UPS Holiday Fun!
1. Ordered gift for girlfriend from Amazon. No idea a signature was required but I work from home so generally that might not be a problem.
2. Dec. 23-UPS 'tries' to deliver package even though my girlfriend and I are home all day. She has the hearing of a bat. UPS leaves InfoNotice on door. I sign it and stick it on door thinking they will simply leave the package on their return. My neighbors haven't stolen my packages so I am not too worried, and it's not a big-ticket item.
3. Dec. 23 (evening)-UPS 'tries' to deliver package again. They don't honor the signed InfoNotice and new InfoNotice is in the middle of the walkway (not even on my door). I have a feeling the guy ran in and ran out without even looking at the door.
4. I call UPS after 20 minutes of horrific, looped hold music. UPS agent assures me I can pick it up on Saturday from the Sylmar processing facility between 9a and 5p. I verify that they have correct, complete address and they do.
5. Dec. 24th—I go to UPS. No package. They say package is locked up on a truck and I wait half and hour while they look through it and come back empty-handed. Turns out I have to come back on the 27th to pick it up, and I can't even have them re-deliver and even if they do, I'll probably miss it the way this is going.
6. I buy the gift locally on the way home and submit Amazon request to return original (which I still don't have).
Lesson learned: Signature-requirements suck and are mightily confusing to UPS and drivers in a rush. The agents at the UPS center tried to tell me that somehow signing their own signature form doesn't actually count as a signature, and that I have to be there in person. What is the point of the signature form then if it can't count in lieu of my being there in-person? DERP.
They then tried to tell me that packages that don't require a signature will have delivery people honor the signature form, but packages that don't need a signature are left at the door in the first place, and there'd be no InfoNotice to sign! DERP!
Logic is hard. Signature requirements suck unless *I* want that security. Buyer beware.
--
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Why I am Against Marriage (And You Should Be Too).
I understand and support marriage-rights for all, but I don't think government should be in the marriage business. As long as they are, I agree, everyone should have equal access. What I am suffering with day to day though is marital status discrimination—like the fact that my girlfriend's company (CBS) won't cover opposite-sex domestic partners (health insurance) but is forced to cover same-sex domestic partners —which is needed, I understand because gay couples still can't legally marry in CA due to the 2008 passing of Prop (H)8. We've been trying to get coverage for me (through her) since 2004 with various H.R. people, and to no avail. There are 4-5 opposite-sex domestic couples *that we know about* that would benefit immediately if CBS would simply stop discriminating. Yes, I am naming names. I see no reason to protect them from their own discriminatory practices.
No company should have an interest in whether I am straight/gay, atheist/theist, single/married, child-free or a father. Why is a California company (or any company) allowed to discriminate on the basis of marriage? This is wrong on any metric, and the solution does not bear simply 'getting married'.
Marriage is not satisfactory because the discrimination inherent to a pro-marriage society attempts to force that very solution to the problem a pro-marriage (and anti-single/cohabiting) society created in the first place. I see the only solution as boycotting marriage and trying to fight to get equal treatment under the law. The pro-marriage status is residue from religiously-inspired edicts against cohabitation or 'living in sin', where only a couple decades ago an unmarried couple could not rent an apartment. or book a hotel room for 'moral' reasons—moreso for those in power who held strong pro-marriage ideals and were basically free to discriminate at-will (until these practices were challenged). Marriage has also been used as a way to discriminate against interracial-unions with miscegenation laws until these were challenged (with success) by Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.
The pro-marriage/anti-single agenda is just the tail-end of a time where being single or in an unmarried relationship is seen as acceptable—but it's not there yet. Even the Republican candidates in 2011 are *still* talking about 'pro-marriage' ideals, and this no-doubt is strongly-inspired by religious ideology.
Unmarried people now outnumber married people in America, but we still get treated quite badly or as if we don't matter. This is due in-part because plenty of progressive-minded people are still getting married, and activists for singles-rights are few and far between. Thankfully, the gay-rights proponents have been unwitting allies for a while now as they fight to get their rights as domestic couples, but opposite-sex domestic couples are still barely recognized. What I should also mention is that companies in CA can choose voluntarily to cover unmarried opposite-sexed domestic couples, but there's no state mandate to do so and other companies (such as CBS) choose to discriminate against us.
If we lived under Jim Crow laws during racial segregation I would not consider 'riding on the back of the bus' a solution either, or simply eating where in the 'white' or 'black' parts of the restaurant. Married couples should not enjoy a 'favored status' in society at all. Even with car insurance, felons in terrible marriages get a discount, where the upstanding non-criminal who chooses to be single suffers a higher rate. This is just wrong, and is probably why Massachusetts and the European Union no longer allow marital-status discrimination with regard to auto-insurance rates. It's also wrong to disallow unmarried domestic partners access to partners in the hospital, where married people are allowed access without question (even if they're in a bitter and contentious separation).
Marital-status discrimination is so endemic that people barely even notice or think about it—but that will change as fewer people validate marriage by getting married. Even the couple who is pro-marriage is still affected by discrimination against opposite-sex domestic partnership...what if they want a long engagement and want to cover a future-spouse on their healthcare plan? Are they simply out of luck? In many states, they are and many companies are still allowed to discriminate based on whether they want to 'encourage' marriage or not (such as CBS). I work in the game industry, and most companies opt to cover unmarried domestic partners—I know because I've checked, so those who don't cover unmarried domestic partners have made a choice to do so, and this discrimination won't stop until *we* who are employed by these companies (or affected by them) take a stand.
Government should not be in the business of recognizing what is basically a sexual relationship, especially while polyamory remains illegal in most states. The Browns featured in the show 'Sister Wives' were basically run out of Utah, a state with an overwhelmingly Mormon majority whose roots lie in polygamy! The hypocrisy is thick here.
Another angle to consider here is that the religious right see healthcare (and other) benefits as a real perk of marriage, and in-promoting marriage over 'living in sin', supporting any individual power to receive quality health-insurance undermines the reasons to get married and indirectly, religion itself.
This is not to put direct blame on people innocently getting married, but the effects are very real, and I refuse to apply a solution (marriage) caused by preferential treatment of one class of people (married) over another (unmarried or gay). My heterosexuality (which I have no control over) allows me to marry legally, but in my view, it's like being white and happily eating at 'white-only' restaurants during the Jim Crow era. I would rather boycott that restaurant entirely and spend my money at the all-inclusive establishments and eat with a clear-conscience.
No government is bigger than the one who invades the bedroom and 'validates' relationships while invalidating others—do you hear that, socially-regressive Republicans? Out best weapon against the injustices of 'marriage' is to simply refuse to participate while continually striving for true equality under the law.
--
No company should have an interest in whether I am straight/gay, atheist/theist, single/married, child-free or a father. Why is a California company (or any company) allowed to discriminate on the basis of marriage? This is wrong on any metric, and the solution does not bear simply 'getting married'.
Marriage is not satisfactory because the discrimination inherent to a pro-marriage society attempts to force that very solution to the problem a pro-marriage (and anti-single/cohabiting) society created in the first place. I see the only solution as boycotting marriage and trying to fight to get equal treatment under the law. The pro-marriage status is residue from religiously-inspired edicts against cohabitation or 'living in sin', where only a couple decades ago an unmarried couple could not rent an apartment. or book a hotel room for 'moral' reasons—moreso for those in power who held strong pro-marriage ideals and were basically free to discriminate at-will (until these practices were challenged). Marriage has also been used as a way to discriminate against interracial-unions with miscegenation laws until these were challenged (with success) by Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.
The pro-marriage/anti-single agenda is just the tail-end of a time where being single or in an unmarried relationship is seen as acceptable—but it's not there yet. Even the Republican candidates in 2011 are *still* talking about 'pro-marriage' ideals, and this no-doubt is strongly-inspired by religious ideology.
Unmarried people now outnumber married people in America, but we still get treated quite badly or as if we don't matter. This is due in-part because plenty of progressive-minded people are still getting married, and activists for singles-rights are few and far between. Thankfully, the gay-rights proponents have been unwitting allies for a while now as they fight to get their rights as domestic couples, but opposite-sex domestic couples are still barely recognized. What I should also mention is that companies in CA can choose voluntarily to cover unmarried opposite-sexed domestic couples, but there's no state mandate to do so and other companies (such as CBS) choose to discriminate against us.
If we lived under Jim Crow laws during racial segregation I would not consider 'riding on the back of the bus' a solution either, or simply eating where in the 'white' or 'black' parts of the restaurant. Married couples should not enjoy a 'favored status' in society at all. Even with car insurance, felons in terrible marriages get a discount, where the upstanding non-criminal who chooses to be single suffers a higher rate. This is just wrong, and is probably why Massachusetts and the European Union no longer allow marital-status discrimination with regard to auto-insurance rates. It's also wrong to disallow unmarried domestic partners access to partners in the hospital, where married people are allowed access without question (even if they're in a bitter and contentious separation).
Marital-status discrimination is so endemic that people barely even notice or think about it—but that will change as fewer people validate marriage by getting married. Even the couple who is pro-marriage is still affected by discrimination against opposite-sex domestic partnership...what if they want a long engagement and want to cover a future-spouse on their healthcare plan? Are they simply out of luck? In many states, they are and many companies are still allowed to discriminate based on whether they want to 'encourage' marriage or not (such as CBS). I work in the game industry, and most companies opt to cover unmarried domestic partners—I know because I've checked, so those who don't cover unmarried domestic partners have made a choice to do so, and this discrimination won't stop until *we* who are employed by these companies (or affected by them) take a stand.
Government should not be in the business of recognizing what is basically a sexual relationship, especially while polyamory remains illegal in most states. The Browns featured in the show 'Sister Wives' were basically run out of Utah, a state with an overwhelmingly Mormon majority whose roots lie in polygamy! The hypocrisy is thick here.
Another angle to consider here is that the religious right see healthcare (and other) benefits as a real perk of marriage, and in-promoting marriage over 'living in sin', supporting any individual power to receive quality health-insurance undermines the reasons to get married and indirectly, religion itself.
This is not to put direct blame on people innocently getting married, but the effects are very real, and I refuse to apply a solution (marriage) caused by preferential treatment of one class of people (married) over another (unmarried or gay). My heterosexuality (which I have no control over) allows me to marry legally, but in my view, it's like being white and happily eating at 'white-only' restaurants during the Jim Crow era. I would rather boycott that restaurant entirely and spend my money at the all-inclusive establishments and eat with a clear-conscience.
No government is bigger than the one who invades the bedroom and 'validates' relationships while invalidating others—do you hear that, socially-regressive Republicans? Out best weapon against the injustices of 'marriage' is to simply refuse to participate while continually striving for true equality under the law.
--
Friday, December 9, 2011
Patti Stanger (The Millionaire Matchmaker) is Still an Idiot!
What's wrong with this woman?
So, readers of this fine blog already know I can't stand Patti Stanger, but I just wanted to recap more of her idiocy.
For one, don't trust a matchmaker who's single. Ok? Nuff said on that.
Second, she insulted the gays recently saying they couldn't be monogamous, and then changed her story saying it was just L.A. gays. Still not true, Patti. Did you want to narrow your search further to an L.A. County suburb, nutbag?
She talks about guys being 'ageists', but did anyone mention that she's anti-atheist? She's so incredibly dippy that she thinks astrology and psychics are real, and she seemingly expects people to be as loopy and spiritual as she is, like it's some kind of benefit. Hint, hint Patti, you don't work for 'God' as you've recently claimed on Andy Cohen's Millionaire Matchmaker Reunion Show (Part 2) because there's no god, but even if you did work for he who spun the Cosmos into being...why is he being so stingy helping you find love? Maybe she's not impressed by your performance.
I still remember the one atheist guy on the show and he was rejected from the dating pool pretty quickly. Listen Patti, not everyone believes crystal healers can 'fix' people or in your spiritual nonsense. A fucking millionaire could be a short, albino atheist and still meet plenty of people without your 'help'. Seems to me that a lot of millionaires simply use Stanger as a madam or they just want to be on TV.
Somehow Patti thinks redheads can't get dates either. Yeah, do you think Nichole Kidman struggles to find men? How about your widely-despised and two-faced New York housewife friend, Jill Zarin? Speaking of Zarin, I am not impressed with the friends Patti keeps, either.
What's with the stupid ass rule on no sex before monogamy? How the Hell is a couple supposed to know if there should be monogamy without knowing how the sex is? How will they even get to the sex if they can't discuss real issues, such as politics or religion? It seems the only one who gets to talk about religion is Patti, as she carefully vets who is Jewish, who's a Shiksa (non-Jewish woman) or a Chupacabra (someone who is Jewish who doesn't appear Jewish, from my understanding). She sure loves to talk about who is Jewish, while one of her rules is that couples can't talk about religion or politics. This is funny, since Patti always seems interested in which of her dating candidates are 'spiritual' as if it's somehow a good thing. One of her worst clients was a devout Christian! I've never seen her hook up an atheist, but I think atheists might be on average too smart to pay a nutjob like Patti to give them bad advice. ;) So, the people who self-select and go to a loudmouth like Patti are probably desperate to begin-with.
Patti is also a height-ist. I've heard her refer to guys of average height (around 5'8") as munchkins or whatever derogatory word her sloppy brain and unfiltered mouth blurts out. Guys are taller than women on average, but they're not wearing heels either. It seems to me that Patti is kind of a tall woman who loves her heels and still wants guys to be taller than her, and her frustration about this is obvious, but so is her superficiality.
It's one thing to get on someone's case for attitude, but for height? One could easily refer to Patti as a loudmouthed, unfeminine moosey-douchebag, but I'll save that for later. ;)
I guess I am guilty of passing judgement too, because Patti Stanger is an idiot and there's probably not much she can do about it.
—
So, readers of this fine blog already know I can't stand Patti Stanger, but I just wanted to recap more of her idiocy.
For one, don't trust a matchmaker who's single. Ok? Nuff said on that.
Second, she insulted the gays recently saying they couldn't be monogamous, and then changed her story saying it was just L.A. gays. Still not true, Patti. Did you want to narrow your search further to an L.A. County suburb, nutbag?
She talks about guys being 'ageists', but did anyone mention that she's anti-atheist? She's so incredibly dippy that she thinks astrology and psychics are real, and she seemingly expects people to be as loopy and spiritual as she is, like it's some kind of benefit. Hint, hint Patti, you don't work for 'God' as you've recently claimed on Andy Cohen's Millionaire Matchmaker Reunion Show (Part 2) because there's no god, but even if you did work for he who spun the Cosmos into being...why is he being so stingy helping you find love? Maybe she's not impressed by your performance.
I still remember the one atheist guy on the show and he was rejected from the dating pool pretty quickly. Listen Patti, not everyone believes crystal healers can 'fix' people or in your spiritual nonsense. A fucking millionaire could be a short, albino atheist and still meet plenty of people without your 'help'. Seems to me that a lot of millionaires simply use Stanger as a madam or they just want to be on TV.
Somehow Patti thinks redheads can't get dates either. Yeah, do you think Nichole Kidman struggles to find men? How about your widely-despised and two-faced New York housewife friend, Jill Zarin? Speaking of Zarin, I am not impressed with the friends Patti keeps, either.
What's with the stupid ass rule on no sex before monogamy? How the Hell is a couple supposed to know if there should be monogamy without knowing how the sex is? How will they even get to the sex if they can't discuss real issues, such as politics or religion? It seems the only one who gets to talk about religion is Patti, as she carefully vets who is Jewish, who's a Shiksa (non-Jewish woman) or a Chupacabra (someone who is Jewish who doesn't appear Jewish, from my understanding). She sure loves to talk about who is Jewish, while one of her rules is that couples can't talk about religion or politics. This is funny, since Patti always seems interested in which of her dating candidates are 'spiritual' as if it's somehow a good thing. One of her worst clients was a devout Christian! I've never seen her hook up an atheist, but I think atheists might be on average too smart to pay a nutjob like Patti to give them bad advice. ;) So, the people who self-select and go to a loudmouth like Patti are probably desperate to begin-with.
Patti is also a height-ist. I've heard her refer to guys of average height (around 5'8") as munchkins or whatever derogatory word her sloppy brain and unfiltered mouth blurts out. Guys are taller than women on average, but they're not wearing heels either. It seems to me that Patti is kind of a tall woman who loves her heels and still wants guys to be taller than her, and her frustration about this is obvious, but so is her superficiality.
It's one thing to get on someone's case for attitude, but for height? One could easily refer to Patti as a loudmouthed, unfeminine moosey-douchebag, but I'll save that for later. ;)
I guess I am guilty of passing judgement too, because Patti Stanger is an idiot and there's probably not much she can do about it.
—
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atheist Angle RSS Feed