smibbo: (Default)
I keep an LJ alive and running because I want to keep up with my friends and post more private kind of things. I have a Facebook to feel a more general connection to my wider circles.

If you decide people are automatically racist because they have posted something in sympathy with Paris but not (to your knowledge) on the super-long list of other human rights fails (that you decided were important) then you can just stay out of my circle. My feelings and thoughts MIGHT be reflected by what I put up here or on Facebook, but they might not. You don't get to brand me any-damned thing just because I don't follow your chosen protocol of concern. Bye.
smibbo: (Default)
I have absolutely no love for Santorum but I REALLY EFFING HATE when he's referred to as "frothy". Its not funny. Its frickin disgusting.

I didn't like it when right-wingers gave Obama a plethora of dumb and offensive names, why would I think its okay for Santorum, a man who has children, to be called something so vile?

And that meme of his picture made up of a pastiche of pictures of gay men? Not disgusting at all but not funny either. I do not agree with the man's religious or "moral" views at all but that doesn't mean I'm going to deface his picture and/or disrespect his views in such a manner that he would be horribly offended by. Good fucknig gawd people grow up.

If you can't grow up, then don't bitch the next time right-wingers are disrespectful of some politician from 'our side'


Oct. 21st, 2010 05:37 pm
smibbo: (Default)
Recently, a friend pointed me to a blog by someone she really likes. Unfortunately, the entry I started reading was about using a word that the author does not like.
I liked her writing. I did not agree with her plea at all. Being as I am unfamiliar with that writer, I didn't feel "right" about leaving a comment disagreeing. So I'll talk about it here.

The word she is opposed to is "crazy"

From the bulk of the entry, I surmise she is someone who is psychiatric care. Like me. And my husband. And my son. And most likely eventually my daughter. Then there's all my friends and some family.
As we all know, its not that our society has gotten more crazy, its that our understanding of brain disorders has widened and deepened and many disorders are treatable now that weren't even seen as brain dysfunctions before. When I was a teen, depression was something you talked about with a counsellor. THere were anti-depressants but they were based on amphetamine and they were being phased out for myriad reasons. Brain science was very much in its infancy. Sociology was barely talked about. Cultural anthropology and evolutionary biology weren't really on the radar. Certain conditions were considered "crazy" if you had to be medicated. Because generally, back then being medicated meant you were probably incarcerated. (except for the upper-middle class who had drug dealers called doctors and everything was all about anxiety)
So when I was younger, "Crazy" when used to describe a person wasn't so much perjurative as it was damnedably descriptive: a crazy person was someone out of control and probably locked up, or SHOULD be locked up.

Now we're in an age of science that's just dazzling. The things we understand (and the things we know we don't understand and are looking for) are just astounding to me. They've proven that depression can be chemical. They've proven that Tourettes is a brain dysfunction, not a rebellious nature. They know the difference between someone with epilepsy and someone with dissociative disorder. It is amazing to me the things we've "discovered" in the last thirty years.
So to me, "crazy" has never really meant "someone who needs meds". When using it to describe a person, "crazy" means psychotic, chaotic, uncontrollable, dangerous, incomprehensible... etc you get the picture. But a person who takes zoloft? or Paxil? Or anxiety meds? that's not "crazy" that's just someone with a brain dysfunction.

So reading her essay about how hearing the word "crazy" makes her cringe and she finds it "ablist" rather bothers me. Not in an annoyed way but in a sad way. As I see it, the problem is in her point of view. SHE identifies as "crazy" but feels that "crazy" is a perjurative. But from what I read, she's not in need of incarceration or sedation or restraints. She's not "crazy" she's just got some brain disorder.
As many people pointed out, the word "crazy" is a very contextual word. Its useful to describe all sorts of chaotic situations and incomprehensible objects. I do agree that our society has gotten a tad lazy at times and "crazy" is overused. It's not a light word or it shouldn't be. "silly" isn't "crazy" "amusing" isn't "crazy" "mixed up" isn't "crazy"
But that's just English and slang for you; some words get favored for a while and come to mean all sorts of shades that it never covered before. So it was with "dynamite" and so it is with "crazy" (and the next word I'll talk about) I could go on for years about words that fell into favor and got completely overblown until the next word (I had a particular loathing for the all-purpose word "tight") came along. But "crazy" isn't really one of them. It's always been used in many contexts. It's a very all-purpose descriptive. Chaotic, stressful, untenable, degenerative, destructive, insane, disordered, uncontrollable, not to mention it can replace good ole "very"
That's how our language works sometimes. "crazy" was never a medical term or a technical term. It has always covered many shades of meaning. So to pull out one aspect of it and say "because it has this meaning to me I don't like people using it in ANY context.
I just don't agree. You can't dictate that to all of society. Not when its a word that has always had a wide basis.
If you think one word is perjurative, I can get behind that. Calling someone "crazy" directly can be a serious insult. It can also be a term of affection. It can also be a flippant comment. It can also be a strengthener of a more important notion. But to think that every time someone uses it it somehow belittles you because it CAN be a perjurative... I have a hard time with that.
I'd feel the same way if the term discussed was "Dark"
There is a difference between the word "dark" and "darkie"
If someone tried to tell me I can't say "its a dark night" because they are too reminded of the term "darkie" I'd have to respectfully say "sorry, no can do"
So I'll say things like "I had a crazy day" and if that makes some odd person somehow cringe, then I am sorry their self-image is so skewered.

Then there's the "R" word.
Let me be frank: I use the "R" word when referring to objects or situations. I am totally okay with that.

I do not use that word about people unless I am being flippant and assuredly private. It is not acceptable to use that word as a descriptive term and I agree.

No, The "R" word used to be a technical/medical term and thus has many more applications than just people, but of course it evolved in slang and came to mean one thing: "irrevocably stupid"

Mentally disabled people are not irrevocably stupid. The new meaning of the "R" word is incorrect historically and technically but it is too late. Furthermore, our ability to diagnose and label the forms of intellectual impairment have widened dramatically since the "R" word was first used and in some sense, it no longer applies anyway. Thus it can no longer be used in its original form to describe a medical condition any more than "crazy" can be used to describe someone with a brain dysfunction. It simply isn't accurate. The difference is that the definition of "crazy" has not changed in either general use or slang use. Because it has MANY definitions. The "R" word has only ever had one definition. Originally it meant "slow growth" It doesn't mean that anymore and everyone knows it. So we cannot justify using that term on people anymore. Perhaps in private conversation when referring to someone everyone agrees is in fact "irrevocably stupid" it will get used, I'm sure, but I think/hope its use is dying off. I like to think society is coming around to the understanding that just about no one is irrevocably stupid. I like to be naive like that sometimes.

The last word is "gey"
I don't think I really have to get too into it here to outline why I just won't use that word and I hate it and I will call out anyone who uses it. IN light of everything I've said about "crazy" and the "R" word, I should think everyone can grasp why "ghey" (I don't give a shit how you spell it, we KNOW what you mean) is just wrong.
smibbo: (Default)
when certain types of people make snide cracks about legal gun owners being scary, you are essentially saying that even though we FOLLOW THE LAW you equate us with criminals. If I register my gun, get my lisence, follow the rules and laws then WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM GOING TO SUDDENLY PULL OUT MY GUN AND SHOOT YOU UNLESS YOU ARE THREATENING ME? DUH. I am a reasonable, rational person. That is why when I decided to get a gun I learned what I needed to learn and did what I was supposed to do. Criminals do not have this regard for "the rules" - kind of related to their being, ya know, CRIMINALS. So those of us who LEGALLY own guns are NOT the people you need to be afraid of. Its fucking retardedly ass-backwards to say so. And you accuse us, the people who consciously decide to own a tool of self-defense as "living in fear"?!

Parse that a second... the person who decides to get an alarm system for their house is "living in fear" but their friend who makes constant comments about that alarm system magically going off and therefore resulting her false imprisonment is NOT the one who is obsessed or paranoid? Who is really living in fear? The person who owns a gun or the person who assumes anyone with a gun is going to kill them?

YES accidents happen. Stupid people abound. This can be said for automobiles as much as guns. But I do not see the same people regarding car owners with fear and condescension.

(my husband has a motorcycle, I do not want a motorcycle. I do not however make snide remarks to him or any other cyclist just because I personally do not want a motorcycle. Yet motorcycles kill people every day. And somehow I am not assuming everyone on a motorcycle is looking to get into an accident and kill me)


Jun. 2nd, 2009 10:16 pm
smibbo: (Default)
you can be scared of guns. Hell I'm scared of roaches. Lotsa people are scared of riding in a car. Being scared of guns doesn't bother or surprise me.

But please, stop labelling all gun-holders with "omg they are teh crazy"

If a person owns a gun for personal security, they carry it so they can have it if they need it. That does not mean they carry it just itching to USE it. If they are itching to use their gun, they carry it to the range. Gun owners do not carry their guns because they can't wait to shoot someone. Do you carry a fire extinguisher in your car and you can't wait to use it? Drive around looking for a fire? Intend to start a fire in your car JUST so you can use it? Hell maybe squirt a few rounds for the hell of it? Think about squirt fire extinguisher yucky stuff at innocent bystanders? Take it out during parties so you can let loose on the general public?

Come on people.... hysteria doesn't help anything.

Yes, I have a gun in my house. No, I do not intend to pull it out of its locked box for any reason other than 1)maintenance 2)going to the range to keep my skills up 3)in the horrendous but unlikely event I feel threatened enough to have need of it.

I own an axe too. I do not intend to use it on anyone but if I was cornered in my garage you can sure as hell bet I'd run straight to it and use it. I do not keep my axe where little children can get a hold of it. I have instructed my kids with safety rules concerning dangerous objects such as axes, scythes and lawnmowers. And despite the fact that I think chopping wood is kinda fun and good exercise, I do not pull my axe out after having a few beers and start swinging at other folks' heads. Because I'm not a psychopath and I'm also not a moron. Like most people who also own axes.
smibbo: (Default)
after more lurking and reading, I realize my rants against AP were misplaced. It's not AP that I'm so angry at, its the conflation of AP with "Unconditional Parenting". I haven't read the whole book of UP but what I have learned of the basic philosophy (because it's not even an outline of how-to parenting) I think I know enough to feel that I do not agree with it. The basic premise offends me and worries me. I think it's founded entirely upon one man's theory of child development and understanding of child psychology and I think he's mostly wrong. While I agree, working with children as opposed to working against is a laudable goal. but come on, is that something new or astounding? Managerial courses and power-thinking seminars have touted this notion for some time now. Catch more flies with honey. Utilize every talent. Root out hidden strengths. Find the silver lining. Blah blah blah. The idea that one should make an effort to resist auto-pilot parenting that leans towards the negative is a good one but Kohn premise goes far deeper than that, yet offers next to nothing in the way of practical guidance. In some ways I don't agree with his basic premise either; I do not believe giving negative consequences to unwanted behavior and praise for "good" behavior teaches our children they need to earn our love. I also find it irresponsible of Kohn to continually interchange "love" with "approval" - they are NOT the same thing. Kohn also seems to believe that children are capable of magically knowing what is satisfactory and what is not. The notion that a child, to whom everything is new and unknown, will somehow have the wherewithal to correctly assess his own actions and make subjective judgements that further his understanding and knowledge is ridiculous. If I don't say "good job!" when Lil Miss draws an "A" then how in holy hell is she supposed to know when she's done it correctly? We are not born knowing correct social behavior and proper etiquette and implement manipulation. These things are learned through practice but practice doesn't do any good if one is unsure of the idealized goal. If my travails with autism have taught me anything, its that children NEED to be clear about what their goal is... learning something "wrong" or incompletely can have disasterous consequences.

This is similar to the nebulous notion of the eradication of testing in education. The fact remains that as painful as testing may be, and as reticent as we may be to make judgements of a child's efforts, testing is a form of FEEDBACK and all animals, especially children NEED feedback in order to learn.

Let me be candid here; my parents raised me (WHEN they raised me) with the hippy-liberal idea that children needed autonomy and freedom. That's because THEY were raised in typical authoritarian fashion. I don't recall my parents ever saying "good job" or even "I'm proud of you" but instead "i like that" and "well how do YOU feel about it?"

and frankly, it STILL bothers me that they could never seem to let me know they approved of me. But I never questioned whether they LOVE me. They said it plenty. They showed it plenty. That was not the issue. getting a sense of "am I doing this right?" was the issue.
smibbo: (Default)

being in a public place that is family-oriented. lots of kids. lots of moms. its lunchtime, a time when settling down, eating and resting is usually the order of the day. walking through the crowd to get to my kids, my family. seeing the same scene one too many times. kid and mother next to each other, mother saying "no" kid screaming at mother. purple faced, screaming, getting up in her personal space, yelling at her as if she is dense, servile, childish "MOM! I SAID!! NOOOOOO! YOU CAN'T DOOO THIS!" and on and on. mother is either detached or appeasing. mother tries to negotiate the desires of the child completely bypassing child's demeanor and treatment of her. I think to myself "thank you sir, may I have another?"

I'm appalled. Lately, I cannot ignore how often I go through public seeing families wherein the child is enraged and treating his mother (sometimes the father) like they are ignoramuses who must be verbally and spiritually abused. and the mother (soemtiems father) just sits there either ignoring the behavior or trying even harder to appease the child. As if self-respect simply doesn't matter. And I am talking about children over the age of 5. Pre-teens and teenagers too. Screaming. Blue in the face, white-knuckled screaming at their mothers. Not just screaming in frustration, but screaming insults, orders and commands. As if THEY are the parent and their mother is the wayward child.

This just astounds me. I see it over and over. Every time I go out in public I see this scene at least once, if not three or four times. And I keep thinking about how awful these children are going to be later on... when they try to have a relationship, get a job, join a club of any kind. Because respect is something you simply must be willing to give if you want to get along with anyone happily. But how can you have respect for anyone if you don't even respect your own mother? and how can you respect your mother if she doesn't even have self-respect? You can't.

And when I read certain parenting sites (not just AP but AP is definitely included) I see the constant phrase of "you must put your child first" put right next to "you must respect your child's feelings" and see the easy translation of "you must put your child's feelings before your own"

and I see the connection. I see it every time I go out in public where there are families.

Being sensitive to your child should be a given. How and when one chooses to respond to their child's distress is a touchy and wholly subjective choice. But there isn't a parenting "expert" anywhere that says you are supposed to allow your child to treat you like dirt. Yet that's what I keep seeing. And I think a lot of it has to do with the ridiculously competitive atmosphere that has sprung up int he last few decades. The stratification of parenting styles and methods is sad and frustrating but the overarching tenet seems to be furthering the notion of "if you're a GOOD parent you'll..." which always is followed by commandments that no matter how apropos aren't universally applicable nor advisable. Everyone outwardly agrees that there is no one magic parenting method, yet because of the environment of competition that has evolved in our modern society, whatever camp you fall into becomes a battle flag of monotheism. I see religious fervor rather than honest criticism. and the worst part is that the most widely agreed upon tenet of parenting - that of individual choices made depending upon the situation and family - can only be fostered by acceptance and tolerance of all the divergent viewpoints.
Parents NEED a range of choices to effectively parent the way that "fits" for them as individuals.
We can't have a range of choices if we reject other philosophies.
smibbo: (Default)
If the children are not being truly harmed, then visitation is more of a wish than a necessity. If the children are being truly harmed, then change of custody is in order and I pray that is granted swiftly. No one has been able to explain how the child, parent and family will benefit from getting sued, psychoanalyzed, GAL appointment, child missing school, parent missing work, HRS visits, thousands of dollars that could be spent in the family, hours upon hours of stress, child’s sanity of home being challenged, martial strife from additional stress, forced mediation, and court room time. There is no US Constitutional backing, no Common Law backing, no Biblical backing, no research showing forced visitation is beneficial to the child and family, and no success stories. No one can explain it because there is no backing to the litigating grandparent’s argument but only feel good laws that trample on our families.

from Parents Rights Website

If you have any children and any strife with in-laws or parents, please be aware that this is real and happening all over the country (and some other countries too) and It could happen to you. Why? Because some old people aren't sweet, wise or loving. Some old people are evil controlling assholes.

And number two in the "boy that pisses me off to no end and I just gotta tell people how I feel"

Every time abortion surfaces in a big way (see: Alito's husband notification, South Dakota) we can look forward to twice as many articles about "men's reproductive rights," which for some reason vest in either their wallets or someone else's body and exist primarily to counter the biological unfairness of abortion. Let's all say it together: Child support has nothing to do with reproductive rights. Forcing someone to have an abortion or forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term is the antithesis of reproductive rights.

Yes, you heard me. Men have no rights when it comes to women's pregnancies. Men are not owed extra privileges to make up for their lack of a uterus. Abortion rights must exist on their own; they are not tied to a man's ability to abandon his child nor are they predicated upon his paternal whims. If someone can please get this message through to all the editorial writers shitting in their pants over the prospect of women being able to regulate their own pregnancies without a man's permission, I'd be eternally grateful.
- lawlesslawyer

No shit girlfriend. A-fucking-(wo)men. (haha)

Get a clue MEN. It's not your fucking body and whether or not you like what I choose to do with it and whether or not you think I'm "going to hell" or WHAT-the-fuck-ever, it's real fucking simple: YOU don't carry the baby, YOU aren't expected to stop your whole life for it and YOU don't have to risk your health for it so YOU don't get to choose what happens and you WILL pay for what happens - baby or non-baby.

Unfair? You bet your ass. And when they figure out how to make man pregnant by rape, incest or sheer stupidity/neglect then perhaps you guys will quit crying about it.

I'm so glad that you guys think that birthing a baby is such an amazing, awe-inspiring thing that is right next to godliness. HOWEVER, as amazing as I might think writing your name in the snow is, I'm not trying to pass legislation that makes it MANDATORY for yu to do so whenever you take a piss. I'm not yammering on about how you are wasting god's precious gift and blah blah blah. I graciously allow you to make that choice yourself. But how do the pee feel about it? Huh? And masterbation, dear lord think of all the poor sperm you are wasting! Heaven help us but you are going against nature and god and evolution all at the same time! (how often does THAT happen?) I should push congress to out-law male masterbation (females don't lose any reproductive stuff when they masterbate so that is okay) to prevent any more of those poor poor sperm from being brutally denied their RIGHT to exist.
And snot! OMG think of the poor snot! There's bacteria in there that have a RIGHT to exist! Every covered sneeze prevents what could turn out to be the next massive plague and you are just cutting off it's chances to have a full life!
Oh my it's just tragic!
smibbo: (Default)
I am pro-choice.

There are no "qualifications" to that stance. I do not hedge my morals by muttering "but not as birth-control" and I do not allow my personal feelings about birth-control, the state of welfare, the treatment of mothers in this country or the lack of respect parents and children receive from society to color my stance at all. The right to a safe, medically proper abortion or any other form of birth control to all people in this country is a fucking right I want to be safeguarded even if it means the godamned National Guard should be called out. Whether or not I have had abortions, birthed children or used birth control is immaterial to this issue. Whether or not I want a child (again) is immaterial to this issue. What I want is what I want, not what I proscribe for anyone else. Yes, I have many complex feelings about birth control but I want my privacy in this matter assured. I do not want ANYONE else to tell me, my husband, my best friend or anyone else how they should conduct their private life. I want the facts given to everyone in this country before age 10 and repeatedly given to them until they are no longer of school age. That is as detailed as I get about it. Beyond that, I have never heard any argument that makes any other stance sensible.

The right to choose whether or not to radically alter the course of one's life should be decided by no one other than the person whose life will be affected. You can argue all day about whether or not a fetus has the "right" to be born; the fact remains that the woman who is potentially carrying said fetus is a HUMAN BEING already and there's no arguing that fact. Therefore, her rights are primary. Period. Doctors already got this part figured out: when a woman's life is threatened in childbirth, the life of the woman is preserved foremost by the doctor, not the fetus's.

If you don't like abortion, good for you. I hope your adoption process goes smoothly. I hope your 401(k) grows beautifully. I hope your partner doesn't decide to cut and run. I hope you don't lose your job. I hope your relative never touches you inappropriately. I hope you never get raped. I hope your spouse doesn't decide that cheating is better than communicating. I hope you don't come down with a terminal illness. I hope you don't find out that you are carrying a fatal or life-threatening gene flaw. I hope your contraception never fails like it did for me.
Five times.
Spare me your fucking sanctimonious attitude.

I fully support your right to parade like an idiot before the clinics (which by the way also supply poor pregnant women with pre-natal vitamins and often serve as free/low-cost pre-natal health care) because that's another right I'd fight to death to preserve, but I don't agree with you and I think if you're willing to give up that right, you'd be just as likely to allow your other rights to be eroded... which just furthers my view that people who so want to overturn Roe vs. Wade are morons.

smibbo: (Default)
Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes..." (emphasis mine)

WMD, anyone?
smibbo: (Default)
listen, you think that just because the extremists have a louder voice that they represent anybody besides themselves? What flavor crack you smoking? I bet you also believe that the KKK actually represented the whole of southern culture and attitude, don't you? Yeah cuz it's so much easier to sit there and think that a couple of idiotic yahoos are somehow the epitome of society rather than admit that the fact is that when a bunch of wack-jobs run out and start killing people, the rest of the world is slow to move... you know why? Cuz we're scared. Hell yeah, those nutjobs might come after us next. We don't want to face those assholes. We don't want to confront them every time they pop their microencephalic heads out of a foxhole. Cuz next thing you you know, it turns out the asshole is our cousin and he's gone postal on everyone and now because we openly disagreed or defied him he's gunnin down OUR family too! That's why people in the fucked-up south tolerated the likes of the KKK for so long! NOt because they're all ultra-racist too... of course they're racist but that doesn't mean they AGREED with what the KKK was doing! They were just too damned scared to take them on. And who wouldn't have been? The whole power of any extremist group is seeming to be far more powerful than they really are. But then you believe they've got the numbers, or the guns and next thing you know they really ARE more powerful than you... all because you let them make you scared.
...I may despise those jackasses to the core, but at least I'm not handing them the power of being scared of them. I pay attention, shit yes, but I'm not giving them any more power than they have. Too damned bad everyone else DOES>
smibbo: (Default)

They say we are traitors if/when we don't agree with the president. To my mind, that's just out-and-out fascism. Oh what? Am I being extreme?

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Still think I'm blowing it out of proportion?
Well I suppose if the Downing Street Memo didn't change your mind about what's BEEN happening, you're already too brainwashed to listen to reason anyway. Fuck off, conservative extremist christian shitheads, you don't represent MY America and you never fucking will. Go finish dying already, the rest of us are sick of putting up with your tired asses.
smibbo: (Default)
1) if you wanted the drink on ice, why the fuck didn't you say so when you ordered it?!?

2) when you give your order, I may not actually be at the cash register... therefore, I cannot always give you an instant total, this does not preclude you from getting your pocketbook out of the back seat BEFORE I tell you how much you owe. It certainly does not preclude you from rooting through all your change to find that lost quarter.

3) I am not impressed by your 3 carat flawed diamond ring. In fact, please quit flashing it in my face because I am worried you are going to break my nose with it.

4) your car looks like a living room; that does not entitle you to all my napkins.

5) there is no reason to act pissed off when I don't automatically give you sugar, stirrers, napkins, a little cup with cream in it, an extra cup, a cup of water with ice, etc. - I CANNOT READ YOUR MIND.

6) the sign says "Starbuck's" not "change-o-rama". It's not my fault you decided to get your paycheck in $100 bills and then run to the coffee shop before anyone else. If I haven't had my usual 50 people in a row paying for a $1.50 cup of coffee with a $20 bill, then I DON'T have change. I'm not going to hold up the entire drive-through lane just to get my supervisor to open the safe (which can take up to 30 minutes) JUST so you can pay with a $100 bill. Why don't you do like everyone else and root through your change pot for 10 minutes? After all, you come in here all the time and you STILL don't remember that your grande latte costs $3.32??

7) you don't go to McDonald's and order a "fries, super" why the hell do you come here and order a "triple latte, 2 pump vanilla, decaf with extra cinnamon, grande"?? I have to punch in the size FIRST, just like every other food service place y'know.

8) here's how the drive-through works: you place your order, I punch it into the machine, someone else (hopefully) makes the drink - sometimes there is no someone else and I have to make it but that's beside the point - and I take your money at the window as soon as I can. Here's the interesting part: there are other people in front of you! They have put in orders before you! The computer takes all the orders I punch in and keeps them in the sequence corresponding to how they were punched in HOWEVER, if you change your order or want something else when you get to the window, the computer assumes this is new and puts it in the queue wherever it happens to be placed when I punch in the new information. This means that whenever there's a change, there is apt to be a shuffle in the sequential order of the requests! THAT MEANS I MIGHT NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ORDERED WHEN YOU DRIVE UP. This does NOT mean we dont' have your drink, only that I don't always know which one is yours until you get there and I say "what did you order?" Quit getting pissed at me just because I haven't kept a running tabulation in my mind as to exactly which drinks are in what order! Especially if you made me change it three times! Hell, maybe it wasn't you who switched your order, maybe it was the guy in front of you... the point is, I ask you what you ordered to make damned sure you get what you asked for. You should be GLAD I'm asking you.

9) I only have two hands. I only move so fast. I KNOW you want a cup of water, extra napkins, two raw sugars and a stirrer with your order because you already asked for it (with a really pissy attitude) so hows about you give me a fucking second to go get it for you? Believe it or not we do not keep every item in the store right next to the window. Some things, I have to go get manually, so why don't you wait TWO SECONDS for me to finish giving your your five drinks before you ask me a second time for something and keep the nasty look to yourself?

10) I am not here for your amusement. I am not here to answer your questions about my personal life. If I feel like sharing information with you, I will initiate the conversation but only if I think we have something in common. If I joke with you or say something nice, it's because I am in a good mood. Do not take that to mean I like you. If you want to giggle at my stupid uniform, my messy hair, my fumbling of your order or just because you are stoned to the gills, do not expect me to like it.

11) I am not an idiot. Yes, I went to college. Yes, I have kids too. Yes, I work in retail/food service, but that does not mean I am stupid. I messed up your drink; I didn't mess up the stock market, the environment or the socio-political structure of Southeast Asia. It's a coffee drink; get over it.

12) There is a drink called a CAppucino. It is a hot drink made with steamed milk, foamed milk and espresso. There is another drink called a FRAppucino. It is a cold, blended drink made with lowfat milk, sugar, coffee and ice. They are two entirely different drinks. When you order one or the other over the intercom, I may not be sure of what you said. That is why I try to make it clear; "ma'am did you say CAPpucino - the HOT drink, or FRAPpucino - the cold drink-which-is-like-a-milkshake?" This is not a reason to get exasperated with ME.

13) if you are (yet another) European, can you just TRY to speak up clearly? I am an American with a typical American accent. Although I am mildly conversant in French, Spanish and Sign Language (with a passing understanding of Italian and Latin) I cannot discern your order through your accent unless you speak clearly and LOUDLY. Quit being shy; it's a fucking coffee-shop drive-through, not the Nobel Laureate convention.
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 02:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios