Has it really been nearly a month since I've posted something here? Yikes. It's not like there hasn't been anything to talk about. The health care fiasco continues, Tiger Woods gets more attention than anything like that deserves, Joe Lieberman bravely soldiers on in his attempt to become the biggest asshole of this young century. (And trust me, that's a mighty high bar set by The Idiot and The Dark Lord.)
So what am I concerned with today? The weather. Well, not really the weather, but with weatherpeople. This includes both actual meteorologists and the smiling knuckleheads who point at maps on the teevee because they're better looking than the actual meteorologists.
I'm not going to go into a rant about how they're always wrong and they ruined my day. I'm going to go into a rant about the people who always go into rants about how they're always wrong and ruined their day. These people have problems. And the weatherpeople are the least of it.
Listen, people. Predicting the weather is not simple. There are a ton of variables involved and almost all of them are subject to change on a moment's notice. Given the broad range of things that could change between the time you get your forecast and the time you leave your man-cave for your place of employment or enjoyment it's pretty amazing that we get weather predictions as accurate as we do. It's like predicting what a cat is going to do. You may have a good sense of it and get it most of the time but it keeps surprising you.
And yet, this is the kind of thing I see and hear in my everyday life and on places like the Facebooks:
"The weather report called for about a foot of snow. We didn't even get an inch!"
"Being a weatherman must be the easiest job in the world."
"There will be weather today. Could be 80, could snow. Can I have my paycheck now?"
"People won't let me be wrong as often in my job as weathermen. "
"They're predicting [fill in the blank] but they're always wrong."
I'm guessing the penultimate person's job involves something like holding a scanner up to a barcode and then pressing the enter button. So no, dear person, if you were wrong as often as the weatherman you would not only be fired but you would be in the state hospital.
And there are plenty of other jobs where the failure rate is even higher and nobody seems to complain about them. And some of them involve predictions too. How often has Bill Kristol been right about anything? People still pay him to blather about things he obviously either doesn't understand or is being dishonest about. And all of those guys on ESPN who tell you who's going to win every game in the NFL this week? About 60% on target, if they're pretty good at it. But they're "experts" and the weatherpeople are complete idiots.
I would invite all of the people who complain about the weatherpeople "always" being wrong to do three things.
Thing 1: Mark on your calendar every day how close to accurate the weatherperson's forecast was. I'm guessing that for every day you screamed about them "always" being wrong, there were 9 or 10 days when it was pretty much on target. And when it wasn't quite on it didn't have any tangible effect on your life. "They said it was going to be 70 but it only got up to 65. Those bastards!"
Thing 2: Go try to predict the weather yourself. Really. I'm not kidding. Go try it. Tell me how you do. You wouldn't even know where to begin, I'm sure. I know, I know, you're not paid to do it. Trust me, you never will be.
Thing 3: If you really have no confidence in these people who are ignoramuses at best and hostile disseminators of bad information specifically designed to make you angry at worst, then please just stop reading/watching/listening to your local forecast. You already know it's always wrong. So why bother? Or is it more important to you to have something to complain about?
Predicting the weather is always always always an educated guess. Quit complaining about it and get a life. There are plenty of other things more worthy of your bile.
Showing posts with label people are idiots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label people are idiots. Show all posts
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Trauma
Well, this makes perfect sense. A giant Times Square-sized advertisement for an undoubtedly entertaining television program. Fire up the Tivo!
Here in New York City we enjoy seeing larger-than-life-size images of things on fire and people in states of panic (trauma, one might say), particularly on a lovely mid-September morning.
Thanks, NBC. Nice work.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Congratulations, It's a Thing!
I am not a traditional person. I am interested in ideas that break down existing social models. I am a firm believer that some things that we take for granted are simply arbitrary and should not be followed just because "that's what you do".
But this is fucking stupid. Not because it's different, but because it's stupid.
Here's the short version for those who don't feel like clicking: A young couple in Sweden have not revealed the gender of their baby...who is nearly 3 years old.
Their concern seems to be that gender roles are social constructs and that letting people know what little "Pop" is would make people treat Pop in the way proscribed for tots of whichever gender Pop is, therefore destroying Pop's impressionable little mind.
Okay, I understand this to a certain degree, but it's really not that big of a deal. You can treat the child in a gender-neutral fashion if you like, but there's only so much you can control other people.
And they seem to undermine their own argument by not just dressing Pop in gender-neutral clothing but by allowing Pop to wear dresses some days and pants others. What do they expect those other people to think of their little girl in the dress? How do they think they'll act?
It seems that this whole process just makes a much bigger deal out of the kid's gender than it really should be, which would have the exact opposite effect of the one intended by the kid's parents.
People treat black people and white people differently too. But you can't just wish this away and blur the lines, hoping that people won't notice. Look how well that worked out for Michael Jackson. They just ended up talking about it more.
Apparently, they'll reveal Pop's gender when Pop is ready to do so. I'm sure we all can't wait for Pop's coming-out party when s/he is no longer ashamed of his/her own genitalia, whatever it happens to be. I didn't care before. Now I do. Congratulations, dummies.
But this is fucking stupid. Not because it's different, but because it's stupid.
Here's the short version for those who don't feel like clicking: A young couple in Sweden have not revealed the gender of their baby...who is nearly 3 years old.
Their concern seems to be that gender roles are social constructs and that letting people know what little "Pop" is would make people treat Pop in the way proscribed for tots of whichever gender Pop is, therefore destroying Pop's impressionable little mind.
Okay, I understand this to a certain degree, but it's really not that big of a deal. You can treat the child in a gender-neutral fashion if you like, but there's only so much you can control other people.
And they seem to undermine their own argument by not just dressing Pop in gender-neutral clothing but by allowing Pop to wear dresses some days and pants others. What do they expect those other people to think of their little girl in the dress? How do they think they'll act?
It seems that this whole process just makes a much bigger deal out of the kid's gender than it really should be, which would have the exact opposite effect of the one intended by the kid's parents.
People treat black people and white people differently too. But you can't just wish this away and blur the lines, hoping that people won't notice. Look how well that worked out for Michael Jackson. They just ended up talking about it more.
Apparently, they'll reveal Pop's gender when Pop is ready to do so. I'm sure we all can't wait for Pop's coming-out party when s/he is no longer ashamed of his/her own genitalia, whatever it happens to be. I didn't care before. Now I do. Congratulations, dummies.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Dumb Letters: Jury Rules
I hate to call this one a dumb letter. It's not really dumb. But I disagree with it strongly.
Actually, I'm going to bring in a few of the letters on this topic. The letters are in response to an article in the NYT about jurors -- who are supposed to be trapped in their little courtroom world in order to avoid outside influence in a case -- using the internet (thank you, iPhone) to get information during the trial.
It's a thorny issue. I don't have all of the answers for it. But here's an uber-democratic missive from a gentleman in Miami.
Okay, I'm all for more information. I like information. I seek it out relentlessly. And I served on a jury once. It was a murder trial. There was some information that we didn't get but were made aware of after-the-fact by the judge. This information would have swayed some of the jury into imposing a harsher sentence on the defendant. (I thought that what was presented in court was already more than enough.) I didn't get any outside dirt on the case, but over the course of the trial I did manage to read all of Gunter Grass's "The Flounder" while waiting in the jury room for the lawyers and judge to hash out what we could hear and what we couldn't. For the record, it didn't sway my opinion. Ultimately, a nonsensical verdict of manslaughter was given in what was clearly a case of murder. (Manslaughter is for accidental killing, like from drunk driving. It is impossible to "accidentally" kill someone by shooting them in the chest from two feet away, unless your defense is that you thought it was a marshmallow gun.)
In addition, I have a friend who was peripherally involved in a murder case. He was a witness to an act of violence against someone who was later murdered by the same perpetrator. This prior act was also considered inadmissible. After the fact, some of the jurors in the case were on a national television newsmagazine. They were played the 911 tapes of the prior incident and admitted that they would have been swayed by this if it had been presented in court.
But there is a reason that some information is inadmissible. It isn't because it's not the truth. We may not agree with the judges' rationales (and I certainly didn't in the above cases), but they make their decisions based on their knowledge of the law and not on emotions or a sense of retribution (we hope). I certainly don't think we should just trust all authority figures. But I also don't think we should always trust ourselves and we certainly shouldn't always trust the 12 random people who couldn't get out of jury duty and who have no knowledge of the law other than what they saw in the O.J. Simpson trial, which was hardly a stellar example of grave jurisprudence.
Back to the letter. The writer suggests that the jury should be allowed to question the lawyers, witnesses and defendants. This may sound great on the surface. But after my experience on a jury, all I can say is I am utterly relieved that some of these people never had a chance to open their mouths in that courtroom. It was bad enough listening to them in deliberation. Some of them didn't seem to have heard anything said in the courtroom other than what they wanted to hear. Others didn't seem to have heard even that.
There has to be some kind of a bar (no pun intended) for participation. Otherwise, we won't have trials, we'll have "The Jerry Springer Show". ("Yo, how come you didn't slap that bitch?") Another letter writer also has a much higher opinion of the general populace than I do.
Okay, again this is great in theory. But I counted one other juror in my trial who seemed truly intelligent and discerning. There were about three or four others who seemed at least marginally capable of coming around to reason, if such a thing should ever rear its homely head. The rest of them I wouldn't trust with the decision on whether we should all stab ourselves in the eyes with chopsticks. You can have greater faith in people, if that's your thing. I sure don't.
Another letter writer modulates this concept some.
Okay, I can get behind that. This would allow some participation from the jury but keep control of the situation in the hands of the professionals. The judge could decide which, if any, questions were relevant and mediate in their dissemination. In this case, the middle ground is entirely reasonable and should be acceptable to all parties.
Actually, I'm going to bring in a few of the letters on this topic. The letters are in response to an article in the NYT about jurors -- who are supposed to be trapped in their little courtroom world in order to avoid outside influence in a case -- using the internet (thank you, iPhone) to get information during the trial.
It's a thorny issue. I don't have all of the answers for it. But here's an uber-democratic missive from a gentleman in Miami.
Our system of justice claims to seek the whole truth, and that needs the whole facts, not a censored set of information controlled by a judge and lawyers.
Jurors should be encouraged to participate in a trial and discover information for themselves by any means possible — Internet, books and so on. They should also be encouraged to question prosecutors, defendants and witnesses, with the judge and lawyers assisting (not controlling) the process.
We need to adjust our justice system to modern times and make it a more participatory, democratic process and discard the closely controlled, adversarial game favored by judges and lawyers. Open up the system and let the facts fall where they may.
Okay, I'm all for more information. I like information. I seek it out relentlessly. And I served on a jury once. It was a murder trial. There was some information that we didn't get but were made aware of after-the-fact by the judge. This information would have swayed some of the jury into imposing a harsher sentence on the defendant. (I thought that what was presented in court was already more than enough.) I didn't get any outside dirt on the case, but over the course of the trial I did manage to read all of Gunter Grass's "The Flounder" while waiting in the jury room for the lawyers and judge to hash out what we could hear and what we couldn't. For the record, it didn't sway my opinion. Ultimately, a nonsensical verdict of manslaughter was given in what was clearly a case of murder. (Manslaughter is for accidental killing, like from drunk driving. It is impossible to "accidentally" kill someone by shooting them in the chest from two feet away, unless your defense is that you thought it was a marshmallow gun.)
In addition, I have a friend who was peripherally involved in a murder case. He was a witness to an act of violence against someone who was later murdered by the same perpetrator. This prior act was also considered inadmissible. After the fact, some of the jurors in the case were on a national television newsmagazine. They were played the 911 tapes of the prior incident and admitted that they would have been swayed by this if it had been presented in court.
But there is a reason that some information is inadmissible. It isn't because it's not the truth. We may not agree with the judges' rationales (and I certainly didn't in the above cases), but they make their decisions based on their knowledge of the law and not on emotions or a sense of retribution (we hope). I certainly don't think we should just trust all authority figures. But I also don't think we should always trust ourselves and we certainly shouldn't always trust the 12 random people who couldn't get out of jury duty and who have no knowledge of the law other than what they saw in the O.J. Simpson trial, which was hardly a stellar example of grave jurisprudence.
Back to the letter. The writer suggests that the jury should be allowed to question the lawyers, witnesses and defendants. This may sound great on the surface. But after my experience on a jury, all I can say is I am utterly relieved that some of these people never had a chance to open their mouths in that courtroom. It was bad enough listening to them in deliberation. Some of them didn't seem to have heard anything said in the courtroom other than what they wanted to hear. Others didn't seem to have heard even that.
There has to be some kind of a bar (no pun intended) for participation. Otherwise, we won't have trials, we'll have "The Jerry Springer Show". ("Yo, how come you didn't slap that bitch?") Another letter writer also has a much higher opinion of the general populace than I do.
Jurors’ use of the Internet reflects both the day-to-day importance of the Internet as well as a revolt against a system that insists on keeping intelligent and discerning jurors from being given the whole truth before they render a verdict. We should have greater faith in jurors’ abilities to separate and weigh evidence properly.
Okay, again this is great in theory. But I counted one other juror in my trial who seemed truly intelligent and discerning. There were about three or four others who seemed at least marginally capable of coming around to reason, if such a thing should ever rear its homely head. The rest of them I wouldn't trust with the decision on whether we should all stab ourselves in the eyes with chopsticks. You can have greater faith in people, if that's your thing. I sure don't.
Another letter writer modulates this concept some.
Allowing jurors to submit questions that are screened by the judge for witnesses is one way to overcome the limitations of the purely adversarial trial system.
As full an account of the truth as possible is the goal of a trial, and answering admissible juror questions can mitigate the problem of jurors seeking better understanding of the facts of a case outside the courtroom.
Okay, I can get behind that. This would allow some participation from the jury but keep control of the situation in the hands of the professionals. The judge could decide which, if any, questions were relevant and mediate in their dissemination. In this case, the middle ground is entirely reasonable and should be acceptable to all parties.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Context Is Everything
The unrelenting assault on the English language perpetrated by The Idiot over the last eight years (and counting) has been difficult to take. But Governor Moosekiller is really giving the dope a run for his money. It's a very different flavor of stupid but it's still got the Stupid-Aid brand plastered all over the front of the package.
The crap that comes out of her mouth makes one fearful for the safety of those in her charge, including, but not limited to, her family and constituents. (And for the sanity of those same people for putting her in that position.)
And she shares with The Idiot the idea that absolutely nothing is her fault. It's usually the media. Or those pesky "elites", whoever they are. Take this latest gem from a recent interview with Esquire magazine.
Okay, let's talk about this, darlin'. Your problem here was not that something was taken out of context. It's that it was taken in context. Out of context it was much smarter. Yes, you can see Russia from Alaska. It's a fact! (Only from a couple of remote islands, but still, we'll give you that.) See, it was the context in which you said it that was stupid. I read your quote above and I'm with you. But then, when I read the context, oh boy. Problematic.
Honey, you were responding to a question about why being geographically close to Russia makes you an expert on foreign policy. And I think we can all agree that...
Geez, what the hell am I doing? You're a fucking moron! Just shut the hell up and go away, already!
And you, American media, please just stop giving this nitwit even more airtime with which to bury herself.
The crap that comes out of her mouth makes one fearful for the safety of those in her charge, including, but not limited to, her family and constituents. (And for the sanity of those same people for putting her in that position.)
And she shares with The Idiot the idea that absolutely nothing is her fault. It's usually the media. Or those pesky "elites", whoever they are. Take this latest gem from a recent interview with Esquire magazine.
"You have to let it go. Even hard news sources, credible news sources — the comment about, you can see Russia from Alaska. You can! You can see Russia from Alaska. Something like that — a factual statement that was taken out of context and mocked — what you have to do is let that go."
Okay, let's talk about this, darlin'. Your problem here was not that something was taken out of context. It's that it was taken in context. Out of context it was much smarter. Yes, you can see Russia from Alaska. It's a fact! (Only from a couple of remote islands, but still, we'll give you that.) See, it was the context in which you said it that was stupid. I read your quote above and I'm with you. But then, when I read the context, oh boy. Problematic.
Honey, you were responding to a question about why being geographically close to Russia makes you an expert on foreign policy. And I think we can all agree that...
Geez, what the hell am I doing? You're a fucking moron! Just shut the hell up and go away, already!
And you, American media, please just stop giving this nitwit even more airtime with which to bury herself.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Three Types of Audience Member That Piss Me Off
Okay, so it's the day before Christmas and I'm supposed to be all peaceonearthgoodwilltowardsmen and shit. Well, it's raining here so I'm gonna rant a bit about people that piss me off. 'Cause I never do that.
Concert tickets are expensive. Unless you like really unpopular music (and I do like a lot of it) you're going to shell out some bucks for a show. At least for well-known artists. So with great anticipation (and money) I went to see Neil Young at MSG last week. Big show. Two opening acts, one of whom was Wilco, another musical act I like a whole lot.
So, how was the show, you ask? Well, if I had a gas mask, x-ray glasses and unidirectional ear plugs it would have been great. There are three distinct flavors of annoyances at concerts that make me batshit crazy. And they were all there. I shall now gripe about each in turn.
1. The Person Who Stands Up All the Time - I'm all for being excited by the act that you just shelled out a bundle to come see. But as an old SNL sketch demonstrated (sorry, can't find it online), crowds collectively decide whether to stand or sit at concerts. When there's just one yokel doing it, it's annoying. Especially when they're fewer than three rows in front of me. This person stood up after every song to throw her hands in the air, further obscuring the view. This is okay, assuming you're going to sit down again in a somewhat timely fashion. Which she usually didn't.
2. The Guy Who Sings Along to EVERY FUCKING SONG - I swear, I get this guy at every big concert I go to. Does he think that no one can hear him? Does he think I want to hear him? Does he know what the word "off-key" means? Does he think I dropped a hundred bucks to hear Neil Young with Special Guest Doug Malinowski in Row C Seat 13? Will he sign my ticket stub? My favorite part was during "Powderfinger" when he not only sang the words, most of which he knew, but the goddamn guitar parts too. ("The closer they got, the more these feelings greeeeew! Dairn dair dairn de-dair-dair dair de-dairn!") I actually was relieved when Neil sang new songs that no one knew. At least this dude shut up for a bit.
3. The Smoker - You knew this was coming, didn't you? Smoking was banned at pretty much every indoor space in New York City early on in the Bloomberg administration, and no one was happier about it than I. Finally, I said to myself, I can go out and hear music (and play music) without wanting to die. Apparently, this is not so much the case. One dude lights up. Stinky. Gross. It can be nipped in the bud if somebody nearby says "Hey, dude, do you mind?" or an usher comes by and politely asks the offending party to extinguish. But when this doesn't happen, it emboldens others around to do the same. The original party, now emboldened in turn by the acquiescence and participation of others, ceases to hide the cigarette under the seat between puffs, and in his cupped hands during puffs, and just smokes openly through the whole freakin' show. Person #1 even joined in. She was too far away for me to tell if she pulled off the annoyance trifecta, but she clearly didn't have much lung power because, rather than being forcefully expelled upward and/or outward, the smoke just drifted out of her mouth and wafted back towards me to say hello. I did not return its friendly greeting.
Rules don't mean anything if nobody enforces them. Now, there are no hard and fast rules against #1 and #2, so I accept that I'm just a curmudgeon who should stay home if that crap bothers him. But #3 really angers me. Apart from the general unpleasantness (that I spent a lot of money to experience, fuck you very much) I had a freakin' headache for most of the show, which was really long, by the way. And, oh, you know, it's just the law and all. Not that anybody cares about laws in this country anymore.
Am I overreacting? Is it just me? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with people?
Oh, by the way, Merry Christmas!
Concert tickets are expensive. Unless you like really unpopular music (and I do like a lot of it) you're going to shell out some bucks for a show. At least for well-known artists. So with great anticipation (and money) I went to see Neil Young at MSG last week. Big show. Two opening acts, one of whom was Wilco, another musical act I like a whole lot.
So, how was the show, you ask? Well, if I had a gas mask, x-ray glasses and unidirectional ear plugs it would have been great. There are three distinct flavors of annoyances at concerts that make me batshit crazy. And they were all there. I shall now gripe about each in turn.
1. The Person Who Stands Up All the Time - I'm all for being excited by the act that you just shelled out a bundle to come see. But as an old SNL sketch demonstrated (sorry, can't find it online), crowds collectively decide whether to stand or sit at concerts. When there's just one yokel doing it, it's annoying. Especially when they're fewer than three rows in front of me. This person stood up after every song to throw her hands in the air, further obscuring the view. This is okay, assuming you're going to sit down again in a somewhat timely fashion. Which she usually didn't.
2. The Guy Who Sings Along to EVERY FUCKING SONG - I swear, I get this guy at every big concert I go to. Does he think that no one can hear him? Does he think I want to hear him? Does he know what the word "off-key" means? Does he think I dropped a hundred bucks to hear Neil Young with Special Guest Doug Malinowski in Row C Seat 13? Will he sign my ticket stub? My favorite part was during "Powderfinger" when he not only sang the words, most of which he knew, but the goddamn guitar parts too. ("The closer they got, the more these feelings greeeeew! Dairn dair dairn de-dair-dair dair de-dairn!") I actually was relieved when Neil sang new songs that no one knew. At least this dude shut up for a bit.
3. The Smoker - You knew this was coming, didn't you? Smoking was banned at pretty much every indoor space in New York City early on in the Bloomberg administration, and no one was happier about it than I. Finally, I said to myself, I can go out and hear music (and play music) without wanting to die. Apparently, this is not so much the case. One dude lights up. Stinky. Gross. It can be nipped in the bud if somebody nearby says "Hey, dude, do you mind?" or an usher comes by and politely asks the offending party to extinguish. But when this doesn't happen, it emboldens others around to do the same. The original party, now emboldened in turn by the acquiescence and participation of others, ceases to hide the cigarette under the seat between puffs, and in his cupped hands during puffs, and just smokes openly through the whole freakin' show. Person #1 even joined in. She was too far away for me to tell if she pulled off the annoyance trifecta, but she clearly didn't have much lung power because, rather than being forcefully expelled upward and/or outward, the smoke just drifted out of her mouth and wafted back towards me to say hello. I did not return its friendly greeting.
Rules don't mean anything if nobody enforces them. Now, there are no hard and fast rules against #1 and #2, so I accept that I'm just a curmudgeon who should stay home if that crap bothers him. But #3 really angers me. Apart from the general unpleasantness (that I spent a lot of money to experience, fuck you very much) I had a freakin' headache for most of the show, which was really long, by the way. And, oh, you know, it's just the law and all. Not that anybody cares about laws in this country anymore.
Am I overreacting? Is it just me? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with people?
Oh, by the way, Merry Christmas!
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Senate Seat for Sale: Not Cheap
Geez, this is the kind of thing that was supposed to go out with Prohibition. Or at least, the Bush administration.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to advertise that a Senate seat is for sale? Even Dick Cheney pretends that he doesn't profit at all from the creepy things he does (>cough!< Halliburton!) and covers his tracks. This dude is just pathetic. Clean out his desk. Teach him how those license plates are made.
I can't wait to find out who Candidate 5 is. And crap, how much money were Candidates 1 through 4 willing to offer? This is going to be fun.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to advertise that a Senate seat is for sale? Even Dick Cheney pretends that he doesn't profit at all from the creepy things he does (>cough!< Halliburton!) and covers his tracks. This dude is just pathetic. Clean out his desk. Teach him how those license plates are made.
I can't wait to find out who Candidate 5 is. And crap, how much money were Candidates 1 through 4 willing to offer? This is going to be fun.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Please Use Revolving Door
It makes me crazy when people disregard clearly posted signs. Heck, I don't even like it when the signs aren't so clearly posted and they disregard them. I expect people to have a basic understanding of the rules. Most people (most people) don't need a sign saying "Please Don't Stab the Person Standing Next to You" to refrain from doing so. So when there's a sign that gets ignored, my Annoyance Meter goes all kooky.
My least favorite, of course, is the ever-popular "No Smoking" sign. This is by far the worst because smoking is disgusting and, as is the case at the Staten Island Ferry terminal (on the bad side) where scofflaws continually light up on the path to the buses, unavoidable. Right. Under. The. God. Damn. Sign. Argh! Once I even saw an MTA EMPLOYEE offer a light to someone not 5 feet from a "No Smoking" sign. There is no hope for common courtesy. Or my lungs.
But, as obnoxious and gross as the smoking creeps are, there's a part of me that understands it. Particularly at the ferry, where folks have just spent at least 30 minutes on a boat and are about to get on a bus for another who-knows-how-long. They've only got a few precious seconds to get some of that mm-mm-good tarcotine in there before the next leg of their soul-crushing journey from a crappy corporate job in Manhattan to a miserable family on Staten Island. And it is an addiction. So there ya go. Smoking.
What really baffles me, though, is the revolving door. Not the door itself, but people's aversion to it. Now, big office buildings in NYC always have revolving doors alongside normal swing-open doors. (I use the technical terms for things here. Sorry if you have to look up terms like "swing-open doors". Erudition reigns here at the Den.) Naturally, the buildings prefer that you use the revolving doors because their use saves each building thousands of dollars a year (my guess) in heating and cooling costs. And helps to keep the smoke from the phalanx of tobacco addicts in its rightful place. But the swing doors remain usable for emergencies or for people in wheelchairs or with pizzas or whatever.
But there is almost always a sign saying something along the lines of "Please Use Revolving Door". And yet, I see people ignoring these signs every goddamn day of my life. What is it with people? What is so fucking awful about using a revolving door? You have to push it the same way you have to push the revolver. It takes about the same amount of strength. It takes about the same amount of time. Why would you ignore a clearly posted request for something that gives little or no benefit? It says "Please", for crying out loud!
The only possible explanation I can think of is claustrophobia. But you know what, I'm the most claustrophobic person I know. I refuse to get on a subway train if there are too many people on it. And I freak out if I get on and it doesn't move between stations. I see the same people who just ignored the door sign cramming onto the sardine train with no issues whatsoever.
Just this week in the building I work in, I saw the ever-present "Please..." sign placed directly in front of the door. With no gap. There was no way to avoid seeing it. There was no way to get out the door without acknowledging the sign physically. And yet...some dude actually squeezed himself around the sign to use the regular door.
Now, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket that these people do this. But seriously, what the hell is wrong with people?
My least favorite, of course, is the ever-popular "No Smoking" sign. This is by far the worst because smoking is disgusting and, as is the case at the Staten Island Ferry terminal (on the bad side) where scofflaws continually light up on the path to the buses, unavoidable. Right. Under. The. God. Damn. Sign. Argh! Once I even saw an MTA EMPLOYEE offer a light to someone not 5 feet from a "No Smoking" sign. There is no hope for common courtesy. Or my lungs.
But, as obnoxious and gross as the smoking creeps are, there's a part of me that understands it. Particularly at the ferry, where folks have just spent at least 30 minutes on a boat and are about to get on a bus for another who-knows-how-long. They've only got a few precious seconds to get some of that mm-mm-good tarcotine in there before the next leg of their soul-crushing journey from a crappy corporate job in Manhattan to a miserable family on Staten Island. And it is an addiction. So there ya go. Smoking.
What really baffles me, though, is the revolving door. Not the door itself, but people's aversion to it. Now, big office buildings in NYC always have revolving doors alongside normal swing-open doors. (I use the technical terms for things here. Sorry if you have to look up terms like "swing-open doors". Erudition reigns here at the Den.) Naturally, the buildings prefer that you use the revolving doors because their use saves each building thousands of dollars a year (my guess) in heating and cooling costs. And helps to keep the smoke from the phalanx of tobacco addicts in its rightful place. But the swing doors remain usable for emergencies or for people in wheelchairs or with pizzas or whatever.
But there is almost always a sign saying something along the lines of "Please Use Revolving Door". And yet, I see people ignoring these signs every goddamn day of my life. What is it with people? What is so fucking awful about using a revolving door? You have to push it the same way you have to push the revolver. It takes about the same amount of strength. It takes about the same amount of time. Why would you ignore a clearly posted request for something that gives little or no benefit? It says "Please", for crying out loud!
The only possible explanation I can think of is claustrophobia. But you know what, I'm the most claustrophobic person I know. I refuse to get on a subway train if there are too many people on it. And I freak out if I get on and it doesn't move between stations. I see the same people who just ignored the door sign cramming onto the sardine train with no issues whatsoever.
Just this week in the building I work in, I saw the ever-present "Please..." sign placed directly in front of the door. With no gap. There was no way to avoid seeing it. There was no way to get out the door without acknowledging the sign physically. And yet...some dude actually squeezed himself around the sign to use the regular door.
Now, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket that these people do this. But seriously, what the hell is wrong with people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)