Greening Philosophy

Yes, apparently "greening" philosophy (and apparently other topics) is a thing. It's a thing I'd never heard of before I opened the welcome email from the professor for the Philosophy 1 (Knowledge and Reality) class I was supposed to start next week. 

 

Here, from Santa Monica College's class catalog, is the description for the class I signed up for:

 

This course introduces students to the analysis of various metaphysical and epistemological questions and problems in philosophy, typically including the nature and limits of knowledge, the existence of God, the Mind-Body Problem, the Freedom vs. Determination debate, and the Absolution vs. Relativism debate. Related topics in ethics may also be included.

 

What I got was a syllabus with a banner announcing "Greening Philosophy: A Fresh Introduction to the Field". The "Knowledge and Reality" title was under that. I had no idea what "Greening Philosophy" meant as there was no mention of it in the class description. 

 

Well, I found out.

 

In the syllabus, mixed in with all the actual philosophy stuff, this was listed under Course Description:

 

*Ecological Literacy for Sustainability: Above section will provide foundations in ecological literacy and help prepare students to live more sustainably. 

 

You know when I needed to know that this was part of this section? When I was signing up for classes months ago. Not now, a week before the semester starts and when all the other Philosophy 1 sections are filled and closed. Also, if I wanted to take a course on ecological literacy I would have signed up for a class on ecological literacy, not philosophy.

 

And under Learning Outcomes, in addition to the philosophy stuff, students are expected to:

 

Assume responsibility for their own impact on the earth by living a sustainable and ethical lifestyle. 

 

So how did this happen? Why is ecological literacy and sustainable living included in a class about philosophy? The answer was provided in the description for the textbook, which is where the banner title came from: 

 

Greening Philosophy...is part of an emergent project in higher education...the goal of which is to incorporate environmental awareness, or ecological literacy, into existing courses without changing the primary objectives of those courses.

This reader (book) offers the reader an opportunity to learn philosophy and at the same time to cultivate an environmental consciousness for global citizenship.

 

In other words, they're co-opting a topic I'm actually interested in to shoehorn in their propaganda. Got it. But hey, they're still offering readers the opportunity to learn philosophy. Thanks bunches, textbook, for giving me the opportunity to study the subject that I signed up for and paid for.

 

What I didn't sign up for or pay for was being subjected to propaganda. Using buzz words like "an emergent project...", "to incorporate...awareness...or literacy, into existing courses..." and "global citizenship" doesn't change what it is. There's no reason to incorporate an unrelated subject into another topic. You know what you could do? Just offer courses on environmental awareness, ecological literacy, and sustainable living. But if you did that, your influence is limited only to students who enroll in those classes. So, no, "greening" a subject and pushing "global citizenship" does in fact change the primary objectives of the courses it infiltrates, regardless of the book's claim. It changes it by bringing in a separate topic to deliver propaganda. I wonder if the class's philosophical approach includes any criticism of the greening movement. I'd bet good money it wouldn't tolerate that at all. As I mentioned above, the desired outcome is clearly stated in the syllabus.

 

What's the point of all this? The point is they have a captive audience of mostly young, malleable minds who are more receptive to being brainwashed than someone older (me) who long ago learned the importance of learning how to think, not what to think. Who learned a long time ago not to blindly follow without thinking for myself. Who learned to be objective, educate myself, and develop intelligently considered opinions rather than parroting what others tell me I should think.

 

And if this "emergent project" is so vital to making us all better people, why not include it in the course description? I've double-checked the class schedule and catalog and there's no mention of the ecological literacy aspect of the course in any description of it. Why hide it?  I also can't help but wonder what aspects of philosophy I'm missing out on during the portion of the class that now has to be devoted to ecological literacy. What philosophy material did the instructor have cut out to accommodate the greening aspect?

 

Another thing I found telling was that in her email, the professor requested that students review the syllabus to see if the class is a good fit for us individually. It seems like an odd thing to say until you realize that there's a component of the class that hadn't previously been shared. The problem again is that this is the kind of information I needed when I was signing up for the class, not the week before the semester starts and other classes I could have taken are full. I could have chosen another class at the time of registration. Now I'm out a class because, no, this is not a good fit for me. Philosophy is a good fit for me. This class, not so much.

 

One of my big concerns when I started taking classes online with SMC was due to numerous stories I've heard in recent years of how college professors pushed their personal and political agendas on students, up to and including threatening poor grades for students who held opposing views. I have to say that my experience at SMC has been relatively free of this kind of stuff. A few times something would come through. For example, I didn't need to know nor did I care that my Shakespeare professor was Hispanic and gay. Contrary to what he seemed to believe, I didn't think it was odd that someone like him was into Shakespeare. He's entitled to be interested in Shakespeare as much as the next person. Nor did my Poli Sci professor (an older Black man) seem to have any sort of agenda. What all my teachers at SMC have had is an amazing amount of knowledge and enthusiasm for the subjects they teach, without any other agenda being inserted. And that's all I want. 

 

And that's pretty much what I got until a week before my Philosophy class was to begin. Apparently that's not what I'm going to get from Philosophy 1. And that's not going to work for me.

 

I haven't heard from my other instructor yet. I can only hope they haven't gotten around to greening Art History.

 

Updated 8/31/26: Good news - no greening of Art History 1! Hooray!

 

  

Utterly classless

Late night host buffoon Jimmy Kimmel apparently thought it would be fun to mock someone whose house burned to the ground because he doesn't like the guy's politics. This is a perfect example of why late night shows are dying. 

 

Spencer Pratt ran for mayor of Los Angeles and was hugely embraced across demographics. The videos he ran on social media were off the charts amazing and should be studied by future candidates. Whether or not Pratt lost the vote legitimately is another conversation. For now I'll just say California never had these issues when we voted in person. Both California and Los Angeles politics are absolutely corrupt and like many here, I have little to no faith in the security of our elections these days. I do think it would have been interesting to have seen what Pratt could have accomplished in the role of mayor. A lot of people seem unaware of this, but he has a degree in political science from USC, so he's not as unqualified as many seem to have assumed or claimed.

 

Pratt has said he'd leave the city if he lost the election and I have to say I don't blame the guy. After all, it isn't like he has a house to come home to here now. It burned to the ground in the Palisades Fire, which is a whole other issue in terms of if that had to be as bad as it was, and who might bear responsibility for that.

 

But the point is that Jimmy Kimmel, his producers, and his writing staff thought this would be hilarious:

 

“I know things might be tight right now, especially with the out-of-state donation money running out,” Kimmel said during his monologue. “Moving is expensive, so to help you out we rented you a U-Haul. Our staff spent the whole day decorating for you, and everybody will notice you and wave goodbye as you leave.” 

 

The image shared by Kimmel shows Pratt appearing to cry, plastered across a U-Haul with the phrase, “Just defeated.” 

 

This is what passes for "comedy" on network TV these days. But what Kimmel and company forgot in their cruel glee is that Spencer doesn't need a U-Haul to move. Why? Oh, yeah...

 

 

Oh right, the thing that prompted Pratt to get involved in local politics in the first place - he lost his home in the Palisades Fire! It wasn't that long ago, Jimmy. Nobody local has forgotten about it. It hasn't faded into the past. Heck, there's a family who lost their home in the Palisades now living just a couple doors down from my apartment. They're all over the place. And Jimmy Kimmel thought it was acceptable to poke fun at these victims. I wonder if he'd volunteer to provide U-Haul's for the other 6,836 families that lost their homes. Also, twelve people died in this fire. I'm sure Jimmy will eventually get around to making them fodder for his "comedy".  Maybe his staff could mockingly decorate some hearses for them.

 

Honestly, if I ran ABC, I'd yank him off the air for this and not let him back on until he made a sincere, on-camera apology. The 2025 Palisades and Altadena fires and the lack of rebuilding support has traumatized not just the victims in those communities, but all of Los Angeles and it's not a wound that's going to heal anytime soon. Kimmel's mockery of a victim of this is just disgusting.

 

Full California Post article is here.

Hockey Humor, Logo Division

The NHL playoffs are upon us. In other news, someone decided to categorize NHL team logos and it's actually pretty funny.

 

In addition to being entertaining, this also gives me a chance to air my grievances about the "Utah Hockey Club". The NHL and its teams are notorious for constantly introducing new and "special edition" jerseys and logo designs because they know fans will go out and buy them. Look, being a hockey fan is expensive. Tickets are an arm and a leg and jerseys are pricey. We're not talking a few extra t-shirts here. Even the replica jerseys are expensive and the pro-weights are hundreds of dollars. I've felt for years that the league takes advantage of the devotion of hockey fans to soak them financially every chance they get. 

 

Which leads me to the TOTALLY LAME Utah logo and the failure to establish a team logo/mascot in their first season. If you had time to relocate the team from Arizona on supposedly short notice, you had time to come up with a name for the team. But they knew the fans would buy up the first season "Utah Hockey Club" jerseys (and tons of other swag with this logo as well) and then they could soak them for all new team gear when they actually named the team going forward. Twice the cash flow at the expense of the fans. And make no mistake, Gary Bettman signed off on this. If the NHL had a proper commissioner Utah would have been required to establish who they were before a single one of their players touched the ice. Yet another example of why the NHL is often regarded as amateurish compared to other major sports leagues. *End of rant*

 

"Portrait of the Perfect Hockey Fan". Artist: Gary Bettman.

One of the commenters pointed out that the Nordiques and Whalers should have been included in the gone but not forgotten. Totally agree.

 

Also my reaction:

 

My non-Bouchercon

The last five days couldn't have been worse.

 

A while back I announced the awesomeness that was being put on a panel at Bouchercon, the mother of all annual mystery/crime reader/writer conventions. It had the added bonus of being the first time I would get to attend Bouchercon in person since 2019. Four freaking years since I went to crime writers Disneyland. I was really looking forward to it.

 

Let's just say the whole Bouchercon thing didn't really happen for me this year.

A little background: Sophie (my darling but aging cat) is about to turn eighteen, and given some of her medical issues in the past year or so, I didn't even know if she was still going to be around by the time Bouchercon came. That she is still alive and kicking and doing well is a blessing I am hugely grateful for. In the past when I went to conferences, I either had neighbors who I felt comfortable being in my apartment look after her, or I took her to The Brother's house. Unfortunately, the neighbors that I could lean on in the past have moved on, as did I for a few years when I moved to Arcadia, then back to Marina del Rey.

 

The good news about this year's Bouchercon was that it was in San Diego, close enough that I could drive to it. I hate flying and saving on airfare was an added bonus. Plus, a hotel on the water! Heavenly! The Brother also decided to go because he likes San Diego and hadn't been in years. 

This created the problem of what to do about Sophie. I didn't want to board her because I was concerned it would be too stressful for her, especially given her age. This was non-negotiable. She's been doing so well lately that I didn't want to do anything to her that would negatively affect her.

At first I thought I'd come up with a brilliant solution - The Brother and I could do a nearby AirBnB that was pet friendly instead of the hotel. We would have amenities the hotel rooms wouldn't have and have our darling Sophie with us to boot. But that idea went over like a lead balloon, so I let it go.

 

I then considered staying in San Diego every other night and coming home on the other nights. I figured Sophie would be okay with me being gone one night at a time, but as the event got closer, I realized it wasn't just her being left overnight. It would be the entire day before and the entire day after as well. She would be left alone for a period of about 36 hours straight. Even if I left tons of catfood out, it just seemed stressful for her, and not particularly the action of a loving and responsible pet owner.

With about a week to go before the convention, I had to make a decision. I had been put on a panel Friday afternoon and didn't want to flake out on it. I'd finally made a Bouchercon panel, the least I could do was show up for it. I looked at some more AirBnB's near the event but I got caught up in wondering how Sophie would fare on the drive to San Diego. It would be the longest amount of time she'd been in the carrier in one shot. I had visions of her yowling during most of the drive, splitting headache material, plus she wouldn't have access to her catbox during the drive, so that could get messy, although in retrospect I wish I'd pulled the trigger on the AirBnB. Sophie tends to bounce back quickly after being in the carrier, even when I've moved and she's in a strange place. I really wish I'd done the AirBnB. I'd be kicking back in it right now blogging about all the awesome panels and writers instead of raging over the wreckage that was my Bouchercon non-experience this year. I wish even more I could have been in the hotel on the water.

I had to make a decision in time to cancel the hotel room without being charged for it, so I finally came up with a plan to just go back and forth from home to San Diego and be there most of the days. Not ideal, but better than nothing. Wednesday is mainly check in and they had some afternoon panels and I thought I'd go to those, but I also had to meet up with The Brother, who was staying at the hotel, and he ran late and I had to leave the first panel early. I finally got one panel in later that afternoon, then headed back to L.A.

The drive to the hotel had gone pretty easily - two hours. Getting home not quite as well - two and a half hours. It sucked, but Bouchercon's worth it and I wasn't neglecting my elderly cat.

I took Thursday off as planned, then headed back Friday morning. I left a little later than planned and traffic was heavier. By the time I got there I missed the first morning panels, but went to the next one. Then there was a lunch break and then we headed down to my panel. I was a little intimidated because I'd looked up the other authors and they had all been published way more than I had, in both anthologies and all the big magazines in our genre. One author alone had published over 100 times, and they were all winners and nominees of all the major awards in the genre, including the Edgar. And then there was me, who has been published five times in themed anthologies that are restricted to members and needless to say, has yet to be nominated for anything, and it was painfully obvious that one of these things was not like the others. I don't know how they assign panels, but my presence on this one was a big misfire. It's kind of weird, because I don't remember ever seeing a panel where one of the panelists was so clearly out of place. Just my bad luck. You'd think I'd be used to it by now.

 

I will say this  - the other authors on the panel, as well as the moderator, were incredibly nice to me in spite of the fact that I was clearly out of place. After the panel, one of them gave me some advice about submitting to magazines. It went by pretty fast, thank God. I spent the next half hour in the signing room because I didn't want to look like I was flaking out after my disastrous performance. It also made me want to get out of the there to absorb the shock, so instead of afternoon panels we went over to Seaport Village, did a little shopping, and had a late lunch since I hadn't wanted to eat right before my panel and was starving. And by then it was late afternoon, so I left. That drive home - two hours and forty-five minutes, gave me plenty of time to wallow in the crapfest that was my first ever Bouchercon panel, as well as the fact that the conference was more than half over and I'd gotten to a grand total of two panels.

I had already mentioned to The Brother I didn't know if I'd make it back to San Diego on Saturday as planned, when I had a full day of panels I wanted to attend. When I woke up Saturday morning, I was tired, still embarrassed by my panel, and very upset and disappointed about the whole thing. I should have gone out there again, but the idea of spending yet another five hours on the road was daunting, and I stayed home. I didn't go today because it 's only a half day of programming, although there were some really good-looking panels scheduled for Sunday morning that I would have gone to if I had stayed in San Diego for the whole event, which is what I should have done.

So instead of blogging about all the great panels and writers I got to see as I usually would, I'm upset, disappointed, and feeling deprived of the Bouchercon experience I wanted and should have had. In addition, I'm also feeling like a bit of a fraud writer-wise. I'm now leery of asking to be put on panels and right now am just feeling rather jaded about the whole conference thing. I shouldn't, because I've been to tons of them and have never been disappointed like this. But this was a total waste. I spent more time in my fucking car over the past few days than I did at the event. I missed tons of panels I would normally have gone to. I got less out of it than if I hadn't gone at all, and that's going to leave a mark. I am not going to get over this anytime soon.

I don't know what I'm going to do next. I'm flustered about the writing thing and angry about the Bouchercon thing. The location for the next four Bouchercons are set and none of them anywhere near driving distance (Nashville, New Orleans, Calgary, and Washington DC). I feel like I should reconsider the whole writing thing and how I approach it. Who am I fooling?

What I do know for sure is that this shouldn't have been my Bouchercon experience. I've been going to these things for years and have never been this disappointed, frustrated, and angry. Bouchercon is like Disneyland for people like me, and I rightfully expected five straight, glorious days at Disneyland as has been my experience in the past, but what I got this week was a day and a half of crap and two and a half days of nothing. And that is a massive disappointment. 

But hey, I did get to listen to an awesome audiobook! (see previous post). At least someone's a legit author! (hint: not me)

Loving the new Twitter, but there's still room for improvement

I'm one of those people who returned to Twitter after Elon Musk bought it last year. Regardless of what you think of Musk (or why) my personal experience since returning is  that it's a better, freer place since it came under new ownership.

 

I had actually been off Twitter for about a year and a half when I decided to give version 2.0 a shot. I had previously been on Twitter (and pretty much addicted to it) for more than ten years when I finally gave up on it in early 2021. It had turned from an amazingly open, informative and enjoyable experience into a slanted, toxic pit that just wasn't fun anymore. At all. Even more telling, I never felt like I was missing out on anything during the period I was gone. But Twitter is fun, interesting, and informational again.

However, there are still signs of the old, fun-adverse, truth-adverse Twitter. Somewhere along the line someone thought it was a good idea to give users a condescending "warning" when they post what some clearly objective (*sarcasm*) bonehead has decided is "potentially harmful or offensive language".

"Most Tweeters don't post replies like this" - Yeah, they post worse. Also, condescending much?

This was my response to a Tweet criticizing a protest outside of a McDonald's that had been organized to lambast the fast-food behemoth for not paying "living" wages. The original tweet pointed out the obvious, that burger-flipping is a job for unskilled teenagers (as I was when I worked there back in the day) and basically, I agreed. And yes, any idiot can be taught to do it. There's nothing harmful or offensive about pointing that out. It's the truth. McDonald's was designed that way. Unless you're the manager or franchisee, it's not meant to be a living wage career. It's a starter job, a pocket money job, it's not something you raise a family on. 

 

Expecting McDonald's to throw money at unskilled labor is like starting your career in a bottom rung, foot in the door job and never rising above that level, but expecting your salary to rise to the same level as someone who is actually moving up in the world. Basically, the protest is that McDonald's isn't paying high-skilled wages for menial, entry-level jobs. And that doesn't make sense. All that I and the original poster did was point out that obvious fact.

And in terms of the content of my tweet, there's the issue that you don't have to spend much time on Twitter to see much worse, to see posts that are genuinely vile, vicious, and at times even threatening. My tweet is one of the milder things you'll see on Twitter, which is much more open to a variety of opinions these days, but still retains some of its crazy, wild-west aspects from the old days. And I got a warning about (I assume) using the word "idiot"?

In case you're wondering, yes, I did hit the edit button, but not to edit my tweet. I added that the tweet had gotten the stupid Twitter warning and then posted it as originally written because no, there was nothing harmful or offensive about it.

And if you think that burger-flippers and other low-skilled workers deserve big bucks, there's these shining examples of the law of unintended consequences, but that's a conversation for another day.

As for Twitter, it's great to have it back, but there's still a little tweaking to do.

Showbiz roundup

In no particular order:

 

Dear Harry and Meghan: It's not an Emmy "snub" if your program was trash, a chunk of the viewership only subjected themselves to it to rip it in YouTube videos, and you're going broke because you really have nothing to offer to the world other than an accident of birth and shameless (albeit admittedly impressive) gold-digging/social climbing skills. The podcast sucked too, oh, and the word you were looking for was stereotypes, not archetypes. Maybe you shouldn't have tried to make a career out of trashing your families. Neither of you are special. Now go away. Also, future Queen Catherine is a goddess.

 

How to not read the room: After losing hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of viewers on woke flicks like Lightyear, Elemental, The Little Mermaid, and Indiana Jones 5 you would think Disney might have learned something about what audiences want and even more importantly, don't want. Nope! YellowFlash 2 on YouTube breaks it down.

As seen on DailyMail.com:

Snow Something.

1 Dwarf and 6 Somethings.

"The Multi-ethnic Portland Hipsters" (at 1:15). 🤣

The actors are on strike too!!! Where oh where will we get our crappy reboots/reimaginings? I'm not saying the studios aren't making ridiculous amounts of money off writers and actors and I'm also not saying that as co-creators they (especially writers) don't deserve a significant piece of that pie. In fact, even with its huge box office losses, Disney has extended Bob Iger's tenure as CEO (WHY???), so studios clearly have money to burn. But these things never seem to go well for the people put out of work for an extended period of time. I guess we'll see, but I think this is just going to be really ugly.
 

How about some good news for a change? It appears Oppenheimer, which opens July 21, is every bit as great as I was hoping. I've been eagerly awaiting this film since the first trailer dropped. To get an idea of just what amazing filmmaking this is, check out this video, which explains not only some of the technical aspects, but also the one hundred day theatrical window that director Christopher Nolan demanded - and got - from Universal. I hadn't heard about this and think it's fantastic. Things need to change in Hollywood and hopefully this will be the start of it.

Those who forget the past...

First they came for Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming. Now they're after Agatha Christie. 

This reminds me of the "warning" on some of the classic Warner Bros. animation DVDs. For some reason they recruited Whoopi Goldberg to give viewers a condescending reminder that the cartoons are products of their time, like we're too stupid to know that. So we get this puerile lesson in how prejudice and stereotypes "were wrong then, and they're wrong now." No shit, Sherlock. But of course, they assume that us peasants can't see these things for what they were and we need to be lectured about things the average (non-elite) person actually knows instinctively and doesn't need to be reminded of every time we sit down to try and enjoy a damn cartoon.

 

The people who want you to believe that up is down, good is bad, morality is evil, and 2 + 2 = 5 don't think we can figure out for ourselves that things change, that the world was a different place when these cartoons were produced, and that for a period that world was embroiled in a devastating war. The difference back then, of course, is that Hollywood took the patriotic, flag-waving path in an attempt to unite the country and keep its spirits up, instead of trashing it.

Which brings us to the current trend of re-writing classic works for "modern sensibilities". 

Both Christie and Dahl lived and wrote in a completely different time and place. Any idiot who isn't focused on forcing their beliefs down the throats of others can simply and quietly understand that, and enjoy the works for their entertainment value.

Luckily, the comments section on the Deadline article linked above shows that this isn't a popular movement and that there is still some sanity in this crazy world:

 

 

THIS:

You know who tried to warn us about this? This guy. He wrote a book about it...oh, shit. Wait until the wokesters get a look at 1984.

You did, George. You called it. Unfortunately for those of us in 2023, you called it.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining

Gotta admit, I'm sick to death of listening to Biden talking about how he's rescued the country from the "disaster" it was when he inherited it. (Spoiler alert - he wrecked it, not whoever he's blaming it on this week. Don't care about your political party or who you voted for - this is recent.)

Gas prices in Southern California are back above $5/gallon, after a period of them going down. Not down to pre-Biden levels, but at least not in the $5+ range. That didn't last. Oh, and a bank just crashed and there's a good chance that starting tomorrow the stock market is going to do the same. Peachy.

Prices of everything are going up. I don't know how people are surviving, especially those that have to commute to work (1 hour+ one-way isn't unusual here in L.A.) and provide for children. The closest thing I have to a kid is the lovely Sophie, and even she's getting expensive. Case in point:

Yeah, there's cheaper cat food, but Sophie is old and has gotten picky as heck in her old age. In fact, if she'd eat the even more expensive specialty food for kidney disease that she rejected, I'd pay for that too. But I'm also not in the position of having to decide between feeding kids or the family pet, so I'll take the hit and she'll continue to get the fancy-schmancy stuff.

Anyhoo, this box of twelve servings has always been in the $11-$12 range, depending on where I buy it (Target, Walmart, or a grocery store). About a week ago I was at CVS and it was priced at a jaw-dropping $22. Not making that up. TWENTY. TWO. DOLLARS. I probably should have taken a picture, but I was too stunned by that number to think about it.

So instead I went over to Pavilions where I was sure it would be a lot more reasonably priced. Not, as it turns out. I was shocked to see what they were charging. Not as bad as the $22 CVS wanted, but the price has skyrocketed at the grocery store as well. EIGHTEEN DOLLARS.

 

"Regular" price. There's nothing "regular" about it.

The only thing that brought it down to close to the old price was being a "member". Otherwise, nearly twenty bucks. For twelve servings. She'll go through that in well under a week.

And that's just cat food. See that Diet Dr. Pepper? Next time I bought it (at Ralphs) it was nearly $4. For one 2-liter bottle. Looks like I'm going to have to think about giving up the luxury of soda like the good peasant I am. You know who isn't having to concern themselves with prices or sacrifices? Know who isn't worried about feeding their families and pets? You know who isn't going to be eating the food made out of bugs? Our political overlords and their fellow elite, that's who.

It's galling enough to watch the world fall apart around me, but I don't need the insult of our so-called "leaders" telling us how much better it all is than a few years ago. I mean, isn't going broke, a stock market crash, and the looming possibility of World War III so much better than a booming economy with record-low Black and Hispanic unemployment? Depends on who you ask. If you ask me, the answer is HELL NO. But there are politicians (and let's not forget the complicit media) who will look you in the eye and tell you everything is dandy. Because they have nothing but disdain for you and don't care what happens to you. And some of you will still continue to support them. I don't know how or where this is going to end, but it's looking pretty dire right now. Forget the concept of a dystopian future. That future is now. We're in it.

Sophie will be fine, but I'm now wondering when we're going to see stories about people having to give up their pets to shelters because they can no longer afford to feed them and the kids, and well, they can't very well drop the kids off.

Update: Did I call it or what? In December, I received a call from the Pasadena Humane Society (who I have donated to in the past) asking for donations for a program they have to provide food for pet owners who are experiencing financial difficulties so that they can keep them rather than having to give them up.

Fast food: False hopes, musings, and memories

Yo Quiero Whut??? OK, it turns out this headline is slightly misleading, but it did give me hope for a few brief, glorious moments: Taco Bell is Officially One of the Healthiest Fast Food Chains. 

 

Before we all get too excited (as I did), the article doesn't really cover the more popular items (*cough Mexican Pizza cough*), burritos, or even the regular tacos. It pretty much says if you eat just a few select items you're probably choosing decently, especially compared with other chains. It also doesn't spend much time addressing things to avoid like the plague, like the hideous looking nacho cheese-like sludge and anything that involves the words "Mountain" and "Dew". Also, how is this article about Taco Bell and not El Pollo Loco, which has to be healthier? And that's coming from someone who, unfortunately, loves Taco Bell. But I do think that if you make a run for the border and have a couple regular tacos (or the periodic Mexican Pizza) with something other than poison sugar-water to wash it all down, you're probably okay if you don't eat fast food often.

 

Almost two decades after Super Size Me, I would hope we understand that fast-food has become one of the unhealthiest things we can consume. Back in the dark ages when I was a kid, fast food was not something we ate on a regular basis, but was presented to us as an occasional treat, and we only went if our parents took us. We rarely were allowed to go on our own until we were well into our teens and were driving. But it seems like that's definitely changed - when I lived in Arcadia a couple years ago, if I was in either one of the shopping centers on the north side of Foothill at 2nd Avenue, I could watch the students from Foothill Middle School just up the block head for the McDonald's on Foothill en masse. I wonder how often they eat there. My guess would be several times a week and that's not good.

 

Not to mention fast food served when I was younger was probably healthier than it is today. And often it doesn't taste as good as I remember. I've had many experiences (especially with McDonald's, which I used to eat tons of but rarely do these days) where I have certain expectations of the food as I remember it being unmet by the food served today. Whatever changes they've made in the name of economy and efficiency, they are unfortunately noticeable and not an improvement. 

And don't even get me started on McDonald's replacing their awesome deep-fried apple/lava pies with the current sawdust crust versions. Boooooriiiing. Also, way back in the day when I worked at McDonald's in my teens, they had the best brownies I've ever had. EVER. Chewy and fudgy with thick chocolate icing...just the best ever. We used to eat them right out of the walk-in, because something about them being cold made them even better. I don't know if they still do this for employees today, but back when I was one of Ronald's flunkies we got half-priced food and free soft drinks and I would wash those fabulous brownies down with Diet Coke. I can't remember when they discontinued the brownies, but it was ages ago. 

 

My point is if you're going to eat junk food, eat good junk food and enjoy it. Just don't make it a regular thing.

Dexter-mania. Sort of. Not really.

It was recently announced that Showtime Networks, which has had some damn fine original programming over the years (Dexter, The Tudors, Ray Donovan, Yellowjackets, and Billions, just to name a few) is being swallowed up by Paramount+ and being rebranded Paramount+ with Showtime. Beside the utterly lame new name, I'm surprised that parent company Paramount Global would let anyone mess with Showtime. It has to be one of the conglomerate's better performers. Conversely, I had Paramount+ for a couple months (to watch the South Park movies and the new episodes of Beavis & Butthead) and was less than wowed as a customer. Hence the cancellation after B&B's season concluded.

It hasn't taken long for the new Showtime to announce it's fresh new direction. As in, fresh off announcing the stupid new name comes word that they are apparently going the tiresome but predictable Hollywood route of rehashing previous titles for spinoffs and origins stories. There's other SHO properties getting the same treatment, but I'm going to address the news about Dexter because that was one of my all-time favorites and I'm less than impressed by what I'm hearing: Showtime Eyeing "Dexter" Prequel Series About Trinity Killer.

Actually, I could see a series about the early days of Trinity working well with the right casting and writing. However, this series is only under consideration at this time. Not sure why they put it in the title of the article, but whatever Deadline.

What the article is really about is that SHO has ordered two other Dexter series: Dexter: Origins, which takes up when Dexter Morgan has just graduated from college and joined the PD, and will feature younger versions of characters from the original series. Not sure I want to see other actors playing these iconic characters, as the original casting was so spot on. And Dexter's actual backstory - his mother's murder, his adoption by Harry, and Harry's attempt to funnel the kid's murderous tendencies into a more acceptable form while keeping him safe from detection - was already laid out in the original series. Which means this show isn't actually an origin story because Dexter was already formed by Harry by the time he joined the PD. He had to be - otherwise he couldn't risk joining the department while still in his training stages as it would have increased his chances of being caught. I'm just not able to get excited about this, as it sounds like they are just milking the concept at this point, rather than coming up with a new, interesting take on it. Can you just imagine that meeting?

Executive #1: "A Dexter origin series? BRILLIANT!!!"

Executive #2: "Think of the money we'll save on development! None of that pesky work creating something new, original, and exciting. God, I love this job."

Executive Buzzkill: "Uh, guys...we got a problem here..."

Executive #1: "I don't see a problem."

Executive Buzzkill: "Yeah, because you probably also haven't seen the original series. All of Dexter's background - from when he was a baby found by Harry at the scene of his mother's murder, Harry's discovery of his psychopathy, how he tried to direct that compulsion into only killing people who deserved it, to Dexter's first kill (and boy, how awkward was that) and all the while fine-tuning the skills he needed to pass as somewhat normal..."

Executive #1: "Exactly! I LOVE IT!!!"

Executive Buzzkill: "BUT THEY ALREADY DID IT IN THE ORIGINAL SERIES!"

Executive #2: "Whut?"

Executive Buzzkill: "They already showed all his backstory in the original series."

Stunned silence.

Executive #1: "Buzzkill, you're fired."

Executive #2: "Wait, how about this? We show him when he's just starting out at Miami Metro PD! That part hasn't been done yet!"

Executive Buzzkill (rises from chair, heads for door): "But we've already seen him at PD."

Executive #2: "Not the early part of it!"

Executive Buzzkill (opens door): "So it's Dexter, Crime Scene Investigator, The Early Years?"

Executive #1: "BRILLIANT!!! Buzzkill, you're hired!"

Executive Buzzkill (closes door, sits back down): "But what will we call it then?"

Executive #2: "CSI: Miami?"

Executive #1: "Don't be stupid, that's been done. We'll still call it Origins. The public is too stupid to know the difference."

Executive #2: "Brilliant. Love it."

Even worse IMO is that Showtime has also ordered what is being described as the "next chapter" of Dexter: New Blood, described as "the kinds of themes and scenarios seen in the original series but through a new lens". So basically, it's Dexter without Dexter. Also from the article, "Although not confirmed, based on the Season 1 finale, the new lens provided would be from Dexter's grown-up son Harrison...". And by grown-up son they mean the whiny, angsty teen who, outraged by a murder his father committed, murdered his father. Yes, the Harrison sequel that absolutely NO ONE was clamoring for. Welcome to the new Showtime!

Actually, based on this franchise's track record, they'll do a bang up job on these shows until the finale, where they'll totally eff up everything that came before and piss off pretty much the entire fan base.

It's the anniversary of D-Day and Google is honoring the occasion on its homepage with...

...oh, wait. 

Coffee???

Why, don't you know? It's...(drumroll please)...

 

What do you mean, who's Angelo Moriondo? The hell is wrong with you? If you've heard of D-Day, surely you've heard of Angelo Moriondo, the man who gave us the espresso machine!

No? Well good thing the fine folks at Google are here to give you some education and culture.

Oh, also it's the 78th anniversary of D-Day, so thank you for saving the world from Nazis and yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

Sigh. I guess an espresso machine in action is better than the Google doodle of a burning American flag, because you know that's how they'd do it if they thought they could get away with it.

How about never

For some reason, this showed up in my email today:

 

 

There's so much to unpack here, but let's get this one out of the way right off the bat. I once opened or clicked on an email from them (which I would not have requested in the first place, so they bought it off a mailing list) and that alone puts me on your mailing list? And how do they even know if something in my email was clicked on and/or opened? Yeah, that's not creepy at all.

Moving on:

 

Yes, I previously supported your party. I think it was back in the day when I voted for Bill Clinton because I totally fell for the whole "out with the corrupt old boys club and in with the new, forward thinking fresh blood" bit. Fool me once...

 

 

Thanks for the nightmare fuel!

 

 

You wish someone like me represented the heart of your party. Instead, you're represented by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and other corrupt pols who get rich off their connections while the rest of us are agonizing over record inflation (yeah, I just love watching my investments, which had been doing so well the past few years including a record high, plummeting by the day) and skyrocketing gas prices. 

 

Yesterday evening near my home. Where does this end?

Not to mention all the talk of World War III going on. Bang up job, guys.

 

And as for the actual heart of your party, it is pitch black and rotten to the core, populated by corrupt so-called leaders who don't give a crap about the American public. You are the reason people hate and distrust politicians of both parties. Oh, and once again, I didn't join your mailing list, so stop inferring that I welcome your intrusion into my personal email. How often do I want updates? How about never.

Years ago at one of my jobs I spent some time assisting our Marketing Manager. At one point we met with people from a company that sells mailing lists and it was seriously disturbing how much information they are able to not only accumulate about the public without their knowledge, but also how eager they are to sell off this information. Totally intrusive, kind of like getting an unsolicited email that takes the approach that I requested it when we both know I didn't.

I'm out.

Oh, and Jessica? I marked your email as spam in the hopes that next time Yahoo doesn't put it in my inbox. That's my preference for interacting with you.

Disappointed doesn't begin to describe it: The "Dexter: New Blood" finale (Spoiler Alert!)

Oh, for the carefree days of yore (October 2020) when the incredible news of a new season of Dexter was announced. 

And there was much rejoicing.

And for the last ten weeks, overall I've been LOVING most of what I've seen in Dexter: New Blood. Even the few things that bothered me were put on the back burner in the belief that it would all tie together spectacularly, that the writers and producers were going to make good on their promise to undo the series "lumberjack" finale that disappointed so many viewers and make things right. And it was just so much fun to see Dexter himself again.

I personally was always on the fence about the lumberjack finale. I didn't want to see Dexter caught, imprisoned, or dead, but it also wasn't realistic that he could just get away with all those murders and the havoc his actions wreaked on everyone around him. What the original series finale showed was that although alive, Dexter still paid dearly for his transgressions in the form of losing everything: his family (Deb dead and Harrison sent off with Hannah), his city, his profession, his home, the whole existence he'd spent a lifetime building. He was left alone with pretty much nothing, in a foreign place doing manual labor. Everything but his freedom had been lost.

 

So, my observations about last night's series finale v.2?

 

 

Why? So many reasons.

 

1: You don't kill the guy the audience is rooting for, especially when teasing the possibility of another season. The reason fans were so happy to have a new season was that we missed Dexter and wanted to see him again. We didn't want to see him dead. Looking online, at least half the audience (if not more) were extremely unhappy with the ending. My personal observation is that this makes the lumberjack thing look like a genius move. I wish Harrison had stayed away.

 

Some online responses:

 

That the season's Big Bad (Clancy Brown's Kurt Caldwell) was killed off in the penultimate episode rather than the finale should have tipped me off that something bad was going to happen. Having watched this season, I wish they wouldn't have had Harrison and all the accompanying teen angst at all, but instead pitted Dexter against Caldwell. It would have been classic Dexter - two longtime serial killers who have managed to evade discovery for decades thanks to the facades they present to the world, facing off after one kills the other's son. I would like to have seen more about why Caldwell kills (other than having a fucked up dad), how he got away with it for so long, and more of a cat-and-mouse game between him and Dexter.

2: Harrison and Angela. I liked Angela (and the actress who played her) a lot at first and was intrigued when Harrison showed up. But as the show went on I found them less and less appealing and interesting. Harrison was often annoying and apparently went from constant rage and a desire to hurt people to just wanting a normal life in just a couple days. And Angela went from being by the book (wanting to nail Dexter for his Miami crimes) to sending Harrison on his way after he's just killed his own father, and not in self-defense, either. 

 

Plus, how does this really help the kid?  Before he found Dexter, he'd been wandering the country on his own and now he has the same issues as before, plus patricide. Caldwell was right when he gave Harrison the advice that no matter how far he ran, he couldn't outrun his rage. Additionally, Harrison was enrolled in school and known in Iron Lake - he's going to be a missing person, which means law enforcement will be looking for him. It's not like no one is going to notice or care that he vanished after his dad was killed. Now instead of wandering and looking for his father, he's on the run.

Then there was the aspect that Angela's case against Dexter for killing Matt Caldwell was flimsy at best, something even he was able to explain to her while under duress and Logan basically agreed with. Someone torched his cabin - couldn't that same person have planted that screw? Infrared film of someone who might be him? She might be able to legally drag him through the mud for that one, but ultimately it would have probably been a repeat of her case for Kurt killing Iris - too much opportunity for reasonable doubt.

One thing that bothered me from the beginning was Angela's wall of missing women. That many missing persons from the environs of her small town for so many years...I don't see how these obviously related cases don't seem to concern anyone but her. She really had no leads during all the time these crimes have been going on? Never discovered Caldwell's secret cabin of horrors despite being a local? Never made a connection between so many girls missing from the area of Caldwell's truck stop? And yet she's on the verge of solving a crime that the size and might of Miami PD couldn't? One of the funniest things I read last night was someone referring to her as "Detective Google", because with just a few Google searches she managed to solve the Bay Harbor Butcher case. 

 

And I think that's a legit point of view. She had no access to any case file, just stuff she found on the internet. I think that story line would have worked better if it had been stretched over a couple of seasons, with her slowly but surely (and more realistically) putting the clues together. It was a little too effortless and she was awfully quick going from pulling Dexter over to make out while on duty to being willing to suspect him of heinous crimes. It was a story line that could have worked, but didn't. If they could have stretched it out, maybe have her work secretly with Angel Bautista to build a case without Dexter knowing she was in touch with someone from his past might have worked better.

 

Speaking of Bautista, another peeve along that story line is that while it was a blast to see him show up so unexpectedly, the idea that he couldn't remember Harrison's name right away was so cringe - what, he's never thought about the kid in all the years Deb died and Dexter was presumed dead? Really weak.

3: Some people seem to think that a second season of New Blood would focus on Harrison, with Dexter as his Dark Passenger. As a Dexter fan from the very beginning, I have zero interest in that show and would not bother watching. Just no. Maybe Showtime is looking for the next generation of Dexter fans by making a teenager the new lead, but for longtime fans the appeal was always Dexter himself.

For me personally, in addition to how disappointed I was with this resolution, I also realized this morning that I now have no desire to go back and re-watch the New Blood episodes, knowing where they're heading. I figured I would go back and watch it from the beginning to see how everything fit together, but now I don't think so.

I close with this, because I thought it was hilarious. It's from this Deadline article.

Agreed.

Ugh.

 

Okay, I've never liked PayPal but it's been a necessary evil. Until now.

The credit card that I use for most of my purchases expired last month. That means that not only did I get a new card that's one of those weird-looking contact-free cards (apparently plastic cards with raised numbers are a thing of the past) but I also had to notify various accounts I do business with of the new expiration date. Which is no biggie. Something I can totally handle.

Then yesterday I got this email from PayPal:

"If this card was your preferred way to pay online..." PayPal has NEVER been my preferred way to pay online, bitches! I only used it when it was the only option. And I've never, ever had a vendor "automatically" update my credit card information. Never. This was a first, and not a welcome one.

The account did list a purchase I made in early July so maybe they got the expiration date from that vendor somehow, but they did it without consulting me and I certainly wouldn't give someone else permission to share my credit card info. If they had bothered to ask, that is.

And if that wasn't intrusive enough, not only do they have my updated expiration date, but they also had a friggin' image of my card displayed on their site. How they got it, I have no idea. I was beyond disturbed by this. Is it that easy for an online vendor to get not only my credit card info without my participation, but they even have a damn picture of my card on their site? 

I've never really liked PayPal and only used them when a seller didn't give me any other option, but this was too much. Waaaaay too intrusive. If I want you to have my updated credit card info, I'll give it to you. It's not that hard. But you don't get to take it. 

So just before writing this post, I finally closed my PayPal account. If you're selling something you're going to have to give me an option other than PayPal. I'll go old school and mail you a check if necessary. People did it that way for years and managed to survive. But PayPal is no longer an option. And life will go on just fine without them.