THE DIGNIFIED RANT: HOME EDITION

LIST OF ANNOYING THINGS 2005

Return to The Dignified Rant: Home Edition

Return to List of Annoying Things

• Europeans are odd creatures. They give an "oh, that kidder!" reaction when an Iranian president calls for the destruction of Israel, but are upset that convicted murderer "Tookie" Williams was just executed. Capital punishment is an outrage to them (well, their ruling 'betters' if polling is to be believed). Said the representative of the Catholic Church, "We know the death penalty doesn't resolve anything," Cardinal Renato Martino told AP Television News. "Even a criminal is worthy of respect because he is a human being. The death penalty is a negation of human dignity." Really? A negation of human dignity? What about the negation of the actual humans who Tookie killed? Or the countless acts of murder, mayhem, and destroying lives through his founding of a thug street gang? Was no human dignity negated by those actions? And what of Tookie himself? Isn't making a man pay for heinous crimes consistent with recognizing him as a human being? If the people he murdered had died in some horrible industrial accident, we wouldn't have destroyed the machinery in retribution. If flawed, we'd fix it and put it back to work. Issues of utility and not criminality guide our actions. But when a person kills another? I think human dignity requires us to treat the deliberate destruction of innocent life as an act that may require the death penalty. Indeed, if Tookie had human dignity, how could he wish to avoid the ultimate punishment for his ultimate crimes? (Posted December 13, 2005)

• Neal Gabler is really annoying. His outbursts tonight on Fox News Watch about how "everybody knows" Iraq is a disaster was revealing enough. But his complaint that The New York Times has not been hard enough on President Bush was just amazing. Gabler is the personification of the arrogant, Leftist (or am I being redundant?) journalist, down to his Al Gore post-election facial hair arrangement. I'd pay good money to see Cal Thomas lunge at Gabler and give him a nuclear wedgie. (Posted November 26, 2005)

• The calls from Annoyance One continue, not stopping for Sundays or holidays. But the Mr. Manners of the company who dares to imply he can teach me courtesy pointers has begun to amuse me. First, after much pondering, I am quite sure they are mistaken in calling me--if they are indeed calling me since they never ask for me by name. If I owed money, I'd have noticed damage to my credit rating by now. So, in the spirit of not spending my time helping them fix their mistake and the desire not to give them any contact data, I will refuse to call them to straighten this out. Besides, Christopher Whoever has not only proven himself to be a bad guy, but an incompetent bad guy (nod to Frozone from The Incredibles). In the latest recorded message he chops off the final digit of the phone number he wants me to call! Heh. Asshat. (Posted November 18, 2005)

  UPDATE: Hah! After Idiot Chris was taken off the case, two people with acrual offices called (they had extensions). They asked for Emily somebody. Then quiet for several days until Christopher was given a second chance on the Ann Arbor account. And he still persists in thinking he can give me courtesy pointers. Call away, Annoyance One, I can outlast your puny efforts to bully a return call from a complete stranger. Merry Freaking Christmas to you.

• I have gotten some type of automated solicitation call about two dozen times at least in the last few weeks. It is really starting to piss me off. Each time I have a message on my machine that says “Again, return a call to Christopher at 866-385-0229. This is not a solicitation call.” Exactly the same every damn time. I’m not the only one, apparently. Some company called Alliance One, according to that complaint. What is this? An ATM company was the first up when I Googled it, but the complaint I linked to implies it is a collection company. I owe my mortgage and that’s it. So why they call is beyond me. Really annoying. In the end, this is why I turn my ringer off and my answering machine volume up to screen calls. I always pick up but since tele-marketers almost always hang up at a machine, I avoid those that get by the do-not-call list. And it isn’t as if I’m afraid or too polite to hang up. I say, “No thank you. Goodbye.” And then I hang up even if the caller is still talking. Hey, I said goodbye. Not my fault if they keep talking. Quite rude to refuse to acknowledge the end of our conversation. Heck, I once got a tele-marketer to give up. He ran through everything on his calling tree and after a long awkward silence he finally said, “Well, I guess that’s about it then.” I agreed and then he said goodbye. But normally I’m not game enough for that. And so that asshat recorded Christopher—whoever he is—can keep auto-dialing me and talking to my machine. Really annoying. (Posted October 8, 2005)

  UPDATE: Aha! The caller screwed up once and confirmed that this is Alliance One that is annoying me. I see no reason to talk to them if they don't even tell me why they are calling. Repeated and insistent requests to call them don't cut it. Shoot, even if they told me I might not call. I'd hate to give them more data. Contact them trying to correct a mistake and I might just let them tick some box that says we have a live one--keep on calling! But I have a company confirmed, at least. If this keeps up I may go to the Attorney General with a complaint.

  ANOTHER UPDATE: Well this saga has gotten a little amusing--though still highly annoying. Annoyance One changed their message to say that I should be courteous and return their call. Oh really? Is it courteous to call on Sunday? Is it courteous to refuse to give me a full name or company name? Is it courteous to refuse to leave a message about why you think you have business with me? Jerks. And as I think about this, after I moved in here I did get a number of letters demanding money. It has been a while and it may not have been a single account, but some were addressed to other people, some to nobody, and at least one used my street name as the surname. The first couple I scribbled on the envelope "return to sender. Addressee not here" but when they kept arriving I just threw them out. It has been a while since I got any letters. I don't even remember what they were about anymore. But clearly, whoever lived here before left some bills unpaid and the asshats of Annoyance One have decided I must pay. Right now this is annoying. If these idiots actually cause my credit rating any harm, I think I'll see if I can collect enough in a lawsuit to retire early. I've never contemplated suing anybody before, but I will consider it based on this annoyance.

• Good grief. I’m willing to wait for the inquiries about who screwed up in the Katrina aftermath. Although I think greater mistakes were made the lower down the line you get, I can wait before calling for resignations. I’m even used to the fact that all the usual suspects who never made a useful suggestion in the days, weeks, or years prior to the hurricane are sure that the President screwed up. I expect nothing less from these political looters. I even could ignore the cries that poor Black people were resorting to cannibalism two days after the hit. This was so stupid that I found it hard to believe anyone would take it seriously. I mean, South Park once did a show on people who resorted to eating a celebrity after a few hours of being snowed in! This is ludicrous! An annoying charge, yes. But hardly serious. How could it be? But now some of our leading political looters are insisting with equal silliness that the term “refugee” is racist? That it implies that African Americans are somehow less American for the term? I am simply stunned by the idiocy. Jesse Jackson is involved, of course. He is never far from idiocy. I imagine that most of the refugees in the region are probably white despite the focus on New Orleans. Let me boldly claim that if these refugees—black and white—had been termed “evacuees” or some other term, Jesse Jackson would have been claiming that failure to call them “refugees” was ignoring their suffering and somehow denying their need for immediate help. It would be racist, too, I’m sure. So shall we call these poor victims of Katrina “Persons of Refuge”? The “Differently Housed”? How about “Hurricanos”? Or “Katrina Americans”? The President should not have dignified this charge by shying away from the word “refugee.” It is a word that describes people fleeing disaster. It does not imply lesser citizenship or criminality or any such rot. The victims of Katrina are refugees. American refugees. We will care for them and help them restore their lives. What really worries me is that in spite of the clear race-free response to helping these refugees regardless of race, the cries of looters like Jackson or Sharpton will just make a lot of white people say, “Screw all of you! I help and get called racist for my troubles? I care and get dumped on for using a wrong word?” God give me strength in the face of the Persons of Idiocy who plague our land. Will the idiots just get the Hell out of the way while grown ups do the serious work of saving people? And may the American people continue to help generously despite the race-baiting of a few despicable political looters. (Posted September 6, 2005)

• The press is in a frenzy that Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Axis of El Vil charter member Hugo Chavez. Look, I have no use for Robertson but the reaction is silly. Had Robertson claimed his comment was satire or art I suppose the press would have shrugged as they did when Leftists called for the death of President Bush last year. What is really annoying is that even Fox News hauled out Jesse Jackson to hold forth on Robertson. Grrr. Note to Fox, I switched to MSNBC after one minute of listening to that buffoon. And let me remind people that in 1998, Senator Chuck Robb clearly suggested that we should assassinate Saddam Hussein. Remind me of the outrage over that comment. Robertson's comment was silly but did not deserve the attention it got. (Posted August 25, 2005)

• The Supreme Court has issued apparently conflicting opinions of the legality of displaying the Ten Commandments in or about courthouses. I don’t have strong opinions on this. I see no problem with such a display but I don’t think that the republic will fall on the rulings, either. But I do have a little problem with the rulings as a whole. They seem completely arbitrary and based solely on the desire not to compel a work order to sandblast the Supreme Court’s own display of the commandments. The reasoning is just bizarre. The article cited had, as of late afternoon but sadly not now, the following explanation of why the Kentucky display was not allowed: “Those courthouse displays are unconstitutional, the justices said, because their religious content is overemphasized.” Well that’s just odd. Because I saw the movie The Ten Commandments. It was about the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments of God. You know, God’s commandments? In the movie, God launched controlled columns of flame from His burning bush to engrave the tablets on the spot. Given this pedigree, just how is it possible to overemphasize their religious content? I mean, we’re not talking 1970s typewriters with magic superscripts. These were carved by God in the popular image of the event! And if we’re talking intent, weren’t these monuments part of a movie promotion for the movie? Be careful what you do with those Happy Meal Star Wars toys in thirty years. Wouldn’t want to establish a church now would we? Look, as long as we’re going to compromise on this issue, couldn’t we have done better than letting them stand in totality in some locations but not in others? Wouldn’t it be better to split the difference and settle on Five Commandments that can be displayed everywhere? Let the national dialogue begin! I think we can all agree that “thou shalt not kill” should be one of the five keepers. As for ruling out some, I say let’s get rid of “coveting thy neighbor’s ass.” That causes me lots of problems. Especially in the summer. Moses was not coping with bikinis on Mt. Sinai, I dare say. I’d just as soon cast that commandment aside to improve my virtue-to-sin ratio. If we work it right, I could go five for five and be a really good guy. And remain within the Constitution. A two-fer! (Posted June 27, 2005)

• I still cannot bear to watch Chris Matthews. His comment in the fall about our enemies just having different views was revolting for an American journalist to state. His show can’t last more than 10 seconds before I turn him off. I usually toss in an angry curse as I do it. So it is nice to have a reminder that my personal boycott of that judgment-impaired journalist is justified. Powerline notes that Senator Zell Miller was upset with Matthews on the famous “I challenge you to a duel” segment because Matthews called Miller an “old time seggy [segregationist].” Hmm. I await the transcripts where Matthews uses the term “old time Klanny” for Senator Byrd. Or perhaps “old time drownny” for Senator Kennedy. Or even “old time plagiarry” for Senator Biden. Don’t hold your breath. (Posted April 30, 2005)

• The reaction of the press to Benedict XVI is a concentrated dose of evidence that the mainstream media is hopelessly biased toward the Left. It is, as is to be expected here, annoying. Sure, in slow and measured doses over the last 4 years the press has repeatedly expressed shock that the President appoints people who agree with him. (Yet never cried for diverse views the previous 8 years—I guess you don't need challenges to the "one true position.") But it was spread out so perhaps easier to deny. So the reaction to the new pope is instructive. This event hasn't happened since 1978 so the press has to get their licks in fast. NPR of course made it obvious as the reporter recounted all the things the new pope had opposed. While I kept saying "good" to myself, the NPR lass was clearly horrified in that calm NPR way of showing disapproval. But the rest of the press was right up there with her and as you read them, boy do they display their bias! It was left to the always humorous Mark Steyn to call the problem: "Well, I think they were rooting for Ellen Degeneres or Rupert Everett. And the fact that the new Pope is, in fact, a Catholic, seems to have come as a great surprise to them. And, you know, each to their own. But if, for example, social conservatives were to complain that the new editor of the New York Times wasn't Rush Limbaugh or you or William F. Buckley, that would sound equally ridiculous. The fact is, institutions are allowed to act in what they see is their own interest. And this, in fact, is just rather childish, this reaction to the Pope. They're sort of, they seem genuinely bewildered that the Cardinals of the Catholic Church think differently on these issues, from Andrew Sullivan and the New York Times." Look, I don't claim to be anywhere near the perfect Catholic. But I can at least say that I don't insist that my Church endorse my failings to follow all Church teachings by conforming the global church to my life. I'm just not that self-centered. For the press, the live in a safe Lefty world unchallenged in their social life or work setting. It's always shocking to the media when people they don't agree with are selected to lead. Never shocking when people they agree with are selected. Their coverage makes it clear. Or will the press soon take up the cause of MoveOn.org hiring Zell Miller to challenge their organization's views and provide diversity? (Posted April 22, 2005)

• Ok, so I go to a sub shop for lunch today. I order a BLT wrap. The cashier asks me what I'd like on it. So I say pickles, provolone cheese, and a little mayo. Simple. As the guy who made the sandwich hands it to the woman passsing it to me, he directs a comment to another employee that I barely catch but don't pay attention to since it didn't seem to be directed at me. As I walk back to my office, I think, he said it "wasn't much of a BLT with no lettuce or tomato." No, can't be. But I open up the wrapper and sure enough, I have a bacon and cheese wrap. I take it back and request a new one, noting that I didn't think I needed to specify lettuce and tomato when ordering a BLT. The guy noted that the order slip didn't say tomato and lettuce so he didn't add it. But since he was making me a new one I did not reply that I hadn't actually specified "bacon" either yet that ingredient made it. But what is really annoying is that I know that when I go in there again and ask for a BLT and specify the L and T, the cashier will give me a look like I'm stupid or something. Guarantee it. (Posted March 30, 2005)

• The EU is frightening in its potential for anti-US despotism and is annoying right now in its petty bureaucracy. The EU has won its battle to keep us from making “champagne”: “The EU protects some 600 regional food names such as Parma ham and Roquefort cheese as well as around 4,000 wines -- among them Champagne -- by insisting only those who make the product in the relevant European region can use the name. U.S. officials had previously said the WTO was set to find in their favor.” We should just spell it “Shampane” and in twenty years everybody but the French will think of Shampane when they want sparkling wines! That’ll teach them. (Posted March 23, 2005)

• “Who would Jesus bomb?” Did the person with that as a bumper sticker really think that was all clever to proclaim? Does that person truly believe that this question illustrates some moral superiority over the Devil-worshippers that supported liberating Iraq? Hey, Aquinas, tell me what dictatorial thug regimes would Jesus protect? Just what nuclear ambitions would the Son of God be an accomplice to? Would Jesus have actually protected Saddam? And if not, why not? Mass murder? Gassing civilians? Child prisons? Rape as a weapon? Oppression? Fear? Would Jesus have accepted those as just a cultural difference to be respected? Well???!!!!! So listen up you theological geniuses, bringing in Jesus when your only association with Him is probably gazing approvingly at his image on a urine-soaked crucifix at a publicly funded art exhibit is an outrage. Oh and one more thing, bumper-sticker owner: it looks real nice on your SUV. Just what would Jesus drive, eh? That’s about your level, it seems. Friggin’ morons. (Posted February 25, 2005)

• I really don’t like disguised mail. I don’t like junk mail that pretends to be from federal agencies. I don’t like offers for mortgages that look like my bank’s communications to me. I get ticked off at offers to buy products or services that look like checks. And it is fairly rude to make rebate checks look like junk mail in the hopes I’ll throw them away. I’m resigned to being told repeatedly that I may already be a winner, but could we keep the misdirection to a minimum? (Posted February 17, 2005)

• I had hoped to one day introduce Mister to the joys of building plastic scale models. Sure, I’d emphasize tanks, but planes would surely be in the mix. But no, the actual airplane companies are demanding royalties from the model companies to sell models of their real planes! The low volume of sales means model companies won’t be able to sell models of the latest aircraft. The armored vehicle companies are doing the same stupid thing. Way to go, you jerks. A generation of children will grow up not giving a damn about your planes or fighting vehicles. Some of them will be in Congress and won’t see any reason to vote for your latest high-tech marvel. All because you wanted royalties from the small fries in 2005. Lord, will we really be reduced to building mediocre French aircraft from before World War II? (Posted January 31, 2005)

• I really hate those vinyl fake book backgrounds that TV new shows seem to like to put behind their guests. Why? I accept that they've read books. You don't need to put obviously fake law books behind them to raise credibility. Maybe they could show a sense of humor by putting "Foreign Policy for Dummies" or some bodice rippers on the vinyl sheet. That at least would earn a little respect from me. Really annoying. (Posted January 11, 2005).

• I’ve already written about the bad idea of the fifty-state quarter program (scroll down to September 26, 2002). I just received the quarter for Wisconsin. Did I mention that after the colonial era we really stop having history to report and that the farther up the statehood list we went the less history a state would have to put on their quarter? Why yes I did. Indeed, I wrote: “I shudder at what cheese-related theme Wisconsin will choose.” Wisconsin has a cow, an ear of corn, and…wait for it! A wheel of cheese. Cheese. A wheel of it. With a missing wedge. Perhaps the cow ate it. I’m sure the “Forward” emblazoned across the quarter has some stirring history behind it. Or, perhaps with three of the food groups as their state’s symbols, they just want to hurry up and get to the point where they have some history for the next quarter. Man, this was such a bad idea. (Posted January 11, 2005)