What can Brown do for me? Nothing! I’ve had it with them and their unkempt longhair drawing on an imaginary whiteboard. I have two ridiculous UPS stories to share.
Last week I ordered vacuum bags from Amazon. Normally packages from Amazon are left leaning against my apartment door, no signature required. But for some reason they required a signature on this valuable box of vacuum bags valued at $6.99 and attempted to deliver it three days in a row at 10:30am. Naturally, since I have one of those job thingys, I was not present. I was annoyed that they would require a signature for such an item, but the local UPS depot was not far from my home, so I just decided I’d pick it up on Saturday.
Or so I thought.
Apparently the UPS depot is only open on Monday to Friday from 8-6. Now, maybe it’s just me. But I would think that if someone was unable to receive a package that UPS tried to deliver during business hours, that they would also not be able to come retrieve it personally during business hours. So I was rather stuck. They wouldn’t deliver the package again, and I couldn’t go pick it up. The only available option? Having the package redirected to another address. For a tidy fee of $6.
So in the end I paid $12.99 for a $6.99 box of vacuum bags and got them a week late. Still, that’s not as ridiculous as this next story.
My friend Becky also ordered something from Amazon that was to be delivered by UPS. On the day the package was supposed to arrive, she received an email that said her shipping address was invalid and that they needed clarification of the address before they shipped her item. Becky knows her own address, and naturally she called to tell them so. UPS helpfully informed her that if she wished to have the package redelivered, she merely needed to provide the number on the postcard she would soon be getting in the mail. “So let me get this straight,” Becky said. “You can send me a postcard telling me that my package is undeliverable…but you can’t just deliver my package?”
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Supermarkets Have A Vendetta Against Me
"Plastic bags okay?"
That's what they say now. They don't even bother with the pretense of asking "Paper or plastic?"
"Paper please."
"Do you have a cart?"
"No."
"These paper bags don't have handles anymore, you know."
"Yeah, I know. You people were tired of paying for paper bags, so a few months ago you stopped putting handles on them in the devious hope that we'll start using those damn plastic bags that hold one item each and beg for a legitimate reason to exist! No dice, my underhanded friend! I'd rather struggle with the bulk of five handle-free paper bags than accept 26 cheap-ass plastic bags and give in to your corporate penny-pinchery! And don't think I don't see the irony in stating that you're eliminating handles for paper-saving "green" reasons while you're really just driving people to use non-biodegradable plastic!" *
"Very good, sir. Have a nice evening!"
I fumed out to the parking lot with my five precariously balanced paper bags and drove home while working up an impressively irritated mood. I arrived home, and as the elevator door opened, so did a tear in the ill-positioned bag containing milk and a six-pack of beer.
@#$%& supermarkets.
* May or may not have been thought but not said.
That's what they say now. They don't even bother with the pretense of asking "Paper or plastic?"
"Paper please."
"Do you have a cart?"
"No."
"These paper bags don't have handles anymore, you know."
"Yeah, I know. You people were tired of paying for paper bags, so a few months ago you stopped putting handles on them in the devious hope that we'll start using those damn plastic bags that hold one item each and beg for a legitimate reason to exist! No dice, my underhanded friend! I'd rather struggle with the bulk of five handle-free paper bags than accept 26 cheap-ass plastic bags and give in to your corporate penny-pinchery! And don't think I don't see the irony in stating that you're eliminating handles for paper-saving "green" reasons while you're really just driving people to use non-biodegradable plastic!" *
"Very good, sir. Have a nice evening!"
I fumed out to the parking lot with my five precariously balanced paper bags and drove home while working up an impressively irritated mood. I arrived home, and as the elevator door opened, so did a tear in the ill-positioned bag containing milk and a six-pack of beer.
@#$%& supermarkets.
* May or may not have been thought but not said.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
I've Got Your Parking Spot Right Here
"Phillies suck!"
That's what the Dodger cap-clad 10-year-old boy said to me as he approached the bus stop. "Not tonight, kid", I replied. I was on the way home from the Phillies' 7-2 victory at Dodger Stadium, and amazingly enough, I was taking the bus.
Dodger Stadium is one of the few sports stadiums in the country not served properly by public transportation. It's surrounded on all sides by acres of asphalt parking lots, and the nearest actual street is hundreds of yards away. I'm sure that seemed like a great idea in car-culture mad Los Angeles when the stadium opened in 1962. It's considerably less of a good idea in today's traffic-choked metropolis.
The place is an absolute nightmare to get in and out of. I went to a game last month where it took me an hour just to snake the last few hundred yards into the lot and park. It took the same amount of time to make my escape from the grounds after the game. That day I met a couple who got down while gridlocked on the way in and had the baby in the traffic jam on the way out. True story. Aside from the hazards of boredom-induced childbirth, the Dodgers collect $15 for the privilege of sitting in your car and fouling the air with $5 worth of gas. And that $15, dear reader, is at the root of why there is no public transportation to Dodger Stadium.
During the 2008 season, the LA Department of Transportation introduced the Dodger Trolley, a free shuttle that transported fans the two miles from the nearest subway stop to the stadium. It was wildly popular and deemed a unqualified success. After the 2008 season, however, the LADOT announced that the Dodger Trolley would be no more. The $600,000 cost per season was not in the budget. Cries arose that the Dodgers themselves should foot the bill, since the Trolley served only them and their fans, not the general public. The team countered that they are "not in the business of public transportation", and that since the Trolley used public streets, it was the responsibility of the LADOT. Consequently, with no one to pay for it, the Dodger Trolley ceased operations after one season. It would seem to be in the Dodgers' best interest to fund the shuttle for the paltry sum of $600,000 (or 1/42 the annual salary of suspended steroid user Manny Ramirez.) After all, it would likely result in higher attendance. But the Dodgers actually don't want to make it easier for you to get to the game.
Frank McCourt purchased the Dodgers in 2004 from News Corporation for the sum of $430 million. McCourt made his fortune in real estate, and the bulk of his profits were made from a chain of parking lots he owned in Boston. If anyone understands the kind of money to be made from parking, it's McCourt. It's no surprise he raised the parking fee from $10 to $15. It's also no surprise the team held on to a stiff named Chan Ho Park for so long. Dodger Stadium has 16,000 parking spaces at $15 each. That's $240,000 a game in potential parking revenue, or nearly $20 million over the course of a season. No wonder the Dodgers don't care about making their stadium more accessible. Making you sit in gridlock for two hours is very, very profitable.
I was tired of playing this game. I researched the transit schedules and learned I could drive ten minutes to the subway station, take the subway and change to a bus, and ride the bus to within a ten minute uphill walk of Dodger Stadium. Just about nobody does this. Maybe it's the uphill walk. Maybe it's the fact that white people don't like to ride the city bus. But they should. The trip from my front door to my seat in the stands was about 1 hour and 10 minutes each way, or just a little more than the time it takes to simply get in or out of the parking lot with a car. And I didn't use a bunch of gas or burn out my clutch in the process.
So screw you, Frank McCourt. You can't have my $15, no matter how hard you're trying. I'd rather walk up the hill.
That's what the Dodger cap-clad 10-year-old boy said to me as he approached the bus stop. "Not tonight, kid", I replied. I was on the way home from the Phillies' 7-2 victory at Dodger Stadium, and amazingly enough, I was taking the bus.
Dodger Stadium is one of the few sports stadiums in the country not served properly by public transportation. It's surrounded on all sides by acres of asphalt parking lots, and the nearest actual street is hundreds of yards away. I'm sure that seemed like a great idea in car-culture mad Los Angeles when the stadium opened in 1962. It's considerably less of a good idea in today's traffic-choked metropolis.
The place is an absolute nightmare to get in and out of. I went to a game last month where it took me an hour just to snake the last few hundred yards into the lot and park. It took the same amount of time to make my escape from the grounds after the game. That day I met a couple who got down while gridlocked on the way in and had the baby in the traffic jam on the way out. True story. Aside from the hazards of boredom-induced childbirth, the Dodgers collect $15 for the privilege of sitting in your car and fouling the air with $5 worth of gas. And that $15, dear reader, is at the root of why there is no public transportation to Dodger Stadium.
During the 2008 season, the LA Department of Transportation introduced the Dodger Trolley, a free shuttle that transported fans the two miles from the nearest subway stop to the stadium. It was wildly popular and deemed a unqualified success. After the 2008 season, however, the LADOT announced that the Dodger Trolley would be no more. The $600,000 cost per season was not in the budget. Cries arose that the Dodgers themselves should foot the bill, since the Trolley served only them and their fans, not the general public. The team countered that they are "not in the business of public transportation", and that since the Trolley used public streets, it was the responsibility of the LADOT. Consequently, with no one to pay for it, the Dodger Trolley ceased operations after one season. It would seem to be in the Dodgers' best interest to fund the shuttle for the paltry sum of $600,000 (or 1/42 the annual salary of suspended steroid user Manny Ramirez.) After all, it would likely result in higher attendance. But the Dodgers actually don't want to make it easier for you to get to the game.
Frank McCourt purchased the Dodgers in 2004 from News Corporation for the sum of $430 million. McCourt made his fortune in real estate, and the bulk of his profits were made from a chain of parking lots he owned in Boston. If anyone understands the kind of money to be made from parking, it's McCourt. It's no surprise he raised the parking fee from $10 to $15. It's also no surprise the team held on to a stiff named Chan Ho Park for so long. Dodger Stadium has 16,000 parking spaces at $15 each. That's $240,000 a game in potential parking revenue, or nearly $20 million over the course of a season. No wonder the Dodgers don't care about making their stadium more accessible. Making you sit in gridlock for two hours is very, very profitable.
I was tired of playing this game. I researched the transit schedules and learned I could drive ten minutes to the subway station, take the subway and change to a bus, and ride the bus to within a ten minute uphill walk of Dodger Stadium. Just about nobody does this. Maybe it's the uphill walk. Maybe it's the fact that white people don't like to ride the city bus. But they should. The trip from my front door to my seat in the stands was about 1 hour and 10 minutes each way, or just a little more than the time it takes to simply get in or out of the parking lot with a car. And I didn't use a bunch of gas or burn out my clutch in the process.
So screw you, Frank McCourt. You can't have my $15, no matter how hard you're trying. I'd rather walk up the hill.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Naturally Ridiculous
I was browsing a popular personals website tonight. I don't know why, because I will never get up the stones to send anyone a message. I suppose it's just entertaining sometimes. Like tonight, when I saw something that never fails to aggravate me.
A woman professed in her profile to have a "nature-based" diet. She also claimed to be into yoga, karate, the gym, and a bunch of crap that has to do with chakras or some shit. But that "nature-based" diet thing really bugged me. What exactly IS that, really? Answer me this, Crunchy McGee - what can you eat that's NOT nature-based? Are the rest of us eating nothing but polyester and styrofoam?
That reminds me, I also hate when people make the case that something is good for you by saying it's natural. "Oh, you MUST try this cereal - it's all-natural!" Whenever someone tells me that, my answer is always the same.
"So is hemlock."
A woman professed in her profile to have a "nature-based" diet. She also claimed to be into yoga, karate, the gym, and a bunch of crap that has to do with chakras or some shit. But that "nature-based" diet thing really bugged me. What exactly IS that, really? Answer me this, Crunchy McGee - what can you eat that's NOT nature-based? Are the rest of us eating nothing but polyester and styrofoam?
That reminds me, I also hate when people make the case that something is good for you by saying it's natural. "Oh, you MUST try this cereal - it's all-natural!" Whenever someone tells me that, my answer is always the same.
"So is hemlock."
Friday, January 23, 2009
A Modest Rant
You’re at a party, and someone says, “Hey, did you see Top Chef last night? Can you believe that Hosea and Leah actually made out after swearing they were just friends?” Now look around. You know that guy in the group that crinkles his nose like he smelled something foul and says “Oh, I’m sorry, I don’t watch TV” in the same tone you'd tell people that you would never serve Hot Pockets to your wedding guests? That guy is a bookist. And I can’t stand him.
Bookist n. 1. One who dogmatically assumes the superiority of the book over other forms of communication or entertainment.
That’s right, you just saw a term being coined. You can say you were there when.
This guy and his ilk are also known to say the following:
“I’m sorry, I only watch PBS and C-SPAN.”
Ed. Note: This one is a dead giveaway. Nobody watches C-SPAN.
“No, I didn’t see that. I rarely go to the movies anymore, too much Hollywood crap.”
“That movie was terrible. The book was so much better.”
That last one is the one that burns me. Bookists use reductive logic, starting with the given that they are smarter than you because they think books are better than movies. Besides, they don’t even count Dr. Atkins’ Diet Revolution or Sports Illustrated as books! What kind of bullshit is that? They do not accept the very basic idea that filmed entertainment and books have drastically different dramatic requirements. Movies are two hours long, and yes, parts of the book have to be condensed or eliminated. Take out your favorite novel, Fauntleroy, and read for two hours. How far do you get? Not very fucking far. Frankly, many times the story improves when a lot of extraneous crap is excised. Books and movies are separate works that should be judged on their own merits. Either medium can produce genius or trash, so don't act like Moses brought Confessions of a Shopaholic down from Mount Sinai on stone tablets because it's a book. You know who I blame? Educators. Teachers are the ones that taught us that books are good and TV is bad. And they want raises?
So why are bookists wrong?
One reason is that the golden age of English literature was the 19th century. One key characteristic of the 19th century is that there was NO TELEVISION. Books were the popular medium of the day (except for street theater, which sucked just as much then as it does now), so all the happening creative types wrote books. Is it outlandish to suggest that if Charles Dickens lived today, Great Expectations would be an HBO miniseries? Hell no. And that would just leave your average bookist in the fetal position crying for mommy.
The other reason is that the mass media are the only thing left giving us a shred of connection to our fellow man. Anyone of a certain age remembers watching the moon landing. The Kennedy assassination. Hosea and Leah hooking up on Top Chef. It’s a sad thing, folks! Network TV = Community. Nobody stands around the water cooler talking about the Utne Reader.
I don’t think I’m any smarter than these people (as far as you know.) But don’t be a hater. Especially since I know…deep down…in my gut…you sit home on the odd Saturday night with orange Cheeto dust on your fingers, watching some guy in an undershirt get dragged out of his trailer and whaled on. And Cops ain’t on PBS. Yet.
Bookist n. 1. One who dogmatically assumes the superiority of the book over other forms of communication or entertainment.
That’s right, you just saw a term being coined. You can say you were there when.
This guy and his ilk are also known to say the following:
“I’m sorry, I only watch PBS and C-SPAN.”
Ed. Note: This one is a dead giveaway. Nobody watches C-SPAN.
“No, I didn’t see that. I rarely go to the movies anymore, too much Hollywood crap.”
“That movie was terrible. The book was so much better.”
That last one is the one that burns me. Bookists use reductive logic, starting with the given that they are smarter than you because they think books are better than movies. Besides, they don’t even count Dr. Atkins’ Diet Revolution or Sports Illustrated as books! What kind of bullshit is that? They do not accept the very basic idea that filmed entertainment and books have drastically different dramatic requirements. Movies are two hours long, and yes, parts of the book have to be condensed or eliminated. Take out your favorite novel, Fauntleroy, and read for two hours. How far do you get? Not very fucking far. Frankly, many times the story improves when a lot of extraneous crap is excised. Books and movies are separate works that should be judged on their own merits. Either medium can produce genius or trash, so don't act like Moses brought Confessions of a Shopaholic down from Mount Sinai on stone tablets because it's a book. You know who I blame? Educators. Teachers are the ones that taught us that books are good and TV is bad. And they want raises?
So why are bookists wrong?
One reason is that the golden age of English literature was the 19th century. One key characteristic of the 19th century is that there was NO TELEVISION. Books were the popular medium of the day (except for street theater, which sucked just as much then as it does now), so all the happening creative types wrote books. Is it outlandish to suggest that if Charles Dickens lived today, Great Expectations would be an HBO miniseries? Hell no. And that would just leave your average bookist in the fetal position crying for mommy.
The other reason is that the mass media are the only thing left giving us a shred of connection to our fellow man. Anyone of a certain age remembers watching the moon landing. The Kennedy assassination. Hosea and Leah hooking up on Top Chef. It’s a sad thing, folks! Network TV = Community. Nobody stands around the water cooler talking about the Utne Reader.
I don’t think I’m any smarter than these people (as far as you know.) But don’t be a hater. Especially since I know…deep down…in my gut…you sit home on the odd Saturday night with orange Cheeto dust on your fingers, watching some guy in an undershirt get dragged out of his trailer and whaled on. And Cops ain’t on PBS. Yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
