My angry thoughts on stupid stuff

I'm a reader. It's just something I like doing, be it in comic books, magazines, novels, non-fiction, newspapers, or online, I just like reading.

Forever I've been reading online, on gaming sites (because I also like video games) all these people complaining about DRM, and other ways gaming companies "screw" with the players to prevent piracy. Now I don't play games (I refuse to use the word "game" as a verb) on my computer (if I did I'd really never get any work done, best I don't have any computer games, and spend any time gaming on a consul) but all the complaining needs to stop.

You want all these precautionary measures to stop, it's simple, stop stealing the fucking game. Piracy may seem like small potatoes to you, but it's fucking stealing, and there is no way one could morally claim the high ground if you are fucking stealing a product. Now, whether you like it or not, video game companies make their money making and selling video games. I don't care what sort of rational you use, but downloading and playing a game that you didn't pay for, and never intend to pay for, is stealing, and stealing is wrong.

I don't care if you think the prices are too high, or the game is flawed, or that it has DRM or other anti-piracy measures, it's still fucking stealing. If you really wanted to make a statement about the game, don't fucking buy it. If you truly are morally against a gaming company treating their customers like potential thieves, then Don't. Buy. The. Game. It's really that simple. By stealing the game all you do is prove them right, and then the escalation starts.

The gaming company owes you nothing. Just like any other product out there, they are trying to make money. If I don't like Starbucks, or Mcdonalds, or Dunkin' Donuts, I don't steal their food/coffee/snacks, and then complain how much they suck. The reason I don't do this, it's fucking stupid, and STEALING IS WRONG. If you don't like a product don't buy it. Rebellion is starting a boycott. Rebellion is buying the competitor's games. Stealing is just you being a self-righteous prick who wants something for nothing, and then wants to complain about it.

If you pay for a game and the anti-piracy measures actually fucks up the actual game play, you can always ask for your money back. I don't know how customer friendly the gaming companies are to users who actually purchased the game, but if there are customer service issues you just learned a very valuable lesson and shouldn't do business (stealing counts as business) with said gaming company in the future.

And the best way to avoid that whole senario is to read up on the games. There are a million billion websites out there devoted to video games. Doing just a teensy bit of research can save you money as to which games to buy, and time. Any other argument that claims stealing is the answer is fucking retarded.*

PC Gamers, I'm sick of it, grow the fuck up.






*OK, so there is the privacy argument, which basically is arguing that the gaming companies force you to trade some of your privacy rights for their security, and this is actually a good argument. Not as an advocacy for stealing or pirating the game, but rather, why some measures should be changed to protect the customer's privacy, and until they do, a boycott is in order.

if you could see through my eyes

I'm color blind. It's no big deal really. Or rather it shouldn't be, yet whenever someone finds out that I'm color blind they go on a rampage of asking what everything looks like.
"what color is this?"
"what color is that?"
and so forth.

For the record it's not really that tactful to ask someone who's color blind about colors her or she can't see. Sure you might find it fascinating, but at best you're mildly annoying the person you're asking (because everyone asks the same damn questions), at worst you're making them feel very out of place and/or humiliating them for their disability. Most likely the former and not the latter, as I've yet to really meet any fellow color blind person who was overly sensitive about said disability. The point being, it's annoying as hell so cut it out.

That said, if you really are curious there is a neat website that lets you see the world as if you were color blind. So go here to see the world in a different light and stop bugging me.

That is all.

the inconvinence of truth

I've been absent, here's what you missed:

It's official. I'm going to vacation in Hong Kong in November. I've been on the fence for a bit, but expense be damned. I haven't really traveled and taken more than two days of vacation in over a gazillion years (literally). It's only going to be for a week, but if all goes well it will be a very good week. I shall be staying with a friend who is currently semestering over there, which will cut down on my expenses tremendously. I am quite pleased.

I've never seen a traditional Korean wedding ceremony and I guess I never will. My buddy Koo got married two weeks ago and because mapquest should really be called "the most ass backwards way of getting from point a to point b dot com" we (Natasia and I) got there late and missed the wedding. We arrived just in time for the reception. The food was pretty good (from what I had of it - lots of meat, lots of Korean stuff I was too scared to eat because I didn't know what was in it and I'm a coward) and we were sat with the only other white couple there. On the down side the best man gave the worst toast I have ever heard in my entire life. Things one should never say during a best man toast: "Ladies, I'm single and looking for a sugar mama." followed by "Also I am completely broke so anyone qualifies." A best man toast is not the time to practice your AA material. Don't talk about the hard life you've been having. How you had no one to talk too, how you felt estranged from your best friend, but thanks to Jesus everything is OK now. And most of all, it's a toast. It should be no more than five minutes not nearly a half an hour. I wish I had a time machine so I could talk to this best man and set him straight.

Lots of other travel is coming up, I am going to Nashville Tennessee this weekend for a bachelor party. I will write more on that after the fact.

Last little thought of the day. Who are the idiots out there who are still undecided? The two candidates have been running for over a year now. If you don't know which one you like better that means you haven't read a newspaper, watched a single bit of television, listened to the radio, checked your e-mail, or surfed any part of the internet for over a year. Or, you are incredibly stupid (and probably ugly to boot). Either way, if either one of those two things are true you don't deserve the right to vote. I don't care which candidate you've decided on (well I do care, but that is an all together different rant), but if you claim you don't know the candidates well enough yet, you haven't been fucking paying attention and I hate you. And for all of you undecided who can't make up your mind because even though you think Obama would be better you aren't sure if you can vote for a black man, You are what's wrong with this country and I hate you even more. If you really loved America like you say you do you'd kill yourself for the betterment of the rest of us.

That is all for now.

TTFN

Dear Sucky Starbucks Customers,

A note of warning, if you are not a sucky Starbucks customer then this letter probably won't apply and you need not read its message to stop sucking. That being said, you very well maybe a sucky customer of a different establishment and might want to take that into consideration before patting yourself on the back. If you are a delightful customer then this clearly doesn't apply to you, and kudos for being delightful, you are an unfortunate rare breed of consumer who should be encouraged. If only all customers were like you the world would be an easier place to live. If you aren't sure where you fall, the chances are you're probably only a little bit sucky, which can be easily rectified. With that warning in mind I shall begin.

Dear Sucky Starbucks Customers,

I'm sure you aren't bad people. You don't rape small animals, you don't torture children, you probably even pay your taxes on time, and those are all things you should be proud of. When it comes to your Coffee shop etiquette, however, you need a lot of work.

The first rule of all shopping: don't order if you don't have any enough money. I know, you are going to make a crack about Starbucks being over priced (and I'll get to that in a moment) but seriously, how hard is it to actually bring your wallet in with you? Not only are you wasting the time of the people behind you, you're wasting your time, and most importantly, my time. I can't give you the drink if you can't pay for it. Do you go to a clothing store with out enough funds and expect them to discount that shirt you really want because you're a dollar short? They'll tell you to put it back on the shelf, or hold it aside until you come back with enough money. Same works for coffee. No money, no coffee.

"I just forgot my wallet in the car. I'll run out and get it." Fine, great, may I recommend checking for your wallet before you walk into the store? You are penalizing the people behind you in, making them wait longer for their drinks, while you run to your car. Here's how it works. You stand in line, you order a drink, I call out the drink to the barista, the barista makes the drink while you pay. If you can't pay, the drink is still made because we assume you have the fucking money. Thus the people behind you, who could have ordered now must wait longer for their drinks because the drink you ordered but can't pay for is wasting their time. So what's a minute or so? Well, people I've found are generally cranky, people in dire need of affine are even crankier, and you're delaying their caffeine fix. I'm sure you can do the math on this one. Also, we aren't going to remake your drink because you're an idiot who can't keep track of your wallet. Your drink will be sitting out for you until you come and pay for it, meaning it will be cold (or warm if it is supposed to be cold) when you finally get it. And is that really what you want? No it is not.

Yes, Starbucks lingo is pretty stupid sounding. I know it's difficult to remember the name of the decaf, double tall, no foam, extra vanilla, breve caramel macchiatto that you love. But guess what, you don't have to remember all that. All you have to do is tell the person working the register what you want in your drink. If you want three shots extra of espresso, just say, "with three extra shots of espresso" and we'll do it for you. If you want half and half just say so. You don't have to speak in Starbucks-ese. Those of us who work behind the counter call it out in a certain Starbucks way because it actually makes the job easier. I say "double tall, breve, no foam latte" to the person making the drink because it's easier and quicker than saying, a tall latte with two shots of espresso and half and half with no foam. Just like diners have their own lingo, so do we. A Tall is a small, Grande is a medium, and Venti is a large. If you can't remember that (and no one is asking you to) just say small, medium, or large. We understand English. Most of us working don't really care what you say. For the love of god, people, jokes made about the names of the sizes or how we call out drinks stopped being funny in the early ninties. You aren't being clever, just annoying and derivative. Get over yourself. If you want to engage me in conversation that's cool. Management would like nothing less than a personal connection with each customer. But I can only hear the same comment so many times before I want to kill you. Talk about something more interesting, like the weather, or the Olympics, or even the Yankees (though I would prefer the Red Sox). You aren't funny, just fifteen years behind the times. Move on.

I'm only going to say this once, I have no control over the prices of any of the food or beverages we sell. Complaining to me will not get the prices to change. Telling me "well, this is why Starbucks is doing so poorly right now." Or "Coffee shouldn't be this expensive." Won't make me sympathetic to you. In fact every time I hear that (which is far too often) I have to resist the urge of spitting in your drink.

What you are paying for when you shop at Starbucks: A livelyhood for coffee farmers. It shouldn't be a shock to learn that just like every other independent farmer coffee growers are regularly screwed by everyone else. In fact the price of coffee beans is so undervalued that farmers barely survive on their coffee, if they can survive at all.

Starbucks is far from perfect in regards to the treatment of their growers, however, compared to almost every other multinational coffee company, They are practically saints. Because it's comparative that isn't really saying much, and more should be done, but that would make the price of coffee get even higher, and I know you'd hate that, no matter how many people it will help.

Another thing you're paying for when you shop at Starbucks: My health insurance. Unlike many other fast food companies (and that's really what Starbucks is turning into) they actually treat their employees well. As long as I continue to work at least 20 hours a week I get health insurance, vision, and dental. I also get stock options, and paid vacation hours. I am treated very well by my employers. In fact I think Starbucks should be the template for all other fast food places when it comes to treatment of employees. I lived for two whole years without insurance and believe me, it is not fun at all. If you think that complaining about the price (ie, the fact that Starbucks cares for its employees well being) is somehow going to endear me to you, well you're a fucking moron. If you are such a miserable bastard that thinks just because I work in food service means I should be treated like shit then fuck you. How about I go to your office and complain that you get paid too much to your face and that you don't deserve health benefits because it's mildly inconvenient to me? I'm sure that would make us the best of friends.

If you really think that Starbucks is over priced, I have a simple solution, don't go there. There are other places for coffee. Dunkin' Donuts, Tim Horton's, McDonalds, Burger King, Krispe Kreme, every side of the road and greasy spoon diner, and every 7-11 and every other convenience store known to man all sell coffee cheaper than Starbucks. If you really don't want to pay Starbucks prices you have plenty of options. So stop your damn complaining no one if forcing you to come here.

You are welcome to use our bathroom, even if you don't purchase anything. I'm a human being, I too use the bathroom. It's OK. What isn't OK: peeing or shitting all over the floor. The toilet exists for a reason, use it. After you wash your hands put the used paper towels in the garbage. This really isn't brain surgery. It's right next to the sink. Use it! Speaking of the garbage, if you are going to shoot up in there - fine I could care less - just don't throw the needles away in our garbage. That's an accident waiting to happen. I don't want to get what ever disease you might have getting stabbed through a garbage bag by your syringe because you are an inconsiderate junkie. This goes to the diabetics as well. Please discard your syringe safely. Lastly, and I can't stress this point enough, FLUSH THE FUCKING TOILET WHEN YOU ARE DONE. I don't think I need to explain this last one.

There is more, but those are the key points and this letter is long enough already. Please try and stop being so sucky.

Thank you.

Love,
Amichai


P.S. to you fellow employees of Starbucks, if a customer asks for a small, don't correct them. If they really have that hard of a time remembering what size is called what, even though based on price on the menu alone and the cups on display it should be obvious, then it's just not worth your time. Don't be a dick about it, OK? Thanks.

When Fans unite why is it always in hate?

Just saw The Dark Knight for the second time last night (this time in IMax). It's a good movie. Flat out a good movie. It's broken many, many box office records all over the world showing that I'm clearly not the only one that thinks it's a good movie. Chances are you find a random person on the street and ask them what they think of the movie they'll tell you they liked it (provided they saw it).

So why don't comic book fans like it as much as everyone else?
Exhibit A: Joe Rice at Comic book Resources.

I was going to give an exhibit B but it was the New Yorker magazine guy, and he hates movies. I don't know why they even have him review for them.

I know that Comic book resources doesn't speak for all comic fans, and I'm sure there are plenty of other comic book websites that I don't know about since I don't really care about the websites and future spoilers, and though I like comic books, I don't obsess over them. Given that, and I'd like you to please bear with me, I want to use this as an entry as to why comic book fans will never be happy with any comic book adaptation. Are you ready for it?

Because they thing they can do it better themselves. It's that simple. And 99.9% of them are wrong. They can't do it better. Because even if they somehow get the chance to make a new Batman, Hulk, Spider-man, Superman, or whoever-man movie, there'd be other comic book fans complaining that they got it wrong.

Thus, as a comic book fan myself, I've decided to stop comparing the comic to the movie and vice-versa, and try and judge them as complete separate entities.

When the Watchmen movie comes out I'll try to hold off any judgment until I see it, and not compare it to the Graphic novel on which it is based. Really, I don't want to turn into one of those crazy fans who hate everything, yet spend there money on all the things they claim they hate (and if any body out there who reads this also reads Secret Invasion, Final Crisis, or any major crossover in the Marvel and DC universe, you know what I'm taking about).

once again Warren Ellis is smarter than I am

This should really come as no surprise but Warren Ellis is smarter than me. I've had a decent amount of free time recently, partly due to my own laziness, partly due to the holiday season, and partly due to a job offer I'm waiting to hear back from which may or may not be the ticket out the more annoying and sad parts of my life (seemingly now more likely not than yes, but we live in hope), and I've spent some time (too much time) reading stupid things on the internet. I thought about linking a bunch of sites to give examples but really, I don't want to subject you to the inanity that has consumed my waking hours. If you are really interested just got to reddit.com and check out their politics section.

In any case, everybody and their grandmother seems to want to blame everything on an ideology. Be it religion, left or right wing politics, or some other crazy ideology. What it comes down to I think is not an idea or ideology, it's (as Warren Ellis writes - and I'm sure lots of other people have also said) it doesn't matter what the idea is, people screw it up every time. People are the problem, not because people are inherently bad or evil, rather because people are inherently stupid.

It's unfortunately that simple. People ruin everything.

But maybe I've spent too much of my time on the internet instead of doing something more productive, like trying to have a life. Maybe I should get on that.

This is why people suck

I hate people. I hate people so much I can't remember a time when I didn't hate people. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm a complete loner, but generally I prefer to either be alone or the company of just a few friends, and I hate meeting strangers. People bother the crap out of me. This might surprise anyone who knows that I have worked in customer service most of my life. Simultaneously this might also explain why I hate people so much. I fake it pretty well, working behind a register, being all bright and cheerful, but I only act that way because I'm getting paid to do so. Maybe I'm not as bitter as this paragraph makes me seem, but I do hate people none-the-less.

This past Wednesday I was working at Tribeca Productions. It was slow all day long, mostly due to the writers strike. No submissions, no rewrites, and very little we, as a production company, could do. It got to a point where the director of development was tossing a water bottle up and down into the air out of boredom, and joking that he soon might also need to get a job at Starbucks. Having little to do myself I hopped on Triggerstreet to read other amateur writers material and write reviews/constructive criticism to help them improve their writing. I have some material posted and reviews I have received have helped me write better drafts. I read a short story and this is the review that I posted for a story entitled BEING DUMB:

I can't tell if this story is trying to be ironic or if it's supposed to be read straight forward. At first I thought the story was being told from an eleven year old's perspective but then even though the story had a bit of a child like voice the character got older.

Then I thought that perhaps the narrator was actually supposed to be as dumb as he claimed, only every so often he would say mildly ironic things leading me to believe he isn't supposed to be that dumb after all. The bit about the college degree in the end was pretty confusing, not unto itself but when juxtaposed with the tone.

the bit about the abusive step-father came out of left field, then was dropped almost as soon as it came. Either the guy is really dumb and it's inconsequential to him, or he just pretends to be dumb, but then why doesn't he make this a bigger issue, or lead up to it a bit better? It was another moment where I couldn't tell exactly the intent of the story.

the story, I think, was also a few pages too long. It's a bit repetitive, at least in the telling of all the different girls, and if you took one or two girls out near the end you could shave a few pages without losing anything.

I know this seems like a disparaging review, but I did like the story. It was very cute and at moments the narrators voice really resonated with the storytelling. It was a good read that I think can use a little more work.

Arguably, the writing in this review could have been better. I wrote it pretty quick after I read the short story in question. I didn't much care for the story and I tried to write my concerns and straightforward as I could. I wasn't trying to be mean, just honest, tempered with some compassion in the end. I mean it's difficult to write a glowing review if one thinks the piece in question is sub par. And that's the point of the reviews on Triggerstreet, for writers to get feedback about their stories, both the good and the bad.

The next day this is the e-mail I received from the writer of BEING DUMB (which apparently was a biography, though not mentioned anywhere for me to know that, unless I am supposed to assume that all stories written in first person are biographical):

You know, instantly, I guessed a lot about you. Even where you’re from, your age (actually I thought you were a few years younger) and your heritage. That obnoxious rudeness and lack of any common sense gave you away.

Not understanding the story or who the narrator is, is okay. I can except that from someone like you.

It’s those dumb remarks, asshole. I bet you got your ass kicked quite a bit when you were a kid.

I’m sure you won’t (and incapable of) back up anything you wrote with examples.

This piece was clearly autobiographical to anyone with a little reading comprehension. As children we sometimes do stupid things (you probably still do). If you could have understood what I wrote (I doubt you actually read it, because I can’t believe you can be that stupid.), the actions of the adults were actually more senseless than anything the main child did. But of course, you’re incapable of seeing that. Actually I’m sure you can’t understand what I wrote so far.

You make this asinine remark about the step-father. That can be expected from someone who isn’t too bright (and doesn’t realize it). I won’t attempt to explain it to you simply because you wouldn’t understand it.

You question my degree? How did you make it through high school?

Which girls do you suggest I remove? It’s part of a constructive review to give examples and why. But since I’ve had the displeasure of getting several of your verbal attacks without one iota of constructive criticism, I realize that’s not your style.

The stories involving the girls all led to something else. Maybe you didn’t comprehend that part (that’s if you read it).

I’m confident being honest wasn’t a part of your upbringing. But I’ll ask the boy, clearly lacking in credibility, did you actually read this story (I know 19 pages is a lot)? What is it: incapable of understanding simple things or you didn’t actually read the whole thing?

I don’t really expect any kind of intelligent response (fuck you is probably your definition of an intelligent response, much like the mind of a ten year old).

All I was trying to do is be helpful, show what I found to be the weaker points of his story. That's the whole point of Triggerstreet. I want to write him back but I know it's pointless. It's just really fucking me up.

And this is why, people suck.

I am a mother pheasant plucker

I'm all for a cease fire, and for peace in the middle east and all that Jazz. I really am. I am not going go all Political here - mostly because I don't have access to the sources I want to reference, and I can't put out any info without the proper sources to back said info up.

Thing is, and this is the part that is really fucking my shit up, in all the talks for a cease fire, and all the war protests I've read about in the papers, why is no one even talking about the release of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers that blew up this powederkeg?

And what ever happened to that kid (yes I know he is a soldier, but I don't think he's even 20 yet) who was kidnapped in Israel and is being held in Gaza?

What the fuck is wrong with the world?

But good. There is now a cease fire. But what's the next step?

Why Europeans are Stupid

I don't know if you've been following the news but apparently, last September a Dutch Newspaper printed a series of twelve political cartoons satirizing the prophet Mohamed and the nations of Islam (by which I mean the real Muslims, not the American organization that gave Malcolm X the boot). The cartoons show Mohammed in various poses, the one that the New York Times keeps referencing is of Mohamed with a bomb shaped turban about to go off. It is against Islamic religious law to create an image of their holy prophet Mohammed. Muslims world-wide (at least Muslims in the Middle East) are up in arms, demanding, well demanding something anyway. They always are demanding something. Just once I would like to see them in ask politely in some sort of calm diplomatic context. That being said, this is not a diatribe against various Islamic countries.

Since the Newspaper doesn't follow an Islamic doctrine they shouldn't be penalized for drawing an image of the Prophet. That being said, what the fuck did they think would happen by publishing demeaning images of a important religious icon? It's like publishing an image of a bunch of crooked nose Jews counting their money while drinking christian or muslim blood, or those really bad Japanese caricatures that were so prevalent in the US around World War Two. People will get very angry. I know all that blood libel crap gets my blood boiling.

According to the New York Times (Sunday, February 5, 2006 page A10) the Danish paper (Jyllands-Posten) claimed it had asked cartoonists to draw the pictures because the media was practicing self-censorship when it came to Muslim issues. Now this is a load of grade A bullshit. The difficulty to assimilate and be accepted in European culture (there was just a big write up about this about Muslims and other ethnic immigrants to Sweden and the racism they face in many aspects of Swedish culture in the most recent New York Times Magazine), or perhaps an article about the strife between the secularists and the religious Muslims in Muslim countries, or even the various political conditions that led the Palestinians to vote to power a terrorist organization; those are Muslim issues. Publishing racist cartoons of the prophet Mohammed is not a Muslim issue, it is a perception of the "Muslim issue", which is nothing other than inherent racism in occidental culture, and says much more about the publication and perhaps Denmark than it does about Islam.

Denmark, like most free countries believe in the Freedom of the Press. I believe firmly in this freedom. The Jylands-Posten should have and has the right to publish anything they desire, and I support their right to do so, even if they are publishing garbage. That being said, just because you can print something doesn't necessarily mean you have to print that thing. We pick and choose all the time what we feel is worth while to print or write about. If all the images do is create hate and animosity (and maybe reinforce ethnic stereotypes) what is their worth for publication? Freedom of the press is not a mandate to the press, you needn't publish everything that comes across your desk. Choosing such obvious inflamitory images reflects poorly on the publication itself, and as I understand it, newspapers live and die based on their reputation.

When you boil everything down, this would be a non-story; in September a single newspaper printed something stupid, it happens all the time (Fox News ring a bell to you Americans out there?). The fact that due to the controversy other Newspapers around Europe picked up the cartoons and ran them in their newspapers in some sort of feeble minded attempt at solidarity. As if having the right to publish also gives you the right not to have people get angry at what you publish. Again, just because something can be published does not mean it should be published. And if what was published was crude and racist it might be smarter not to publish it. This is a very much "What the Fuck?" moment. What the fuck where they thinking? It's February, September was five months ago. FIVE FUCKING MONTHS AGO. Only now are the riots starting. If the rest of fucking Europe wasn't so goddamn uppity and would let a really stupid decision fade into the background, there wouldn't have been a riot in Lebanon and Syria, and who knows where else, in front of the various Danish Embassies.

Freedom of the Press only means that you can publish what you will, it does not mean you can be exempt from the consequences. (And cheers to England, because I'm pretty sure they haven't run the cartoons in questions).

The Arab nations are not blameless, and I don't mean to intimate that they are. But my rant about the Arab nations is, well, it's a completely different sort of rant. I find they don't really have a leg to stand on as in Syria, Egypt, and others, they have a television adaptation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a proven forgery many times over, and quite possibly the most anti-Semitic book ever written which has also done tremendous harm to the Jews over the course of the last century and even still today. There is a word called hypocrisy and another called over reaction and lastly an exacerbated motivation towards violence, but I'll let those lie - for this post anyway.

I'll end with my sincere plea to Europeans, stop being idiots. It's not doing anyone any good, and publishing hate and claiming freedom of the press only makes you guys look like douche bags. As far as foriegn relations go, America has been getting shit for years, and most of it deserved. It's Europe with it's hollier than thou attidute, that really gets my goat. As if they haven't made and are still making the same fucking mistakes we make over here. Publish whatever the hell you please, just don't expect your shit to come out smelling like roses. Next time if you use a little common sense and actually stop being so freaking racist (recent riots in France anyone?) this won't happen in the future, and then you can go back to blame America for all your problems.

Jackasses.