accurately for the first time since Shakespeare was alive. This lovely person has gone through the trouble of comparing all of the versions of the scene I wanted for me. Thank you, lovely person. So we look at Branagh's version first. He gets the crazy look in the eye down really well, but he again goes for anger all the time. He doesn't seem to realize that all the times he insults Polonius ("I would you were as honest a man," etc.) are supposed to be subtle insults. I mean, when a crazy person sounds crazy as he insults you, you don't really take it as much. "Oh, he didn't mean it; he's just a looney." If the crazy person doesn't sound crazy, only angry, then you sort of take offense. Hamlet's hoping to be king of Denmark; he's going to try to do crazy as much as possible so he can get away with telling people what he really thinks of them without anyone taking too much heed. Ethan Hawke's Hamlet...well...we love you, Ethan, but just...no.
Anyway, this part isn't about Hamlet, it's about Polonius! So, the first one (Branagh) has Richard Briers as Polonius. He does a good job, as Richard Briers always does, but I think he misses the point of being the "doddering old fool," so to speak. We get more of a sense in the first half of this clip that Polonius isn't just old, he's going senile. Now, what I don't understand is why Briers didn't go for this angle as well. He's good at being the doddering old fool; he was brilliant as Hector in Monarch of the Glen, the eccentric patriarch of Glenbogle. So I know for a fact it's not out of his acting range...why didn't he go for it unless he didn't understand?
Bill Murray, however, is far worse. Now, I like him as much as the next person: Groundhog Day, Ghost Busters, Osmosis Jones, What About Bob?, all great movies in their own right. He's a good actor if not a little too sardonic sometimes. His Polonius I think was a miss, though. He's too young, for one. For another, he didn't shout his lines or mutter them like some who don't know what they're saying but still I don't think he quite got the context of the scene. I mean, he did as well as he could acting against Ethan Hawke's greasy hair...Sort of like Rob Pattinson, who's actually a decent actor (not good, just decent), doing his best to act off of Kristen Stewart...who's a worse actress than Kiera Knightly and Christina Ricci combined. And that's saying a lot as I hate them both with a firey passion. Anyway, not a Twilight rant either. My point is, I think Murray was pretty much just doing the best he could with what he had without upstaging Hawke. I do still maintain, however, that he didn't really get Polonius's character.
I'm not certain how to bring this...essay? Rant? Whatchamacallit to a smooth ending, so I'll end it here. It's far longer than I meant for it to be anyway. Expect the next Hamlet entry quite soon, and it won't be so analytical as this. More just sympathizing with minor characters.
When people think "Shakespearian tragedy" or, more accurately, "Hamlet" or "Romeo and Juliet," they think sad. It's the default position for any of the characters in either of those plays. When they're not sad, they're angry or contemplative. For the two former, the louder they shout their lines, the better the actor. For the latter, the more we have to turn up the volume, the deeper and the more the actor "gets" the character. Not so. My problem with people who try to film Shakespeare is that while they do great on the comedies, tragedies for some reason seem to make people play his characters as more wooden and solemn. They're people too! They've got dimensions like anyone else!
Let's take the great "To be or not to be" speech. Let's look at Ethan Hawke's Hamlet, for instance. Go ahead and watch, I'll wait. Now...did you know what was going on? Forget what was going on, did you even pay attention?? Me neither. I've got four tabs open; while I was listening to Hamlet mumble his way through Blockbuster I checked facebook and searched youtube in another tab for our next clip. He's disengaged from the audience and he just sort of runs through his lines as if he doesn't know what to say, he just knows he's supposed to be sad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not prejudiced; I love Ethan Hawke. His character in Dead Poets Society is particularly dear to my heart. However, I don't think he did the speech justice. David Tennant's version of the speech, however, engages the audience. In this soliloquy and most of the others throughout the film, he spends at least 50% of his lines looking straight at the camera. This is what Shakespeare wrote the soliloquy's for; to break the fourth wall in a way and engage the audience in the action.
The "To be or not to be" speech, however, is still a little difficult to follow no matter who's delivering the lines unless you're an English teacher or just better than you ought to be at Shakespearean English. I'm neither and I'm sure most of the viewers aren't, either. How about Brannagh!Hamlet's buddy Yorick? Okay, so Ken Branagh is brilliant and who doesn't love Billy Crystal? I mean seriously. But even our dear Mr. Branagh seems to favor the moody angle, which doesn't sit well with me. For one, who holds an outdoor funeral at night, especially in Denmark in what we assume to be the winter or fall as the cold weather is mentioned several times. It's simply there for ambiance. Also, Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is the brooding kind. True, Hamlet does plenty of brooding throughout the play but I don't think this was one of those times. I think it was more the thought-provoking sort of one-sided conversation about life and death one often hears among Bohemian college students in coffee houses (which isn't to slander said students; many of them are my friends and I enjoy such conversations). Check out David Tennant's musings. They're less "I'm being moody and thoughtful because I'm being taught in an English class" and more "I knew this guy! Seriously, I used to play with him when I was a kid. Good times...poor guy."
According to most, including Branagh, Hamlet's thoughts are "death, death, death, Ophelia, death, death, revenge, death, Dad, death, death, death, revenge, etc." They forget that Hamlet's a person too and while yes, he's looking to avenge his father, he's also trying to keep his relationship with his girlfriend working, deal with his disgust with his mother, gain the throne, avoid letting anything slip to his most trusted friends which he wouldn't want repeated to the king, and avoid being killed first. I don't care who you are, that's a lot to deal with! And this is just a sort of time for Hamlet to slow down and reminisce about better times. Y'know, before his dad was killed by his incestuous uncle (and possibly mother).
It's not just David Tennant, either, who I commend in this. I think Polonius's character was portrayed accurately for the first time since Shakespeare was alive. This lovely person has gone through the trouble of comparing all of the versions of the scene I wanted for me. Thank you, lovely person. So we look at Branagh's version first. He gets the crazy look in the eye down really well, but he again goes for anger all the time. He doesn't seem to realize that all the times he insults Polonius ("I would you were as honest a man," etc.) are supposed to be subtle insults. I mean, when a crazy person sounds crazy as he insults you, you don't really take it as much. "Oh, he didn't mean it; he's just a looney." If the crazy person doesn't sound crazy, only angry, then you sort of take offense. Hamlet's hoping to be king of Denmark; he's going to try to do crazy as much as possible so he can get away with telling people what he really thinks of them without anyone taking too much heed. Ethan Hawke's Hamlet...well...we love you, Ethan, but just...no.
Anyway, this part isn't about Hamlet, it's about Polonius! So, the first one (Branagh) has Richard Briers as Polonius. He does a good job, as Richard Briers always does, but I think he misses the point of being the "doddering old fool," so to speak. We get more of a sense in the first half of this clip that Polonius isn't just old, he's going senile. Now, what I don't understand is why Briers didn't go for this angle as well. He's good at being the doddering old fool; he was brilliant as Hector in Monarch of the Glen, the eccentric patriarch of Glenbogle. So I know for a fact it's not out of his acting range...why didn't he go for it unless he didn't understand?
Bill Murray, however, is far worse. Now, I like him as much as the next person: Groundhog Day, Ghost Busters, Osmosis Jones, What About Bob?, all great movies in their own right. He's a good actor if not a little too sardonic sometimes. His Polonius I think was a miss, though. He's too young, for one. For another, he didn't shout his lines or mutter them like some who don't know what they're saying but still I don't think he quite got the context of the scene. I mean, he did as well as he could acting against Ethan Hawke's greasy hair...Sort of like Rob Pattinson, who's actually a decent actor (not good, just decent), doing his best to act off of Kristen Stewart...who's a worse actress than Kiera Knightly and Christina Ricci combined. And that's saying a lot as I hate them both with a firey passion. Anyway, not a Twilight rant either. My point is, I think Murray was pretty much just doing the best he could with what he had without upstaging Hawke. I do still maintain, however, that he didn't really get Polonius's character.
I'm not certain how to bring this...essay? Rant? Whatchamacallit to a smooth ending, so I'll end it here. It's far longer than I meant for it to be anyway. Expect the next Hamlet entry quite soon, and it won't be so analytical as this. More just sympathizing with minor characters.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Hey look! A blog!
So erm...hi. Welcome to my blog. Well, blog-like substance as it's likely that I'll post for about a week, forget for a little bit, then remember and post for another week. Lather, rinse, repeat. I'll try to keep up on it as much as I can, though. This'll mostly be for people wanting to keep up with my life, but since my life isn't that interesting at this moment in time, it'll also be a collection of half-baked philosophical ideas, ramblings, informal reviews of books and movies, etc. Hopefully you'll find them amusing and if not...oh well. I'm one of those lame people who amuses myself sometimes, so this gives me something to do. Since I aspire to be a writer, every now and then I'll probably throw out an idea for a story and ask you, yes YOU, the reader, what you think and if you would read it. If you want to collaborate on an original fiction (or fan fiction, I'm not finnicky) or just want to throw out an idea of your own, comment or email me and let me know!
So a bit about me if you don't already know. You know my name so I won't bother telling you, and most people reading this will know that I'm nineteen. All pretty "duh". Having escaped the soul-sucking gravitational force that is Ham's casual dining (*cough* sports bar), then calling in sick one day and being called back the next to be informed that I no longer have a job because the restaurant which saved me from Ham's went out of business, I've finally settled on McAlister's Deli. As you would assume a deli would, they sell sandwiches. Also, enormous baked potatoes filled with all sorts of delicious stuff along with salads, paninis, pizzas (all flat crust and only three different kinds, mind you), soups, lots of tasty things. Along with said tasties are desserts which are quite delicious (every time I'm scheduled for 10:30 I get to tempt customers with cookies I made myself that morning).
I must refrain from the desserts, however, as I'm trying to stay qualified for the United States Air Force. I've already booked a job as a cryptolinguist and am shipping out to basic on January 4. Very exciting, yet nervewracking at the same time. I won't know which language I'm assigned to until about halfway through BMT. We can put down our top five (I think...maybe three) preferences, but basically it's "you get where we need you." I'm hoping for a European language ie German, Italian, Russian, Serbian, simply because I want to be stationed in Europe. I wouldn't complain at Arabic, Farsi, or Pashtu, either. I'm afraid, however, that I might get stuck with an Asian language, which upsets me because most Asian languages are inflexion based and sound either whiney or angry all the time. But, let's hope for the best. Either way, I'm signed for six years and will spend about a year and a half of that, give or take, in Monterey, CA learning this new language. This means that to stuff into my head in a year and a half what most people learn in four years, I get to spend seven hours a day five days a week in a complete sumbersion class for one language. Excited? Uh, heck yes!! If I could have done this, but with five different classes, in high school, I would have looked forward to it! Like maybe...a language, philosophy, religion, history, and English class a piece. That would have been epic.
So...yes. There's my life as of late. Like I said, it's so far not very interesting so once something interesting develops, I'll let you know. Until then, you'll most likely get one of the other above-mentioned categories or some other randomness or nonsense. Next topic I think will be "Hamlet." Not any sort of intellectual treatise or something; I did plenty of that in school. Mostly the new version featuring David Tennant and Patrick Stewart, as well as my love of and/or pity for some of the minor characters. I may post that tonight, but if not then almost definitely tomorrow.
Until then, don't forget your towel.
So a bit about me if you don't already know. You know my name so I won't bother telling you, and most people reading this will know that I'm nineteen. All pretty "duh". Having escaped the soul-sucking gravitational force that is Ham's casual dining (*cough* sports bar), then calling in sick one day and being called back the next to be informed that I no longer have a job because the restaurant which saved me from Ham's went out of business, I've finally settled on McAlister's Deli. As you would assume a deli would, they sell sandwiches. Also, enormous baked potatoes filled with all sorts of delicious stuff along with salads, paninis, pizzas (all flat crust and only three different kinds, mind you), soups, lots of tasty things. Along with said tasties are desserts which are quite delicious (every time I'm scheduled for 10:30 I get to tempt customers with cookies I made myself that morning).
I must refrain from the desserts, however, as I'm trying to stay qualified for the United States Air Force. I've already booked a job as a cryptolinguist and am shipping out to basic on January 4. Very exciting, yet nervewracking at the same time. I won't know which language I'm assigned to until about halfway through BMT. We can put down our top five (I think...maybe three) preferences, but basically it's "you get where we need you." I'm hoping for a European language ie German, Italian, Russian, Serbian, simply because I want to be stationed in Europe. I wouldn't complain at Arabic, Farsi, or Pashtu, either. I'm afraid, however, that I might get stuck with an Asian language, which upsets me because most Asian languages are inflexion based and sound either whiney or angry all the time. But, let's hope for the best. Either way, I'm signed for six years and will spend about a year and a half of that, give or take, in Monterey, CA learning this new language. This means that to stuff into my head in a year and a half what most people learn in four years, I get to spend seven hours a day five days a week in a complete sumbersion class for one language. Excited? Uh, heck yes!! If I could have done this, but with five different classes, in high school, I would have looked forward to it! Like maybe...a language, philosophy, religion, history, and English class a piece. That would have been epic.
So...yes. There's my life as of late. Like I said, it's so far not very interesting so once something interesting develops, I'll let you know. Until then, you'll most likely get one of the other above-mentioned categories or some other randomness or nonsense. Next topic I think will be "Hamlet." Not any sort of intellectual treatise or something; I did plenty of that in school. Mostly the new version featuring David Tennant and Patrick Stewart, as well as my love of and/or pity for some of the minor characters. I may post that tonight, but if not then almost definitely tomorrow.
Until then, don't forget your towel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)