Wednesday, 06 October 2010

This evening, we watched the fourth episode of this season’s Survivor. I know it’s still early in the TV season, but I’m gonna go right ahead and declare this to be Survivor’s Worst Season Ever.

I’ve been getting increasingly bored with each season of the famed TV show…oh, look, another season of people trying to live…in paradise. Instead of yet another yawner of people hanging out in beautiful locations, I’d like to see Survivor: Yukon or maybe they could do a show on a rugged mountain terrain, with high elevation. But, no, the producers keep taking the show back to either Central America or the Islands of the Pacific.

Apart from being another forgettable, carbon-copy location, this season introduces the coveted “medallion of power.” For those who don’t know, this medallion gives the team that uses it a significant advantage in challenges. The catch is that once a team has used it, it passes to the other team, who can then use it for a future challenge of their choosing. It’s a great way to remove any semblance of a level playing field; it’s like playing Monopoly with someone who insists on starting out already owning Broadway and Park Place.

But my dislike of this issue can be boiled down to three very specific problems:

1. One game per episode.

The most enjoyable parts of each episode are the games. In past seasons, there were almost always two games per episode: one to win a reward (such as pizza) and one to win immunity. This season, so far at least, there’s been only one game per episode. Stupid. My son doesn’t like it, either.

2. Another deflated “look how cleverly we divided the contestants” ploy

In past seasons, the producers have divided the players by gender, by whether they’d  played the game before or not, by how well liked the players were, and even by ethnicity. This season, they divided the players by age. I like this idea of dividing along strict lines like this but, first, dividing by age has already been done before. Second, as we saw in the sneak peak at next week’s episode, the players will be reshuffled into new tribes anyways. So, big deal. They segregated by age for four episodes. Whoop de doo.

3. This woman:

Meet Naonka. She looks friendly enough – but look a little closer. There’s an N tattooed right on her arm. Does it stand for Naonka, or narcissistic?

Of course, part of the fun of the show is watching the interplay between the characters; who leads, who follows, who can get along with anyone, and who fights with people.

But in past episodes, when there’s been disagreements or even fights, you can usually see both sides of the issue – “Yeah, person A does talk too much, but person B could’ve told them about it nicer” – that sort of thing.

But this woman just seems to enjoy being abrasive to half of her tribemates. She repeatedly argues with people and, though the show might just be edited that way, I can’t even figure out what her problem is, much less if it has any merit. Unlike past players, she’s not even ‘evil’ in a fun way, she’s just annoying. Even when talking to the camera in private, she just mouths off about how sassy she is.

Two weeks ago, she fought over a hidden clue with Kelly, another teammate, even to the point of pushing that teammate down. I understand that they both had a desire to obtain the clue, but Naonka spent the rest of that episode, and the next one, complaining about “how dare Kelly try and get that clue.” Then she made derogatory comments about Kelly’s prosthetic leg. In fact, she keeps mentioning that Kelly is an amputee, saying that Kelly better be careful or she’ll throw her leg in the water, or that Kelly shouldn’t expect special treatment just because she’s down one limb. I think Naonka is obsessed with it, or attracted to it in a weird way that is making her feel uncomfortable. There’s no other explanation.

Oh – and it turns out Kelly is a world-record holding athlete. So, no, I doubt she’s looking for pity.

Thursday, 07 October 2010

This evening, I hosted Atheists Talk for the twelfth time. Adding in my appearances as a guest, it marked my fifteenth episode.

Burnsville and Eagan: Ch. 14. Air times vary. Check their web site www.bect.tv for day and times.

Bloomington: Ch. 16. Monday 9:30 p.m. and Tuesday 5:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.

Minneapolis: Ch. 17. Saturday 8:30 p.m. Sponsor:  Steve Petersen.

Rochester: Ch. 10. Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday 7:30 p.m.

Roseville, Shoreview, Arden Hills, North Oaks, Little Canada, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Moundsview, New Brighton: Ch. 14. Wednesday 10:30 p.m.

Stillwater: Ch. 16. Tuesday 7:00 p.m.; Wednesday 9:00 a.m.

South Washington County: Ch. 14. Tuesday 7:00 p.m.

White Bear Lake, Hugo, Lake Elmo, Mahtomedi, Maplewood, North St. Paul, Oakdale, Vadnais Heights: Ch. 15. Saturday 7:30 p.m.

Or you can CLICK HERE to get the podcasts.

Sunday, 03 October 2010

You know what I like about the Twin Cities’ Marathon? Well, nothing actually. But you know what I don’t like? The fact that it bisects the city in half.

I commented about this on Facebook last year – when I went to work to get some overtime that Sunday, only to find I couldn’t get home (I waited in a parking lot).

Today, I somehow forgot about this vivisection of the city, and we tried to drive to Target which, unfortunately, means we have to cross Summit Avenue.

But Summit was closed.

My wife smartly thought up taking Ayd Mill Road, certainly one of the strangest roads I’ve ever driven on, but at least it goes under Summit instead of through it. The problem was, everybody else had the same idea. In time, though, we made it to Target.

Man, it’s too bad there’s not any parks – including an enormous regional park that stretches into Fort Snelling State Park and then up into Minneapolis – that the marathon could traverse. It’s so much better that they totally disrupt traffic over a several mile stretch for hours. Makes perfect sense.

Monday, 04 October 2010

Today I paid a visit to that time-sucker known as “The Department of Motor Vehicles.” If you ever have the displeasure of visiting the Maple Grove location, let me key you in on a few things: first, it’s set up like an airport terminal – you check in with someone at the front desk, who then prints out a number and tells you to have a seat. The seats are arranged theater style, so you can watch a muted TV screen that plays snippets of movies. I was privy to a fun flip-flopping between good vs. shitty films (Casablanca, then Goblet of Fire, then The Incredibles). Anyway, I usually like to see what number I have, and then gauge my wait based on what number they’re on (“Hmm…I’m number 83, and they’re on 71 right now…and there are 5 employees, so…”). But Maple Grove’s location rips this pleasure from me: I was number B128, but then they called D260. Then D261. Then A233. Then C119. I couldn’t detect a pattern.

Anyway, when my ‘number’ was finally called, I went up and told the guy I needed to renew my tabs. He started typing away and then pulled out new license plates.

As an aside: I also dislike new license plates. They’re a waste; the ones I have are just fine. Also, I was once detained by a cop for a half hour (on the way to a meeting as other congregation members passed me) because my new plates weren’t up (it’s a long story – ask me in person).

So I asked the DMV employee: “What determines if someone gets new plates, and not just the tabs?”

He said: “The computer tells me.”

I just kind of stared at the plates, not replying in any way. Detecting that I wasn’t happy with his answer, he added: “Well, it’s kind of like a 10/10 thing, you know? If you’re vehicle’s year plus age adds up to ten, then you get new plates.”

I nodded politely, but I’m fully flummoxed by this. Who wouldn’t add up to ten? Think about it: If your car is one year old, then that means it was made in ’09. So 1+9=10. Similarly, if your car is eight years old, then it was made in ’02. And 8+2=10. In my case, it’s 7+3=10. Who doesn’t add up to ten? I’m confused.

Tuesday, 05 October 2010

Today there was a “benefits fair” at my job, which means that representatives from our various benefit providers were on hand to answer questions and pass out swag. Delta Dental was there, Blue Cross was there, LifeWorks was there; the whole gang!

When I came up to the Unum table, I decided to ask the woman: “So how come, a few weeks ago when my daughter was born, I had to go through you guys to get my time off?”

I should probably explain that I had to call Unum last spring and tell them of Isla’s impending birth. They sent me five sheets of paper over the course of the next two months that all said the same thing: I was approved. Then, while I was on leave, I didn’t get my full pay when my paycheck arrived. I called Unum, but they said the problem was my company’s HR department. I called my HR department and (spoiler alert!) they said the problem was Unum. Long story short, all three paychecks I received while on leave were incorrect, and no one took any responsibility for it.

Anyway, the woman answered: “Well we handle all the paperwork for your company.”

“What paperwork?” I asked.

“Well, it’s very confusing, and so your company outsources it to us.”

“Yes,” I said, “but when I take vacation time, I just tell my supervisor I’m taking time off, and he adds in my vacation time. So why couldn’t I just call my supervisor when my daughter was born and tell him I was gonna be taking some time off. As it is, using a third-party just created a bureaucracy that was beyond the abilities of anyone in our HR department.”

“Yeah,” she agreed, “it’s complicated. They get it wrong a lot. But you know, it’s for longer leaves than vacations.”

“I don’t know about that,” I said, “Because I could take a four-week vacation and I don’t need to involve you, but if I take even just one week off for the birth of a child, I have to contact you. What’s the difference?”

“Yeah,” she said, “It’s complicated.” And then I began talking again, but what I said doesn’t matter, because the woman jumped at the opportunity to say hello and dish out paperwork to the lady that walked up to the table.

So much for finding answers.

Complicated indeed.

Friday, 01 October 2010

When I came home from work on Wednesday, there was a note on the door from UPS that said something like “Sorry we missed you.” The deliverer had tried to drop off a package between 10:30 and 1:00, but no one was home. The note said they’d try again tomorrow.

So they did try again on Thursday, at the exact same time. And: surprise! no one was home.  The new note said they’d try again on Friday…again at the exact same time. If we weren’t there to receive the package on Friday, they’d send it back to the sender.

Um…how could UPS not know that if someone’s not home at a particular time one day, they’re not likely to be home at that time on subsequent days, too. People have predictable schedules, after all.

I called the number on the back of the UPS note. I had the displeasure of speaking with a robot. I tried to schedule a drop-off time that differed from the one they were rigidly insisting upon, but that would’ve cost me six bucks. So I hung up on the robot.

Instead, I taped the two notes onto a sheet of paper, and wrote my own note on the paper that said “leave the package at the door.” I signed my name.

This evening, when I got home, the package was waiting for me right by the front door.

There now, UPS, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

Saturday, 02 October 2010

Let me just pause for a moment to comment on how many beautiful days we’ve had here. Usually, there’s like five or ten great days in an entire year, but I think there have been that many in just the past five weeks alone. Even the nighttime is wonderful: not freezing, but chilly enough to warrant a heavy blanket. No need for air conditioning, ceiling fans, dehumidifiers, humidifiers, heaters, or sun block. I love it!

Today was another near-beautiful day, which we tried to celebrate by going for a walk. Alas, it was a little too cold for someone who has a tendency to act very childish about those things (ahem, Isla). So, instead of walking to the grocery store, we took the car.

This evening, we watched the Muppet Show. Man, liked that show as a kid, didn’t think it was so cool as an adult, but now, as an old man, I’m thinking the show is awesome. If you have kids <10 years old, it’s perfect for them. Owen thinks it’s funny and, at 22 minutes each, it’s easy to squeeze an episode in before bedtime. The episodes are available at Netflix.

Thursday, 30 September 2010

Well, now I’ve successfully written about something from each day for 75% of the year, so take that! all you scoffers.

Let’s pause for a moment as, instead of thinking about the 75% that’s past, I discuss some things I’m looking forward to in the near future. At least, in the world of entertainment…

This movie isn’t coming out until December 25th, 2011, but I am already excited about it. If this were in the past, I likely would’ve gone and seen it on opening day. Alas, now I celebrate the birthday of baby Jesus (who will be hittin’ the big 2-0-1-1 that year) with great abandon and thus probably won’t be at the theaters on Christmas Day. Regardless, I’m sure Jennifer, Owen, and I will find time soon after.

And I’m a bit mixed on this movie that  isn’t coming out until 2012. I am always up for a Pixar, since I’m guaranteed at least a decent, if not completely awesome, time. First off, I’m a little concerned that it’s derived from fairy tales. That’s not necessarily bad, it just smacks of a little too much Disney involvement. Also, it’s directed by Brenda Chapman, the same woman who directed The Lion King. The Lion King isn’t a bad movie, but it’s not great, either. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s the most overrated animated film in the history of cinema. Worse, she directed The Prince of Egypt – a film that thoroughly destroyed a great story and coupled it with the worst soundtrack of any animated film ever. She’s no Brad Bird, that’s for sure. I’ll just have to wait and see.

Tuesday, 28 September 2010

Today I had a discussion with a couple of co-workers regarding the upcoming election.

I’ve come to the conclusion that voting for a candidate is not really about picking who you think is best for the job, it’s about first looking at who has a chance of winning the election, and then picking the lesser (or least, possibly) of the two (or more) evils.

This happened to me back in 2008. I did not want Norm Coleman to be reelected as Senator, but I wasn’t crazy about Al Franken, either. Independent candidate Dean Barkley was a distant third. One of my co-workers voted for Barkley, arguing that he was the best person for the job, and that everyone should vote how their conscience tells them to vote.

I can see that rationale, but I responded that the 2008 Senatorial election was so close, I felt it was more important to give my vote to Franken, rather than select the person I thought was better (Barkley), thereby essentially giving a vote to Coleman.

Make sense?

On a larger scale, this happened in 2000, too. Ralph Nader garnered 2.74% of the popular vote. I think it’s a safe assumption that, had they been forced to vote for a candidate that actually had a chance of winning, most Nader supporters would have picked Al Gore over George Bush. In Florida – the very crucial state in the electoral vote that year, over 97,000 people voted for Nader. Had only 10% of them voted for Gore instead, he would have won the Presidency. In short, a vote for Nader (in some states) was a vote for Bush. (Though this website claims otherwise.)

Perhaps it’s not such a big deal if the better candidate has a wide margin. For example, if a poll reveals that 75% of likely voters will pick candidate A, and only 20% prefer candidate B, then maybe you’re fine listening to your conscience and picking the best candidate, candidate C, who happens to have only a 2% share. Regardless of whether you think A or B would be better, your vote isn’t likely to change anything.

I’d be interested to hear what other people prefer: Do you pick the better of two candidates, because that person maight actually win, or do you pick the person you think is the best (wo)man for the job, even though they have no chance?

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

Today I left work early so that I could join my family on a visit to the Minnesota Science Museum.  Owen really wanted to see the mummy on display there, and I wanted to see the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Scrolls are only on exhibition until mid-October, so time was winding down. Also, I had a coupon for one free adult admission that expired in a few weeks.

Well, Owen got to see his mummy. The curator answered a few questions we had and, later, we even watched a mini-play reenacting a little bit of ancient Egypt.

But I didn’t see the Dead Sea Scrolls. Shortly before leaving to go to the museum, I looked up online to see if there was anywhere to park near the museum that wouldn’t subsequently mug my wallet. While searching, I realized there was a separate set of pricings for the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. Jennifer had mentioned before that there was a separate fee, but I didn’t realize just how exorbitant.

Let’s break it down:

Admission to museum + Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit for me: $28

Admission to museum + Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit for Jennifer: $28

Admission to museum + Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit for Owen: $22

…That’s $78 just to walk in the door. This, mind you, does not include admission to their omnitheater, nor does it cover parking. 78 bucks! Holy crap! How can I justify spending $22 on my five-year old son who doesn’t even know what these Scrolls are and who will find it very boring. And the Scrolls exhibit includes a 45-minute presentation…which sounds pretty much impossible to sit through when there’s a 9-week old baby with us. (She’s free, by the way.)

But wait, you ask, didn’t you have a coupon? Yes…but it’s not valid for “special” exhibits. And, you ask further, couldn’t you use your student discount? Yes…if it was after 5:00 on a Thursday, which it was not.

Just to compare, here’s what we did pay:

Admission to museum for me: $11

Admission to museum for Jennifer: $0

Admission to museum for Owen: $6.50 (he got in for $2 off due to my I-work-for-an-awesome-company discount)

That’s a total of $17.50. It still hurts, but at least it won’t keep me up at night.

As we left, the Science Museum’s parking ramp attendant mugged my wallet for $9.