This card is so true :-)
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
HAPPY BIRTHDAY...
It's Digby's birthday today. It's been a little over three years since I would last see her somewhat regularly hoping for that chance and never getting it. Yeah, I still kinda miss her. I never said I wasn't pathetic...
This card is so true :-)
This card is so true :-)
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
NOTHING LEFT...
A week ago, my job switched to "lane accountability". Management claimed our supermarket was actually in the minority of stores still not practicing it. While it may be entirely unrelated, our supermarket is also the top one in our area so maybe don't fix what ain't broken?
I've been through lane accountability before. It's where instead of getting an individual till, you share tills with other employees. The lane itself is proven rather than the individual and if the lane is short/over then those cashiers using the lane go on cash control in an effort to discover the likely culprit which...now that I think about it means the method we had been using all along was like being on permanent cash control and it didn't take two steps to identify the problem.
But like I said, I've been on this before and I thought it made sense for my department. I was in the Prepared Foods section and there was only one till and I usually manned it as I had prior experience as a cashier. The trouble was, when we had individual tills I had to wait for a coworker to get a till to relieve me for breaks which sometimes never happened. When lane accountability was introduced, I always got my breaks.
That being said, I think lane accountability makes sense for small stores and small departments within larger stores like my own. Prepared Foods, Pharmacy, and Courtesy would benefit from lane accountability I think whereas the Front End would not. It remains to be seen how this experiment pans out because if too many people end up on cash control, it defeats the point of this practice.
Normally I wouldn't care about this change but then I really don't like my job anymore. It's been going downhill for a long time now, probably as soon as 2004 when the original owner died leaving his sons fully in charge. I think the father kept his sons' selfishness in check because he built up his empire from the ground, starting as just a fruit stand back in the 1950s. His sons inherited an already successful chain.
Micromanagement started hitting us almost right away and it became rather apparent by the next contract negotiation when the store was very big on shitting on new hires. This trend has continued and I really cannot recommend working for my supermarket anymore as you are in no way cared about.
Coupled with the "Great Recession" downturn, it only got worse to work there. I really started feeling like an undesired expense rather than a dedicated asset to the company. I used to care about my company and it has since become clear to me that I have cared about my company long after it had stopped caring about me. I've given a lot of my life to that store that I can't ever get back and the only two things I have ever asked for were to have my hard-work/dedication be recognized by being left alone and by giving me Full Time.
By left alone, I mean trusted to do my duties because they knew I would not slack off and would commit to my tasks at hand and by having that dedication respected when it came to scheduling. For a long time I got that. My schedule was stable enough that it was like getting a salary and management was happy with my performance. I was rarely sick. I've never been injured. I was happy to come to work. They got good value for my wage. And for ten years, I bid for Full Time. And I wanted Full Time simply to guarantee my hours. As a part-timer, technically I could be cut pretty badly if they wanted to. My seniority will only take me so far but it is that seniority that has kept them from cutting too deeply though cut they have. The past two years have seen an average weekly drop of about 1½ to 2 hours.
It is only now by looking back on it that I realized I had only begun bidding for Full Time after the original owner had died. It's not possible to prove, but had I started bidding back in 2001 or 2002, would I have received my wish?
So now we all are increasingly micromanaged, the night shift has to deal with a manager whose continued employment probably counts as a verified miracle leaving him only one more to qualify for sainthood, wages have declined to survival level (not that they were ever fantastic to begin with...I'm still drawing a profit but I don't know how much longer I can keep that up. Last year 98% of my earnings were spoken for before they even got home), workers are made to feel like cogs rather than people, we're judged increasingly on ever less relevant statistics, our union grows weaker each negotiation...it sucks.
And now to top it all off I have had my identity stripped from me. Like I said, if I were happier in my job, lane accountability would not faze me but I'm not: I'm very unhappy at work. I despise having to go there now. My weekends are no longer enough to recharge me for another workweek. I meet each Wednesday night (my Monday) with dread. The only good about a Wednesday is that the shitty manager is off that night so I at least return to some peace. But it's not enough and I can't afford to take three days off.
But at least I had a till with my name on it. It was mine. I made it my own. I sorted things the way I like sorting them. It was efficient and orderly. Now I have a till. It is not my till. It belongs to the lane I have been assigned. It has been run through by all those who used it before me. I have to sort now according to a prescription that goes against 13 years of habit. Sure, I'll adapt...but it's like the last straw, y'know?
I have come to feel like a nothing at my job, as though I were no one. Now I am no one. I am a number when I clock in...not a person. I am a number when I sign in...not a person. I am a part of a whole when proven rather than an individual.
My job has taken away the fun of working there. It has taken away the sense of satisfaction I once derived from working there. It has taken away my dignity by making me into a series of percentages, ratios, and figures. Now it has taken away my identity.
I don't know why I continue to work for them...
Oh, that's right. I know why. It's because I don't have a choice. There are no other jobs near me that will pay a living wage, let alone a survival wage. I am bound to them and they know it and the store shows its contempt for all those whom it employs because it can...because it knows we have no place else to go. Why treat employees with respect when your employees are afraid to lose their jobs? Standing up for myself would be a fool's crusade. Yes sir! No sir! Whatever you say sir! Right away sir!
I hate my job, but I cannot leave my job. My job owns me. There is no escape and it kills me slowly...
I've been through lane accountability before. It's where instead of getting an individual till, you share tills with other employees. The lane itself is proven rather than the individual and if the lane is short/over then those cashiers using the lane go on cash control in an effort to discover the likely culprit which...now that I think about it means the method we had been using all along was like being on permanent cash control and it didn't take two steps to identify the problem.
But like I said, I've been on this before and I thought it made sense for my department. I was in the Prepared Foods section and there was only one till and I usually manned it as I had prior experience as a cashier. The trouble was, when we had individual tills I had to wait for a coworker to get a till to relieve me for breaks which sometimes never happened. When lane accountability was introduced, I always got my breaks.
That being said, I think lane accountability makes sense for small stores and small departments within larger stores like my own. Prepared Foods, Pharmacy, and Courtesy would benefit from lane accountability I think whereas the Front End would not. It remains to be seen how this experiment pans out because if too many people end up on cash control, it defeats the point of this practice.
Normally I wouldn't care about this change but then I really don't like my job anymore. It's been going downhill for a long time now, probably as soon as 2004 when the original owner died leaving his sons fully in charge. I think the father kept his sons' selfishness in check because he built up his empire from the ground, starting as just a fruit stand back in the 1950s. His sons inherited an already successful chain.
Micromanagement started hitting us almost right away and it became rather apparent by the next contract negotiation when the store was very big on shitting on new hires. This trend has continued and I really cannot recommend working for my supermarket anymore as you are in no way cared about.
Coupled with the "Great Recession" downturn, it only got worse to work there. I really started feeling like an undesired expense rather than a dedicated asset to the company. I used to care about my company and it has since become clear to me that I have cared about my company long after it had stopped caring about me. I've given a lot of my life to that store that I can't ever get back and the only two things I have ever asked for were to have my hard-work/dedication be recognized by being left alone and by giving me Full Time.
By left alone, I mean trusted to do my duties because they knew I would not slack off and would commit to my tasks at hand and by having that dedication respected when it came to scheduling. For a long time I got that. My schedule was stable enough that it was like getting a salary and management was happy with my performance. I was rarely sick. I've never been injured. I was happy to come to work. They got good value for my wage. And for ten years, I bid for Full Time. And I wanted Full Time simply to guarantee my hours. As a part-timer, technically I could be cut pretty badly if they wanted to. My seniority will only take me so far but it is that seniority that has kept them from cutting too deeply though cut they have. The past two years have seen an average weekly drop of about 1½ to 2 hours.
It is only now by looking back on it that I realized I had only begun bidding for Full Time after the original owner had died. It's not possible to prove, but had I started bidding back in 2001 or 2002, would I have received my wish?
So now we all are increasingly micromanaged, the night shift has to deal with a manager whose continued employment probably counts as a verified miracle leaving him only one more to qualify for sainthood, wages have declined to survival level (not that they were ever fantastic to begin with...I'm still drawing a profit but I don't know how much longer I can keep that up. Last year 98% of my earnings were spoken for before they even got home), workers are made to feel like cogs rather than people, we're judged increasingly on ever less relevant statistics, our union grows weaker each negotiation...it sucks.
And now to top it all off I have had my identity stripped from me. Like I said, if I were happier in my job, lane accountability would not faze me but I'm not: I'm very unhappy at work. I despise having to go there now. My weekends are no longer enough to recharge me for another workweek. I meet each Wednesday night (my Monday) with dread. The only good about a Wednesday is that the shitty manager is off that night so I at least return to some peace. But it's not enough and I can't afford to take three days off.
But at least I had a till with my name on it. It was mine. I made it my own. I sorted things the way I like sorting them. It was efficient and orderly. Now I have a till. It is not my till. It belongs to the lane I have been assigned. It has been run through by all those who used it before me. I have to sort now according to a prescription that goes against 13 years of habit. Sure, I'll adapt...but it's like the last straw, y'know?
I have come to feel like a nothing at my job, as though I were no one. Now I am no one. I am a number when I clock in...not a person. I am a number when I sign in...not a person. I am a part of a whole when proven rather than an individual.
My job has taken away the fun of working there. It has taken away the sense of satisfaction I once derived from working there. It has taken away my dignity by making me into a series of percentages, ratios, and figures. Now it has taken away my identity.
I don't know why I continue to work for them...
Oh, that's right. I know why. It's because I don't have a choice. There are no other jobs near me that will pay a living wage, let alone a survival wage. I am bound to them and they know it and the store shows its contempt for all those whom it employs because it can...because it knows we have no place else to go. Why treat employees with respect when your employees are afraid to lose their jobs? Standing up for myself would be a fool's crusade. Yes sir! No sir! Whatever you say sir! Right away sir!
I hate my job, but I cannot leave my job. My job owns me. There is no escape and it kills me slowly...
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
SONGS THAT CAN JUST GO AWAY, part XI
Katy Perry's "Firework" has been annoying the internet for some time now and it annoys the shit out of me too. It's not even because it's a sappy self-empowerment song, the kinds of which I've railed against before. No, what bugs me about it is the shoddily written chorus.
At first I thought it was just another example of Katy Perry's sometimes odd enunciations (listen to "California Gurls" for a good example of this). At times it feels like she is in a competition with Celine Dion for odd vocalizations. But I digress...
I had a difficult time understanding the chorus and did my damnedest to try to find words which fit. I should mention that this song plays at work so I've had no choice but to listen to it many, many times. The chorus sounds to the uninitiated like:
Now hearing "sky-y-y" I assumed the first three misunderstood syllables had to be "high" and that kinda made sense: "Make them go high, high, high // As you shoot across the sky-y-y!" But try as I might, I couldn't come up with a good rhyme scheme. "high, high, high // why-y-y?" Nah...
Finally after many weeks of this, I managed to remember to dedicate a few moments of my uneventful life to looking up the song's lyrics. What I saw brought this song from tolerable to fuck no, I want it to just go away. Here're the actual lyrics:
Okay, I had a few errors: "Go on" was "Come on" & "You're gonna leave them going" was actually "You're gonna leave 'em all in" Whatever. Divining lyrics is sometimes a complex art. Believe me, I know...I'm a Squeeze fan. But the rhyming couplets are what threw me. "Make them go, 'Ah, ah, ah' // As you shoot across the sky-y-y"? "Make them go, 'Ah, ah, ah' // You're gonna leave 'em all in awe, awe, awe"?
What the fuck was that? That's just terrible. No wonder my brain couldn't figure out the lyrics. It would have never accepted such a shitty couplet. I'm pretty sure Katy Perry doesn't write her own songs so it leaves me wondering what sort of professional songwriter would've found such couplets acceptable for singing? Hell, even in written poetry they'd suck. She barely differentiates between the words too. How was anyone supposed to know what she was singing? My brain just...no, it can't.
This song just needs to go away already...
At first I thought it was just another example of Katy Perry's sometimes odd enunciations (listen to "California Gurls" for a good example of this). At times it feels like she is in a competition with Celine Dion for odd vocalizations. But I digress...
I had a difficult time understanding the chorus and did my damnedest to try to find words which fit. I should mention that this song plays at work so I've had no choice but to listen to it many, many times. The chorus sounds to the uninitiated like:
♪♫ Baby, you're a firework!
Go on show them what your worth
Make them go (unintelligible three repeated syllables)
As you shoot across the sky-y-y!
Baby, you're a firework!
Go on let your colors burst
Make them go (unintelligible three repeated syllables)
You're gonna leave going (unintelligible three different repeated syllables) ♫♪
Now hearing "sky-y-y" I assumed the first three misunderstood syllables had to be "high" and that kinda made sense: "Make them go high, high, high // As you shoot across the sky-y-y!" But try as I might, I couldn't come up with a good rhyme scheme. "high, high, high // why-y-y?" Nah...
Finally after many weeks of this, I managed to remember to dedicate a few moments of my uneventful life to looking up the song's lyrics. What I saw brought this song from tolerable to fuck no, I want it to just go away. Here're the actual lyrics:
♪♫ Baby, you're a firework
Come on, show 'em what you're worth
Make 'em go, "Aah, aah, aah"
As you shoot across the sky-y-y
Baby, you're a firework
Come on, let your colors burst
Make 'em go, "Aah, aah, aah"
You're gonna leave 'em all in awe, awe, awe ♫♪
Come on, show 'em what you're worth
Make 'em go, "Aah, aah, aah"
As you shoot across the sky-y-y
Baby, you're a firework
Come on, let your colors burst
Make 'em go, "Aah, aah, aah"
You're gonna leave 'em all in awe, awe, awe ♫♪
Okay, I had a few errors: "Go on" was "Come on" & "You're gonna leave them going" was actually "You're gonna leave 'em all in" Whatever. Divining lyrics is sometimes a complex art. Believe me, I know...I'm a Squeeze fan. But the rhyming couplets are what threw me. "Make them go, 'Ah, ah, ah' // As you shoot across the sky-y-y"? "Make them go, 'Ah, ah, ah' // You're gonna leave 'em all in awe, awe, awe"?
What the fuck was that? That's just terrible. No wonder my brain couldn't figure out the lyrics. It would have never accepted such a shitty couplet. I'm pretty sure Katy Perry doesn't write her own songs so it leaves me wondering what sort of professional songwriter would've found such couplets acceptable for singing? Hell, even in written poetry they'd suck. She barely differentiates between the words too. How was anyone supposed to know what she was singing? My brain just...no, it can't.
This song just needs to go away already...
And it's got over 450 million views...
Monday, May 19, 2014
DON'T DATE GUYS WITHOUT PETS...
I've been off and (mostly) on dating sites since 2011. Since it takes me a while to even get a date, I go through a lot of profiles and start picking up on their nuances. One off-hand observation I've made was that a lot of women on Plenty of Fish were dog owners and I wondered if, in contradiction to the "Crazy Cat Lady Hypothesis", dog ownership meant a woman was more likely to be single.
Now because I'm me, I wanted some numbers to back up my claim before making a silly status update on Facebook about it. Yes, I'm that weird. I will spend hours poring over random profiles of women for the sole purpose of making sure my bad jokes have at least some semi-solid backing to them.
What I found surprised me. But first, while I'm having trouble pinning down exact numbers, The Humane Society of the United States says that 62% of American households have at least one pet (of any kind) and the American Veterinary Medical Association states 36.5% of U.S. households have dogs and 30.4% have cats. Since that combined total is greater than 62%, I'll take it there's some overlap there.
My idea was to go through random public profiles of women (ones you can see without signing into Plenty of Fish and OKCupid) and see whether I would reach 100 dog owners or 100 cat owners first.
It took a while, but after going through 313 female Plenty of Fish profiles, I got the following results:
So dog owners reached 100 first, but as you can see, my off-hand observation was correct: there were more dog owners represented than cat owners and by a large margin too. The results should skew around 1/3 dog, 1/3 cat, and 1/3 no pets but dogs and petless are overrepresented by a lot.
Continuing, I did the same thing for the men. Even though I'm prohibited from owning a pet in this apartment (much to my lonely chagrin), I counted myself as a cat owner because I would surely be one. I then continued with random male profiles with the object, like with the women, of reaching 100 dog or cat owners before quitting.
However, I had to quit because petless men ridiculously outnumbered the pet owners. I quit searching after I hit 200 petless men. Of the 283 male profiles viewed, these were my results:
So, despite the huge overrepresentation of petless men, dog owners still outnumbered cat owners by over 2 to 1.
I then moved on to OKCupid to see what would come up. For both sexes, I reached the quit point of 200 petless. OKCupid users appear to be less likely overall to have pets. OKCupid also has an option for liking or disliking animals. For the sake of this experiment, I considered the liking/disliking of animals to be the same as having no pets. Personally I like dogs, but I really would never consider owning one (even though miniature dachshunds are freaking adorable...and cat-sized). No, the user had to actually HAVE a dog/cat for it to count.
For women, I went through a total of 295 profiles and got the following results:
Again, besides the huge petless contingent, dogs ownership outnumbered cat ownership by just over 2 to 1.
For men, I went though a total of 252 profiles and got these results:
Only on OKCupid did male pet ownership appear to correlate with national statistics though I wonder if it would've continued the patterns already shown had I pressed on to reach 100 dog or cat owners. I just was not interested in spending that many hours to get to that number.
Now because I'm me, I wanted some numbers to back up my claim before making a silly status update on Facebook about it. Yes, I'm that weird. I will spend hours poring over random profiles of women for the sole purpose of making sure my bad jokes have at least some semi-solid backing to them.
What I found surprised me. But first, while I'm having trouble pinning down exact numbers, The Humane Society of the United States says that 62% of American households have at least one pet (of any kind) and the American Veterinary Medical Association states 36.5% of U.S. households have dogs and 30.4% have cats. Since that combined total is greater than 62%, I'll take it there's some overlap there.
My idea was to go through random public profiles of women (ones you can see without signing into Plenty of Fish and OKCupid) and see whether I would reach 100 dog owners or 100 cat owners first.
It took a while, but after going through 313 female Plenty of Fish profiles, I got the following results:
Dog owners: 100
Cat owners: 45
Owned both: 12
Owned other kinds of pets: 12
Owned no pets: 144
So dog owners reached 100 first, but as you can see, my off-hand observation was correct: there were more dog owners represented than cat owners and by a large margin too. The results should skew around 1/3 dog, 1/3 cat, and 1/3 no pets but dogs and petless are overrepresented by a lot.
Continuing, I did the same thing for the men. Even though I'm prohibited from owning a pet in this apartment (much to my lonely chagrin), I counted myself as a cat owner because I would surely be one. I then continued with random male profiles with the object, like with the women, of reaching 100 dog or cat owners before quitting.
However, I had to quit because petless men ridiculously outnumbered the pet owners. I quit searching after I hit 200 petless men. Of the 283 male profiles viewed, these were my results:
Dog owners: 47
Cat owners: 21
Owned both: 5
Owned other kinds of pets: 10
Owned no pets: 200
So, despite the huge overrepresentation of petless men, dog owners still outnumbered cat owners by over 2 to 1.
I then moved on to OKCupid to see what would come up. For both sexes, I reached the quit point of 200 petless. OKCupid users appear to be less likely overall to have pets. OKCupid also has an option for liking or disliking animals. For the sake of this experiment, I considered the liking/disliking of animals to be the same as having no pets. Personally I like dogs, but I really would never consider owning one (even though miniature dachshunds are freaking adorable...and cat-sized). No, the user had to actually HAVE a dog/cat for it to count.
For women, I went through a total of 295 profiles and got the following results:
Dog owners: 59
Cat owners: 29
Owned both: 7
Owned no pets or only liked those animals: 200
Again, besides the huge petless contingent, dogs ownership outnumbered cat ownership by just over 2 to 1.
For men, I went though a total of 252 profiles and got these results:
Dog owners: 25
Cat owners: 19
Owned both: 4
Owned no pets or only liked those animals: 204
Only on OKCupid did male pet ownership appear to correlate with national statistics though I wonder if it would've continued the patterns already shown had I pressed on to reach 100 dog or cat owners. I just was not interested in spending that many hours to get to that number.
My hasty conclusions?
Sunday, May 18, 2014
IS THIS ME...OR JUST ME NOW?
Sometimes I just wish someone I date would take me aside and convincingly tell me in a manner I would no way misinterpret as hurtful that I shouldn't date...that it's not for me because dating/being in a relationship isn't me.
I want to be told that I am meant to be alone because that is who I am. The intent wouldn't be that of a sad ending, but rather an ending appropriate for a mind like mine. That I'm not meant to be pinned to a single soul. That my duty lies in helping others and that I cannot be that man if I am obligated to another solely. Yes, I will be lonely at times but it will not be for naught. Yes, I will be horny at times but there's a way for dealing with that. Yes, I will long for a human touch but it will turn out it is that yearning which allows me to be at my best. A rationale for my life...
I'll admit I, at times, wish prostitution were legal and that I would not feel guilty in partaking. I want to believe that at least some of these women are doing it because they genuinely enjoy and are not otherwise trapped in a cycle of despair or abuse from which they cannot escape. It's difficult overlooking the power of reproductive urges. They're so selfish...so needy...so wanting... If I didn't feel them at all, my life would prove much more bearable. I wish it didn't feel so intoxicating, the desire to feel wanted at that raw, animalistic, sexual level...
I also admit I have a difficult time even imagining being in a relationship. It's weird. I can envision the companionship angle of it...the day-to-day stuff, but not the romance...not the wooing. Those latter aspects feel so unlike me. I love caring for other people in tangible ways but I have no desire to solicit a person to care for.
Eh, I don't know...
I want to be told that I am meant to be alone because that is who I am. The intent wouldn't be that of a sad ending, but rather an ending appropriate for a mind like mine. That I'm not meant to be pinned to a single soul. That my duty lies in helping others and that I cannot be that man if I am obligated to another solely. Yes, I will be lonely at times but it will not be for naught. Yes, I will be horny at times but there's a way for dealing with that. Yes, I will long for a human touch but it will turn out it is that yearning which allows me to be at my best. A rationale for my life...
I'll admit I, at times, wish prostitution were legal and that I would not feel guilty in partaking. I want to believe that at least some of these women are doing it because they genuinely enjoy and are not otherwise trapped in a cycle of despair or abuse from which they cannot escape. It's difficult overlooking the power of reproductive urges. They're so selfish...so needy...so wanting... If I didn't feel them at all, my life would prove much more bearable. I wish it didn't feel so intoxicating, the desire to feel wanted at that raw, animalistic, sexual level...
I also admit I have a difficult time even imagining being in a relationship. It's weird. I can envision the companionship angle of it...the day-to-day stuff, but not the romance...not the wooing. Those latter aspects feel so unlike me. I love caring for other people in tangible ways but I have no desire to solicit a person to care for.
Eh, I don't know...
Sunday, May 4, 2014
IF YOU COULD ONLY HAVE ONE IMPRACTICAL SUPERPOWER, WHAT WOULD IT BE?
Hmm... I like this question because while the power manifested could still be awesome to have, it must ultimately have little value and/or application.
I guess I'd go with the ability - I don't even know how to put it - to project a terrifying image and sense of dread into a person...but only if we accidentally touch one and other. In other words, neither of us can be expecting to touch one and other. Generally I see this happening when someone bumps into you or maybe lightly grazes your hand when giving them change or something to that effect.
As for what image to project? I'd want something with the visual impact of the Eye of Sauron and since I lack creativity, let's just say I want the power to project the Eye of Sauron and a deep sense of dread into anyone who accidentally touches me.
The best part is. A person, after having touched me so and in their fear, might wish to touch me again to see if it were true. Only this time they will get nothing. A look of bewilderment on us both perhaps? Even if they tried sneaking up on me later to touch me, it wouldn't work because the toucher knew they would touch me...it only works when it's accidental for both. Likewise, if I felt inside the possibility that I might touch the person I'm looking at, it also wouldn't work. Only if it is genuine...
And seriously, what other purpose would that serve? What benefit would it convey? What practical use could such a power ever have?
I guess I'd go with the ability - I don't even know how to put it - to project a terrifying image and sense of dread into a person...but only if we accidentally touch one and other. In other words, neither of us can be expecting to touch one and other. Generally I see this happening when someone bumps into you or maybe lightly grazes your hand when giving them change or something to that effect.
As for what image to project? I'd want something with the visual impact of the Eye of Sauron and since I lack creativity, let's just say I want the power to project the Eye of Sauron and a deep sense of dread into anyone who accidentally touches me.
 |
| I see you |
The best part is. A person, after having touched me so and in their fear, might wish to touch me again to see if it were true. Only this time they will get nothing. A look of bewilderment on us both perhaps? Even if they tried sneaking up on me later to touch me, it wouldn't work because the toucher knew they would touch me...it only works when it's accidental for both. Likewise, if I felt inside the possibility that I might touch the person I'm looking at, it also wouldn't work. Only if it is genuine...
And seriously, what other purpose would that serve? What benefit would it convey? What practical use could such a power ever have?
Thursday, May 1, 2014
LINE OF THE DAY, part XXXVI
I've been reading the comments section of this article for quite some time. Yes, I am a long-term Simpsons fan but unfortunately I lack the articulateness with which to defend my love for a show I've been watching since before they were a show. Remember, The Simpsons used to be a series of shorts between sketches on the Tracey Ullman Show back in 1987-1989 before getting their own 30 minute show which debuted in December 1989.
As far as events go, the debut of the Simpsons has stuck with me to this day. I still remember where I was and how excited I was to see it. I remember staying up late on school nights to watch their shorts on Tracey Ullman while not even caring about the comedy sketches in-between. I have been with the show since I was Bart's age and from I've heard, the show will be ending next year when I will be Homer's age (he's 37, in case you don't know).
My commitment to The Simpsons perhaps reflects my commitment in other areas of life. So if there's some girl out there who worries about her potential man's commitment to a relationship, let my undying love for the Simpsons be a reflection of how I handle the ups and downs of any interaction we have in life. When I care about something/someone, I never stop caring.
Anyways, lapsed fans and other types of haters love to spew venom on their once beloved show whose golden years have long since passed. I wish I could remember which episode I heard the commentary in, but I remember vaguely Matt Groening talking about the way we view a show depends on when we first started watching it. The Simpsons, running for as long as it has, cannot remain the same show forever. Yes, the early seasons have a lot more heart to them. I know this. I've been watching them with my Best Friend again recently.
But the show could not have remained that way. And for those who loved the Simpsons when it had heart, of course they will be disappointed by the increasing cartoonishness of later years. But that increasing cartoonishness was inevitable as the series progressed past its 200th, 300th, and now past its 500th episode. The show may have close to 600 episodes by the time it is capped.
For me, personally, the Simpsons is divided into two, maybe three, eras. There's the rerun years and the saw-it-only-once years. When the show was new, repeats of older episodes were common. To this day when watching older episodes I can anticipate gags, I remember which gags were used for commercials, etc. But as time went on (probably starting in 1998), episodes repeated less because Fox had a greater pool from which to select, and then, starting in the early 2000s, TV came up with this idea of not airing repeats anymore and the weekday hour of Simpsons repeats on Fox went away so I would only see new episodes once and not become familiar with them later. I can't anticipate their gags. I kind of even forget I have seen them.
The early episodes were ground into my memory via repetition. The newer ones are largely ephemeral.
I'd give the Simpsons a third era. Starting around 2010, I noticed the quality of the episodes suddenly changed for the better. I've very much enjoyed the last five years of the Simpsons and wished they would be repeated as frequently as the first ten years so I could enjoy them as thoroughly.
Anyways (again), it's always nice to have someone defend what appears to be a universally derided episode of the Simpsons. The Principal and the Pauper was an episode that fans consider a fuck-you to them. Principal Skinner was made out to be an impersonator, the "real" Principal Skinner is installed, and at the end of the episode everything goes back to normal. The show was funny and I personally enjoyed the ridiculousness of the episode's ending because, let's face it, the show is a cartoon. I think what pissed people off is that there were reminded they were watching a cartoon. But I like Artemis Strong's defense better:
As far as events go, the debut of the Simpsons has stuck with me to this day. I still remember where I was and how excited I was to see it. I remember staying up late on school nights to watch their shorts on Tracey Ullman while not even caring about the comedy sketches in-between. I have been with the show since I was Bart's age and from I've heard, the show will be ending next year when I will be Homer's age (he's 37, in case you don't know).
My commitment to The Simpsons perhaps reflects my commitment in other areas of life. So if there's some girl out there who worries about her potential man's commitment to a relationship, let my undying love for the Simpsons be a reflection of how I handle the ups and downs of any interaction we have in life. When I care about something/someone, I never stop caring.
Anyways, lapsed fans and other types of haters love to spew venom on their once beloved show whose golden years have long since passed. I wish I could remember which episode I heard the commentary in, but I remember vaguely Matt Groening talking about the way we view a show depends on when we first started watching it. The Simpsons, running for as long as it has, cannot remain the same show forever. Yes, the early seasons have a lot more heart to them. I know this. I've been watching them with my Best Friend again recently.
But the show could not have remained that way. And for those who loved the Simpsons when it had heart, of course they will be disappointed by the increasing cartoonishness of later years. But that increasing cartoonishness was inevitable as the series progressed past its 200th, 300th, and now past its 500th episode. The show may have close to 600 episodes by the time it is capped.
For me, personally, the Simpsons is divided into two, maybe three, eras. There's the rerun years and the saw-it-only-once years. When the show was new, repeats of older episodes were common. To this day when watching older episodes I can anticipate gags, I remember which gags were used for commercials, etc. But as time went on (probably starting in 1998), episodes repeated less because Fox had a greater pool from which to select, and then, starting in the early 2000s, TV came up with this idea of not airing repeats anymore and the weekday hour of Simpsons repeats on Fox went away so I would only see new episodes once and not become familiar with them later. I can't anticipate their gags. I kind of even forget I have seen them.
The early episodes were ground into my memory via repetition. The newer ones are largely ephemeral.
I'd give the Simpsons a third era. Starting around 2010, I noticed the quality of the episodes suddenly changed for the better. I've very much enjoyed the last five years of the Simpsons and wished they would be repeated as frequently as the first ten years so I could enjoy them as thoroughly.
Anyways (again), it's always nice to have someone defend what appears to be a universally derided episode of the Simpsons. The Principal and the Pauper was an episode that fans consider a fuck-you to them. Principal Skinner was made out to be an impersonator, the "real" Principal Skinner is installed, and at the end of the episode everything goes back to normal. The show was funny and I personally enjoyed the ridiculousness of the episode's ending because, let's face it, the show is a cartoon. I think what pissed people off is that there were reminded they were watching a cartoon. But I like Artemis Strong's defense better: