German Drivers

One of the things I appreciated most about Germany was its drivers. Many people envision the stereotype of a German driver zipping down the speed-limit-less Autobahn at 100+ mph, but that's rarely the case. You see, in contrast to American drivers (especially those in Southern California), Germans actually respect the road and KNOW how to drive.

I'm sure I've ranted about this before, but my biggest pet peeve when it comes to driving is cruising in the passing lane. Those "slow traffic keep right" signs are there for a reason, people! The left lanes are for passing-- once you've passed the slow car(s) in front of you, you MOVE BACK to the right lane. But Southern Californians seem to think nothing of hogging the left lanes and merrily cruising at the same speed (if not slower!!) as those in the right lanes. What really irks me about this practice is that most So Cal highways, especially in the more populated areas, consist of 3-4 lanes on each side! So there is really no excuse for cruising in the left lane!

Germans, on the other hand, take this very seriously. Most German highways are only 2 lanes on each side, possibly 3 in bigger cities. And they're very conscientious about using the left lane ONLY for passing. You pull out, quickly overtake the car(s) you're trying to pass, and then pop straight back into the right lane. This keeps traffic flowing smoothly. If you make the mistake of cruising in the passing lane, irate drivers will not hesitate to let you know! The only times I've come up on someone doing that was when the car bore plates from another country. Never a German car. Driving along the long stretches of open German road was actually quite refreshing and relaxing!

Fast-lane cruisers have always annoyed me in So Cal, but after coming back from our trip last month, and having driven on the glorious Autobahn with its more-considerate drivers, I've found myself even more annoyed by these same awful driving habits here at home.

Another annoyance is traffic circles. In all fairness, roundabouts are such a rarity in So Cal that I don't blame many people for being unsure of how to correctly use them. But here in SB, they are starting to become more numerous, and I love them! They're really good for keeping the traffic flowing... IF people use them properly. I've lost track of how many times I've had to honk at someone IN the circle who tried to slow down to let people outside the circle in. That's NOT the way it works, buddy!!

In Germany, traffic circles were definitely more commonplace, and I loved them not only for traffic flow, but for an easy way to make a U-turn. Drivers go in and know what they're doing, and where they're doing (it does help that German roundabout signs are more clearly marked and a little more idiot-proof than American signs). Case in point: the huge, multi-lane roundabout surrounding the Siegessauele (Victory Column) in Berlin. Great opportunity for confusion, but Germans take it in stride!

The #1 thing I miss about Germany is the food (as you've seen from my previous post on breakfast, and as you'll see about upcoming posts on other German foods). The #2 thing is the driving/drivers. If we could import even half the common sense of German drivers into American drivers, we'd really cut down on the road rage that runs rampant! 

I'm posting every day in October as part of the 31-Day Writing Challenge. Click here to read more about it and to see the rest of my posts this month!

The "Lens of Love" reapplied

A few years ago I wrote a post that was driven by a conversation we had with a friend of ours from church, one where I came to the conclusion that the core of Christianity can be summed up by one directive: Love God (and, in doing so, love your neighbor). Everything else naturally stems from it.

Since I believe that God is love and anything that is of love is of God (and vice versa!), I brought up the concept of a "lens of love" through which your actions can be filtered: do your actions pass the test of love?

At the time, I applied the post mainly to the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Recently, however, I was engaged in some debate about another part of Scripture that insists that only men can be pastors/elders in the church, and, as an offshoot, that women must submit to their husbands.

Now, either side can pick apart specific verses to make their case. One can point to the creation story of Adam and Eve as evidence of a "created order". Or one can argue that the historical context addresses false teachings (that happened to be done by women who had likewise been taught wrong) and not women themselves as a whole.

I do believe it's important to consider the historical and cultural context in which a verse in question was written. EVERYONE does this to some degree. I don't think there's anyone who really takes the Bible 100% literally, or we'd all be following a bunch of arcane rules about wearing jewelry, mixing fabrics, and dealing with women on the rag.

In this case, for instance, I'd argue that Scripture says masters should treat their slaves well, and that slaves should submit to their masters, but that doesn't mean the Bible condones slavery-- it was just addressing examples of godly living for the circumstances of the day. Circumstances that include not only slavery but a very patriarchal society, one where women had few rights and were fully dependent on their husbands. In those days, "submit to your man" was very much the norm, maybe even a downright survival mechanism for women.

But where do you draw the line? 

After all, one could argue, even applying context is just another form of human (i.e. fallible) interpretation, so when you encounter specific guidance like this, where do you draw the line between applying contextual interpretation, and taking it literally (ignoring, for the moment, that even literal interpretation involves linguistic context)?

Well, that's where the "lens of love" comes into play.

No matter how you slice and dice it, claiming that only men can be pastors and that husbands must be heads of the household says only one glaringly obvious thing: that women are inferior to men. The "best" arguments I've seen in favor of these principles are always quick to defend themselves against this charge, insisting that men and women are indeed equal beings in the eyes of the Lord, they just have different roles to play. Biologically, that may be true-- Schwarzenegger's "Junior" notwithstanding, women are the ones who bear children.

But we're more than just biological beings, aren't we? That's the whole point of having a spirit and a soul, the whole point of being created in God's image.

So if you're saying that men and women are equal in the eyes of the Lord but have different roles to play, you're basically saying that men and women are "separate but equal". Gee-- why does that sound so familiar? That didn't really fly too well during the civil rights movement, and it doesn't really fly too well today. And for good reason:

When you examine this claim, that one fellow human being is inferior to you, through the "lens of love", it is most decidedly NOT a loving claim. By any stretch of the imagination. It fails the "love" test. You cannot claim that men and women have equal worth and yet relegate them to specific roles within the church and family based solely on gender. Therefore, I reject the notion that only men can be pastors or that women should submit to their husbands. Not because I'm part of a culture that promotes feminist ideals, but because those notions are the antithesis to love.

This is also why I continue to circle back to the single, lone directive in the Bible that is completely free of cultural and historical context: Love God, love your neighbor. Everything else just follows. And in this case, loving your neighbor means treating them and valuing them as human beings of equal worth to your own, no more, no less.

N'est-ce-pas?

Pet Peeves

I could have sworn I had already written a blog post about pet peeves several years ago, but I cannot, for the life of me, find it! So I thought I would at least revisit the concept and maybe update my list. It's probably not much different from what I wrote a few years ago :-)

1. Super bright headlights. Seriously. Who the hell thought equipping newer cars with lights bright enough to illuminate a football stadium, was a smart idea? Sure, when you're driving said car at night, you get to enjoy seeing every minute detail of everything you headlights hit. But you're also blinding the people around you! Saturday night, coming back from Borderline, I had just such a car behind me. I flipped up my rearview mirror, but there was nothing I could do about the searing lights reflecting off my side mirrors. Even Mitch, in the passenger seat, remarked, "does that guy have his high beams on?" I checked the reflection-- nope. It was at the proper headlight angle. How can that stuff be legal? And WHY does anyone in their right mind think these are a smart idea!?

2. Turn signals. This is a two-fold peeve. I hate it when people turn or change lanes without using their turn signal. It's inconvenient at best and dangerous at worst (like when they suddenly brake in front of in order to make a turn you had no idea was coming!). On the flip side, I hate it when people DO turn on their blinkers to change lanes... and then forget to turn them off, driving miles and miles with a blinking light.

3. Cruising in the passing lane. In other countries, it's very much discouraged, even illegal. And it should be! I loathe passing anyone on the right because it's more dangerous (the right lane is designated the slow lane for a reason, people!) but sometimes I have no choice, because some idiot decided to cruise in the left lane, which should be for PASSING ONLY!!

4. Roundabouts. Actually, I don't have a problem with roundabouts. I have a problem with people who don't know how to USE them. They are commonplace in Europe, and over there, I never encountered any issues with drivers using them. Here, on the other hand? They are so rare that people hesitate to enter/exit them properly. Drives me nuts when I'm waiting behind someone trying to enter a roundabout, hesitating and letting missed opportunity after missed opportunity go by...

Hmm... okay, enough car/traffic related ones ;-) What else?

5. Cash change. It irks me when cashiers give me my change by first placing the bills in my hand, and then putting the coins on top of it. The precarious balance of items all but incapacitates that hand. Much easier if the change is on the bottom, and bills on top. That way, I can put the money in my wallet in a much more efficient manner: slide the bills in the billfold portion, pour the coins in the coin purse portion. All without having to balance the stuff in my hand to avoid dropping everything!

6. Misspelling the word "ensure". I've lost count of how many times I've seen it spelled "insure". No! Blue Cross insures you to ensure you stay healthy! You know where else it's spelled that way? In the Preamble to our country's Constitution! I wonder if our Founding Fathers knew how much the insurance premiums on domestic tranquility was eventually going to cost...

7. Inadequately flushed toilets. Public restrooms. How hard can this be? When you've finished your business and you flush, PAY some freakin' ATTENTION. Make sure everything's gone down, and if it hasn't, flush again! Don't leave an unpleasant surprise for the next person to walk in on. Do you do this at home? Jiggle the flush handle and then leave without a second glance? Am I the only one who makes sure the toilet is cleared before leaving it!?

What's in a Name? Part 3

When you have a pretty unique first AND last name, like I do, you're bound to get tons of misspellings, mispronunciations, and odd nicknames. I talked about some of the more common mistakes in a previous blog post: http://heckledtrio.blogspot.com/2008/02/whats-in-name.html

And while I've come to take the inevitable misspellings and mispronunciations in stride (hey-- what can you do? People don't do well with the unfamiliar!), there is one mistake that irritates me more than any other. And that's when people assume that my last name is the same as my husband's. Although it IS pretty funny when people directly address a 6'8" tall, obviously white guy as "Mr. Kwee" ;-)

While I acknowledge that the majority of married women in American society today still adopt their husband's last name upon marriage, it's quite obviously a growing trend for women not to, especially in areas where women are still in the minority, such as academia or the tech/engineering industry. And I've noticed that businesses that deal with a large variety of the population tend to not make that assumption: they usually ask me if I have the same name as Allan, when I'm giving out both of names (e.g. at the doctor's office).

I've never understood this remnant of a patriarchal society. In many cultures, the notion of adopting a spouse's name is unheard of. And yet we're supposed to be the progressive society? My boss is quite adamant against the practice; as she puts it: you lose part of your own identity when you take your spouse's name. And you're always tied to them in some manner. Plus, if you get divorced (which, hey-- there's a 50% chance of that happening in this society!) you either have to undergo the hassle of changing it again, or remain stuck with the name of your ex.

I'll admit that when I was making the decision about whether or not to change my name, I didn't think of it in quite the terms of social progress. I was merely thinking of convenience-- it's a headache to have to make all those changes and get brand new IDs and whatnot! Also, at the time I was considering going into academia, where it's already hard enough to get ahead as a woman, especially in an engineering field. Why make it that much harder by publishing under one name, and then later on, publishing under another?

But hey-- to each her own, and it is as much one woman's prerogative to change her name as it is my right to keep mine. And I did acknowledge that it is still more common for American women to take their husband's names, than for them to keep their maiden names. So calling me "Knight" is actually a fair assumption for most people to make. And I don't really get offended when they do.

However.

What I take issue with is when I politely *correct* said assumptions, and people STILL insist on using the wrong name.

The biggest culprit? Our son's school. It's pretty conservative. I've noticed that, in subtle ways, they really don't treat women as equals to men. They assume that the moms don't work during the day. When talking to both parents, they make more eye contact with the husband than with the wife. And let's not get started on the "wrong name" deal. Despite filling out forms, signing documents, and using an email address all containing my correct name, I still come out as "Helly Knight" or "Mrs. Knight", or worse yet,  "Mr. and Mrs. Allan Knight" in correspondence, sign-up rosters, and plain old being addressed, even in person.

It's all very reminiscent of the blatantly sexist treatment I got at the hands of a real estate agent when I visited an open house with a male friend of mine: http://heckledtrio.blogspot.com/2010/07/shopping-and-sexism.html

It amazes me that an organization consisting of mostly women (teachers and office staff) would take part in such patriarchal, sexist behavior. At the same time, it's also a conservative Christian organization, so I guess that shouldn't surprise me much. But you wouldn't continue misspelling/mispronouncing someone's name after they've corrected you, right? So why insist on calling me by my husband's name when I've clearly corrected you? I find that downright disrespectful!

To Feed or Not To Feed

Did you know that the first week of every August is designated as National (or is it World?) Breastfeeding Awareness Week? I didn't-- until now. Hearing about it brought to mind a few breastfeeding-related topics that really get my goat.

First off, let me be clear that I definitely believe that "breast is best" (if for no other reason than it's more convenient and cost-effective!) and that women should be educated about their choices. What I DON'T believe, however, is that breastfeeding is a one-size-fits-all deal. Some women can't breastfeed. Some women choose not to. And what I don't believe in is shaming them for it. I believe a mother should be supported no matter what her choice.

Secondly, I draw a clear distinction between people who genuinely care about and lovingly support breastfeeding mothers, and those that would vilify any mother who chooses otherwise, guilt-tripping them for not breastfeeding. The latter group has truly earned the "boob Nazi" moniker.

There is an episode of "Law and Order: SVU" in which a new, young mother is brought to trial for the death of her newborn baby, who starved to death because she was unable to nurse him. Why didn't she feed him formula? Because she was so terrorized by the bullying lactation consultant, who convinced her that feeding him formula was the worst thing she could possibly do. Here was this new, young, inexperienced mother who believed the professional who should know better. Instead, the "professional" raged about how vile and awful formula was. Now, no question, breastmilk is superior to formula, but that doesn't make it poisonous! As the prosecutor said: "babies don't starve to death from it!"

I myself had a similar experience when Todd was born. I had incredible difficulty getting Todd to nurse, and the boob Nazi assigned to me was rude and brusque. She did nothing to help me feel better about being unable to nurse my child. She made me feel like it was MY fault, like I wasn't trying hard enough. And though she never outright said anything, I could feel her disapproval when I fed Todd a bottle. Sorry, but I'm not gonna let my baby starve! (as it turned out, I was able to get a supply going by pumping exclusively, so while Todd never nursed, he did drink expressed milk from a bottle for the first 6 months of his life. And while I would've loved to keep it up longer, I'm glad I was able to for that short period of time, and have no regrets about it).

And now, NYC Mayor Bloomberg wants hospitals to lock up formula, keeping track of bottles that are signed out, and forcing new mothers to endure a lecture every time they ask for a bottle. This is just another manifestation of the arrogant, brusque behavior I encountered with the nurse at my hospital. Women are made to feel like they are harming their babies by feeding them formula.

Given that breastfeeding fell out of favor not that long ago, I can understand (and totally support!) efforts to educate and support women in this endeavor.  What I DON'T understand is how treating women like idiots and shaming them into breastfeeding is supposed to encourage anyone to do so. For a myriad of reasons, breastfeeding can be a hard task for many. Most women (like me) who try and fail are already feeling bad that they can't breastfeed their babies, what they need is kindness and compassion and support, not judgment and condescension that only worsens the guilt. And even if formula feeding is a set, conscious choice from the get-go, that is no reason for shaming, either. Contrary to what boob Nazis would have you believe, formula DOES provide adequate nourishment for a growing baby, and as long as baby is healthy and loved, that's all that matters.

Another thing I take issue with are the reasons that boob Nazis give for support of breastfeeding. I will grant that yes, nutritionally and economically, breastmilk beats formula. But when they make formula out to be this evil, deadly potion, I'm really offended. Plenty of people (including me) have been raised exclusively on formula and turned out just fine. The worst part is when they use "statistics" to illustrate how much worse off (physically and mentally) children raised on formula are compared to their breastfed counterparts. Not only is much of this data skewed, misleading or outright false, but it lays needless blame on mothers for not "trying hard enough" to do what's "best" for their child. Unless you've walked a mile in that mother's shoes, you have absolutely NO right to dictate what is best for her and her baby.

Yet another "advantage" that boob Nazis tout about breastfeeding is the close "bonding" between mother and child. I'm sorry, but that is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Does this mean fathers can't bond with their babies? What about adoptive parents? Or the mother who had a double mastectomy long before the baby was born? True bonding comes from the act of closely holding, loving, and caring for the child-- and this can take place whether the feeding is done by bottle or by breast.

As you've probably surmised, this is a bit of a touchy topic for me. I understand what it's like to try so hard at doing my best for my baby, only to be made to feel like an inadequate, incompetent mother for not nursing him, for supplementing with formula, for not going longer than 6 months, etc... I have boob Nazi Facebook friends who post statuses and links to articles that they believe are supposed to educate women about the benefits of breastfeeding, but really only serve to guilt-trip those who don't.

Parents make a myriad of choices when it comes to raising their children. Every situation is unique. Everyone has their own individual set of challenges to overcome. So why is what/how they feed their babies anyone's business but their own? Barring outright abuse or neglect, there is no one right or wrong way to do thing. Why, then, are parents being shown anything but support, love and compassion for their choices?

No Joking Matter

There is a saying that nothing reveals a man's character so clearly as the joke he tells. There is a lot of truth to that. My ex-boyfriend used to joke that a woman's place was "in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant". Of course he'd immediately defend himself with "it's just a joke! I was only kidding!" but the truth is, he WAS the chauvinistic, sexist type. Maybe not in huge, obvious degrees like your stereotypical chauvinist who insists on speaking to a man when calling tech support. But it was there, subtly, and his so-called joke belied the true attitude beneath a veneer of civility.

Recently, the Twitter-sphere (Twitter-verse?) exploded with this activity:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/turtlefeed/nbc-voice-celebrity-brags-about-killing-turtle-on-ruc

Basically, country singer Blake Shelton tweeted that he'd intentionally swerved on a road to run over a turtle. I knew when I first read it that it wasn't true, but it was a horrible, tasteless "joke" just the same. I was outraged over it, as were many others who wondered if it was true or not.

After getting lambasted by enough people, he didn't simply set the record straight. That would've been nice, and an apology would've been icing on the cake. But no. Instead, he chose to outright INSULT the very people who were responding with concern. Calling them names, acting very flippant and arrogant. The flames were then fanned further when his fans jumped into the fray, joining in the name-calling and threatening to intentionally harm turtles.

I think that's what really turned me off to Blake Shelton. His original "joke" was in poor taste to begin with, and already bad enough. But insulting those who voice concern? Was just way over the top, totally uncalled for, and indicative of a really heartless, shallow, arrogant character. I mean, geez-- is it so hard to either ignore your detractors, or address them somewhat professionally? Must you call them "dipshit" and have the nerve to accuse them of blowing things out of proportion when you're the one fueling the fire? I'm not a huge fan of his music (though there were a few songs I liked), and this is just one more reason why I'll never be a fan.

There are many things in the world that are great fodder for jokes. Politics, Allan, TV shows, the Kardashians... but some things you just don't joke about: rape, domestic violence, cruelly harming innocent critters... and especially when you're in the public eye.

Shame on you, Blake Shelton. Not just for your terrible joke, but for the callous attitude that followed. Cover it up as a "joke" all you want, shift the blame back to the protesters all you want, but all this really says something about you, and about your character. I sure hope you treat your wife better...

To Skip or to Hold Back

I was reading an article about a proposal in the UK to raise the school starting (kindergarten) age from 5 to 6. Now, I realize that the British and American educational systems are disparate enough that relating this to our country is akin to comparing apples to oranges. But the basic premise behind this proposal still stands-- are children starting school at too young an age? This article followed on the heels of another one I'd also read this morning-- To Skip a Grade or Hold a Child Back?

In a nutshell, I believe the answer is really "it depends". Depends on the child, depends on his school, depends on the parents, depends on the resources available. And ultimately, I would like to think that this sort of decision is based on the child's best interest: i.e. his/her readiness for it, both socially and academically. I thought this was a no-brainer.

Silly me.

As I started reading the comments on the British article, I was appalled by how many people related stories of friends/family/acquaintances who held their children back not because the kids weren't ready, but because they wanted their kids to be the oldest/biggest in their class, thereby giving them an edge in sports.

WTF!? THAT is your priority!? That has nothing to do with the child's best interests and everything to do with a parent's ego and selfish pride. I cannot fathom that there are parents out there who would willingly hamper a child's education for the sole reason that they want the kid to be bigger than his classmates!? Are they raising bullies or something?? Mind-boggling.

Besides, being the biggest in your class isn't always a good thing. Hubby went through school at the normal ages, but during his freshman year of high school, he was already 6'4" (i.e. the size of a senior, even taller), despite being only 14. First day of sophomore year, someone asks him, in all seriousness, "What are YOU still doing here!?" This also explains why, all throughout high school, people would speak more sloowwwly and more LOUDLY to him ;-)

My own son started kindergarten at age 4, simply because he was ready for it. Not just academically, but, more importantly, socially. We were fortunate enough to find a local private school that had absolutely no qualms about taking on early starters. Turns out-- he wasn't even the only 4-year-old in the class! He's now in 4th grade, and really blossoming, growing socially while making new friends of all ages-- from 1st graders through 5th graders.

On the other hand, one of Todd's preschool classmates actually started kindergarten late-- at age 6 instead of 5. His mother felt that he was not ready for kindergarten, either socially or academically, and I believe she made the right decision. Had she forced him into kindergarten at the prescribed age, he probably would've either been too frustrated or too disruptive-- affecting not only himself, but his classmates. For him, being held back a year was the correct choice, and he seems to be thriving in school now.

Two completely different decisions made on the basis of the exact same thing: what's best for the kid right now? And that's the way it should be. I'm still shaking my head at this "I'll hold my kid back so he'll be bigger" mentality, because that's NOT in the kid's best interest! Sigh... humanity. I worry about it often.

Head in the Sand

People are ignorant about different things. And that's perfectly fine. Nobody can know EVERYTHING there is to know in/about the world. And often times, people outright choose to remain ignorant about certain topics, such as current events or politics, maybe even celebrity gossip. Maybe it's just apathy. That is certainly their right, their choice. Nobody can force someone to keep abreast of something they're not interested in.

But where I draw the line is outright FLAUNTING this... willful ignorance. How is that sort of thing anything to be proud of!? I mean, hell, it's bad enough when you choose to bury your head in the sand about relatively important issues in the world, but it's downright shameful to act so high and mighty about it.

I read so many examples of this on STFU, Parents-- often times, it's parents who pooh-pooh the latest breaking news in favor of more important things, obviously: their kids. Stuff like "Oh, I didn't know Osama bin Laden was killed today, I was too busy watching babby take her first steps!". Really? You couldn't have just said "Babby took her first steps today", you had to include the fact that you not only missed the top news story of the day, but you were PROUD of it?

I mean, it's one thing to steer clear of things like trashy gossip. But even then, there is a polite way to express your abstinence from such things. If I said to you "Hey, did you hear about the latest Kim Kardashian escapade?" and you responded with "No, I don't give a FLYING FUCK about the Kardashians"-- I'm sorry, but that's downright RUDE. Let alone if the question was about something a little more edifying, like a statement the President made. It doesn't matter that you have totally valid reasons for not caring about the Kardashians or the President or the election or the stock market or gay marriage rights, you don't have to make such a big deal about this apathy. Just politely say "No, I don't follow X" and move on.

Is that so hard!? Why must apathy be worn as a badge of pride these days??

Fashion Woes

A few weeks ago, Tabitha and I went on some shopping sprees together. No, we never physically set foot in any stores together, but, armed with a web browser, high-speed internet connection, and IM client, we browsed the cyberstores together, sharing finds and getting each others' opinions. It was actually a lot of fun! We each ended up buying quite a few things from different stores, and excitedly shared our purchases with each other as they arrived in the mail.

I'm not sure how the shopping spree started, but the focus was on dresses and skirts and more fun, feminine things to wear when the weather warms up. I was a bit skeptical of ordering clothes online, because I typically have to try on clothes before buying them, but some of these outfits were too cute to pass up, and the online stores had pretty reasonable return/exchange policies, so I took a chance.

You see, I have a notoriously difficult body size/shape to work with. I am almost always between sizes, and dresses are the worst-- they almost always fit well in one spot, and not so well in another. My bust and waist lead me to smaller-size dresses, yet my shoulders and hips (thanks to baby belly!) lean more towards medium. So a dress either fits my chest/midsection well but my arms can't move because the shoulders/armpit area is too tight, or it fits fine around my shoulders but hangs loosely around the bust/waist area. Can't win! Sashes/belts help, but are not always the solution.

Bras are another "fun" thing to shop for, something I am sure many women can sympathize with! I don't think there's anywhere on the female body with more variation than breast size, so I'm not even going to get into that rant. Suffice it to say that us less-well-endowed girls are a neglected corner of the brassier market :-P

Pants/jeans are irksome, too, especially in this day and age when "low-rise" is so popular. I have long legs, so pants that fit my waist are almost always too short, but pants at the right inseam length are too big around the waist! Don't even get me started on skinny jeans, where the low-rise phenomenon is even more prevalent!

Even shirts can be troublesome, though less often so than dresses, bras, or jeans. My arms are longer than average for my body size, so often times, either a shirt/sweater fits perfectly all over but but has too-short arms, or everything just hangs baggily (<-- is that a word??) 

Shoes can be a challenge for me because I have wide feet, and the majority of shoes that I'm interested in do not come in wide sizes. *Sob* On the flip side, when a shoe does fit my feet, it tends to look decent on me, no matter how weird-looking the shoe. I remember once when my mom and I went shoe shopping, and just for fun, she had me try one some of the chunkier or higher-platform shoes-- shoes that looked pretty wacky by themselves. To her surprise, they didn't look quite so wacky on my feet! So... chalk up one plus?

Hats are also another universal fit, it seems. When Allan and I were browsing a hat shop in Vegas last December, he jokingly put a big, floppy, garish, lampshade-type hat on my head, in an effort to find something to make me look silly. Seems it backfired on him, and even the most outlandish hats the store had (i.e. stuff clearly meant for costumes) didn't look quite so outrageous on my head. Go figure, as I hardly ever wear hats! Maybe I should start doing so :-P

Anyway, now you can see why, up till now, my outfits consisted largely of straight-leg Gloria Vanderbilt jeans and either turtlenecks or button-down shirts. Standard office wear for a small fish lost in a cubicle sea of fellow nerds.

But now I'm venturing out into the world of more feminine wear, and am slowly figuring things out on that front. Being in an office full of women has certainly inspired me, as has my latest shopping sprees/online window shopping with Tabitha.

She also introduced me to the idea of wearing dresses with tights and cardigans, thus making them more winter-friendly, as well. Next thing I knew, I had not only amassed a handful of dresses (which actually fit surprisingly decently), but I'd also bought tights in almost every color imaginable. Pull out the skirts I'd put away when summer ended, and I now have a plethora of items from which to mix and match!

And since I don't know the first thing about style or fashion (beyond being aware of what types of outfits do NOT fit my physique, and avoiding them), I thought I'd start up a pinboard with my own little mix-n-match combinations.

From the formulation of abstract ideas on Polyvore: http://hellykwee.polyvore.com/

To the actual wearing of these ideas on Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/hellykwee/helly-s-personal-style/

What are your ideas/thoughts/feedback?

Holiday Parade Gone Awry

The annual holiday parade along State Street, the main thoroughfare of downtown Santa Barbara, is an event I normally don't bother with. It's cold, it's crowded, parking is hard to come by, traffic is horrendous, and eating establishments are jam-packed. Not exactly my idea of a fun night out. Still, it's no trouble braving all that when you're actually participating IN the parade, as Todd and I did 2 years ago with his karate class.

This year, his school had a float in the parade, and his class (the 3rd/4th graders) dressed up in cute little tuxes and sat in the float, waving colorful lights and singing Christmas songs they'd learned in choir. They looked so cute and excited at the staging area before the parade began, and they were buzzing about the money the school would get if their float impressed the judges enough to win a prize!

Before the first float took off, Allan and I made our way down the street towards the finish line, since we'd signed up to help with the cleanup efforts afterward. Previous experience had taught us that the streets can be hard to navigate once the parade is underway, so we thought we'd get a head start. So, we didn't actually get to see the float traveling down the street, or hear the kids sing.

Instead, we were greeted at the finish line-- with a float full of unhappy and dejected kids. One of the girls was crying, and the older boys were jumping out, eagerly telling their parents: "They were cussing at us!" The boys, at least, treated it more like an "OMG, can you BELIEVE what they did!?" moment, but they were clearly subdued and no longer the shining, happy faces at the start of the parade.

At first I thought that because it was a Christian school, the hecklers were making fun of that. But evidently, the generator powering the lights and the stereo playing background music cut out a couple times (leaving the kids to sing a cappella in the dark) during the parade, which is what provoked the jeers. According to Todd, one onlooker yelled: "What the [f-word]!? You guys suck!" Another kid told his dad about "the S-word". Admittedly, the float looked a bit ramshackle to begin with. It certainly wasn't going to win any beauty contests. But the kids were happy and excited nonetheless, and looking forward to the event, and my heart breaks when I think of these uncouth punks making fun of them with their foul mouths.

You might say that kids will be exposed to this sort of thing someday anyway, and you may well be right. But that doesn't excuse what happened, nor does it assuage my indignation over the whole thing. It's bad enough to openly jeer at anyone, especially somebody who's struggling to do their best. Even worse when that "somebody" is a group of innocent children. I mean, seriously-- what sort of heartless soul cusses at children!?

Still makes me mad when I think about it.... 

Impatience

Throughout the course of reading the "customers suck" LJ communities for the past couple of years, I've noticed that one of the common customer "sucks" occurs when the customer demands that everything be done NOWWWW!!! because they are in such a hurry. Only they end up wasting more time by arguing with their server/cashier over something that could've been settled in 30 seconds.  Or they put themselves in situations where they KNOW it will be crowded (e.g. fast food joint during the lunch rush hour) and then complain about having to wait. The bottom line is: these people deliberately put themselves in situations that caused delay, despite claims of being in a rush. Common sense, people? Evidently not!

My friend Kartik relayed a little something he'd witnessed today that reminded me a bit of those sucky customers: while standing in the parking lot near his car, he saw a girl rush up to her car, which was parked near his. She seemed to be in a hurry, especially as she was muttering "I'm in a rush!" to herself as she got in her car. Expecting to see her hop in and dash out of the parking lot, he was somewhat surprised to see her start the engine... and then proceed to sit there for a good 5 minutes. Warming up the engine. Of her brand new Honda. Huh? So much for that rush! Frankly, I'm surprised she didn't sit there texting on her phone for several minutes before shifting into gear and leaving.

She's lucky nobody was waiting to claim her spot! I've been on the waiting end a few times-- crowded parking lot, you spy someone getting into their car, they start the engine, and you turn on your blinker, waiting hopefully. And waiting. And waiting some more... I mean, it's one thing if they're busy loading groceries or buckling kids into their car seats. But these are people who START their engines (some of them even shift their car into reverse, which makes it worse-- seeing those white backup lights go on makes me anticipate their exit even more!) and then sit there doing God knows what.

On the flip side, I've been on the end of someone who's being waited for. When it's a situation like a crowded parking lot and I know someone's waiting for my spot, I try to do the polite thing: get out as soon as I possibly can. That text message can wait. Perusing my new purchase can wait until I get home. However, I found myself in such a situation the other day at the gas station... only there was no reason for me to hold anyone up, as the station was nearly empty save for me and one other car!

This illustration lays it out:

 

That's the gas station-- the dark blue squares are the pumps. The pink square is my car, the light green square is another customer, and the gray rectangles denote the sidewalk. The purple rectangle labeled "IP" (for Impatient Woman) represents the car of the woman waiting behind me. She pulled in from the street, and was half in the entrance, half on the street. As you can see, there was PLENTY of room to simply go around me and choose just about any other pump available-- including going around me and backing into the pump in front of me! But no. She chose to sit there and wait. I happened to be in the middle of washing my windows (something I only do when the gas station isn't crowded and full of waiting people) when she pulled up behind me. At first, there was a car at the pump to the left of me, so she really didn't have any place to go, but he left shortly after IP arrived, so I fully expected her to simply pull in through the spot he just vacated. But no. She remained where she was. 

Since it was HER choice to sit there, idling, when she had plenty of other options, I didn't feel obligated to hurry up and finish. So I went about my business as I usually do. I finished my front windshield and then moved on to my back windshield. Then I topped off my gas tank and waited for the receipt to print. 

IP got up pretty close behind me, probably trying to hint at me to hurry up so she could pull in. I ignored it, because I knew that I wasn't blocking her from any other pump or holding her up. Hell-- there was another entrance she could've used (near the pump in the upper-left corner of the diagram) if she wanted to. I was tempted to work slower than my normal pace, but decided it wasn't worth getting into a passive-aggressive war with IP. Besides, I wanted to get home. I dunno-- maybe she had some sort of weird special attachment to my pump, and only wants to get gas from THAT one? That's the best reason I can think of, sadly.Weird!

The Smell of Your Fellow Humans

Everything in life has extremes, and human odors are no exception. I still haven't quite decided what's worse: overdosing on perfume or letting body odor go rank.

Okay, now that I think back to Smelly Man on the bus, I'd have to go with B.O. That guy had me (and everyone around me!) retching, and he was over 10 feet away! But then I hearken back to a former co-worker, who used to overdose on her perfume. Every morning she'd walk by my cubicle, and 5 minutes after she'd left, I'd STILL be smelling the lingering remnants of perfume left in her wake. Perfume should NOT be so strong that it STAYS BEHIND you in the AIR long after you've left! And then I waffle on which is worse.

I remember one day when she came by to visit a nearby co-worker. It was late in the afternoon, and I suddenly realized part of the reason why she wore so much perfume: she was probably trying to mask a hideous case of B.O.! I felt kinda sorry for her-- while she wasn't giving Smelly Man a run for his money, it's still pretty bad when she's sitting 5 feet away and I can smell that she needs a shower. She can't help it, poor gal, but man! I was grateful I sat nowhere near her on a regular basis.

B.O. and perfume overdoses: they're worse than cigarette smoke. I can't stand smoke, but usually when someone comes in fresh from a smoke break and reeking like an ashtray, the smell dissipates quickly. Either that or my nose adjusts quickly (unlikely), but either way-- it doesn't linger or make me want to hurl the same way B.O. or strong perfume does.

Possibly the only thing worse, I imagine, is a combination of body odor and perfume. I can't imagine anything grosser than trying to cover up rank body smells with sickeningly sweet perfume. All you wind up with is a mix of germy sweat and sour perfume. And yes, you aren't fooling anyone. At least if you went one way or the other, the rest of us are only dealing with one smell-- trying to cover up only treats us to two smells. Fun!

How about you? Any smells in particular that bother you? Any encounters with people who could either use a stick of deodorant and some soap for Christmas, or a note saying "less is more!"?

Down with Harry Potter?

You're probably well aware that a lot of religious folks are against Harry Potter. I honestly don't understand the hoopla. Personally, the genre isn't my cup of tea, so I don't read them, myself, but I understand that it appeals to others, and certainly don't begrudge them their wish to read the books.

Enter Todd's school, a private Christian school. The kids in his class take part in a reading program whereby they have to read a certain number of books at home by the end of the school year. Parents keep logs and turn them in periodically. However, neither the Harry Potter nor the Diary of a Wimpy Kid books count towards this quota. Wimpy Kid I agree with-- it's got too many illustrations to be truly grade-level appropriate. And Harry Potter? Fine-- if they believe it's inappropriate, I can abide by that. I certainly don't agree with their reasons for not allowing the kids to count those books as part of the reading program, but hey-- it's their rules, and there's still a whole wide world of other books to read out there. Not a big deal.

However, here is where I take a bit of issue: book orders.

 

Do you remember those Scholastic book order sheets that you used to get in grade school? I remember being excited about the newest editions every month. Nothing quite like poring over the order form, turning it in, and then receiving a brand-new, shiny book! And now that I'm receiving them as a parent, I can certainly appreciate the good prices they have on many titles!

Well... apparently I can't quite order whatever I want for Todd. The restriction about HP is still there. In fact, the rule goes so far as to say that not only will they disallow HP books, but they won't let us order *any* books "dealing with witchcraft". 

Okay, first of all, I think the whole point of the HP series goes beyond just sorcery or witchcraft. I mean, I haven't read the series or seen the movies, but even I can figure out that it's a classic story of good triumphing over evil... which just happens to be in a fantasy setting. And okay, so maybe the characters misbehave-- isn't that true of a lot of youth fiction? That's where the parents and their explanations come in.

Second of all-- it's one thing to decide not to have these books available in the classroom or school library. That's well within the school's rights. But to restrict ordering a book? For HOME use? That should be at the parents' discretion. After all, it's the parents' job to educate their kids on what they're reading at home. It's not the school's job to police what kids read at home.

Third of all-- where do you draw the line? Vampires? Ghosts? (yes, I saw plenty of both in the October, Halloween-themed edition). How about a historically-based fiction about the Salem witch trials? And what about the Chronicles of Narnia? Oh, right. It's written by a Christian author and is supposed to be a biblical allegory, so it MUST be okay. Never mind that it's also full of fantasy and sorcery (and a bloody unicorn on the cover) itself.

It irks me that people can be so rash to put a blanket ban on something they probably never even took the time to investigate themselves. It irks me that I can't order the HP book on the Scholastic form (not that I would want to, mind you), yet on that very same page is some teenybopper magazine that's probably far less edifying than HP. It irks me that people believe that just *looking* at something they consider "evil" will corrupt them, when it's actually this kind of irrational, closed-minded, and downright mindless following that can lead to corrupt actions.

Sigh... will people ever figure it out?

What makes a good karaoke experience? Part 2

Last month, I blogged about my thoughts on what makes a good karaoke experience:

http://heckledtrio.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-makes-good-karaoke-experience.html

For the most part, that still holds true. Last night's karaoke outing has only reinforced that. But not in the positive sense: I got to experience a few *negative* points that really turned me off to the KJ, and, as a result, the establishment itself.

My friends and I first hit the Cliff Room back in April, shortly after Tabitha's birthday. There were only 4 of us in attendance, and we had mixed reactions afterward. If you recall from my blog post, I enjoyed myself immensely. Now I realize that it was primarily because I'd been drinking that night, so my perspective was a bit skewed :-P Last night, that same group of 4 of us finally got a chance to hit the Cliff Room again. This time my drinking was light enough to keep me sober all night, so I feel like I got to observe everything with a different set of lenses than the first night. And while the evening started off quietly enough, it did not end well, karaoke-wise, primarily because of these negative factors that totally turned me off to the KJ:

1. Not having a good system in place for keeping the correct order of singers.
G-Man (of OTT fame) has his computer, with karaoke software to keep track of the queue of singers. Dyno Mike (of Creekside, Monty's, and all sorts of other places) uses the good old-fashioned song slips, and simply arranges them in the proper order. The Cliff Room guy? Simply keeps a notebook with a list you can append your name to.

As you can imagine, that system is fraught with all kinds of problems, not the least of which is that it's difficult for the KJ to keep track of the proper order of the rotation. As new people come in, G-Man and Dyno can simply insert their names into the middle of the rotation to keep it evenly spaced out. How do you do that when ALL the names are already written down on a notebook, in what amounts to a random and unfair order?

2. Drinking too much.
I've been of legal drinking age for a while now-- definitely long enough to figure out how much alcohol I can tolerate before becoming totally wasted, and how to pace myself to prevent that. So you'd think that a KJ, who is being PAID to render a professional service, should also be able to control his alcohol intake.

Not this one. He was so drunk he couldn't keep track of the rotation! He accidentally skipped people, or switched them out, or... well, all kinds of things (see point #3). Having a messy notebook on top of that certainly didn't help him keep things straight!

3. Taking bribes
I think this irked me more than the above two factors combined. Bad enough that as the night wears on, you have to practically hover over his shoulder to make sure the drunken KJ doesn't miss your turn (yes, I had to do this, and even then, he kept forgetting me!). Even worse when you see people come up with cash in their hands, with the #1 spot going to the highest bidder. Yes, I witnessed a $5 briber "lose out" to a $20 briber. There is absolutely no sense of fairness in this.

A good karaoke rotation should be first-come, first-served for the most part. And I can understand a KJ making a one-time exception for a known regular, if the regular has a good reason (like a birthday boy having an extra turn because he's actively celebrating his birthday at the bar, or the time our friend Eric was squeezed in because it was his last night in SB) and if it's not a frequent habit. But bribery? Especially under the guise of tips? i.e. shaking your tip jar at people who want to know if they can go a bit sooner? That's really low.

All in all, I had a terrific time last night, despite our woes with the KJ. The atmosphere was lively, the people were a ton of fun, and I enjoyed the company of my 3 friends immensely. So it's not like the night was a total wash. I just wish that our enjoyable experience hadn't been hampered by a jerk of a KJ. Well... never again! Next time we're sticking to the known KJs and their establishments!

Smelly Man vs. Crazy Man

aka "Why We Should Help the Homeless"

Yesterday Allan and I finally ventured out to see the 4th of July free concert in the Sunken Gardens of the Santa Barbara Courthouse. It used to be an annual event held by the Santa Barbara Symphony. But every year I've wanted to go, something else has come up. But when I finally had time? They canceled it due to lack of funding. Well, this year, ambitious volunteers from the Spirit of '76, a nonprofit organization here in SB, got together all kinds of volunteers to put together a show. And I was determined to make it.

Thinking that there would plenty of traffic downtown because of the parade that would run right before the concert (based on flashbacks from the nightmare that was traffic/parking during the Christmas Holiday Parade), I decided that taking the bus would be a better option. So I rounded up plenty of quarters, packed our chairs and some snacks, and hopped onto a bus that would drop us off right outside the Courthouse.

The trip TO the courthouse was relatively uneventful. The biggest buzz of the trip was when "Crazy Man" boarded the bus. He had a mop of wild curly hair, a "tan" that was not really a tan (if you catch my drift), missing teeth, and a very outgoing demeanor. It wasn't until he sat near us and started talking to anyone around him about all kinds of random things that I realized he was not playing with a full deck of cards. It was a little hard to ignore him whenever he addressed you directly, but on the whole, I kept my eyes focused on anything BUT Crazy Man, and tried to tune him out. If I hadn't been with Allan, I might have been more unnerved, but Crazy Man seemed relatively harmless, save for the weird chattiness.

We enjoyed the concert, and then hoofed it to the bus stop a couple blocks away to go back home. It was about half full, and we had to go all the way to the back before we found two seats next to each other, plus room to put our lawn chairs. Sitting near us was College Kid, who basically kept to himself, like most people do. All was well until we go to the next stop.

There, "Smelly Man" boarded. And to call him "Smelly Man" is a serious understatement. All of a sudden I was hit with a horrible stench. It was a combination of days-old urine soaked into clothing, and a bad case of B.O., made worse by the fact that Smelly Man was a rather portly individual, and hence had more... nooks and crannies within which sweat and bacteria could grow and fester. The worst part of it? Smelly Man was actually sitting near the FRONT of the bus. We were a good 12-15 feet away from him! Even Allan, whose sense of smell is not that acute, was affected by it.

College Kid frantically tried to open a window, but alas, the newly renovated buses did not have openable windows (except for emergencies), because they were now outfitted with air conditioning. So I sat, fanning myself, hands up near my nose.

It gets better.

Who else boards at the same stop but... Crazy Man! That's right, the same wacky dude from our earlier bus trip! I groaned inwardly when I saw him make his way to the back, where he seated himself next to College Kid. Of course, he started chatting it up. First thing he talked about? That horrid smell. I don't think he realized that it was emanating from Smelly Man up front.

College Kid decides to egg Crazy Man on at this point. He humored him about the weird political rants that Crazy Man went on, but when Crazy Man started complaining about the smell again, College Kid, with a completely serious expression on his face, pointed to the large vents directly behind them and said "it's coming from these vents". That only spurred Crazy Man on another tangent about what sorts of poisons they were using in their fuel and that must be emanating in the exhaust, coming through these vents. College Kid goaded him on, agreeing that it must be this poisonous "resin" and that it was awful.

Guess what? College Kid's egging on worked! Crazy Man hopped off the bus at the very next stop, muttering that he wasn't going to sit in this poison. So... in a way, Smelly Man was rather useful in getting rid of Crazy Man!

The rest of the ride, however, was not so pleasant, because at some point, a gaggle of Russian teenagers got on board, which prompted Smelly Man to move from his seat in the front to a seat in the middle, to make room for the teenagers. Just moving 5-6 feet closer to us was enough to make the smell so overpowering, I started gagging.

The Russian teenagers eventually had to move to the back to make room for a guy in a wheelchair, and it wasn't long before the back was pretty crowded with people trying to get away from Smelly Man. The bus kept picking up people as it made its way along its route, and it was sadly hilarious to see a large circle of empty seats immediately surrounding Smelly Man. Many of us buried our noses in something-- shirts, hands, napkins. It was terrible.

By the time we go to our stop, I took a huge breath before making my way past Smelly Man, and held it till I got out the exit door. I didn't dare breathe again until we were far away from the bus.

The smell was so rank that, hours later at home, my nose's memory was STILL smelling it. In a way I felt a bit sorry for Smelly Man. He was clearly down on his luck, but my goodness! What a miserable experience for everyone else around him! I'm just grateful I wasn't encountering him from the vantage point of a service provider, where I'd have to deal with him without making faces, covering my nose, or gagging. Bleccchh!

I guess the one silver lining was the Crazy Man left early because of Smelly Man, but honestly? I'd rather deal with Crazy Man. Weird ramblings you can tune out, but awful smells? Not so much...

What makes a good karaoke experience?

A few weeks ago I was reading a karaoke forum mostly frequented by professional KJs throughout the country, even the world. They had all sorts of discussions going about the business, and I found it fascinating and eye-opening to learn about how things work from the other side of the stereo equipment. How they work out pay with the bar they set up in, how they set up singer rotations, how they handle guests that bribe them to go first, what kinds of equipment they use, whether karaoke at weddings is a good idea, how to make song selections available, etc... Though opinions on best practices varied from KJ to KJ, one thing they all seemed to agree on was that the one main thing that kept people coming to a karaoke joint, no matter what the other factors were, is the KJ him/herself.

I had never thought about it like that before, but upon reflecting on the last few weeks, I realized it was true.

You see, throughout the past couple of months, my friends and I have gone to karaoke at the rate of once a week-- definitely a lot more frequent than our usual rate of less than once a month. I think my friends are sick of it and probably ready for a break by now, but it's only fueled my own interest, personally :-) Anyway, we used the opportunity to branch out from our usual venue (Old Town Tavern in Old Town Goleta) to try out some of the other places around here. These visits entailed our first encounters with different karaoke DJs (KJs, as I guess they are known).

Now, our usual hangout is the OTT, featuring G-Man and his awesomely huge selection of songs. OTT as strictly a place to hang out is okay. I'm not terribly fond of the bartender that always seems to be there when I go (she scares me, frankly). It fills up fast, it's too loud, and on Wednesday nights, good luck squeezing your way to the bar amongst the throng of drunken, loud college kids. But G-Man keeps me coming back for karaoke, not only because he's got such a great song selection, but because he's such an awesome KJ. He's fun and sweet and warm and friendly and encouraging, and is all around a pleasure to interact with.

It was a similar experience the first time we tried out the Cliff Room on the Mesa, at least for me. The place itself was loud, and filled with a lot of men (both young and old) who really liked their drink and liked to hit on the women (both old and young). My friends and I had mixed experiences with the bartenders and the drinks themselves (mine were great, Tabitha's margaritas weren't). And while the KJ's system of rotation left a lot to be desired (it's hard to keep track of the right order when our names are written in a notebook instead of on slips of paper he can order), he had a good selection and he was personable and friendly. I liked him. I also liked the fact that his songbook was available as a PDF on his website. Now THAT comes in very handy for a person like me, who likes to plan out her songs in advance. For me, the great KJ more than made up for a venue that I would've otherwise found too loud and filled with boorish men.

Now, contrast this with another couple of places where I had the opposite experience: loved the venue, so-so KJ. First up was Monty's, where the bartender was totally awesome, the drinks were good AND cheap, the patrons were more mellow, and the place itself wasn't too crowded. Second was the Neighborhood Bar, where there was terrific food AND great drinks, at awesomely cheap happy hour prices. The crowd here was likewise better behaved than the ones at Cliff Room or the college kids at OTT. All in all, great places to simply hang out.

But at both places (where the same KJ presided), I just didn't get a very good vibe from him. His song selection wasn't very large, but he was certainly nice enough. I just didn't get that same feeling of warmth and friendliness as I did with the other KJs. I also thought it was a little strange for him to include himself in the rotation even when it was packed full of singers. It was a bit off-putting, as that takes time away from the patrons. That vibe (or lack thereof) alone was enough to put me off visiting those venues for karaoke.

However. The story does change, with our second visit to Monty's.

When we first entered the bar, he immediately recognized me from my past two visits, and greeted me by name. He was experiencing technical difficulties, and kept apologizing for the delay in starting. And later in the night, he even came up to where I was sitting to personally apologize once more for all the inconveniences. I thought that was mighty sweet of him. When I saw him again at the Creekside a few weeks later, he still remembered me, and even asked me to sing one of the newer country duets with him. He still doesn't give off the same sense of warmth and smiles as the other KJs, but I suppose he can't help that-- that's just the way he is. He showed that he cared, and you know what? That totally redeemed my past experiences with him, and I'll gladly frequent his haunts.

And that just goes further in proving the point that the most important factor in a successful karaoke experience is the KJ. If he really cares about his patrons, it will show. Of course... having a wide song selection is important too! :-)

Service Woes

Nearly 3 years ago, we bought a washer/dryer set from our local Warehouse Discount Center. They had a sale whereby we got a small Frigidaire front-loading washer plus matching dryer for approximately $900 (after taxes, etc). Best of all, the set was stackable, which would be instrumental in saving us space in our apartment. I had intended to blog about our adventures in customer service, dealing with getting our washer and dryer stacked, but kept forgetting... until a recent Bulletin post (sort of an internal Craigslist at work) from a guy soliciting feedback about washers and dryers.

I had actually printed out a calendar and marked down all our adventures with WDC. I figured, if I had to escalate complaints up to corporate, or if they were going to make me pay for something that wasn't my fault, I would have a written timeline of what exactly transpired and when. So here goes:

The year is 2008. The mood is giddy. After years of community washer/dryer usage and using a red wagon to haul our laundry basket back and forth across the apartment complexes, we were finally going to get our own washer/dryer set to put in our balcony storage.

Sunday, Sep 14: We visited the WDC in Santa Barbara and ordered the set we had seen advertised in the newspaper. Understandably, it would take a couple weeks for the order to arrive.

Friday, Sep 26: Washer and dryer arrived, yay! Workmen installed it, side-by-side. We told them we wanted the washer/dryer stacked. The tech noted that the stacking kit was missing, and instructed me to call WDC and order one (no cost). So I did. But the salesman at WDC insisted that a stacking kit was not necessary. So we had to set up another appointment for the techs to come back and stack it.

Wednesday, Oct 1: The day we scheduled for the stacking. Despite explicit instructions to please call us when they were on their way from Oxnard (as we worked only 2 minutes away from home), nobody called. They didn't even attempt to call us when they arrived. They didn't even leave a note! For all we know, they never showed up, though they claimed to have. So we had to reschedule. Again.

Friday, Oct 3: Second stacking appointment attempt. Tech comes out, takes one look at the washer/dryer and says: "Nope, we need a stacking kit". When I told him that the salesman had insisted we didn't need one, he got a disgusted look on his face, whipped out his cell phone, and called the sales floor directly. He had a brief argument with whomever he reached on the line, and finally got them to agree that a stacking kit was needed and to PLEASE order one! As he explained, salesman don't know how to install washers and dryers, that's the tech's job. I was inclined to believe the tech.

Wednesday, Oct 8: Thinking that by now the stacking kit should have arrived, I place a call to WDC to find out what the status of the order was. They claim they can see the order in the system, but can't pull up the invoice on the computer. WTF? Fine, I'll wait a couple more days.

Friday, Oct 10: I called WDC again, only to be told that the kit should arrive at our apartment in the mail, and that as soon as it does, we should call back to reschedule another service visit. Sigh. This is starting to get old.

By this point, I am scheduled to fly out of the country for the next couple of weeks, so I updated Allan on what was going on, and told him to expect the stacking kit in the mail, and to call to schedule service once it arrived.

Tuesday, Oct 27: I am back in the country and back in town, and what do you know-- nothing in the mail! So I called WDC yet again, only to be told that the salesman was out of the office. They promised he would call back. I didn't hold my breath :-P

Surprise surprise-- no call back.

Friday, Oct 31: Rather than twiddle my thumbs, I called WDC and managed to get a hold of the salesman, who said he would come by on Monday after personally getting the stacking kit himself from another store. Okay! Now we're getting somewhere.

Monday, Nov 3: Monday has come and gone, and no sign of any service techs or salesmen. You aren't surprised, are you? When I called, they claimed to have received a call from a man trying to reschedule the service date. They thought it was my husband. I checked with Allan, but of course, he had done no such thing. Apparently they got our service call mixed up with someone else's, and canceled ours by mistake. Sigh.

Thursday, Nov 5: Placed another call to the same salesman at WDC, who told me that the warehouse guy had been injured, so he couldn't come out today, but promised that he himself would come out, along with a manager, to stack the washer/dryer on Saturday morning.

Saturday, Nov 8: THE WASHER IS FINALLY STACKED!!! HOORAY!!!

It took nearly 2 months from the time we ordered the set to the time it was finally installed and set the way we wanted it to. Throughout all this time, because our washer and dryer were set side-by-side, they took up so much space in our balcony storage room that we had to put all our storage boxes outside on our balcony. Fortunately, our apartment at the time faced a back parking lot, so there wasn't a lot of traffic to get offended at this eyesore. Also fortunately, we're very happy with the appliances themselves. Small but efficient, and perfect for our small family's needs. That and the convenience of not having to haul heavy hampers downstairs and across the street to the community laundry every week, were the only redeeming factors that enabled us to put up with all the bullshit that went back and forth with WDC. I will be hard-pressed to do business with them again in future, and if I do, you can bet I will be taking careful notes on whom I talk to, what they say, and what ends up happening at each turn!

Now that we will soon own our own home and have to fend for ourselves when it comes to repairs around the house, it will be interesting to see what sorts of service we get from the myriad of providers out there!

Accents

Accents are a fascinating thing. They are most apparent when non-native speakers learn a new language. Not having grown up with the nuances of pronunciation, their way of pronouncing things is inevitably different from that of native speakers.

More fascinating are the regional differences within one single country with one main language. Like the United States and its variations of English pronunciation according to various native residents' accents.

Then there is me. Like most Asian kids of my generation, our parents were born and raised in an Asian country, and we grew up in the US (whether we were born here or immigrated here at a very young age). As a result, households are often a mish-mash of accents, with the parents speaking accented English and the kids speaking perfect American English. I'm sure that's true of all immigrant families, not just Asians.

When I was about 8 years old, my school held a speech contest. My mother and I worked on my speech, and I spent countless hours practicing its delivery. I distinctly remember my mom emphasizing my pronunciation (and enunciation) during our practice sessions. Even though she herself couldn't speak with an American accent, she could detect it and note when something didn't sound right. Consequently, I adopted an American accent and since then, I've had 2 accents: the one I share with my parents, and the American one for everyone else. A bit of an oddity, to be sure, but I bounce between the two "worlds" with relative ease.

Here's where it gets interesting. This past summer, my cousin, his wife and their daughter (same age as Todd) came to visit us. Allan, Todd and I rented a van and took them to some of the sights like Sea World and Universal Studios. We had a great time, and they enjoyed meeting Todd and Allan (I had already met them 2 years earlier, when we went to Indonesia). After they returned home, my mom, somewhat amused, relayed something they had told her: they had an easier time understanding Allan than they did me! My mom even agreed with their assessment, telling me that she'd always noticed that I seemed to roll my "R"s more heavily than most Americans-- something she has mentioned occasionally before. I was puzzled, because I couldn't detect anything unusual with my own accent. And probably most Americans wouldn't either, but I guess to people for whom English is not their native language, it's more readily apparent.

Until now. What's changed now? Todd started talking more and more. Listening to him, I realized that he rolled his "R"s more strongly than most Americans. Clearly he picked that up from me. I now understood what my mom was talking about.

So I started wondering why I spoke the way I did. And I think it's a byproduct of my tongue overcompensating for not speaking with my parents' accent in public. I liken it to deep cuts-- when your body heals and generates new skin, it overcompensates and creates more skin than originally was there. And so, in an effort to "correct" my accent, I overcorrected. It makes even more sense when you think of it in the context of what makes my American accent distinct (and difficult for foreigners to follow, apparently): the "R". Asians are notorious for being unable to pronounce this letter. My parents less so because their native language does contain an "R" sound, but it's flatter. It's less trilling than the German "R" sound, and less rolling than the American "R" sound. So perhaps one of the ways I changed my accent was to attack the way I rolled my tongue to make the right "R" sound... only between German and English, I somehow attacked it with a little too much fervor ;-)

I had never thought of this before-- well, why would I, when I was never aware of what I was doing in the first place? But now I've got a little mimic to mirror the way I've been talking back at me.

Fascinating, isn't it-- the way people adapt and adjust and compensate. Sometimes it's not enough, sometimes it's too much, and sometimes... sometimes it's just right :-)

Know your own stuff

Interview processes vary from company to company, and even from department to department within a company. But no matter what the process, I honestly think the best way to prepare is to really know the stuff you've learned and claim to know on your resume. Oh sure, you can prep for behavioral interview questions such as "What do you perceive as your weakness", but by and large, I would figure that the interviewer is largely interested in your job-specific skills, experience and what you can bring to the job.

So where do they first get wind of your experience? From your resume, of course. Which means that no matter what sort of question an interviewer throws at you from their pool of potential questions, the one thing you can be solidly sure of is the material on your own resume. Which YOU wrote. Which speaks to YOUR experiences.

Let me backtrack a little. Our department's interview process is fairly straightforward-- start out with a phone screen, and if you make that cut, come on site for in-person interviews. Now obviously, since we're a tech group, we're really mainly interested in technical knowledge and look for proficiency in specific skills outlined in the job descriptions. Fairly straightforward, no? Either you know X programming language well or you don't. And if you don't, that becomes apparent in the interview, which runs the gamut from answering basic conceptual questions to outright writing coding examples. Nothing outside the norm from usual tech company practices.

Candidates come from a variety of backgrounds, and will thus respond in a variety of ways, depending on their experiences. Even an ideal candidate can miss a question or two on occasion, and still show enough potential to bring on-site, even hire. It's not a game of seeing how many questions they get right, it's a matter of evaluating their problem-solving approaches and their ability to pick up concepts unfamiliar to them (which happens. Nobody knows everything about everything).

Still, in my mind, there is one way a candidate can raise a red flag to me, that *does* have to do with answering questions right or wrong. As I mentioned earlier, your resume is the one tool you have complete control over-- you decide what goes into it, you craft the descriptions of your job responsibilities to convey what you intend to the recruiter, you know better than anyone else what you've learned and what your proficiencies are.

So why, oh why, when an interviewer asks you a simple question about something on your resume (sometimes just as an icebreaker), is it so difficult to answer? Why do you hem and haw when asked to provide details about a recent school project? Why do you make us practically pull teeth in order to get anything deeper than high-level details of a particular job responsibility? If you can't even speak to your own resume intelligently, if you can't even articulate what exact skills you gained/utilized in a particular project, that doesn't really bode well for the rest of your technical knowledge. Because if nothing else, if you can't answer a single question from our list, the least you should be able to do is know the stuff on your resume well. Right? Right!? It's YOUR resume!!

It's not that hard! The mind. It boggles...

NUD-- stop cluttering Twitter with sports Tweets!

Apparently today is National UnFriend Day, courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel (and cameos by Wolf Blitzer):
I've never watched Jimmy Kimmel before, but maybe I should start, because this really made me laugh.



I'm not very particular when it comes to adding friends on Facebook, but (aside from a small handful of people I met from the Grab.com days) everyone I've added is someone I know from some aspect of my life-- high school, college, Army days, grad school, work or church. And in the small town of Santa Barbara, these circles sometimes overlap. At any given time, maybe 1/3 of my friends are actually active and posting, plus I hide most game/app-related posts, resulting in a pretty manageable feed. So for me, National UnFriend Day isn't really an issue.

I personally try not to clutter my own feed with a bunch of stuff back-to-back. Lately this isn't easy to to, as I'm posting both my NaBloPoMo posts and my Project 365 pictures every day, in addition to whatever status updates or links strike my fancy. So I at least try to space it out-- with the two blogs, I try to do one post in the early afternoon, and one in the evening, for example.

Now, where I am tempted to apply NUD to is Twitter. I don't actually follow a lot of people, less than 50, in fact. Keeps my feed clutter-free and only centered around people/websites I'm actively interested in hearing updates about. And for the most part, it works.

Until sports game days roll around.

Doesn't matter what the sport is, or where it's taking place-- football in the USA or soccer in Europe, if it has die-hard fans, I'm sure a couple of them wind up being folks I happen to follow on Twitter.

Here's a newsflash for those folks: you don't have to Tweet the latest play every 2 minutes! If I really cared that much about the game, I would be watching it myself. If you've got friends who are as nuts about the game as you are, then invite them over. Or IM them, if they are far away. Why do you need to clutter up your Twitter feed with updates that only a small handful of people will actually care about!? It's annoying to have my Firefox Twitter app (formerly called TwitterFox, now Echofon (yeah, I don't get that one either)) update and load about 20 Tweets from you every 5 minutes, obscuring other Tweets and just making everything really cluttered overall.

I kind of get where Jimmy Kimmel is coming from with the useless info that can clutter up your Facebook feed, but I've found that by and large, most people don't update their statuses as often as they do on Twitter (and I actually enjoy hearing the "drivel" from friends-- nice little bite-sized updates on their lives, because I actually care). If anyone needs to learn to curb their enthusiasm for posting every detail of their lives, those culprits are the sports fanatics (and other similar people) on Twitter, not Facebook.

You're publicizing details of your life to what more or less amounts to the general public. Please do so responsibly... and courteously!