Thank you, come again

Sup --

Full disclosure: I work at a major retail chain. The name is not important because this has nothing to do with either my company or my store specifically, but if you know me, you know who pays me. And this is neither the official, or unofficial, opinion of my company, it is mine and mine alone. Well, mine and pretty much every other person that works retail.

There is one thing that I hate about my job: guests. I know, I know, if it wasnt for the guests, I wouldnt have a job. I get that. But what I dont get, what bugs THE HELL out of me, is how, and why, guests can come into my job and treat it as either a playground for themselves or a day care for their kids.

On one hand, I can kind of... kind of... give the kids a pass, because, well, theyre kids. Their job is to do stupid stuff. By their parents, thats another story. 1) Where are they? 2) Why havent they taught their kids the difference between right and wrong, or at the very least simple respect?

Case in point: closing shift, Sunday, September 5, 2010

Its about 8pm at night and Im walking behind a family that consisted of a Mom, a Dad, and 4 kids ranging between 4 and 6. Each kid was carrying a giant playball.

Sidenote: If you work in retail, and if your store sells these playballs, chances are you despise them as much as I do. Kids come in all day, take them from the bin, and play with them. Most of the time setting them down on the floor and walking away when their parents finally come pick them up from "day care". Which means we have to pick them up and put them away constantly. I HATE these balls, and since they only sell for about $2.50 each, my company better be getting a massive return on them to justify their continued selling of them.

So Im walking behind the family, were all headed to the checklanes, and I was actually thinking to myself that it was nice to actually see someone buying them for a change. We get to our Snack department, and out of nowhere two of the kids take the balls they were carrying and just throw them as hard as they can down the aisle. The parents didnt say a word to either kid, and the group continued walking. Me? I actually said out loud: "What the fuck?!"

The group continues to the checklanes and the other two kids take the balls they had and throw them as hard as they could into our Girls department. Again, Mom and Dad say nothing. Me? I couldnt help but say "You mother fuckers!"

It was obvious that the parents had absolutely no intention of buying one of the balls, let alone all four, so what the hell did they think was going to happen to them? Did they think the balls were going to put themselves away? No, they probably figured, like every other inconsiderate assclown that shops retail, that it was the job of the employees to just walk around and pick their shit up. Cuz thats what I get paid for, right? But what gets me even more, is how could the adults condone the behavior of the kids? How can they just act like it was normal?

Honestly, if they werent purchasing merchandise, I would have picked the balls up and thrown them at the back of their heads. Ok, probably not, but in my mind I saw each kid getting pegged and dropping to the floor. But, I was the good boy and did nothing like that, instead, I picked the balls up and stood there holding them as I stared a hole through both parents. Basically: pay for the stuff and leave my store.

Before I wrap this up, I have one misconception to clear up: NO, I do NOT get paid to pick your crap up and put it away! That is something that I have to do, IN ADDITION TO, my normal job that I actually DO get paid for!

So the next time you walk into a store and decide not to purchase something and set it down nowhere near where it goes, or allow your kids to play with something and then throw it through the store, just remember that someone has to pick that up for you. Probably the same someone that could be assisting another guest with their shopping experience. Or the same someone that could be stocking the shelves with that item you came in for. Or the same someone that could be going up to help cashier to help you check out faster.

So the next time youre in my store - or any other store - and you get frustrated because theres nobody around to help you, dont even bother to bitch because theyre probably picking up after someone else. Someone... LIKE YOU.

Til next time

-- DBW --

3 down, 6 to go

So yeah, today I almost died.

Really.

Im standing at a stoplight, watching the other light on my right, waiting for it to turn yellow, knowing it will turn red soon after, and then my light will be green and I can continue on my journey.
Im standing there, standing there, standing there, and Im thinking: "Why is this light taking so long?" Finally the other light turns yellow, and I look to my left to see that a truck is coming, but its about half a block away and slowing down. Nothing is out of the ordinary.
My light turns green, I check to see that the truck has stopped - it has - and I then step off the curb and into the crosswalk. It takes a few steps, but I get to the trucks right headlight, second step and Im at the middle of the truck, third step and Im at the trucks left headlight. Im in the process of taking the fourth step to clear the truck completely and.....

BOOM!!!

I have no idea what the Hell just happened, but when that fourth step was completed I turn around to see that the truck I was just walking in front of is now in the middle of the crosswalk. The reason is because the driver of a car that was following behind the truck wasnt paying attention and slammed into the back of it, pushing it right into the path I had JUST walked.
If I was one step, half a step, slower... if I had stepped off of the curb a second later, I wouldnt be able to write this because I literally would have been dead. Crushed by a truck.

Im now in the middle of the crosswalk, and I finish walking across the street, but Im watching the guy in the truck and the girl in the car to see if everyone is ok. Guy is moving around - his truck is mostly ok, girl is moving around and appears to be physically fine, but he car is fucked up bad and she starts to cry, really cry, when she gets out and realizes whats happened.
By this time the truck guy was out and over to her, on his phone calling the cops, so there wasnt really anything I could do to help either one of them. So I continued on my journey - after I had Tweeted that I had almost died, of course - and scratched another of my 9 lives off my list.

Til next time...

-- DBW --

The civility of terrorists

If I said: "Someone masterminded a terrorist act on US soil by using a vehicle as a weapon and destroying a building with it, killing far too many people, all because he opposed the Government of the United States" youd think of Osama bin Laden and 9/11, right? Or perhaps maybe youd even think of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Now, would it surprise you to know that I wasnt talking about Arab terrorists, planes, and New York buildings? In fact, I was referencing an American terrorist, a rented moving truck, and a Federal building in downtown Oklahoma City.

On April 19th, 1995 Timothy McVeigh loaded a rented Ryder van with 5,000 pounds of fertilizer and racing fuel and parked it in front of the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. When the bomb went off, 450 people were injured and 168 were dead, including 19 children who were in a day care on the first floor.
The reasoning for this terrorist act was that Timothy McVeigh wanted revenge for "What the US Government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge" and he hoped to inspire a revolt against what he considered "a tyrannical federal government."
He has been quoted as saying: "The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") - mainly because they have used them in the past. Well, if thats the standard by which these matters are decided, then the US is the nation that set the precedent. The US has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The US claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) - with respect to Iraqs (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran. If Saddam is such a demon and people are calling for war crime charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" - like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above. The truth is, the US has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction."

There is no hard definition of "terrorism" but under Federal criminal code 18 U.S.C. 2331, the United States has defined "terrorism" as: "Activities that involve violent... or life threatening acts... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping..."
And under this definition, McVeigh was tried as a terrorist, in a civilian court, and was convicted of all 11 counts of the federal indictment and was sentenced to death, which was carried out on June 11th, 2001. But he did not leave this world before saying: "Isnt it kind of scary that one man could wreak this kind of Hell?"

So whats the point of this? Well, seems that there are politicians who are trying their hardest to block trials of people - "terrorists" - being held in Guantanamo Bay. At least, they want to block trials in civilian court even though some of these people - like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - are accused of the very same thing Timothy McVeigh did. Coincidentally, Mohammeds crime came three months to the day after McVeigh was put to death for his.
So whats the difference? Why is it ok to capture, try, convict, and execute one terrorist and not another?
"Because theyre war criminals and any trial should be held in military court. besides, military trials are quicker." No, no theyre not - there was no war, they did not act with the authority of a particular country, they acted alone because of their personal beliefs, and Timothy McVeighs trial was not in military court. And if military trials are quicker, then why the hell havent they happened yet?

Now heres one possible reason: military trials are closed doors, whereas civilian trials are open for the public to see. "So, what does that mean?" It could mean that these politicians - mostly Republicans - want these trials kept quiet so as not to cause issues for a certain former President and his administration.
See, its pretty much accepted that during the course of our "war" with whomever were at war with, we did some very very bad things. Things that are not only embarrassing to our country, but also highly illegal by our own rules as well as the generally accepted rules of civilized nations of the world. And while its one thing to talk about these at the water cooler at work, its quite a bit different to have to admit to these things in a court, under oath, for the record, and for the world to see. Only way to make sure that doesnt happen is to have a military trial, which would come complete with conveniently closed doors. "If you cant hear us admit to doing it, then maybe we didnt do it at all."

But like I said, thats just one possible reason, but Im sure the truth is much more innocent, right?

Right?

Til next time...

-- DBW --

Fourth meal

Yo --

I just finished eating my dinner and, as always, it was delicious. Two volcano tacos, one volcano burrito, and one nacho crunch burrito, all for a very yummy $8. And this came from a place where chefs the world over have given compliments such as:

"Nasty."
Charlie Palmer of Charlie Palmer Steak and Aureole

"Its just plain disgusting."
Nate Appleman of A16 and SPQR

"Its just scary."
Brian Bistrong of Braeburn

"Utter bastardization of one of the finest cuisines in the world. What the fuck is a chalupa?"
Joey Campanaro of The Little Owl

What the Hell? Seriously? I find it appalling that "chefs" who have an attitude of "less is more... so pay more" can stick their nose up at food that is cheap, filling, and tastes pretty damn good too. I dare them to offer anything comparable. Lets see what you can get for $8 at those fine eating establishments:
Braeburn: A poached egg.
The Little Owl: Fries.
A16: Two sides of olives.
SPQR: Your choice of an egg or a pig ear.
Charlie Palmer Steak: Nothing. You cant even get spinach at Charlies place.

Yeah, Ill take my Taco Bell over a poached egg, fries, and a pigs ear ANY day.

Anywho, if you wish to look at other "worst fast food places as compiled by Esquire and voted on by snobby chefs" you can go here: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/worst-fast-food-0909
And if you want a real chef for real people, go here: http://thecookingguy.com

Ciao

-- DBW --

The Green Lantern of Oz

Sup yall --

Im a firm believer in the theory that the more you look for something that doesnt exist, the more likely youll be able to find "proof" that it does. And this blog is an exercise in just that.
I was watching The Wizard Of Oz recently and theres a scene where Dorothy and her gang are standing outside the door to the wizards castle and on the door was a design that instantly reminded me of the Green Lantern logo. Click HERE to see the comparison. I thought it was oddly interesting, but I didnt really pay much attention to it.

And right there is where I should have stopped.

So then I started to think of other things that kinda-sorta-maybe could be considered similarities between the two very different works.
- Dorothy travels to Oz while the Green Lanterns travel to Oa
- Dorothy uses her ruby slippers to will herself back home while the Green Lanterns use their emerald rings to will things into existence
- The wizard of Oz lives in the Emerald City and while none of the Lanterns live in "Emerald City" everything about them is emerald.
- Oz has the balding bite sized inhabitants called Munchkins and Oa has the balding bite sized Guardians. Click HERE to see.
- Dorothys arch nemesis is the Wicked Witch who has an elongated face, different colored skin, funky nose, and pointy chin while Green Lanterns arch nemesis is Sinestro who has an elongated face, different colored skin, funky nose, and pointy chin. Again, click HERE to see.

Other things that arent quite "proof" include:
- The dude in the first linked picture is wearing a rip off of Guy Gardners costume. Or is it the other way around?
- The upcoming Green Lantern film is shooting in Australia, whose shortened name is Oz.

Im just starting to read Green Lantern comics, so there could very well be other instances of (forced?) similarities, and I may add them as I come across them, but I think this was a good start to at least initiate a discussion on whether or not theres a legitimate link between The Wizard Of Oz and Green Lantern or not.

So until we meet again...

-- DBW --

Sucks to be: Ken Carson

Ken Carson? Who the Hell is Ken Carson? Until today I didnt know he had a last name, all I knew him as was Ken of "Barbie and Ken." But youre him, and on the surface, your life is awesome. Youre a decent looking dude, you dont seem to be tied down to a job, you apparently always hang out at the beach, and youre banging Barbie. You got it made.

Or do you.

In real life, I work at a major retail establishment - the cool one - and the other day at work I saw a toy called "Barbies Fantasy Groom" and I suddenly realized, it must TOTALLY suck to be Ken.
I get that Barbie is the girl equivalent of GI Joe, and shes supposed to make girls feel great about themselves and whatever, but even as a little boy I had female GI Joe figures. Not "Nancy: GI Joes secretary" or "Sue: GI Joes housekeeper" but Scarlett (counter intelligence), Lady Jay (covert ops), Jinx (ninja), and Baroness (bad ass bitch). But with Ken, you just get the token male figure. A poorly defined character whos only apparent reason for existence is to be Barbies boyfriend. Its borderline sexist.

Lets look at careers for example. Did you know that theres a whole page on Wikipedia dedicated to Barbies careers? I didnt either. But if ya wanna look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie's_careers
Anywho, Barbie has been a teacher 12 times, in the military 6 times, dabbled in politics 6 times including becoming President, an astronaut 3 times, a flight attendant 9 times, a NASCAR driver once, plus countless other occupations including artist, Sea World trainer, super hero, and Starfleet officer.

Ken? Well, hes Barbies boyfriend.

So hes pretty much never had a job in his life, and his girlfriend has apparently done every job in the world, so his self esteem is probably kinda low. Then it takes another nose dive when his gal of 45 years dumps him - the day before Valentines Day - for an Australian surfer named Blaine. What... a... bitch!
Seriously, I give the dude props for not going into "Barbies Dream Gun Store" and getting a pistol to blow his brains out.
They would stay apart for two years until Barbie got tired of Blaine and moved on to a new career... I mean boyfriend... and got back with good ol' Ken.
So Ken finally has a job, Barbie has slowed down a bit, theyre married and have two kids. Life is just peachy for the Carsons. Yeah, not so much.
Ken is still collecting unemployment, Barbie cant decide what the Hell she wants to do with her life, theres no ring on her finger, no kids running around the house, and - the genesis of this post - Barbie is fantasizing about a groom thats clearly NOT Ken: http://tinyurl.com/26grgey

But hey, hes Carson, Ken Carson, and lifes not all bad cuz hes Barbies boyfriend and hes giving it to her good! Hes sliding into home every night! Hes putting the biscuit in the basket! The hot dog in the bun! Theyre having hot, wild, plastic toy whoopie. Hes putting his... HUH?! You got to be kidding me!!! Ken has no wee-wee?! Its not small, its non-existent! No wonder the bimbo broke up with him and is dreaming of other guys to marry: Ken Carson is literally built like a Ken doll.

I guess that also explains why he has no kung-fu grip either.

Yes, Ken Carson, it does suck to be you.

-- DBW --

Not Necessarily The News

Howdy --

In the recent past Ive written a few politically inspired posts and, at least, the majority of them have come off, probably intentionally, as anti-Republican. Or anti-friends-of-Republicans. This one will be the same since it deals with Fox News. Ahem, excuse me... Fox "News." I feel better now.

Before I do get into that, I feel the need to point out my political affiliation. Do I need to? No. But I choose to because I believe in full disclosure.
Currently, as of today, if I had to put labels on myself, Id probably say Im Liberal and lean towards the Democratic stance.
However, going back a few Presidents, I would have voted for Reagan, Bush #1 once, Clinton twice, Bush #2 once, Gore once, and then Obama. So of the last seven elections I would have voted for a Republican three times. Not bad for a "Democrat-leaning Liberal."

Anywho, lets move on.

As most of you know, theres a war going on right now. No, not the one in Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Burma. Or Somalia. Or even the epic civil war in Ingushetia. The last one is real too, look it up.
No, what Im talking about is the violent, bloody, war going on between Fox "News" and the White House.
In my opinion, there is a level of bias throughout most news organizations. At least the major ones. There isnt supposed to be, obviously, and news is just supposed to be news, but I suppose its to be expected when you have humans with human emotions writing and reporting on events of the world.
However, what Fox "News" does goes far beyond bias and instead is firmly planted in the territory of misdirection, misquotation, exaggeration, and most evil of all... fabrication. News organizations report on events, not stage them, and yet Fox "News" has done that very thing. And then reported on them as if they naturally occurred.
ANY group or individual would get to the point where they just get tired of all the lies and attacks, and the White House has finally gotten to the point and called Fox "News" out for what they really are: "The reality of it is, Fox News often operates almost as the research arm, or the communications arm, of the Republican Party."
What Fox "News" should have done was say "Yeah, and...?" but instead they got their panties in a bunch and exaggerated that comment to the point where the White House is now (paraphrasing) "A Russian cabal intent on abusing their power to censor Fox News from pumping truth into the homes of the American people." Hilarious.
I always find it funny that the group - or person - yelling the most, throwing the most punches, and otherwise unfairly attacking someone else is ALWAYS the one that complains the loudest when they get punched back. Seriously, Rush devotes blocks of his radio program to his "attackers" while Fox sets aside hours of their "News" programming to theirs. This, despite the fact that their entire existences are to do the very same thing they claim others are unfairly doing to them.

Everyone knows what Fox "News" really is, including Fox "News", and so I wasnt even going to write a word about any of this. Not one. That is, until I saw what Fox "News" Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: "Its astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming. It seems self serving on their part."
Yes, you read that correctly, the head of Fox "News" CLEARLY said that Fox "News" is... NOT... news! AND he blamed the White House for being too stupid to know this even though Fox calls its programming NEWS, they have the "Fox NEWS" logo on the screen, and the ONLY people you associate with Fox NEWS - "Fox and Friends", Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Bill O'Reilly - are featured in their "Fair and Balanced" NEWS promos.
So let me get this straight... Foxs producers create stories which they can then have their - admittedly - NOT NEWS people report on, and then when they get called out for it say "Youre too dumb not to see the truth" and then turn around and have their - admittedly - NOT NEWS people cry foul because people are calling them NOT NEWS. How does that make ANY sense at all?! And why does my head suddenly hurt?

Anywho.

This past Thursday I was watching The Daily Show and Jon Stewart pretty much bitch slapped Fox "News" for the very same reason I was writing this post. And, admittedly, they did so using sound bites and video clips and were much funnier, and informative, than anything I could write here.
So even though I had intentions of writing more, and could possibly lay claim that I was going to write it first, anything else I can say would probably be plagiarization, so Ill just link to the clip and let yall watch Jon tell you what I was thinking. Enjoy.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-

Til next time...

-- DBW --