I am blogging publicly usually just to vent or too bring up topics or things that no one wants to talk about or acknowledge. I was that girl in English class who would say the inappropriate things that everyone was thinking but did not have the ovaries or balls to say. In the beginning I started this blog to deal with the loss of my grandmother three years ago.
I recently started blogging again to deal with another loss, the loss of employment about eight months ago since where I live there are not many outlets to talk to those that are unemployed and know what you are going through at the moment. I have found a sort of unemployment support group through wordpress through the many interesting blogs I have been able to read. But, now I blog because I think that I have interesting things to say since I have an in-depth knowledge of television shows, fashion and food that should be used for good and not evil. Whether, or not this is another thing entirely.
In addition, to being very nerdy I started this blog to connect with my fellow nerds who are obsessed with rewatching old television shows (“Gilmore Girls”, “Veronica Mars”, “Leverage”) and analyzing them, those who lives feel as socially awkward as mine, and anyone who likes critiques seemingly insignificant things for the fun of it. I am not sure if this blog accomplish all of these things that I would like it to, but I hope it will be able to in the future.
p.s. its still nagging at me that Lorelai switched from red vines to twizzlers after six seasons in Gilmore Girls
I have been watching “Top Chef Duels” on Bravo recently because I figure I should give it a try to see if this network could redeem itself from the fiasco that was the season 12 finale of “Top Chef”. I like this show because you get to see the chefs cook against each other one on one while still letting them provide good pr for their restaurants. Also, I like that for each challenge it is something original and not something that has been done before as much in other “Top Chef” seasons. For instance this past week the chefs Dale and Tiffani had to create a vegan three course meal for their final duel.
The one disappointing part for me is the fact that Curtis stone is one of the judges. It is nothing against him totally but I have seen him in US shows more as a judge and less as a chef. Also, I have just discovered that after all this time hosting shows and writing cookbooks that he has just opened up his first restaurant this year called “Maude”. I think if I saw if he had any cooking prowess under pressure I would probably respect or like him more. I think he may have guest stared on “Iron Chef America” but I am not sure about that.
Also, another I guess disappointing thought I had about “Top Chef Duels” is that the producers are just using this show to get back in the good graces of the many pissed off fans about season 12. Well, maybe not just season 12 of “Top Chef” things in the show have been sort of hit or miss since season 9. I almost considered giving up on “Top Chef” in season 10. I am sure I am not the only person who has thought about this. It just feels like the producers are literally trying to bribe us (the viewers) into watching season 13 of “Top Chef” this October with the famous guest stars, $100.000 grand prize , not including the $180.000 that is being spent for the individual battles between the individual chefs before the final battle in each episode. I have decided I am going to do for “Top Chef” season 13 is watch the first three or four episodes and if I not impressed, or if they continue to try to impersonate the Food Network with more sizzle than steak as far as video content, than I am done with this show. So to my readers out there I have to ask do you think “Top Chef Duels” is just a ploy to get back in viewers good graces to watch season 13 of “Top Chef”?
I have recently finished Sabine Star’s first western romance novel “Lady Gone Bad”. While this novel had occasional strong points, their were some scenes that just had me confused. Some of this confusion comes from Starr who brings in historical context at weird times and one is never able to find out all of the back story of Lady Gone Bad aka Sharlot.
(spoiler alert) Well lets start with the end of the novel in which Lady Gone Bad is pardoned because she helped catch a group of thieves along with a traitor to the government with the help of Rafe and her horse Copper. The problem is that once this all resolved all we really learn about is how the horse thieves Zip, Lampkin, etc. stole her prized horse and killed her parents, but we never hear of her journey after that point. I think this would be worth mentioning given that by the end of the novel most people have become invested in the main characters.
Now, to go off a tangent sort of another confusing point in this book is when Sharlot begins lecturing Rafe in a way about the civil war heroes from thirty years ago. She explains to Rafe that some outlaws are “Confederate heroes, or sons of the heroes, still engaged in the conflict, taking back what the union stole and giving it to the needy like they did during the war”(Starr 183). I think the point that is she trying to make is that not all supposed criminals are guilty men or women and some people have to get involved with outlaws in order to gain justice. Sharlot is an example since she woos outlaws in order for her own agenda. Also, I think she is trying to get Rafe to realize that “there are always two sides to every story”(Starr 186). She also emphasizes that “People aren’t black, white or red. They’re grey”(Starr 187). She is trying to get Rafe to realize that maybe the situations for outlaws, confederate soldiers are more complicated than they seem. The issue with this is Rafe is a law man and for him people fall into the two camps of “guilty” and “not guilty” with very little room to be anything else in the middle.
Their being two sides of things can also be seen through the female characters in this book. I say this because of the female role models in the book are Belle Starr and Lady Gone Bad. These women represent strong, independent women who take care of themselves and who do not want to be dependent on men. For instance Lady Gone Bad is able to support herself through singing and helping others. The other side of this coin is woman like Angel Rafe’s sister who are demure timid woman who will do whatever they can to win over a man it seems, even if these ladies are their idols. This can be seen when she tells Lady Gone Bad “I’ve been working on this look with you in mind. She winked, chuckling. Angel Gone Bad”(Starr 212). Rafe does not approve of this off course, but Angel does not seem to care in this situation. When she explains to Rafe that she must stay with the VIking “long enough for him to understand I am his own true love”(Starr 213).
The book “Lady Gone Bad” by Sabine Starr shows to me that romance novels are more than just bad sex scenes that leave something to be desired. I say that because to my recollection their is only one sex scene in the beginning of the book in which there is foreplay. However, I do like how she attempts to provide some historical context to these characters in her western romance novel, and shows two interesting perspectives of women gender roles through Lady Gone Bad and Angel.
Alright, I know I am not the only blogger who thinks this but what is wrong with some of the movies coming out in theaters for the past couple years. We are either seeing remakes of movies or sequels to a hero or animated franchise that is very popular for example Xmen, The Avengers, Thor, Spidermen, etc. I have to ask has Hollywood ran out of ideas? Are they just sitting on their buts thinking what can we make that will take very little effort but make us copious amounts of money. I am sorry about this rant but this has been bugging me for a while.
I think part of this started when production companies decided to make remakes of teenage mutant ninja turtles, and dirty dancing. Also, as part of the annoying millennial generation I speak for some of us when I say that we want to see something original and not pay 8.75 to see a new spin on an old movie. I am sure this annoyed plenty of baby boomers potentially if their were remakes of the old movies they used to watch were coming out in the 1970’s. I mean no wonder people loved Star Wars at the time at least it was different and exciting and in space. This too me is a one trick pony that movie theaters need to stop using, unless they have a really kick ass idea to make the movie better tell then I don’t want to hear it.
Also, this makes it even harder to for one to figure out if you want to go to the movies because you don’t if it will be a sequel or a remake. Also, you spend some time debating with your loved ones on which movies to see because trying to find something new and different to watch is hard. This could be why television shows are giving movies are run for their money because their you have too much to watch if their can be such a thing and it’s hard to decide. I will say that like 25% to 50% of it is good and I am leaving reality television out of the equation because that is just scripted drama in most cases these days. (and a rant for another day) So to all you readers out there I have to ask do you think movies have gotten worse or better? Furthermore do you think television is giving the movie business a run for their money through such means as Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, Direct Tv, etc?
Well, on my hunt for employment I figured I should try to stay sharp through doing some reading. Also, since I tend to be socially awkward in the beginning so I figured something to help remedy that and maybe help me remedy that was to read Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. While, I am sure this book tends to be viewed as a self-help book, my hope was to use it to enhance my approach of talking to people while I look for work.
The weird thing is that this author sort of reminded me of the nice version of Machiavelli, without the whole wanting to conquer Italy vendetta (am pretty sure about the Italy thing but the last time I read that book was high school). I say this because I am sorry to say some of his tips seem like they are manipulating people. Some example of this is him recommending to “Arouse in another person an eager want”(Carnegie 79) and “Let the other person feel that an idea is his or hers”(Carnegie 196). However, even with this one example his compelling argument seems to be the golden rule of treating people how they want to be treated. He exemplifies that by reminding readers to be nice to people, smile, listen to them and appreciate what they do.
His whole book in a way revealed to me how self involved people can be since he mentions getting to talk about themselves and to be sympathetic to their needs, wants and desires. He seems to be showing that people like talking about themselves, which is not a bad thing. One part of the book that I admire in the last section of the book is that he focuses on constructive criticism so that people will become better workers, learners, etc.
Even, with my mixed reviews of this book I will be trying to apply some of the concepts that he has taught me for future social interactions. Also, I think this book would also come in handy for networking because his tips come in handy when you want to help someone out a networking event and expect nothing in return.
I recently have seen blogs and articles everywhere about the Comcast customer service train wreck of a conversation between a call center employer and a customer who was trying to cancel his service. There were so many problems with this conversation. I have learned from past experience working at a call center, won’t say which one, that it is part of our job to try to prevent the customer from disconnecting. But this representative’s attitude was disappointing to me because honestly you are not supposed nag your customer to stay with your company. This will have the opposite effect.
This representative further hurt his case because he had prior talked to the customer’s wife who had given reasons for wanting to cancel the service and he still tried to persuade her. Also, a customer should not have to give a reason to cancel a service for whatever reason. I thought the motto of most companies was that the customer comes first. Apparently I was wrong.
However, this is not just a problem with Comcast I have seen it in local fast food places that I have been too. My first example was when I was walking and I decided to stop at Mcdonalds for a smoothie and the person working there forgot my order and then it took ten to fifteen minutes to receive my drink and they did not even apologize for this mistake. I had one item in the que while people in front of me had many more items and yet mine was forgotten. But I have had discussion with people that most customers will put up with this bad customer service because they can’t afford to go anywhere else for food, or their options are limited by living off food stamps or having a limited income which is possible in this day in age where most people are underemployed and working minimum wage positions. ( a blog post/rant for another day)
My thought is that no matter what a customer is paying they should receive good customer service no matter how crappy of day that person has had. People are supposed to try to leave personal stuff at home, barring extenuating circumstances. I am not saying employees should be treated like robots quite the opposite in fact, which would help if companies would care more about the customers and employees well and less about the bottom line. I think this could be shown through treating your employees well, doing whatever you can within reason to wow your customers and making your work environment a positive one. People will notice that the companies that do try to accomplish this have less turnover, happier employees and customers all because they care about is good customer service. So I have to wonder which came first the customer service or the egg?
Well, yesterday rather than spending the day looking for work, or going to interviews only to be disheartened or disappointed I went to the movies instead. Me and my guy went to go see Maleficent since I am all for any movie told through the “villain’s” perspective. However, since I have been an academic my whole life it feels like I ended up analyzing the film.
The first instance that I thought was worth noting was when the humans declared worry on the fairy people in the moors. I thought this was significant because it showed the perspective of since people don’t know who or what these people are like that they are automatically deemed as marginal and bad. However, this was contrasted by the coming together of Maleficent and Stephan from being little kids to teenagers in that it showed that the fairies and the humans could coexist peacefully.
This ability to coexist did not last long when Maleficent and Stephan did not last long since Stephan was hell bent on gaining power and becoming king of both worlds. Stephan in order to achieve this goal had to chop off Maleficent’s wings in the process. These wings that were a part of her identity and her freedom. She had the freedom to move and travel to other places and spaces that humans could not reach.
I think in the beginning Stephan felt terrible for his deed but soon got lost in all the trappings of being king since he had to prove to be the old king’s successor through “killing” Maleficent , even though the old king had declared war on those living in the moors so she was trying to save her own people and land. His other reward was that he got to marry the king’s daughter who as a wife to him ends up being an after thought throughout the whole movie. Her only purpose is to bring about the birth of her daughter aurora. Actually, even when she is dying Stephan is too focused on enacting revenge on Maleficent.
Stephan wants to destroy Maleficent because she cursed his daughter to prick her finger on a spindle and fall into a deep sleep when she turns 16. This is a curse so strong it can’t even be broken by her when she begins to love Aurora as she grows up in the moors away from castle life. Maleficent while wicked in some respects still has seems to have some heart as shown by the way she treats her “raven” and Aurora. But, she is also what feels like the only strong independent woman character in this movie. I think this is because she has too be ,or else she would lose her land, or her people, and the men of the world would attempt to conquer her territory and her. She does learn from her mistakes though, (spoiler alert) Stephan too concerned with enacting vengeance on Maleficent for ruining his life dies in the end of his own doing as far as I am concerned since he took away the one part of Maleficent that gave her freedom, her wings.
I think this movie shows two sides of women through the strong and fierce Maleficent and the after thought of a queen. While, the only concern for the men are power and ambition which leads to their downfall in the end.