"meta" hours of operation

I found myself in need of a replacement Social Security card, so I headed over to the SSA's website to find the hours of operation for the nearest office. Instead, I found the hours of operation for the web page that tells me the office hours. Yes, you read that right. The hours of operation... for the web page.

This still blows my mind every single time I see it.

Not being one to shy away from leaving constructive feedback, I decided to bring the problem to somebody's attention. Although being that I'm contacting the same people who thought it was a good idea to put office hours on a website in the first place, I'm not expecting much in the way of results. But nevertheless, here's what I wrote (click the image to enlarge):

I had to edit out four different swear words before it got to this stage.

After I wrote that, I thought it might be a little too snarky to submit. After all, the recipient of my snark is likely to be a person who already has the misfortune of working in Washington, DC (oy!) for the federal government (double oy!) in a little cubicle (triple oy!), and tasked with reading and responding to people's complaints all day long (mother effing balls oy!). So I decided to tone it down a bit, and ended up submitting this:

Maybe still a little bitchier than it needs to be, but it is what it is. We'll see what happens. Maybe it'll go to a committee for discussion, and then to a task force, then back to another committee, then submitted for vote, then conditionally voted down, then rewritten and log rolled into a bill about consumer privacy protections and passed, then passed on to another task force who will resolve the problem by spending $1.3M to construct a facility to house all of the federal government's secure servers in one central location, which, in order to reduce cost to the taxpayer, will only be operational Monday through Friday, between the hours of 5:00 AM and 10:00 PM EST.

unholy penguins of the damned

A lady at the place where I work is into ceramics. She tells people that she makes them herself, but that's a lie. She actually just takes pre-formed ceramic figurines and paints them. Back before I knew the truth about her [lack of] involvement in making her figurines, I thought to myself, "Boy, she's really good! Granted, her painting sucks, but her sculpting is amazing!" But it turns out that she's not good at sculpting but bad at painting, but sadly, just bad at painting. (Related)

I'm not one to make fun of other people's art coloring, and that's not my intention in bringing this up. I bring it up because her painted figurines are creepy as all hell. They all have exactly one thing in common (aside from being lied about), and that's a pair of ghoulish, heavily shadowed eyes. And this creeps me out. I don't know why she consistently does this. Maybe she's a secret creeper (like me) and hopes to give people nightmares with her art (like me). Or maybe she's just really, really unskilled with the paint brush (like me), with the result that all her pieces are, unintentionally, grotesque (like me). Whatever the reason, it needs to stop, because it's the stuff of nightmares (like me).

Take this cute horrifying little penguin, for example:

All good things inside you died just now.

Look at it. Just look. Stare into the vacuum of those cold, unfeeling eyes for a good, long minute.

You know that feeling you have now, like your soul has just been quietly but savagely violated within you? That's the feeling I have every day I go into work and have this thing stare at me from across the desk. But it gets even worse. Look...

It's like sharing a desk with the Children of the Corn.

More of them! Twice the terror! For the love of all that's good and holy, why do these things exist?! And why are they glued to the lamp at the reception desk?!

Seriously, how do we live in a world in which these are allowed to be?

I'm convinced that if soul-eating death penguins could talk, they would sound like small English children who speak without emotion. I can already see them waddling single file through my bedroom window at night, intent on murder, while I lay sleeping in my bed. Just for the record, I'll be sleeping with a carving knife tonight.

As disturbing as those penguins are (and they are!), they're not even the worst of it. Not by a long shot. What you're about to see is a whole different kind of wrong:

This is so bad, I can't even bring myself to write a funny caption about it.

Penguins of the Damned are one thing, but this is so disturbing that it crosses over into the morally offensive. I don't really know how to say this without sounding crass, but look at this and tell me how it can be anything but a victim of sexual violence. Now I know rape a very serious thing and nothing to joke about, but that's really the only thing this penguin looks like. The tear-filled black-eyes with running mascara, the bloody split-open lip (or nose, it's hard to tell on a penguin), the look of shame and indignity, the hands over the crotch... Seriously, what the eff. This thing exists. A freaking bloody nose, for crying out loud! What on earth was she thinking?? And who thought it would be a good idea to display it at work? Hell, man. The vacant, soul-eating penguins suddenly seem like Muppet Babies in light of this. Seriously, we have a huge problem here.

Conclusion: Someone at my work is very messed up, in a very Clockwork Orange kind of way. And I dread going to work (and to sleep) because of it.

now hiring!

Job title: Dennys Late Nite Music Selector

Key Responsibilities: Scouring the bottom of the pop culture barrel for the most insufferable "music" imaginable with which to punish late night clientele. Excessive auto tuning and inexplicable lyrics encouraged.

To apply, submit a mix tape consisting of equal parts ass rock, pop-hop, poorly remixed 80s duets, and Smashmouth.

EOE. Compensation commensurate with cultural obtuseness. Ke$ha fans encouraged to apply.

a letter to the library, written in the library

Dear San Diego Public Library Head Honcho,

I'm writing today with a concern about the evolving library culture in San Diego. I remember a time, not so long ago (really not that long ago; I'm not even 30), when libraries were quiet places where we spoke in hushed tones and were careful not to disturb patrons who were there to read or study. I've noticed a change over the past few years, though. People now speak at conversational volume. What's worse is that it's primarily library staff members doing this! These are the people who are supposed to shush us, with scowls on their faces, when we speak above a whisper; now the roles are reversed, and I'm scowling at them as they're breaking my concentration while I'm trying to study.

I can't speak to all of the branches in San Diego, but I can attest that this is common at the Rancho Bernardo and Carmel Mountain Ranch locations. I always hoped I wouldn't turn into that guy who writes letters to complain about the times a-changin' until at least my 60th birthday (coinciding with my debut as the old man who yells at kids to stay off his lawn, by the way), but I figured it'd be better to address this earlier rather than later, as I'll hopefully be done with grad school by then and it won't be as big a deal for me.

Thanks so much for your time, and for providing an outstanding (albeit sometimes noisy) public library system. Keep up the great work.

-Caleb Ruggiero

feminism, logic, and (ir)rational debate

The following is an exchange I had with a colleague via the comments section of a link she posted on Facebook. I'm not disclosing her name or how I know her, but for context I will say that she's an adult female, several years my junior, and despite the impression this exchange may give, I really do like her and consider her a friend.

The initial link she posted was an essay entitled "Feminist arguments: A good argument against feminism". Having a basic understanding of logic and rhetoric, it didn't take me long to recognize that this piece is so wrought with fallacy and condescension that it's not even worth finishing.

Once I got about half way through, I quit reading and wrote a quick response. Little did I realize that this would lead to me spending my afternoon debating instead of getting the alignment on my Saturn done. Here's the exchange:

Me:
I read the first few paragraphs, and couldn't bring myself to continue.

Let's just take a moment to clear up what feminism is, and what it is not.

Feminism is the theory that women should have the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities as men.

Feminism is NOT about women and men being exactly the same. It's not about women being better than men. It's not about burning bras, male-bashing, lesbianism, or anything else this author would like to convince us it is.

It's just the theory that men and women should be afforded equal opportunity and equal rights. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Me:
And yes, there do exist feminist sub-theories which advocate misandry (reverse sexism), transgenderism (eg., not shaving, acting "butch"), and various other concepts which most people would consider "fringe".

But keep in mind there are some conservatives who advocate misogyny, the suspension of the Bill of Rights, and racial bigotry. But these views are not representative of what it means to be a conservative.

And there are some liberals who advocate voting rights for noncitizens, the abolition of capitalism, and eliminating our police and military forces. But these are certainly not reflective of classic liberalism.

And also, there are some Christian groups which promote anitsemitism, homophobia, violence, and greed. And you and I know these have nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

Just as it would be dishonest and reckless to generalize any of these fringe sub-theories as representative of their metatheories, we must take care not to do the same with feminist theory.

Her:
whatever the theory originally was, or what feminism is "defined as", is irrelevant. I did not post this article to say that women are inferior to men, but rather, that women should stop ACTING like the victim. Yes, men and women are of equal value, but it cannot be argued that they are the same. They're not, and that's a good thing...something to be celebrated, not fought. For the most part, feminism has become an agent for women to complain and act picked on. Interestingly enough, it is not uncommon for feminists to have had crappy, loser fathers. Hmmmmm..... a little pent up anger?

Maybe you should read the whole article?

Her:
More support for my belief: http://www.drlaura.com/letters/index.html?mode=view&tile=1&id=18102
[Ironically, I was thinking of using this very letter as an example of the kind of illogical and senseless argument one should avoid... obviously that would not have gone over very well in this discussion.]

Me:
Ironically, in describing your opposition to feminism, you are actually describing feminism itself. And what you are describing as feminism is, as I pointed out in my last comment, not actually what feminism is about. But of course, that's "irrelevant" isn't it?

Me:
Also, do you have any statistics to back up your suggestion that feminism is related to having bad fathers?

Her:
Do I have any statistics? No. Could I find some? Probably. I can list a number of women that I KNOW who are pissed off, liberal-minded, traditional-hating, men-bashing, feminists whose fathers were crap.

I'm sure that you will have some argument for anything I say regarding this issue. I will go on believing that modern feminism is ridiculous, that it is a huge contributor to the breakdown of the American family, and that it's has become a way for women to feel sorry for themselves. I believe these things about feminism TODAY; regardless of its ORIGINAL intent, there is NO denying what it has become.

Shall we agree to disagree?

Her:
And did I mention that these women tend to be miserable?

Me:
And I can list a number of conservatives I know who are anti-women, anti-environment, anti-minority, and anti-intellectual, but I'd be a fool to use that as evidence that those traits are reflective of mainstream conservativism.

You're free to stereotype and pigeonhole if that's what you really want to do. But I'd like to suggest you instead take the time to really understand the subject matter you're talking about instead of closing your ears and your mind to logical arguments that don't necessarily support what you've already chosen to believe is true. You just might find the world is much more complex and beautiful and textured than you'd realized.

Her:
dito

Her:
wait...have you not already chosen that what you believe is true as well? are you not closing your ears and your mind to MY logical arguments? We are both guilty of the same thing; we both want to be right. Maybe there is more than one way to look at something? Like I said, we can agree to disagree.

Her:
And I have taken the time to understand the subject matter, extensively. Just because I have come to a different conclusion than you on it, doesn't mean I'm wrong or close-minded.

Her:
It's also interesting that you made incredibly strong statements on an article that you didn't even read. Hmm.

Me:
The statements I made aren't about the article; they're about the logical position you're arguing.

Her:
I think we are both arguing about different aspects of this issue. You certainly have made some great points, and I really respect them.

Me:
I think so too. You're arguing against a particular brand of feminism which denies inherent differences between men and women, and tends to favor reverse sexism. I'm arguing that this brand of feminism is a fringe view and doesn't reflect the mainstream position that men and women ARE different, but should be afforded equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law.

We both know that there are innate sex differences, and that believing otherwise is inconsistent with mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. There's no disagreement there.

Me:
I guess the real debate here is how to define feminism. I'll take your word for it that you've encountered lots of wackos who call themselves feminists, and who have been the proverbial bad apples that spoil the whole bushel. I've encountered plenty of them myself. But that's only one view out of many which all fall under the "feminism" umbrella.

You've indicated that you agree with popular feminist theory, yet won't call yourself a feminist because you associate the term with the radical groups. I used to hesitate to use the term too, for the same reason. But we'd do well to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, rejecting true feminism along with its radical subcultures.

I guess the take-home lesson, if I had one, would be this: Don't let crazy minorities redefine definitions. It's human nature and we all do it, but it's very dangerous. We need only look at any political debate, religious strife, or racial conflict as evidence of this.

Me:
Last comment: I really enjoyed this debate, and I hope you did too :-)

Her:
Good conclusion. I actually did enjoy it too. Truce?

Me:
Sure. Let's join forces and gang up on someone else now. Any suggestions?

Am I not getting something here? Is the logic really that difficult to understand? Or am I really doing that bad a job of explaining that just because A=B, B doesn't necessarily equal A? Were my examples insufficient? Or does this go deeper than that? Am I the one being illogical? I sure hope not.

Thoughts?

UPDATE: After I posted this initially, the debate continued on for a while longer, leaving this account only about 50% complete. I've gone back and included the conversation in its entirety, which negates my original conclusion, as we did end up coming to a consensus. As usual, it ended up being more about semantics than actual content. Psh. Just once I'd like to come out of a debate having vanquished an opponent instead of realizing that we agree with each other and are just too tenacious to realize it. Oh well.

granny rents sexy movie for kids, outraged at sexual content

Outrage is mounting in Brooklyn after a grandma checked out a copy of Austin Powers at her local library, and found someone had taped over the end, replacing it with porno (LOL). According to The New York Post, she grossly overreacted to the incident, going straight to her assemblyman to complain. The assemblyman, who apparently thinks that representing his constituents means behaving exactly like them, responded with an even greater overreaction, demanding that all VHS tapes be removed from New York public libraries. Wait, what?

But it gets better. Quoth the Post:

Esther Klein got the tape from the Borough Park branch for her three grandkids, ages 7 to 15. The X-rated footage appeared as the credits rolled at the end.

Seriously, lady? You let your 7-year-old grandkid watch a PG-13 movie, which is well known for its strong sexual content (and has an MPAA notation clearly stating this fact right on the box), and then freak out when some porn shows up during the end credits? What's the matter with you? If I were your assemblyman, my response to your complaint would not be to launch an asinine campaign against VHS, but to tell you to be a responsible adult, to stop showing adult material to second graders, and to generally start using your brain. Oh yeah, and not to waste the state assembly's time with matters that should be dealt with by your local branch librarian.

Seriously, what's the matter with people? Every time I start thinking maybe humanity isn't all that bad...

am i the only one who sees a huge problem with this?

Michael Jackson's memorial service will be taking place tomorrow at Los Angeles' Staples Center, and promises to be a massive spectacle. Streets will be blocked off, a basketball arena will be filled to capacity, and tickets to the service are being scalped for tens of thousands of dollars (in a depressed economy, no less). It will be a circus the likes of which the world has never seen. And if that's how the Jacksons want to honor the King of Pop, that's up to them. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem, however, with the way this memorial service is being paid for: not by the Jackson family, or by Michael's estate, or by his plethora of obscenely wealthy friends, but by the City of Los Angeles.

In case you glossed over that, let me repeat it: A private citizen's memorial service is being paid for, 100%, by taxpayer dollars. Millions of them.

If you live in LA, this should piss you off big time. This kind of squandering is not only incredibly irresponsible, it's practically criminal. Heck, it almost makes San Diego look pretty good by comparison.

in the critical thinking gang, the initiation is to use google

The forwards are going around. Perhaps you've already gotten one (or seven). I just started getting the mass text message forwards about an hour ago, which warn of a shooting to take place at Walmart in which you, or someone you know, may be a target:

Do not go to wal-mart. Gang initiation to shoot 3 women tonight. Not sure which wal-mart. Confirmed on tv. Send to all girls.

I immediately dismissed this as a hoax, as it has more red flags than a Chinese New Year parade. First off, there are no specifics details included – no mention of a city, metro area, or even state in which this is supposed to take place. It could be anywhere! It may not happen at my local Walmart... but it could! What better way to cause widespread panic among people who don't use Google than to imply that it could happen anywhere in the country (including where you are right now!).

Second red flag is the lack of credible source. Someone writing a genuine warning would be sure to include where the information is coming from, so that others will take it seriously; that source would most likely be a police department or local news outlet. "Confirmed on tv" doesn't cut it, except for those among us who tend to forward first and think critically later.

Third red flag is the sheer implausibility of the situation. For one, gang initiations generally involve some form of property crime (stealing stuff, breaking into things), and/or getting your ass kicked by the other gangsters. Shooting random people as an initiation is purely the stuff of urban legends and "Fwd: Fwd: FW: Fwd: Fwd:Fwd:" emails your grandma sends you. Even if a gang did institute such an initiation, though, you wouldn't be hearing about it through a text or email forward. The initiation would be first known to the police, who would probably not release it to the general public (hopefully), as widespread panic is generally something police departments absolutely want to avoid. You and I would probably never even know about said initiation, except for the news report later that night about a group of plainclothes cops who gunned down a wannabe gangster when he tried to shoot somebody in the Health & Beauty aisle.

EDIT: Although random murder as a rite of passage is uncommon, I didn't mean to imply that it never happens. Unfortunately for people like these girls and this man, it is indeed a sad, albeit rare, reality.

So please, ladies and gentlemen, use your heads before you forward warnings about gang initiations, poison dog food, and waking up in a bathtub full of ice without your kidneys. Does it seem implausible, vague, or incredible? It's probably crap. If you think it might be credible, or you just would rather be safe than sorry, please check out Snopes first, or at least run a simple Google search to make sure you're not simply perpetuating a problem.

mrs. watson-parker was unavailable for comment

Well, I got on the boat pretty late, and chances are you did too. Did you know that a website has been set up for citizens to suggest and vote on policies for Obama's incoming administration? Apparently the Top 10 ideas, as determined by voting, will be presented to Obama and the 111th Congress for full consideration. That doesn't mean the Top 10 ideas will automatically be enacted, naturally (and once you see some of the top votes, you'll be glad that's the case), but Obama does seem pretty keen on involving the electorate in shaping his administration, so I wouldn't discount the contest as a waste of time, either.

While I'm wholeheartedly against the use of "voter guides", I do think it's a valuable exercise to discuss the issues on the table. I'd love to write about each of the ten initiatives I voted for (and some of the ones I didn't), but I simply don't have the time for that today. I will, however, tackle one of the issues. I'm writing about this one because it is, at the time of this writing, in first place among all the dozens of initiatives on the website, so it's obviously important to a lot of people. And obviously, since I voted for it, it's important to me too.

Ideas for Change: Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana.

Before I go any further, let me just say that using any recreational drugs, including marijuana, is stupid, and I do not endorse drug use or abuse in any way. Having said that, though, I do endorse the idea that adults should have the right to make their own personal health decisions, and the federal government has no right whatsoever to dictate what can and cannot be consumed by an individual, provided it doesn't harm anyone besides the moron doing it. The government acknowledges that we should be allowed to destroy our bodies and minds with tobacco and alcohol, yet doing the same with cannabis is prohibited. It simply doesn't make sense.

But restoring individual rights isn't the only benefit to decriminalizing the reefer; it would also make a pretty decent dent in the federal defecit, and right now we need whatever dents we can get. Think about it: We currently have pigovian taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and other harmful taxable items, ostensibly to discourage use and help pay for any damage they cause. Marijuana would certainly be a candidate for such a tax, so why not legalize it for the sake of the much-needed tax revenue it would generate? Even greater than the money it would bring in, is the money it would save. How much cash are we pouring into police, FBI, DEA, state and federal courts, county jails, state and federal prisons, probation and parole departments, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam, in order to combat marijuana? Now imagine not spending all those millions every year.

Decriminalizing pot would drastically reduce crime, too – particularly organized crime. If marijuana could be grown openly on American farms, the drug cartels would lose much of their power. This would result in a drop in violent crime, which would not only save lives, but law enforcement and emergency services resources as well (and again, the tax dollars that support such services). Now I'm not so naive as to think that the cartels wouldn't bounce back, finding other drugs to subsidize their losses... which is why I also advocate legalizing many other illicit drugs, thereby taking away pretty much all of their power... but we're talking about a marijuana initiative, so I won't spend any more time talking about other drugs. Perhaps I'll delve further into it in a future post.

But wait, this isn't Denmark! I don't want to be running into long-haired stoners every time I turn a corner, or share the highways with reefer-headed space cadets! Hey, neither do I, and don't worry, that won't happen. There are already laws in place in all 50 states (correct me if I'm wrong) against public intoxication, DUI, and DWI, and it'll remain just as illegal to swagger around stoned as it is to stumble around drunk. Let's not throw the baby our common sense out with the bathwater ridiculous and unconstitutional federal laws.

So that's my rationale behind voting to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. It may be controversial, but I stand by it. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin would stand by it too.

if you like pina coladas, and getting caught in the rain hiding naked in the closet by a jealous husband with a loaded gun

I saw an ad a couple of years ago for a divorce lawyer that was truly tasteless, and really shocking. Now keep in mind that I've viewed – multiple times – goatse, lemon party, and well, a lot of 4chan... so when I find something tasteless and shocking, it really means something.

Sandwiched between two soap opera-esque pseudo-suggestive photos (soap-core porn, perhaps?) was the text, "Life's short. Get a divorce." Now if I have to explain my problems with this, I doubt that any explanation would actually get the point through... so I'm just going to assume that everyone reading this is in agreement that this particular divorce lawyer is scum both a prime symptom of, and a contributor to, our woefully depraved culture.


The ad in question, which I guess is sexy for people who were into cheap hookers in the mid 80s.

For all the impact that ad made in my mind, it came and left my memory about as quickly as that punch bowl of Spamburger Helper I put down in 2001 (ie., it took a few days, but when it did leave, it did so with great haste). I hadn't thought of it since.

Until tonight.

I was perusing the internets this evening when my eye was caught by an ad with a very similar slogan to the one on that sleazy lawyer's mobile billboard:


Life is short. Just like that window in the 90s when this ad's layout actually looked edgy.

Did I seriously just see that? Curious as to whether this was a legitimate ad or some sort of gag link, I decided to visit the website (entering the url manually, so as to not benefit slime like this with a clickthrough) to see what I could find. Sure enough, it was exactly what the ad, um, advertised.


Join today, and blow/get blown by a hot, lecherous harlot tomorrow!

Yes ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed a dating site specifically designed for married men and women who want to cheat on their spouses. I can't even put into words how sleazy this is. It's like a bar that drums up business at the local AA meeting. Only not at all, really. Sorry, that was a really contrived simile. Like I said, words can't describe.

And, just in case you thought it couldn't possible get any slimier, get a load of this excerpt from their FAQ section:


Just like NAMBLA does not encourage pedophilia.

Slime city! So slimy, in fact, that I spontaneously erupted in a TMNT-era interjection just now! Granted that's not hard to make me do, but still! What a bold lie statement to make. If you read the rest of the FAQ, you'll find a whole page of nothing but lies and spin to make Ashley Madison feel better about herself for facilitating the destruction of countless relationships. It's like listening to George Bush in the 2004 debates. I'm not sure whether to be angry with such obvious attempts at justifying the overwhelming sleaze, or to pity her for resorting to such wafer-thin delusions in order to stave off acceptance of being an opportunistic, money-grubbing pervert.

The maximizer in me wants to bridge an alliance between the adultery-is-the-new-skydiving webmaster and the divorce-is-the-new-Corvette lawyer to create a one-stop "Life Is Short" home wrecking shop. It'd be like an ambulance driver that cuts the brakes on all the cars in the parking lot. But of course, the part of me that's not a life-sucking bastard would rather spend my energy encouraging people to honor the sanctity of their vows, not piss all over them.

somehow, this seemed perfectly reasonable to them

Good news for all of you procrastinators, lazy slobs, and irresponsible schmucks: your failure to do things right just may pay off for you!

Take these 88 University students in England who failed to submit their housing papers on time. When they found themselves without dorms (the logical consequence), the school was gracious enough to accommodate them anyway, and found a place for them to stay. Pretty nice of them, huh? But there's a fine line between nice and asinine, and since I'm writing about it here, I think we all know which side of the line they chose.

Nice would be making some grad student dorms, or other similar accommodations, available for the self-displaced students; really nice would be bringing in some modular housing, and perhaps charging them for the added expense (and even that would be a little much, I think). But the school catapulted straight over the nice-line and landed square in the heart of asinine country when they decided to put them up in a 5-star luxury hotel, complete with gourmet food, bubbling jacuzzis, and more high-end hookers than you can shake a stick at. And with rooms going for £50-£120 per day, we're looking at a £700-£1680 bill per room for the two weeks it took for the university to find more appropriate housing. So that means, assuming that students were paired two-per-room, that the final bill was somewhere between £30,800-£73,920 (or $53,548-$128,515 US dollars), not including meals. And the really nice part for the students? They paid the same rate for this Home Alone 2-style adventure as their dorm-dwelling counterparts, with the school generously picking up the difference.

So slackers and half-wits, take heart! If you tend to fail at life, rejoice! For Leicester University has set a bold precedent, and you can now fail no more. Forgot to go to class all semester? No problem, they'll probably give you an A out of pity. Did you shite on the department head's shoes? Don't worry, they'll make you Dean. The more epic your fail, the greater your win! How can you possibly go wrong?

[Related story.]

dispatch from iraq

My friend Jason is currently in Iraq serving with the USMC. This is the message he would like everyone to read:

Life has been pretty good this month. A little boring but good. I wanted to email you so you can forward this out to people.

I don't want this to sound negative but it is something that I have to say. If you could, please have people stop sending me care packages. They are too much. I appreciate the care, time and money that goes into making them, but they are more of a pain than help. For instance, I think I now have 9 tooth brushes, 40 razors, 15 bars of soap, tampons, make-up and make-up remover, etc. etc... I don't need all that stuff. People have to understand that one, our base has everything that we need. I don't mind spending a couple of bucks to buy some shampoo. Also, we do not have the space to keep it, so we will probably throw a lot of it away. I understand the makeup products were probably not meant for me, but we are in a combat zone, women don't wear makeup out here. Not only is it unnecessary for them to do so and they are not allowed to, the makeup messes up their skin really bad because of the dirty environment. I work in a hut. And yes it is an actual hut called a "SWA hut." I don't know what SWA means, but that is what they are called. It is pretty much like a storage thing you would see in someone's backyard but a little bigger. It has plywood walls, a plywood floor, and an aluminum roof. We do not have the room to keep stuff we most likely do not need. Back in my can where I live, I only have one shelf that is about 1 foot by 1 foot to keep stuff, so I have no room there either. I do appreciate people going out of their way to give me stuff, but I just can't use it. I know one might think that I can give it away. Well, I could, but everyone here gets care packages, so no one wants to take the stuff. Others might think I could take it with me when I go outside the wire to give it to local Iraqis. They definitely could use the stuff, but we are trying to limit how much the Iraqi people rely on us. Usually now when we go outside the wire, if we have stuff to give out, we will give it to the Iraqi Police or Iraqi Army first so they can hand it out, just so the Iraqi people get used to receiving goods from their own people.

Plus the trash becomes an issue as well. We burn everything we throw away. Everything. So if we don't use it we burn it. Now I haven't burned any items from care packages yet, but I have burned a lot of boxes. I think a few days ago I must have burned somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 boxes and it takes a while to burn boxes in an oil drum. The packaging is half the pain of receiving care packages. Some people like to cover the boxes with more tape then there is cardboard. Which is completely unnecessary. It just makes it really hard to open. When we receive the mail here it is almost in perfect condition. Just because we are in a "combat zone" it doesn't mean that the USPS that ships it over here likes to jump on the boxes and smash whatever it is inside. Other people have used packing peanuts which drives me crazy for a few reasons. One, I work in a plywood shack. So when I open the box the peanuts go everywhere. So then I have to clean it all up. Then I have to burn the packing peanuts which stinks. Two, most items, if not all, are not breakable and do not need package peanuts to protect them. And third, because I technically am in a combat zone (minus the combat part though) I don't need items that can break. So if someone wants to send me something that is breakable think twice about it because it probably won't last out here.

Enough about my ranting on care packages. In a nut shell, I don't need them. Sending me a box of stuff isn't the only way that I know people are thinking about me. There are other ways people can show they care. Email is good. I throw away all the letters I receive so emails are better. I don't have room to keep letters. Just a simple email asking how it is going is good enough. Another great thing people can do is pay attention to what is going on here. I was watching the Daily Show last night and Jon Stewart was talking to a journalist that just got back from Iraq . Stewart was amazed how well it seemed like things were going according to the journalist. He asked the writer how come most people don't realize what is going on here. The journalist said that last week, Iraq only made up 4% of the news. That means for every 100 stories that people hear about on the tv or radio, only 4 of them are about Iraq . I am sure that those 4 were probably about some bombing that happened in Baghdad. The problem is that the bombings that are still happening are a very small percentage of what is really going here. So if people want to actually care about the soldiers and Marines that are here, then they can go out of their way to find out. The news is doing a horrible job of telling the real story here and I understand that. So many good things have happened here in the last 6 months, but most people probably still think that bullets are firing down range and people are getting slaughtered like they were in the beginning of the war. That is just not true. Our base for instance, which is only 8 miles from Fallujah and 35 miles from Baghdad has not seen any hostile activity (meaning we have been attacked) in a year. Yes a year. Last April was the last time we took incoming. Things are safe. In fact I feel more comfortable out on the streets in Iraq than I do in San Diego. The Iraqis are making a better country for themselves and we are helping them. Now, the government can be just as shady as the news when it comes to what is actually going on. However, if people really care about us here, then they can go to www.usmc.mil, http://www.mcnews.info/mcnewsinfo/marines/gouge/, and http://www.dvidshub.net/. These are Marine Corps news sites. Plus AFN and Pentagon Channel has some good news coverage as well. Now many people might think that they don't want to trust the military propaganda machine, which I understand because I am probably more liberal than a lot of my friends back home, but I work hand in hand with the public affairs guys (the guys that are journalists for the military). So if you are read a story from the area that I work in, most likely I was right next to then taking photographs or video.

People need to understand the situation right now in Iraq. Yes it is messed up. But not in a way where people are running around with AKs and suicide vests blowing up every American they see. It's messed up because these people do not have the resources right now for a stable and effective government. An example. The journalist that was on the Daily Show told of a story that he had done, which probably no one read. It was about a way the Army wanted to help out with the trash problem in Baghdad. They went around and put out bright yellow dumpsters everywhere for people to use. It worked. People threw their trash into them. However, the next day, the goat herders came around, dumped out all the trash onto the streets so the goats could eat it. Then they left it there. The trash went into the sewer system, which was not capable to hold, so the pipes broke and dumped raw sewage into the streets. Whose fault was this? Was it the Army's for trying to have a way for the Iraqis to clean up their trash? Hardly. Was it the people's for actually using the dumpsters? Of course not. What about the goat herders, where their only income comes from the goats who were hungry and needed food? No, not them. Then what about the civil engineers? Was is their fault for not building a strong enough sewer system that could also hold trash as well as sewage? Not theirs either. So whose fault was it? It was nobody's fault. But now it is a problem that needs to be fixed. These are the kinds of issues that are happening over here and that the military is trying to address.

I am sorry about my long ranting email. But it frustrates me every time I get an email from someone or talk to someone and they act like I had just participated in the Battle of Fallujah or the landing at Iwo Jima. The best thing someone could do to help with my morale here is pay attention. Don't go out of your way and send me a care package so I can add another toothbrush to the 15 that I have. Check out the sites in this email. The DVIDs Hub is really good as well as the Pentagon Channel. There are 1000's of stories there for people to read and to find out exactly what is happening. Also, if you don't want to trust the military as a news source, guess what. Where do you think the news gets their news from? The DVIDs Hub is a military news feed. Pretty much what the military journalist do is send back via satellite every story that they write or videotape about. It is sent back to CNN in Atlanta . Yes CNN. Fox doesn't support the military nearly as much as CNN does, because they are the ones that we work directly with. Then from Atlanta , everyone gets their news. Now sometimes when you are watching a news release about Iraq, it looks as if that news company shot it. Well, maybe they did. Most likely they didn't. The military doesn't send back stories that are completely edited. What they do is send back all the b-roll, along with the complete interviews they shot, and maybe a little about what actually happened. Then when a news agency picks it up at Atlanta they edit their own story together and make it look as if they shot it.

Okay I think I am done with my long rant now. Pretty much all I am asking for is to pay attention with what is going on. And yes, that means you will have to get your news sources from some where else then one of the 24 hours "news" networks.

Cpl. Jason W. Fudge
1st MLG Combat Camera

[In between missions, Jason maintains a blog called Grassroots Activism in a Global Economy, which you should definitely check out. You should also check out his Flickr site, because he's an amazing photographer.]

by the way, which one's pink?

I work in a retirement community, and I've been called many wrong names over the two years I've been here. Evidently I am interchangeable with any other male employee who has dark hair and was born between 1975 and 1990. First I was Diego. Then Lazar. Then Chuck. I'm even Danny on ocassion, even though the real Danny is 6'5" and blond.

The problem is even worse on the phone, presumably because people don't have a face to go with my voice, and many seniors have poor hearing. I've been Kevin, Trevor, Kenneth, Calvin, Gabe, and about five or six others that I can't remember now (I used to keep a running list next to the phone). It was not uncommon to have a conversation like this three or more times in a day:

"Transportation, this is Caleb."
"Kevin?"
"No, Caleb."
"That's what I said. Kevin."
"No, not Kevin. This is Caleb."
"Oh! Hi Kenneth!"

A lot of changes take place in the brain as we get older, particularly with regard to memory, so I'm very gracious when the seniors get a little mixed up and think I'm someone else. I wish I could say it's just the seniors who do it, though. There's a chef here who's been calling me Charlie for the better part of a year, despite the large print name tag I wear every day. I've never corrected him, opting instead to see how long he carries on before someone else sets him straight. I guess you can say it's my own little field study, n=1. So far, it doesn't look like there's any end in sight.

"no escaping please"

I just read an article about a gas station clerk in Michigan who got tired of people driving off without paying for their gas, and jumped into a driver-offer's car to try to stop them.

Why would someone attempt such heroics on behalf of a petrol company that doesn't even care about them? Well, it turns out she's been getting penalized for these so-called drive-offs. Worse than that, the article's Fark comments give the impression that this is not unique; punishing clerks for customer gas theft seems to be common practice at stations that don't require you to pay before filling up.

If you ask me, that's beyond ridiculous. Clerks should not be punished for corporate idiocy. Anyone who chooses to operate their gas station in this way is indescribably stupid, and deserves to have every drop of their gas pumped away without seeing one penny – and they'll get no sympathy from me when it happens. Really, what do you expect when you dispense gasoline on the honor system? Have you ever heard of a jewelry store that leaves all their jewelry sitting out in the open, trusting that nobody will take any diamonds without paying for them? Or a supermarket that'll let you open up packages of food and start chowing down in the middle of the aisle, trusting that you'll eventually bring it to the register for payment? Of course not! That's because jewelry stores and supermarkets aren't run by idiots who are so naive as to think that everyone who comes to their shop is integrous enough to pay top dollar for something that is, for all intents and purposes, being given away for free.

Hey Michigan gas stations (and anyone else who operates like this), I've got a great plan to reduce drive-offs for you: make customers pay before pumping gas, like every other fuel station in the world. As long as you fail to do this, you will continue to be ripped off with increasing frequency, as the price of gas keeps climbing. And I'll be right here, not approving of it, but simply shaking my head and asking, "well what'd ya expect, stupid?"

this ain't a scene classroom, it's an arms race educational nightmare

There's a local radio station here in San Diego that recognizes outstanding teachers, and likes to tout the slogan "teachers make a difference".

Well, I just read about a very outstanding teacher in Florida who's made a huge difference in the lives of her pupils that won't be soon forgotten. That being said, though, keep in mind that "outstanding" doesn't always imply "in a good way", and "making a difference" isn't always a positive thing.

Wendy Portillo, a kindergarten teacher in Port St. Lucie, Florida, had her students vote one of their classmates out of the class. As if that's not bad enough, she added a heaping dose of public humiliation to that sundae by having him stand in front of the class while his peers announced what they dislike about him, calling him "annoying" and "disgusting", among other things.

Alex Barton, the five-year-old boy who was voted off Survivor-style and forced to spend the rest of the day in the nurse's office, has a history of disciplinary problems which may be attributed in part to Asperger's syndrome, which is a developmental disorder in the same family as austism. This makes an already repugnant episode all the more alarming. Alex should indeed be removed from his class, but not because his teacher and classmates dislike him -- he should be taken out of that environment and placed in a special needs class with teachers who know how to handle kids with developmental disorders.

As someone who's worked with kids for the better part of a decade, I know what it's like to deal with problem children. I had more than my share of bad kids back in my camp counselor days, and I admit, I sometimes got to the end of my rope and used some questionable discipline tactics. I really can relate to this teacher in that sense. However, I was a teenaged schmuck back then, and now that I'm an adult I know that there are better ways to handle the situation. Portillo is also an adult, yet she hasn't seemed to figure that out yet.

Disability or not, end of the rope or not, there's really no excuse for what Ms. Portillo did. The Barton family has removed Alex from the school, and he's so traumatized by the incident that he screams every time he goes with his parents to drop his brother off there, which may seem a bit over-the-top unless you've known anyone with an austism spectrum disorder.

In my opinion, Ms. Portillo has clearly demonstrated that she is grossly unqualified to teach children, and should thusly and urgently be relieved of her job. I also think she should start looking into other lines of work, because no school with any sensibility will want to hire a teacher who was fired for borderline emotional abuse.

The school district is investigating the affair, but if you want to voice your opinion on the matter, feel free to do so:

St. Lucie County School Board
District Offices
4204 Okeechobee Rd.
Fort Pierce, Fl. 34947
Phone: (772) 429-3600

Principal Marcia Cully:
cullym@stlucie.k12.fl.us

If you're tempted to send hate mail to the teacher, please don't. Expressing your concerns and feelings to the administration through appropriate channels will suffice. There's no need to get nasty. Really, you're better than that.

If you do decide to contact school officials, I guarantee they've already heard the pun about "voting Ms. Portillo out of the class" about a thousand times, but you can still say it anyway if you really want to. Heck, I just did.

if that's winning, i'll gladly lose

I got this chain e-mail today. It infuriated me so much that I nearly tore the sender a new e-hole via 'Reply All', but my senses prevailed and I decided to dissect it for public scrutiny instead. So here we go:

Subject: Unfortunately, this says it all!!!

Everyone has a different opinion on the war, and our current President. But, this article makes a lot of sense, and I hope you will read it and give it some thought:

What a difference 60 years makes..!!!

'You aint gonna like losing.' Author unknown.

President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not necessarily his decision to go to war in Iraq .

Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not.

Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.
Hold on a minute here. It's our duty to back our leaders? Funny, I could've sworn our Declaration of Independence states:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

and that our Constitution spells out, in Article II, Section 4, that the citizenry has the right and responsibility to force out of office any elected leader who betrays the public trust by acting above the law or selling out the People. This is a far cry from the people having the duty to back their leaders unquestioningly, as this essay suggests. Indeed, it's exactly the opposite; since the People elect their leaders, it's the duty of the People to not back those leaders when they fail to represent the interests of the People.

Let's continue...

Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.

And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.
Once again, 'sticking with the President' is not anybody's "patriotic duty". By now, you can probably see the horrible road this essay heading down...

Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.

Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.
Comparing the current war to WWII is like comparing apples and unicycles. The reason WWII had such great citizen mobilization is that it was a war that most people agreed was right, just, and necessary for the survival of a free world. The current war, on the other hand, is almost universally understood to be wrong, unjust, and certainly not necessary for the survival of anything other than war profiteers. Germany and Japan were real hostile forces who were directly attacking us and our allies; Iraq was not directly hostile, never attacked, nor had any plans to attack us or our allies, and has been known for years to have nothing to do with the terrorist networks we were supposed to be warring against. One would have to be either stupid or insane to think Iraq and WWII are anything alike.

You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
The media stringently censored their personalities in the mid-20th century, and dissenting voices were harassed, fired, or even blacklisted. It's also worth pointing out that George Bush isn't exactly the FDR of our time.

And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!
Yeah, we've made a lot of progress on that front in the past 60 years. Forced prayers and forced loyalty oaths are decidedly un-American.

Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage.
Often times, bringing our weaknesses to public light is the most expedient way of getting our weaknesses fixed by those who have the power to fix them. And besides, if a newspaper reporter is able to uncover the high casualty weak spots in a city, a terrorist sure as hell already knows about them, or at least knows how to find them at least as easily as the reporter did. And even if he can't, I can pretty much guarantee he's not getting his target intel from the Sacramento Bee.
No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
"What we're doing to catch spies" is the FOX News way of saying "illegally spying on American citizens, without congressional or judicial oversight, in flagrant violation of the National Security Act of 1947 Title V, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and the Constitution of the United States of America."
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
First, the author's thoughtless dismissal of these forms of torture is, well, torturous. These acts aren't the petty, frat-like gags this essay portrays them as. In the conservative, religious, patriarchal cultures of the Middle East, being forced to wear women's underwear ranks closely below being raped. There's also a huge difference between "being scared by a dog" and being threatened with the prospect of literally being eaten alive by snarling attack dogs. I'm not aware of any "enhanced interrogation techniques" involving 'not having air conditioning', but I do know that it's not uncommon to have temperatures of 120+ degrees in Iraq, and if people are being forced into a hotbox in that kind of climate, that's pretty damn disgusting.
Second, if it was revealed that we were torturing POWs during WWII, I doubt that newspapers "would have been laughed out of existence". It wasn't that long ago that Americans thought of their country as a beacon of morality in a depraved world, and torture has always been about as un-American-ly immoral as it gets.

There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crackheads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
Al Capone, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, John Dillinger, Lucky Luciano, Bugsy Siegel, Frank Costello... yeah there were definitely no "dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets" back in the good ol' days.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand, anyway? I thought we were talking about the war...

No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
If this was still the country our fathers fought to preserve, this war would never have started, 9/11 would have never happened, and Bush sure as hell would never have made it into office. This is what happens when a great nation becomes arrogant and lazy.

It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.
No, our attitude changed when we snapped out of our collective jingoistic euphoria and began to realize that we were being manipulated and sold out by our government, and led into a war that had been planned prior to 9/11 [1, 2, 3], based on obviously falsified intelligence.
Oh, and "a cross between Sodom and Gomorra [sic] and the land of Oz"? That's cute.

We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
People who have no ground to stand on love to say things like "it has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million" without actually citing any stats to back up their claims. If those estimates are legitimate, and not just pulled from thin air, I'd love to see them. Until the author can provide me with valid statistics, I'm going to dismiss this as the ramblings of a very ignorant, small-minded, and sad individual.

So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.

America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
Funny, that's exactly where Bush told us to go right after the twin towers fell. That makes us patriots, doesn't it?

bob cratchit would shoot you in the face if he got the chance.

If I hear one more person complain about this alleged "war on Christmas," I'm gonna slap them silly. Nobody is out to get rid of Christmas. There are no supervillains sitting in their lairs, concocting diabolical schemes to rid the world of Christmas once and for all, laughing heartily with their henchmen about how now Chanukah will be the big winter holiday.

Seriously, if someone who doesn't know you wants to give you a friendly greeting, do you really expect them to say, "Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanzaa, Super Solstice, and Bitchin' Festivus, depending on whichever holiday you happen to celebrate, as well as Happy Thanksgiving, Boxing Day, and a Happy New Year too"? No, because not only would that be stupid, it would be a waste of everybody's time and an annoyance. So shut up and quit complaining about "Happy Holidays" and just be glad that you're not getting a laundry list of seasonal greetings that will just piss you off and make you late for your pilates.

But wait, it gets even worse. I was at Souplantation the other day, and there was a family sitting at the table next to mine, and the mom seemed very agitated that there was a "Happy Happy Hanukah" sign hanging on one of the doors, but not a "Merry Christmas" sign. She made a fuss about it and even asked her server why there's not a "Merry Christmas" sign. Of course he doesn't know or care about the background of the holiday decorations, so he says he'd have to ask the manager about it. As time went by, I heard her continue to complain to her family about it, and wonder aloud why she hasn't gotten an answer yet. Thankfully I resisted the urge, but I really wanted to just get up and throttle her and be like, "You see the Christmas lights hanging up in here? You see the Christmas wreaths on the doors and windows? You see how the dessert bar is adorned with holly and garland, and the pillar holding the ceiling up is wrapped in candy cane stripes? You see the red and green Christmas bows on every lamp in the building? You see that little Christmas tree by the coffee machine, with the little Christmas presents beneath it? Why isn't all this enough for you? Why are you so bent up about not having a 'Merry Christmas' sign on the door to the freaking broom closet? Yes, there is a 'Happy Happy Hanukah sign displayed in an effort to include Jewish customers in the festivities. Why is that so offensive to you? Do you hate Chanukah? Are you an anti-Semite? Would you prefer that we exclude Jews from our celebration? Huh? Well answer me!" Yeah, clearly Souplantation is fighting on the front lines of America's war on family values by not including a "Merry Christmas" banner among their many, many Christmas decorations.

And what's everybody's problem with "Xmas"? "Oh, that's secular America's attempt to take Christ out of Christmas!" they keep telling me. Bull freaking crap. If you bothered to do any amount of learning up on the subject before you started complaining, you'd know that the Greek letter Chi, which is identical to our letter X, is the first letter in the Greek spelling of "Christ", and has been used for nearly 20 centuries as a shorthand abbreviation for His name. That's taking Christ out of Christmas, alright. Just like "E-mail" is a plot to take "electronic" out of "electronic mail service".

As long as we're on the subject, am I the only one who finds it ironic that people get themselves so worked up about this supposed usurpation of Christ from Christmas, and how we need to remember the true meaning of the holiday... meanwhile they're stepping over homeless people freezing to death on the street, on their way to Wal-Mart to spend extravagant sums on unnecessary gadgets and toys that were made by 9-year-old sweatshop workers who slave 60+ hours a week to just survive? That's the true meaning of Christmas, alright. Glad you're here to defend it against those damn liberals who are trying to keep us from worshipping materialism -- I mean Jesus Christ -- this Christmas season.

So if you don't like the dechristianization of Christmas, instead of bitching about it all day long, why don't you do something to put Christ back into it? Stop worrying about buying stupid crap for people, and instead worry about what you can do to make someone's life a little better. Instead of handing your money over to line Sam Walton's pockets, why don't you use it to put food in someone's mouth, or shoes on some kid's feet? Turn off the Christmas lights and use the money you save on your electric bill to buy a few Meals on Wheels for people who can't leave their homes. Go visit some old people in the local nursing home; the only human contact those poor folks usually get is people trying to shove pills down their throats. Or how about taking all the time and energy you'd spend protesting "Xmas" and putting it towards helping out that single mom who works 50 hours a week and has three kids to take care of? You wanna get Christ back into Christmas? Go show His love to the people who need it most.

And stop shopping at freaking Wal-Mart.


Above: A man dressed in a Santa suit protests Wal-Mart's "Home for the Holidays" ad campaign, saying that it denies Christ and cheapens the meaning of Christmas, which apparently is Santa Claus.

To whom it may concern:

I'm not sure who's the joker behind this, but whoever told you that my genitals don't pack the punch they ought to was not serious. This being the case, I would appreciate it if you would remove my e-mail from your courtesy list. Although I sincerely appreciate your concern in this matter, I assure you I am not, in fact, in need of Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, or Russian Sex-Man Rhino Tablets. I thought that my lack of response would be a good enough indication that I'm not really interested in increasing my potency, but looking back now I can see that that just made it look like I was embarrassed to place an order, so you graciously sent me more and more advertisements, even making the effort to disguise the product names in clever ways, such as V1AGGRÁ and C.îALL1S, in case somebody came into my cubicle at work while I was ordering these drugs. Talk about going the extra mile! I sure do appreciate your efforts to remedy this hypothetical problem of mine in the most discrete and convenient manner (no prescription is even required! Wow!), but truth be told, my natural Caleb power can put to shame all of your miracle remedies combined, if they ever went head to head. Not that that's any of your business, though.

So as I said, I appreciate your efforts to provide me with affordable and convenient solutions to impotence, but I really don't need them at all. Thank you for clearing up this misunderstanding. I hate for your firm's efficiency to be compromised because of misdirected efforts, so I'm sure that correcting this error will be beneficial for both of us.

Sincerely,
Caleb B. Ruggiero

PS - If you're also the ones sending me notifications of ~*~College Girl Webcams~*~ and Hot Singles Who Want To Meet ME Tonight, please take note that I am in a very happy relationship and have no desire for your services. Thank you.

Trader Joe's has been my favorite grocery store for years. I've always enjoyed their quality products at quality prices, and especially their commitment to listening to the needs and desires of their customers. But all that has changed. After more that 25,000 customers, myself included, emailed the company HQ to ask that they follow the lead of their top two competitors - Whole Foods and Wild Oats/Henry's - and carry only cage-free eggs, the company blew us off as "an activist group" and posted a response on their web site, chock full of lies and misinformation, defending their refusal to listen to the concerns of their customers. Among said lies is the claim that egg production is carried out under strict FDA and USDA guidelines for humane treatment. The truth is, there are NO government guidelines whatsoever concerning treatment of laying hens. They also pointed out that the eggs they carry are "Animal Care Certified". Naturally, they failed to mention that the Better Business Bureau has declared twice that "Animal Care Certified" is a misleading label unsubstantiated by reality, and that the "Animal Care Certified" promotion is currently the subject of a false advertising lawsuit, as well as pending legal action by the Federal Trade Commission.

In 2002, Trader Joe's stopped carrying duck meat because of customer concerns over the inhumane treatment of ducks. But really, how many people buy duck, anyway? They could stop carrying duck meat, and not even have a noticeable cut in profits. But there's a lot more money to be made in eggs, so when faced with the exact same concern for a big money-making product, it's a lot cheaper to write off the customers as political zealots and bleeding-heart propagandists. It's nice to see Trader Joe's true values come to light. It's not the customers. It's not the community. It's not quality. It's MONEY. Nothing more, nothing less. They're just another greedy corporation that doesn't care about anything other than the bottom line. Well, I'm not gonna take it, and neither should you.

I urge you to do what I've already done about it. E-mail Trader Joe's and politely, but firmly, tell them that you expect them to practice what they preach and actually listen to their customers, and that you want them to stop carrying battery-cage eggs. In addition to e-mailing, call their customer comment hotline at (626)599-3817 (West Coast) or (781)455-7319 (East Coast) and politely tell them you want the company to sell only cage-free eggs.

As for me, until Trader Joe's repeals their statement branding me a political extremist and uninformed boob, I will be taking all of my business to Henry's, Baron's, and Whole Foods Market.

UPDATE: On November 7, 2005, Trader Joe's announced that all of their TJs brand eggs will henceforth be cage-free. As their brand constitutes the vat majority of the eggs they sell, this is fantastic news for chickens.

I was at the deli the other day having some lunch, and the TV was tuned to this stupid daytime show for people who have no lives of their own, called "Celebrity Justice". The announcer had just introduced the show's top story of the day with the headline, "The latest news in the Michael Jackson trial", when I hear a voice beside me go, "Did they hang him?" Not wanting to encourage an idiot in any way, I ignored the comment and took another bite from my sandwich. But of course, it's never that simple. Idiots persevere. "Is that an option?" I heard the voice say again, "can they hang him?" I looked over to my right to see a thirty-something doofus looking directly at me, ear to ear grin on his stupid face, awaiting my approval of his oh-so-clever remarks. I raised my eyebrows and let out a very unenthusiastic "heh", and continued with my sandwich. This seemed to please the moron, and he turned his gaze back to the TV, now feeling very validated. This exchange got me to thinking. What is it about unwitty people that makes them think anybody wants to hear their stupid comments? I don't even know this guy, and he's attempting really crappy jokes with me. It wasn't even funny. There was no wit in his comment, no fast thinking or cleverness whatsoever. He just blurted out the first rubbish thing that entered his mind. Not only did this complete lack of substance keep him from opening his big mouth in the first place, but he kept on going even after I ignored him the first time. I wonder what goes on in the head of someone like that? "Well, that didn't go over so well, did it? Maybe it'll be funnier if I say the exact same thing, only louder!"