Aetna is Just Plain Mean

TGIF - Chaotic Communication

I left Hawaii on Wednesday and had a 2 hour layover in Honolulu. I stopped in at Gordon Biersch for a sandwich and had a bit of difficulty getting my order across. The exchange went something like this (edited for grammatic understandability):

Me: "I'd like the Kalua pork sandwich, please."

Bartender chic with thick accent: "French fries or coleslaw?"

Me: "coleslaw."
Me: "Actually, can I get a side of fries, too, please?"

Bartender: "You can't have a side of fries. You can have a side of coleslaw."

"I can't get a side of fries?"

"No, just coleslaw."

"Okay, can I have fries with my sandwich then, and an extra side of coleslaw?"

"No. We don't do fries because garlic fries are an appetizer."

"I don't want garlic fries."

"You can't do a side of garlic fries."

"I don't want garlic fries. I want regular fries."

"We don't have a side of garlic fries because we have the appetizer."

"I don't want garlic fries."

"You can't have garlic fries on the side."

"I don't want garlic fries. I want coleslaw and regular fries."

"We don't do fries, just coleslaw."

"Didn't you just ask me if I wanted fries or coleslaw with my sandwich?"

"Yes, with your sandwich."

"Okay, so can I get fries with my sandwich?"

"Yes, okay."

"And can I get an extra side of coleslaw?"

"Yes."

"Okay, thanks. I'd like a Kalua pork sandwich with fries, plus an extra side of coleslaw."

"You can't do garlic fries."

"I don't want garlic fries, can I have regular fries?"

"We don't do sides of garlic fries because we have the appetizer."

"You are making this so complicated. I want a Kalua pork sandwich with regular fries as a side. Ok?"

"Ok."

"I would also like to add a side of coleslaw. Ok?"

"Ok."

"Ok. Thanks."

She goes to the computer and inputs the order. I get scared that she'll spit in my food. Next time she walks by I say, "Thanks for taking care of that, I know it was confusing."

"Ok. You're welcome."

Smiling, I say, "Don't want to have garlic breath on the plane, you know?"

"Oh. Yes." As she jumps over the computer and changes my order.

*sigh*

That is exactly how I felt in every conversation at work today.

TGIF

Not an Uncommon Church Issue

I watch 20/20 on hulu. I almost hate to admit it, but it's a guilty pleasure left over my childhood and time with my mom. The April 8 episode features a girl who was raped and then instructed by her radical fundamentalist church to forgive and forget, to the point where she was basically told it was all her fault and she needed to repent for HER sins. To the point where she didn't turn him in or press charges. This young woman spent her life thinking she did everything wrong and that this guy did nothing wrong. She spent her life thinking she couldn't turn to God or anyone else for help. She was actually told she was lucky that she didn't live in old times because she would have been stoned. She was FIFTEEN when it happened. NO matter her age, This is NOT okay. This is NOT uncommon. This is actually a story I've heard time and time again from fundamentalist evangelical churches, particularly in the midwest. Incredibly sad. I'm livid, but I'm also happy to see this in mainstream media. I think people don't realize how powerful churches can be in the lives of young girls.

You can watch the 20/20 episode of her story here:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/231215/abc-2020-fri-apr-8-2011

The news story hit papers in 2010:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/alleged-rape-victim-accuses-trinity-baptist-church-deacon/story?id=10806348

From the Mouths of SF Men

Continuing the conversation about nice guys and/or SF passive guys...

I was recently out with a friend who moved here last year from the East Coast and his roommate, who was born and bred in the Bay Area. My friend is the epitome of what I think it means to be a man. (Well, almost...Marlboro Man of Pioneer Woman is the true epitome, but I'm so never gonna meet that type out here.) He pays - even for friends when he can. He makes decisions, he open doors, he carries heavy things, he takes risks, he displays confidence, he walks girls home or hails their cab...as I'd say it back home, his mama done him good. So, knowing my friend's answer already, I asked the roommate if he always paid on the first date. Without hesitation he said no. We delved a little further and he emphasized that he behaves out of a belief in equality, not out of being a cheapskate. He said that he does usually offer to pay, but that the girls frequently argue with him and he's not going to let that go on all night. It seems like maybe the women are the cause of confusion rather than the guys not manning up. Unfortunately, I'm starting to think neither the men nor the women of SF were properly taught the rules (or they let go of their training in the confusion of SF liberalness). To do my part for my humanity, I decided to clarify the rules of paying for dates, as learned in southern Missouri and followed thus far by every man I've ever dated except SF boys.

First Date:

Bill comes, I take out my card in an offer to pay for my half.
He argues and says he has it.
I say thank you and put my card away.

If he actually lets me pay my half, there will be no second date.
I don't care how poor/broke you are. I don't need much. But if I'm not worth you making that gesture the first time we meet, it's not a date, and you therefore won't be getting a second one.

Second Date:

Now, this one is slightly more tricky.
If the first date was fairly expensive, I'm likely to ask if I can take him out this time and insist that I pay, but it will be for a less expensive thing than he did. I will also let him pitch in for drinks or pay half the bill for the date if he insists (and this would earn points and increase likelihood of 3rd date).

If the first date was normal, I'll again offer to pay my half, but I won't be offended if he accepts my offer.
I would expect him to then do something extra, though, like pay for a cab or purchase an after dinner drink. It wouldn't be points against him if he didn't, but it sets it up for a weird dynamic in which we're already discussing who pays for what a little soon in the dating scheme.

If he pays for the second date in full, I will be sure to pay for after dinner drinks or a cab or something small. I will also insist that I get to treat him next time, but again, he'll earn bonus points if on that next time he picks up some small thing like a drink or cab.

And so it goes until it evens out with him paying about 3:2 or so.

I like this plan. I have no problem feeling like he is taking care of me financially in regard to those dates, because it will even out. I'll keep my fridge stocked with his favorite beer or keep his whiskey at my bar. I'll buy the groceries when I make him dinner. I'll spend money on pretty underwear for his benefit. It just works.

The problem with the SF man not paying for the dates in the same way means the other stuff no longer evens out. So I spend money on make-up and hair and cute shoes and facials and yoga classes and sexy underwear - all so he gets what he wants. And now I ALSO have to share the burden of half the dates? As if men spend nearly as much as we do on these things. And honestly, if I trust him to pick up the alcohol, it's gonna be all beer all the time, and sometimes I need to go pick out that fancy bottle of wine. Am I supposed to ask him to repay me for half? Or groceries - I will always go for the local organic cut of beef, so if I expect that I have to buy it...which means I'm paying for it then, too.

These men who are trying to be more equal are forgetting about the natural dynamic that has worked for decades.
YES, I make money. I may even make as much as you. But women still don't make as much as men, even in the exact same positions at the same company. And men sure as hell don't shell out $150 to keep their skin clear and soft, their hair shiny and touchable, their hairy regions waxed, and everything else perfect just for us.

Boys, if you want to date a girl who doesn't wear make-up, shows up in the same clothes you wear, never wears sexy lingerie, has hairy legs and armpits, has wrinkles and/or major zits, and smells like discount soap - fine. Then you can let her pay. And yeah, you may think that beautiful chick across the bar is just that girl, but that's only because you don't know what goes into creating that "natural" look. You know how long we fuss just to make sure that one tousled lock of hair falls just so? And yes, we do it for us. But we also do it for you. So when you go around deciding to treat us equally by choosing not to pay for that first date, you throw off the balance. All of a sudden we're paying equally, but we're putting far more effort into our appearance. Then we start to think maybe we're better than you. Then we start looking for the guy who will pay. OR, we stop giving a shit, stop shaving, and start wearing ratty old grandma undies with holes and frayed waistbands. Up to you boys, make your choice.

ANYWAY, this all came up again because I was reading Why There Are No Girls in SF and Sam posted a guy's perspective of the city's unaggressive men. Sam points out that men are unaggressive here, in this case in approaching women, because the women are too damn scary.

SF women seem to have this hybrid sensibility of hill-billy southern gallantry, where prescribed gender roles dictate who should aggressively pursue whom, and a regionally specific 70s-style extremist feminism, where there is hyper sensitivity to being hit on. According to San Francisco magazine, “Bay Area women have been known to react to innocent flirting as if they'd been groped ...

That’s the paradox. SF women get sort of annoyed when guys attempt to seduce them. Not bemused or bored, annoyed. The fact that the average SF guy has the charm of a yard rake doesn't matter. SF women want men to make advances on them but without them knowing that the advance is being made, which requires not just Code speak but pretending to be gay.

This creates what anthropologists call a double bind dilemma. A successful response to one message implicates a failed response to the other, so that the person will be automatically wrong regardless of response. It's pretty much the kind of thing that broke the Union in 1861 and makes the Middle East a total mess. So if you’re a guy in San Francisco and there's a pretty girl sitting next to you, what’s the right move? You keep quiet, keep your head down and hope no one starts yelling.

And you know what? I think maybe he's right. We are an independent sort here in SF, and it is frequently the case when we are out that we don't want to be bothered. Sometimes a guy interupting girl time is intrusive, and perhaps SF girls are a little more vocal about that. Maybe that leads to exactly what Sam posits about men just keeping their heads down and waiting for the girls to come to them.

Now, I was taught that if you aren't interested you always say thank you with a big smile and simply decline the opportunity for an introduction or a free drink. This encourages men to keep trying with other woman. Having seen other women out here react harshly to come-ons, I have to wonder if this isn't all our fault. Have too many of us women rejected vocally and meanly to the point where all the SF balls are now shriveled and tucked up inside never to be seen again? Honestly? It almost makes me feel more sorry for the guys here than disgusted with them. Good thing I'm way past my pity sex days.

Ladies, we need to understand our job. The men need to understand theirs.

We get pretty, we smell nice, we buy nice underwear and bat our eyelashes. Men pay (at least at first and usually slightly more overall), open doors, carry heavy things. Not because we can't do those things, but because they want to do them for us.

We can be equals, we can share power, but come on...there's a nice balance to how things work (one I find particularly sexy), and we're seeing the evidence of f*cking with that as plain as day.

Annoyances

I have a pet peeve that is beginning to turn into irrational anger.

When I go through a checkout, I want to get through as quickly as possible. I'm ready with my cards, have my bag open, and I put groceries in as they're scanned...all very efficient. I open my wallet to put my cash in and I'm ready to close it up and go every time.

But then...

Then the cash comes out, and instead of handing it to me, the clerk waits until the receipt prints, puts the receipt with the cash, and then hands me the mismatched bundle. The receipts are too big to go in my wallet, so I now have to separate the receipt before putting my cash in my wallet. The clerk COULD have given me my cash, let me put my wallet away while the receipt was printing, and then handed it to me and I'd be out of the next person's way. But no, they have to make it take longer b/c now I have to separate the receipt so I can put my money away and then walk away. It makes the whole process take 5 or 10 more seconds, which between thousands of customers each day, adds up to quite a bit. This is NOT efficient.

Seriously. Walgreens does this every single time. Every time. ARGH. Cala does it, too. I actually sometimes have to calm myself down before it happens so I don't get upset.

Ridiculous, I know. But true. God help me.

Diane Vadino Can Kiss My Rump

Diane Vadino wrote a terrible review of 8 cities one shouldn't live, but should visit.

San Francisco: Do not try this for home
San Francisco seduces, to be sure. Walk certain streets — up crowded, curving Lombard, along Union to Coit Tower, from Cole Valley to Twin Peaks — and every intersection reveals a picture-postcard view: of two iconic bridges, pinpoints of light flickering across the bay, of golden sunshine filtering through stands of eucalyptus trees.

Other neighborhoods, though, reveal images more police-blotter than tourism-brochure: a staggering homeless population, rampant open-air drug use, public parks and buses made intimidating and unsafe by unruly combinations of both. To live in San Francisco is to daily confront these issues — and probably from under a dense bank of fog. (The climate's as much London as it is L.A.)

By all means: Come. Dress warmly. Climb Twin Peaks. Visit SF MOMA, the new DeYoung, and the Legion of Honor, three world-class art museums. Shop Hayes Valley and Valencia Street; get brunch at Tartine, lunch at the Dolores Park Café, snacks at Bi-Rite, and dinner at Delfina. (This can be accomplished without leaving one short stretch of 18th Street, quite possibly the world's most densely packed row of organic and locally produced deliciousness.)

Rent a car on a nice day and drive across the Golden Gate to Point Reyes National Seashore for scenery that suggests an impossibly sunny Scotland. And then, go home, safe in the knowledge that San Francisco puts on its best face for its guests. Leave the hard work of citizenship to the locals.
- Diane Vadino

She thinks one shouldn't live in SF, partly because of rampant open air drug use. Are they still calling pot smoking open air drug use? Someone shoudl let her in on a little secret: the neighborhoods she refers to as "other neighborhoods" are not places locals go to unless they WANT to, and the "unruly combinations" of people making bus lines unsafe are on the bus lines that go to those other neighborhoods that locals only use if they WANT to.

Screw you, Ms. Vadino. Go live happily in your hole in the middle of Nebraska and leave us all the heck alone.

A response

This will be slightly out of context to some, but I want to put it all in one place. In response to a constant ongoing debate about Prop 8 through various facebook comments and posts, I had a little hissy fit tonight (albeit an extremely justified one). Here's my piece:

I try to remain very civilized here. I try to express my opinion while respecting others. But now I'm done. That last comment was the straw on this camel's back, Mark, and here's a little dose of reality.

The people advocating for gay rights want nothing more than to draw upon common ground. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that these are the people who are outlining differences. The people who do outline the differences are those who interpret a couple of lines of the OLD TESTAMENT in an extremely restrictive way that has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. You know Jesus Christ never once mentions homosexuality? Not ONCE. Most gays only want the same rights and respect, and to be seen exactly the same, as straight people. Most gays just want the love they feel for one another to be equal to the love that every man and woman who are married feel for each other.

Given the freedom and lack of expectation to be married of gays, those couples who do want to get married have fought extremely hard for each other and are very devoted to a lifelong commitment. Many couples I know are far more committed, loving, and realistic than the straight couples I know.

And don't give me that bullshit civil union talk. That's ridiculous. You know what that is? It's called "separate but equal". We tried that in this country once. We had different water fountains for "coloreds". They had a great water fountain. It was just like our water fountain. Hell, it was even called the same thing. They didn't make some fancy word for it to make it different. But it was still a different water fountain. Separate, but equal. That's what civil unions are.

And sure, you can argue that it was still a man and a woman, and that's not an "abomination of God" like sodomy is. (And let's not even get into how anything other than your routine missionary sex could be considered an abomination of God, too. Guess God must have been playing some cruel mean trick when he made the human body so damn pleasurable. That's the God I know. Yep - mean and cruel and just trying to get us to slip up. Riiiiight.)

You know what marriage was in the Old Testament? Marriage was commitment, with sex. It had nothing to do with a ceremony. It had nothing to do with a title of being married. It had nothing to do with any kind of government recognition or rights. It simply meant that two people said, hey, let's be together, and they were.

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing fundamentalists preach some gospel that's more republican than Christian. This gospel of less government - "don't let those socialists take over, don't let them take our money to take care of anybody, blah blah blah", but then when it comes to basic human rights (remember "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?) they want more government than anyone else. You guys don't want the government to have the budget to take care of the elderly, the sick, or the poor, but you want the budget to go kill some of those Arabs and to poke your nose in on my relationship, my bedroom, and my body. Quite a contradiction. Then again, fundamentalists are frequently masters of hypocrisy. Yep, that was a bitchy comment. You know what? I earned it.

I've earned the right to say this piece in whatever way I see fit. I devoted my life to the church. I devoted everything I had. I scrimped and saved and gave every penny I could to help build a monstrous building off a highway between Ozark and Springfield because as a child I was guilted into thinking I would live a poor life and I would send my parents to the poor house if I didn't. I spent 7 days a week at church, but when I spoke up and thought I should have a shot at being a pastor someday, I was told I was too outspoken for a woman. I taught pre-school kids, I served in the nursery, and I worked with the junior high kids, but when I wanted to aspire to be a pastor, I wasn't good enough. I wasn't submissive enough.

I didn't even so much as kiss my high school boyfriend, but later, when another male friend betrayed me, my pastor told me it was my fault, and my church abandoned me.

So you know what? I get to say this. I get to call you out on your hypocrisy. You say you live God's love, but you don't respect your fellow humans. That is shameful. That is a human rights issue. A basic human rights issue. And it's not a Christian vs. Non-Christian argument. It's a self-righteous intolerant Christian vs. humble loving Christian argument.

If you think civil unions should be good enough for gays, then they should be good enough for everyone else. NOBODY should be allowed to get married in the eyes of the government. The word itself should be abolished from any legislative documents. Marriage should be within a church, within a family, within a home. That piece of paper you sign? guess what? that's bullshit in terms of what "marriage" is really supposed to be. That's your civil union.

If gays can't get married, why can people who don't love each other? why can people who are just getting married to cover up the pregnancy they got into because their parents refused to talk to them about real life? why can muslims, or buddhists, or hindus? And to that end, honestly, why can you? What makes you so friggin pure that your love is better than anyone else's? You think God thinks you're better? Show me where it says that in the Bible.

I'm sure I've alienated some people. I can deal with that. if I have hurt anyone personally, I sincerely apologize. Please know that I am speaking from truth, and also from sincere hurt that anyone could be filled with so much hatred, and yes, bigotry. I've been depressed since 8 passed. And honestly, I don't actually have a stake in this at all. I wouldn't campaign one way or another. But I'm just devastated by the fact that so many people are so filled with hate that they won't let others recognize their love and devotion to one another.

I have been so careful up to this point. But I just can't be anymore. It's not about not hurting anyone's feelings or not pissing anyone off. This is about LOVE. LOVE. know that word? LOVE OTHERS. LOVE LOVE LOVE. The movement against homosexuality is not based in love. It is NOT based in the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is based on one often misinterpreted line in the old testament (alongside all the other ones that so many people choose to ignore), and it is ridiculous. What Would Jesus Do? Jesus would not let politics affect his beliefs. He wouldn't force others into practicing under his beliefs. If we know anything from the Bible, we know that.

So yes, I'm sorry to go off like this, but it had to be done.

Honestly, this is bull, and I'm tired of hearing the ignorant overly religious remarks on my facebook page. I am extremely proud of where I come from. I am a Missouri girl in so many ways, and I love it. I am proud to have experienced what I did with the fundamentalist churches back home. That said, there's a reason I left. And after 23 years of hearing this shit over and over, I will not tolerate it in my space. I hope only that everyone can look into their hearts, look to their God, and look at their fellow humans, and forgive me my brashness and maybe hear some tiny piece of what I'm saying.

Thoughts on Palin's Wardrobe Malfunction

SF Gate reports on Sarah Palin's acceptance of campaign money for clothing:

Receiving more than $150,000 in clothing and accessories from the Republican National Committee last month doesn't just run counter to Gov. Sarah Palin's image as a "Wal-Mart Mom from Wasilla," it also might have violated the spirit if not the letter of a campaign finance law co-authored by her running mate, Sen. John McCain.

Here's the thing - I don't even mind that they used public money to buy her clothes if they are going to donate it all afterward (particularly if they are smart and auction it off for cash for charities rather than give it to good will or something). $150k is a bit excessive, but whatever - I can even deal with that.

What I can't deal with is where she shopped.

First of all, shopping at Neiman is not a responsible use of public money. Things cost more at Neiman because it's Neiman. Deign yourself to go Macys. I'm sure you can find some amazing and very expensive designer duds there.

Second, she preaches small town love and then shops at Neiman and Saks. My family, all small townish, wouldn't even feel comfortable walking into a Neiman or a Saks. I remember the first time I walked into a Nordstrom. I felt terribly underdressed in my jeans and definitely didn't think I belonged. And that was just Nordstrom! Neiman and Saks are symbols of the elite. They are symbols of wealth. They are NOT symbols of "Real America".

I'll admit, Palin looks amazing. But she's definitely not a symbol of small-town America.

I wonder how the other hockey moms Wasila dress?

Someone's PR rep should not be getting rehired.

Reiser is a Jacka**

So Hans Reiser FINALLY admitted to killing his wife. A WHILE ago. Turns out his kids (7 and 8 years old) had to move to Russia to be cared for by their maternal grandma, and they aren't doing so well financially. An attorney in SF has taken on the case pro-bono and recently filed suit against Reiser to provide some kind of financial security for the children he left without a mother. The important thing to remember here is that HE ADMITS HE KILLED THEIR MOTHER. Yet, this is his attorney's response to the suit:

Richard Tamor, an attorney for Reiser, said Tuesday, "Liability is fairly clear given the guilty plea, but, nevertheless, as you saw from the trial, (the children's attorney) is going to rue the day they decided to engage Hans in litigation - they'll prevail eventually, but it will be a long, painful journey getting there."

Really? You know the kids will prevail, you admit the liability is there, and yet you want to make their journey MORE painful? Reiser, dude, this is where you finally grow a pair and just give over EVERY PENNY to those poor kids. It's not like you'll need it where you're going.

An Unfortunate Wine Boycott

For the first time ever, I am boycotting a specific set of wine brands.

Many will think I am doing this out of disagreement on a single issue, but in truth, I am boycotting Don Sebastiani's businesses because I think he is using his vast wealth to manipulate the democratic system in a way that I cannot support by contributing to that wealth.

Many, after hearing about Don Sebastiani's contributions, will want to boycott him simply for his choice in what he supports. More power to those people! I, however, am not one to be inspired to boycott anything (especially wine), over a difference in viewpoint. Abuse of power is another story.

The current issue arises because of the proposed amendment to the California constitution regarding parental notification of teens seeking an abortion. There are a number of reasons that I do not support this law, but that is not the point of my boycott. If you'd like to learn more you should check out this article about the pros and cons of parental notification laws, which I think offers a fairly unbiased view of both sides. Also see the additional resources at the end of this post. Please note these extra links are completely biased in favor of my views.

Regardless of what the current issue is, Don Sebastiani, Sonoma wine bigwig and former California State Assemblyman, is abusing the system.

In 2005, Jim Holman of San Diego newspaper fame and Don Sebastiani financially backed Proposition 73 "Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification". The measure was defeated 52.7% to 47.3%.

In 2006, Holman and Sebastiani backed another proposition, this time it was numbered as Proposition 85. It was defeated 54% to 46%.

Holman decided he'd had enough. Until, that is, Sebastiani donated $500,000 to back the measure that is now on the ballot for 2008's November election. Now Proposition 4 "Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative", is up for vote again even though the public has voted against it twice. Non-profit advocacy groups and and health clinics are being forced to use funds to work against this once again, simply because some rich old fart up in Sonoma decided he wasn't happy with controlling only wine interests (I swear I'm not a bitter person).

Now it's being called (by supporters only), the Child and Teen Safety and Stop Predators Act: Sarah's Law. I love the personification with the girl's name and all. We haven't seen that in ridiculous laws in California before. *cough* Jessica's law, anyone? The rest of the language refers to the idea that old men prey on young girls and then force them to have abortions, and that parental notification of abortions would stop these predators. Funny, I thought statutory rape was already illegal. It also seems to me that the kind of family in which a child would feel comfortable approaching their parents about abortion might also be the kind of family that would already have an idea that their teen was spending time in bad company, which really makes the protective factor of this law a moot point.

Back on track: my whole point here is that a rich person should not be able to get something back on the ballot that the public has already voted against twice in the last 3 years. How long will this continue? Perhaps there should be a window between elections that include a similar measure? I guess what bothers me most about this is that it really is driven by one man and his massive amounts of money.

On a totally different note, Don Sebastiani is a self-stated Napa wine hater. Granted, I don't love the elitist attitude of Napa in general, but Sebastiani has stated again and again that he doesn't drink California wines, and finds them inferior to the French wines he regularly consumes. It's all well and good to have an opinion on this topic - but he's a California winemaker!!! I definitely have a bone to pick with someone who makes their money selling something they can't back. He doesn't have to like it, or even pretend to like it - but he should try to refrain from down-talking it. He's like a slimy used-car salesman that tells himself if someone will buy that lemon all is well. Blech. So even if you don't give a hoot about his political tinkering, know that Don Sebastiani is a man who doesn't enjoy the wine he makes, but is happy for your money to go into his pocket, which apparently allows him to control the California constitution.

Given all of this information, I've decided to boycott all Don Sebastiani wine brands. I simply can't support such a slimy person. I've included a list of all of his wine brands with links to pictures of the labels so that you can join my efforts if you so choose (and so I can keep track of the many many brands he controls).

Aquinas
B Side
Hey Mambo
Kono Baru
Leese-Fitch
Mia's Playground
MooBuzz
Pennywise
Pepperwood Grove
Plungerhead
Screw Kappa Napa
Smoking Loon
Used Automobile Parts
The White Knight

And no, for now I won't be boycotting Sebastiani Vineyards. It seems Don gave control to his sister back in 2001, and the worst thing they've done with their political contributions is donated to Rudy's campaign. :)


Additional Information
or, why laws mandating parental notification don't make sense

Center for Reproductive Rights: Mandatory Parental Consent
Center for Reproductive Rights: Current Restrictions by State
Center for Reproductive Rights: Forced Parental Involvement
The New York Times: Scant Drop in Abortion Rate if Parents are Told
MedScape: Overview

Crap Dogs

Well, I've always called them rat dogs, or little icky dogs, but I can go along with the folks over at crap-dogs.blogspot.com who share my sentiments about small yippy "dogs".

Wikipedia reveals that an alternative name for the Pekinese dog is the foo dog. This dog is definitely a foo.

Foo foo on you, foo dogs. And the opposite of foo foo to the creators of the blog.

And my goal is still top 10%

I must be nuts.

Haas School of Business was ranked #1 in the US in Corporate Social Responsibility by the Financial Times. #2 by the Wall Street Journal.

But then again, it seems maybe I picked the right field:

Berkeley CA - The Haas School was ranked #1 in corporate social responsibility in the Financial Times Global MBA 2008 Rankings of full-time MBA programs published on January 28. This is the first time in the seven years of the annual survey the top ten programs by academic discipline were identified. Inclusion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the FT's top academic discipline list signifies its rapidly growing visibility and importance in the business world.

“We have been fortunate to receive some great recognition for our Center. This FT rating catapults us out into the global CSR-leadership stage and makes us more proud than ever of the Center's faculty, staff, and, most importantly, our Haas MBA students – who have continued to drive us forward with their intense desire to use the power of business to make a better world," said Kellie McElhaney, executive director and professor at the Haas School's Center for Responsible Business.

Coupled with the recent #2 ranking in CSR by The Wall Street Journal for the second consecutive year, the Haas School is leading business education in CSR teaching, research, and experiential learning opportunities for students, which is offered through the Center for Responsible Business. The Center works closely with a host of companies - including Gap Inc., Hewlett-Packard, McDonald's, Intel, eBay, and Levi Strauss - on strategic consulting engagements, research projects, case competitions, and fellowship opportunities.

Adds McElhaney, “We are honored that a reputable global publication such as the Financial Times now counts corporate social responsibility among its substantive fields of recognition within MBA rankings, solidifying its place among good business strategy.”

The trend article, "Making an impact", which focused on career opportunities in CSR and sustainability, also acccompanied the rankings. The article highlighted the increasing number of MBA graduates who are looking for jobs that exhibit at least an element of corporate social responsibility. The trend – a 37 per cent increase per year in the number of postings for CSR jobs since 2004 – is reflected in recent research by Net Impact and Ellen Weinreb CSR Recruiting, both based in the US.

Please Vote

And do away with this nonsense. Regardless of any kind of interference, Barry was still the one who did it. He's the one who played long enough and hit hard enough to get it done. They're all out there doing the same things, so the fact that this man accomplished something is still extremely important in the context of modern baseball. Let's acknowledge the historical feat, and send the ball directly to Cooperstown.

There's a First Time for Everything

And Friday was the first time I got kicked out of a bar.

Well, okay, not really kicked out. Just politely told that I should enjoy my night elsewhere.

Here's what happened:

I used to like Anu. I met one of my best friends here and saw some great comedy. But that has all changed, and now I will never go back.

Friday night after Avenue Q, my 7 friends and I walked in totally sober ready to drink it up. I started things off with a round of tequila for everyone. The adorable, very friendly bartender (eager for more business because the clientelle was a bit lacking) asked me what kind of tequila I wanted. With a big smile I said "If I'm paying for everyone, it better be the cheapest tequila you've got."

So what does she bring out? A bottle of Patron. Yeah.

I call her out and say, "I asked you for the cheapest tequila and you bring me Patron?" but with a smile so it won't be a big deal.
She says, "I'll give you a discount, it'll be the same."

I think, man, I'm gonna tip this chick well...she's awesome.
One girl in my group won't do tequila, she orders Absolut instead.

Everyone else in the group orders a drink for themselves after the shots...we're planning to drink quite a bit, but we're still stone cold sober.

I decide to close out my tab because my boy had the cash to cover the rest of my drinks. I get my bill. $52 for 7 shots (one member didn't drink). I'm a bit confused, so I take a look...they actually charged me for 8 shots, at $7 a shot. She did offer me a $1 discount on four of the shots...but I'm still a bit confused as to how "the cheapest tequila" turned into $7 shots.

So I pull over another bartender who looks like he's kinda running things. I ask, "what's the cheapest shot of tequila you've got?"

He says, "Jose is normally $5, but it's $4 tonight."

So I show him my bill. He argues that I had Patron. I told him I ordered the cheap crap. As he's fixing the bill, my bartender comes back and I tell her I feel a bit taken advantage of. She said, looking sweet and friendly, that she would never do that, that she misunderstood. I highly doubt this, but I tell her it's cool, I buy it, as long as I get my bill fixed. Man bartender comes back and gives me a new bill, this time for 8 shots at at the correct price, but the Absolut is still $7.

Turns out they actually charge $7 for a shot of Absolut. Are you kidding me? Friggin absolut? Seriously.

Anyway, so he comes back and tells me, "We don't take advantage of people here, she went above and beyond for you already."

I show him that my bill is still wrong, that we only had 7 shots. After arguing with me and counting the people in our group who had drinks, he finally comes back with a correct bill of $31. (That makes the original bill a 69% overcharge, by the way.)

Me (still feeling a little miffed and hoping to clear everything up because I like to hang on to a good bar and I have too many bartender friends not to at least try to make it all happy): "Thanks for fixing this. I'm confused, though. I felt like everything was all resolved and happy until you said that she went above and beyond for me, so I'm wondering what you meant."
Man Bartender (who has now told me he's not the manager, but is "kind of the head bartender tonight"): "She gave you a discount when she shouldn't have."
Me: "But I asked for cheap tequila and she gave me Patron."
MB: "You saw the Patron before she poured it, you should have stopped her."
Me: "She said she'd give me a discount."
MB: "We don't take advantage of people here. You should have stopped her. Your tab is closed. Have a good time elsewehere. Goodnight."

So I took my group of 8 over to Mr. Smith's and we ran up our tab there instead.

It's unfortunate, because I liked Anu, and I know you've got to have your peeps' backs, but seriously...don't mess it up once it's resolved.

To you, Mr. Kinda the Head Bartender--you just lost the business of 8 young professionals who love to drink it up and are usually pretty damn good tippers. For that night and from now on. Sucks to be you. I'd be mad as hell at you if that was my bar.

Brats on Buses

I frequently ride MUNI home with a whole gang of teenagers from local high schools who are really total assholes and shouldn't be granted access to public transit at all. Actually, I take that back. I think the boys are fine as long as they are alone, and girls are fine in groups of two. MUNI...do you hear that? if there is one 12 yr old boy on your bus, nobody else of that age should be allowed on!

I'm not the only one who doesn't like this experience:

When Kids Invade MUNI

Extremely Unhappy with BBC

It's Big Cat Week over at the BBC!!!!

Yeah, those exclamation points--those are expressions of my excitement. (like the "ex" alliteration?)

Until, of course, I went to the website.

It is absolutely blasphemous to call something "Big Cat Week" and include nothing about tigers.

BBC, I bite my thumb at you.

I used to really like Sheryl Crow

And I realize this is taken slightly out of context...

BUT SERIOUSLY!

The Washington Post gave us an Earth Day present:

Singer Sheryl Crow and environmentalist Laurie David have been traveling across America on a two-week Stop Global Warming College Tour, which winds up today at George Washington University. Crow and David (co-producer of the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" and wife of "Curb Your Enthusiasm's" Larry David) have been touting their cause and chronicling their travels in a rather idiosyncratic blog. Here, on Earth Day, are a few excerpts:

You can read all the excerpts yourself, but this is the one that has me going:

Crow (4/19, Springfield, Tenn.): I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming. Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

Oh yes, this will save the world.

Honestly, though, are Sheryl Crow's "pesky occasions" anything nearly as "pesky" as the rest of the world's? The woman doesn't eat. No wonder she doesn't need toilet paper.

New Age Hoo Haa - Humorous or Creepy?

Working in bookstores for several years, I became way more acquainted with new age authors and theories than I would have ever thought possible. All of the talking to the dead and the conversations with God and the silver broomsticks were actually pretty entertaining most of the time. One of the most prolific authors in the New Age section was Carlos Castaneda. An article in Salon today discussed his legacy.

Castaneda appealed to all types of believers, including those who were too rational for new age. Whether or not you believed he actually met with a Shaman and saw through to the source of all things, much was still valuable regarding the way of life he preached. Much like any other belief system, it's easy to pick and choose great teachings from his works. (You may not belief Christ rose from the tomb, but it's difficult to argue with "treat your neighbor as you would like to be treated.) This pulled in a great number of people and Castaneda was dubbed the Godfather of New Age.

In addition to the appeal of the masses, Carlos drew in academics and intellectuals with what seemed to be a knack for narrative anthropology. Because he was simply engaging in the rituals of the Native Americans, it seemed more that he was studying a culture, and his books were taken as real anthropology. His books have generally been accepted as non-fiction throughout the years. In 1972, a great deal of skepticism led to the debunking of most of Castaneda's lies, and he disappeared from public in 1973. It's what happened after this point that drains the humor from the situation.

Castaneda began a movement known as Tensegrity, and had many devoted women followers known as witches that included past and current lovers. They lived in secrecy, separated from theif families, used numerous aliases, and didn't allow photographs. CULT So the creepy part starts with the discovery that many of Castaneda's followers disappeared the day after his death, and more several weeks after his death. At least one was found as a skeleton shortly afterward. Cleargreen, the corporation that promoted Tensegrity and Castaneda, still exists and claims the women are travelling. For the last 30 years.

Castaneda definitely has moved New Age from funny to Creepy as hell in my book. I've got the creepy shivers. Think I'll go look at some cuteness and shake it off.

Surgery Costs

When I was told I'd need to have surgery, the first thing I did was attempt to get an estimate of the costs. The surgeon's office told me he charges $3,500, and gave me a rough estimate that the hospital (the same one they always use) varies greatly but shouldn't be more than about $5,000. I tried again and again and again and again to contact the financial counselors at CPMC to get an estimate, and was never able to talk to one of them. There's actually a bug in their phone system that sends you back through the same cycle over and over without ever getting you to a person or even to be placed on hold. I finally just started pushing zero to wait for someone that could connect me to the right person, but after 6 days of trying at least twice a day, never actually spoke to a human.

Today I called billing and chose the option "pay my bill". I was connected right away and informed that my total comes to $19,000. Read that again. And again. Now add that to the surgeon's costs. What I thought would be around $10,000 (and thus only a few hundred for me after insurance), is $23,000. Twenty-three thousand dollars.

Not for the surgery mind you...just for the room, the anesthetics, the equipment, and the nurses who helped me for 4 hours. Oh yeah, and the morphine. Lots and lots of morphine.

I can't imagine what it would have been if I'd stayed overnight.

This is insane. Insane.

Evangelicals in SF?

Christian Teens Rally to Save SF

By the tens of thousands, Christian teens poured into proudly liberal San Francisco on Friday for a two-day evangelical extravaganza where they would rock, pray and provoke progressives, who accused the movement of working toward a theocracy endangering "San Francisco values."

Man, if my church had come out here to pray for progressives, I just might have been rescued from the hoards much sooner...maybe even would have made it out here earlier.

I wonder how many of these kids defect once they are exposed to this amazing city? Let's see some stats on that, Jerry Falwell.