Rant Casserole

I Feel Like I Got Hosed a Little Bit by Walmart.com

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:07:00 +0000

Our condo association has decided to clean up some empty space in our basement and turn it into a 'gym'. So for my contribution to the 'gym' I bought an Everlast Heavy Bag Stand from Walmart.com.

Walmart.com order confirmation for Everlast Heavy Bag Stand

This past weekend I finally made the time to try and assemble it. I dread this kind of thing because I'm not particularly 'handy'. But I manage to get it together and am ready to hook up my bag when I notice there's no heavy bag chain, despite that fact that it's listed on the parts list.

Parts list that came with Everlast Heavy Bag Stand from Walmart.com; red box highlights the 'heavy bag chain' that is supposed to be in the box - click image for larger view

So I email Walmart.com and they bounce back to me saying that the chain isn't included. I email them back a PDF scan of the parts list. They email me back saying we need to try and resolve this over the phone (not convenient - why can't we handle this by email?). I go look online to see if the product is still available so I can add a note/review/warning that the chain isn't included, but I find that Walmart.com no longer sells the piece.

That's kind of frustrating.

But the next email from Walmart let's me know that I can bring it back to their store and return it. Yeah, that's helpful. I'll just disassemble it and truck it right down to my nearest Walmart. That's what I want to do with my free time. Aggravating.

Anyway, this is clearly not an end of the world kind of nuisance, but it's still a pain in the ass. Maybe I'm old school, but if you freaking list the part on the parts list, it should be in the box. And if it's not in the box, you should then send me one. Damn.

Attention Owners of 1041 W. Berwyn - Your Real Estate Agent's Sales Tactics are Moronic

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:18:00 +0000

(Psst, Tod Pratt of yourhomeinchicago.com, I'm talking to you.)

While checking the rss feed from EveryBlock.com I saw a listing for a townhouse a couple blocks away from my condo. Figured I'd check it out to see what is justifying a $459,900 price tag in this neighborhood.

The main photo is pretty generic, so I try to click on the "Extra Photos" link (maybe that should have been my clue, the word "extra" rather than "more"), and I get hit with a "Be My Guest" registration pop-up, saying "Registering as our guest allows you to access special features for this and all other properties."

Really? You're asking me to register before I can see pictures of the townhouse you're trying to sell. In this real estate climate? Really? Good luck with that.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Hillary's Latest Appalling Crap

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Sat, 24 May 2008 19:03:00 +0000

Have we had enough of her yet? Maybe now, eh? This is some of Olbermann's best stuff. He's so much better when he's angry and working with a boatload of substantiation than when he's off the cuff and trying to be funny. And with this one, he had a lot to work with. Brilliant piece, sir.

The Current community is talking about this too.

Bloggers Unite for Human Rights May 15, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Wed, 14 May 2008 11:40:00 +0000

Just Added "The Dumbest Generation" to My Amazon Wish List

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Wed, 14 May 2008 02:58:00 +0000

I've been wondering if the population at large is getting dumber in general over time and it sounds like The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future may have evidence that is indeed the case. I also wonder how this generation or century compares to previous eras in terms of intelligence distribution throughout the population - would love to see some stats on that.

Quote from Can U Read Kant? - WSJ.com:

"Naomi Baron, in her recent book, 'Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World,' cites the NAEP to note that 'only 24% of twelfth-graders are 'capable of composing organized, coherent prose in clear language with correct spelling and grammar.'"

Spotted: Another Jackass - Driving an H2 in Bumper to Bumper Traffic

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:13:00 +0000

Driving an H2 in any non-commercial capacity is grossly wasteful. Driving an H2 in the city at any point in time is pretty obnoxious. But driving solo in an H2 during bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic on Lake Shore Drive is a pretty bold signal that you are a thoroughly self-centered person in the worst sense of the word and just have total disregard for the current global situation. Climate change? People starving because prices have doubled for basic food staples? I don't know what you're talking about - I'm oblivious to all that nonsense while I execute my 6-mile commute in my perceived status symbol so I can impress other a-holes who care about such superficial things.

Is it a Good Thing that Racists are Allowed to Vote?

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:32:00 +0000

From the LA Times:

"Exit polls from Pennsylvania showed that about 20% of voters said race was a major factor in deciding whom to support. White voters who cited race as a factor went for Clinton by a 3-to-1 margin."

So, should racists be allowed to vote? (And this applies equally to white racists, black racists, Hispanic racists and Asian racists)

A Plea to DNC Chairman Howard Dean for Sanity in the Nomination Process

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:40:00 +0000

Image Source: Johns Hopkins University

To:
Howard Dean and Any Democratic Party “Super” Delegates with Whom You Care to Share This
(Note: this post is also being submitted to Mr. Dean via the DNC web site.)

From:
Art Sindlinger, a registered voter

What:
A Plea for Sanity Now and Some Consideration of the Longer Term Implications of Who Represents the Democratic Party in the 2008 General Election

Dear Chairman Dean:

Let me begin by telling you who I am. I am one of the educated professionals with whom Barack Obama’s message of aspiring to a better way of governing, a ‘post partisan’ way of governing, resonates. But by the sound of how this group of voters is characterized by the various talking heads – ‘news’ personalities and party luminaries alike – I’m not sure the Democratic party is all that interested in actually receiving my vote. Either that or they presume my vote is a lock regardless of who their nominee is. In my case, that’s a hugely flawed assumption. Though my votes in the last four presidential elections were Clinton, Clinton, Gore and Kerry, I’m far from an automatic Democratic vote in the general election. My views are progressive on social issues but moderately conservative on fiscal issues, so no single candidate truly represents the whole of my views (i.e. I generally agree with the social programs Democrats wish to develop and fund, but I think they tend to do a piss-poor job of managing them. And I wouldn’t mind seeing the concept of individual accountability being discussed every now and again as my tax dollars move around in the great wealth redistribution game.) So each election I wrestle with the choice between a candidate / party that has a poor track record of spending my tax money ineffectively (though Bush has certainly broke new ground on the Republican side in this regard during his two terms) or a candidate / party that has a poor track record of wanting to legislate what I’m allowed to think and how I’m allowed to live my life. It is a very frustrating choice to make.

I am writing to you now to provide a direct view of one voter’s perspective on how this nominating process has unraveled in the last eight weeks. This year strikes me pretty clearly as a choice between (1) moving the Democratic Party backwards through the activation of base, shameless and manipulative tactics that may drive short-term results among an angry and lesser educated fraction of the electorate, or (2) moving the party forward and elevating the discussion by energizing the younger generation of voters, engaging the progressive minded among the country’s educated affluent and embracing independent voters.

To me that seems like no choice at all. Yet the circus carries on and it’s becoming less magical and less entertaining with every stop on the circuit. People are no longer captivated by the show but rather are transfixed by the car crash-esque spectacle of backstage bickering spilling out into the main ring. This is a great strategy if you’re running a cheap reality TV show. It’s a rather questionable strategy, though, if you’re trying to demonstrate competence and leadership that deserves support in the quest for becoming leader of our nation.

My point is you will lose me if the Democratic Party rewards this disingenuous nonsense and names Hillary Clinton as the Party’s nominee. You’ll lose my vote this election (I’ll either vote for McCain or just abstain) and it won’t be easy to bring me back in future elections.

I feel this way in part because it seems incredibly obvious that the process never needed to come down to this. In March the Democratic Party had the opportunity to capitalize on real momentum behind a new breed of politician, elevate the national discourse and begin charting the path to retaking the White House in November. Instead the Party has bowed to one arrogant candidate’s ego and feeling of entitlement. The Party has stood idly by as she has shamelessly spewed all manner of old school manipulative sound bites that appeal to the very worst instincts among the most vulnerable potential voters and do indeed inflict damage upon the Party's best option for November victory. Clinton’s desperate approach is truly emblematic of a Low Road to Victory strategy. If the Party’s objective is to de-motivate and alienate the thoughtful, the hopeful and the people who have a little discretionary income they might be willing to put into a general election campaign effort, mission accomplished. Congratulations.

However, since I recognize that Illinois is going to be a ‘blue’ state no matter what I personally do with my vote in November, I want you to know that not only will you lose my vote but I’ll also redirect my campaign contributions in the coming months to McCain. I would much rather cast my lot with him (who probably should have been president in 2000, for what it’s worth), warts and all, than do anything to help bring about the clusterf*ck this country will devolve into when Hillary galvanizes Congress into games of ‘gotcha’ and gridlock and triggers a great renaissance in rampant right wing jack-asserry among the population at large. Just thinking about what that will be like makes me want to check the real estate listings in Canada or Chile.

In conclusion, I am resigned to the reality that neither this letter nor any other expression of my views is likely to have any impact whatsoever on who will be the Democratic presidential nominee. But I wanted to be on the record so maybe one pundit or one of the Party powers-that-be might stop so cavalierly dismissing voters like me as being highly unlikely to turn away from the Democratic Party in November no matter how this nomination plays out. For this voter, at least, that is definitely not the case.

Sincerely,

Art Sindlinger

Hillary Clinton's 'Low Road to Victory' - New York Times

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:06:00 +0000

Below is an excerpt from the The Low Road to Victory - article

"The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."

I think the "low road" characterization is exactly right. It echoes a characterization Hunter S Thompson used for Nixon, which I referenced in this post. As ever, the Hillary mantra appears to remain 'personal victory no matter the cost'.

What boggles and saddens me is that her supporters believe they will benefit somehow if she does win through these means. A Hillary presidential victory would ensure that congressional gridlock achieved new lows and the country's possible path toward a more progressive and sane future will be further retarded after what has already been a lousy 8 years under Bush.

I simply don't understand how Hillary's supporters don't see this. They take myopic ignorance to new levels. It would be fascinating to watch people so avidly rooting for what will be their own demise if the stakes weren't so high for the rest of us. But, like the H.L. Mencken quote says, 'no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public', and therefore pathological weasels can continue to fleece a moronic electorate for their own personal gains.

Jon Stewart Gets it Right re: Hillary's Disingenuous, Manipulative and Transparently Opportunistic Tactics

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:55:00 +0000

Thanks to MarkN for this clip:

Hillary Clinton Reminds Me of Richard Nixon

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:38:00 +0000

Image Source: BusinessWeek

Hillary Clinton reminds me of Richard Nixon. I'm not 100% sure why. But as I'm sitting here watching some of CNN's Ballot Bowl coverage on TV and seeing her coldly deliver blatantly manipulative half-truths (at best), it triggered something. I am not someone who is steeped in the nuances of American political history, so take this perceived likeness for whatever it's worth. But I have read almost every word published by Hunter S. Thompson, and his consistent characterizations of Nixon as a cold, ruthless professional political hack have stuck with me. When I see Clinton on the trail, obviously willing to say and do anything to get herself into the seat of power, I see a political cockroach on a mission of stubborn defiance and self-interest, no matter how much she tries to cloak herself in the trappings of populist advocacy and compassion.

A few of Thompson's quotes about Nixon strike me as a particularly apt way to sum up my sense of Hillary right now:
(Source: The Liberal Avenger)

"He was the real thing--a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time."

"As long as Nixon was politically alive--and he was, all the way to the end--we could always be sure of finding the enemy on the Low Road. There was no need to look anywhere else for the evil bastard. He had the fighting instincts of a badger trapped by hounds. The badger will roll over on its back and emit a smell of death, which confuses the dogs and lures them in for the traditional ripping and tearing action. But it is usually the badger who does the ripping and tearing. It is a beast that fights best on its back: rolling under the throat of the enemy and seizing it by the head with all four claws."

"...honest historians will remember him mainly as a rat who kept scrambling to get back on the ship."

I also did a quick Google to see if anything else had been written about the Hillary and Nixon comparison. Found this from Matt Taibbi. I'm not usually a fan of his writing. It seems to me that he deliberately over uses venomous, skeptical slants no matter what the subject. But there is no arguing that he is a knowledgeable and intelligent observer of American politics.

Why Does Hillary Believe She's Above the Rules?

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:11:00 +0000

This talk of it being a "great disservice to the voters of Florida and Michigan to adopt any process that would disenfranchise anyone" is nonsense when the disenfranchisees are also the disenfranchisers. That's not disenfranchisement - that's boneheaded, self-inflicted nullification. What happened is those two states thought they could change the rules without being held accountable. Now Hillary wants to abide by a process that would serve to her advantage, even though it clearly didn't adhere to agreed upon rules. Why am I not surprised by this?

Pathological Weasels and the Foolish Lemmings Who Love Them: Some Thoughts on the Hillary Clinton Campaign

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:01:00 +0000

Image Source: AP

Hillary Clinton's current campaign tactics completely and utterly lack integrity, honor and class. Both she and the hacks she has surrounded herself with will say anything if they think it will help them win. Most of what they say is twisted, distorted and negative.

* They are spewing desperate nonsense in a blatantly transparent appeal to the lowest common denominator motivations that could sway the most naive, vulnerable and ignorant factions of the electorate.

Howard Wolfson: Professional weasel and current slanderer-in-chief for Hillary Clinton.
Image Source: ViewImages.com

* They regularly overstate her experience, which is something Margaret Carlson calls them out on in the video below from MSNBC Countdown, confirming that she did in fact have "tea and cookies" on all her international trips as first lady.

* They opportunistically talk out of both sides of their mouth (i.e. they lie). They trump up stories that suit their needs, but certainly don't talk about the fact they were apparently the ones assuring Canada that her NAFTA comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

In short, Hillary Clinton's bald thirst for power means she is willing to say anything, regardless of its veracity or her true intent. Get a vote today, keep me alive, screw tomorrow and screw what is better for the nation at large.

These recent tactics have resulted in her building a coalition of the old, angry, under educated, possibly racist, short-sighted, self-serving and otherwise prejudiced factions among Democratic voters. Is that really the group we believe should lead the country into the future?
(For reference, The Guardian ran a story regarding how different demographic groups voted in the March 4th primaries, and MSNBC has a whole breakdown from Ohio's exit polls.)

Wake up, people. Think about the implications. Best case scenario if she wins the Democratic nomination is a McCain victory in the general election. Worst case scenario is four years of screaming, screehing and partisan finger pointing while the country stagnates economically and any sense of collective optimism is sucked out of most reasonable and intelligent people.

This feels like an important inflection point in our nation's trajectory and I feel we're about to shit the bed rather than make the right call. Please, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana et al -- do the right thing.

Another Horrible Commercial: Viva Viagra

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:40:00 +0000

I don't want to provoke the universal forces that influence these things, but I think I'd rather live a lifetime of ED and impotence than buy anything from jackasses who advertise their products with crap like this. Ugh. Just another proof point that Mike Judge is right.

From Reel.com:

"Things got this way by stupid people out-breeding the intelligent members of society, who were too busy trying to come up with male pattern baldness cures and erectile-dysfunction pills for years."

For Me, Hillary Clinton's Disingenuous Tactics Undermine Any Legitimate Qualifications She Has

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:42:00 +0000

Image Source: blogs.zdnet.com

"How you get elected defines who you will be once in power. Mrs. Clinton has shown us with this one simple, baseless accusation why it will be hard for her candidacy to represent a change. She appears too comfortable with the politics of personal destruction if she can gain a political advantage."

(Above quote is from Hillary's Smear Campaign, by Michael Zeldin, in WSJ.com.

On the 'politically informed' continuum, I am probably a 4 or 5 out of 10. But I have been paying some attention during this election cycle. And one of the themes I have picked up on is that Clinton's tactics seem much more manipulative and cynical than Obama's, and that immediately repels me from her.

Despite the fact that Clinton and Obama have fairly similar positions on issues I personally prioritize (check out glassbooth.org to explore candidates' positions by topic), I find Clinton's inclination to spin facts disingenuously for the immediate sound bite value so distasteful that I couldn't possibly support her. The 'by any means necessary', lowest common denominator tactics are really disappointing.

The first example of this that resonated with me was her exaggeration and mis-characterization of Obama's Illinois voting record. Suggesting that ~3% of his voting record defines his body of work is silly on the face of it, but trying to misrepresent the motives behind those 129 votes is just sleazy.

Other links about this story:
* The Ever Present Obama WSJ.com

* It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo NYTimes.com

Honestly, that was enough for me. But then she went for a similarly sensational smear rather than making a substantive point with the Tony Rezko thing. WSJ.com has a nice piece illustrating just how appalling this particular volley was in Michael Zeldin's Hillary's Smear Campaign. Zeldin draws a nice comparison between how Clinton handled accusations about her involvement in Whitewater and how she's essentially utilizing the same kind of cheap jab against Obama now with her Rezko one-liner.

From Zeldin's piece:

"As a junior associate, Mr. Obama was asked by his supervising attorney, William Miceli, to do about five hours of basic due diligence and document review. That began and ended his involvement in the case."

What Will Trigger the Next Revolution? Maybe Irresponsible, Inexcusable & Disgusting Waste by the Wealthy?

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:39:00 +0000

Image Source: WSJ.com

I read this article during a flight back from New York last week. I'm not naive, but this was stupefying. Struck me as the kind of thing that we read now in history books about the obnoxious, arrogant behavior of past centuries' 'elite' classes ... right before they lost their heads in the streets.

An excerpt:

"Consider Nelson Peltz. The investor and food magnate's oceanfront estate, called Montsorrel, is among the island's biggest water consumers. His 13.8-acre spread, which combines two properties, used not quite 21 million gallons of water over the past 12 months -- or about 57,000 gallons a day on average -- at a cost of more than $50,000, according to records obtained from the local water utility. That compares with 54,000 gallons a year for an average single-family residence in Palm Beach, says Ken Rearden, assistant city administrator of West Palm Beach. (West Palm Beach supplies Palm Beach's water.)"

Shamefully embarrassing.

This is Truly Terrifying: 'Hell House' - Religous Halloween Funhouses

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:14:00 +0000

I saw this pod while Tivo'ing through some Current TV and was just dumbfounded, then terrified. Nothing scares me more than self-righteous zealots who think they know what is best for other people.

The Current pod is currently on air so I cannot embed it here. But I found similar clips on YouTube, including the one below.

Be advised: there is both graphic and generally distasteful material in this clip.

Wikipedia has a short article on this topic. One excerpt in particular hits on one of the most disgusting aspects of this whole business, which is the use of grotesque propaganda on children (watch the videos and you'll see kids who appear to be maybe 10 or 11 years old): "...teaching by instilling the fear of eternal damnation in children and adolescents. Using the concept of hell for moral policing was commented on as being child abuse, since children walk away with nightmares and in some cases, extreme fear."

Dr. Memar's Jackass Botox Ad

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:24:00 +0000

I drive by this every day and wonder to myself who is worse. Is it Dr. Memar, the jackass pictured here trying to look majestic, noble and trustworthy in his outdoor billboard hawking unnecessary vanity procedures? Or is it the poor sap who feels he or she needs the services of this clown?

What's the Saddest Thing About Miss Teen South Carolina's TV Debacle?

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:54:00 +0000

Image Source: Onion.com

Like most people in the U.S. with a TV, I couldn't avoid the widespread coverage of Caitlin Upton's meltdown during this year's Miss Teen USA broadcast.

Yes, she embarrassed herself. Yes, both the question and her response might well synopsize all that stinks about the current state of education in the U.S. Just another not so subtle reminder that it is only a matter of time until we fulfill Mike Judge's prophecy.

[Note: According to Jeannie Moos of CNN, no 'credible study' could be found to substantiate the stat used in the question. Check out the following link for video of Moos' report, under "dumb moments"; I'd link directly, but don't see how that is possible/easy given CNN's site structure. Also note that MSNBC has a more sympathetic piece about Caitlin that tries to provide readers with a broader sense of who she is.]

But here is a question to both everyone and no one in particular:

What really is the saddest part of all this?

- Is it the fact that some soon to be model / actress / wife of successful alpha male flubbed her speaking part in a non-event and now might be derided by people she doesn't know for a few days?

- Or is it the fact that we're still having beauty pageants in the year 2007? Why are we still having these ludicrous exhibitions of tastelessness anyway? And why are people still watching? "You're pretty - yaaayy."

[Sidenote: If someone hasn't already done a documentary that intersperses clips from beauty pageants, dog shows and livestock judging events, they should. Free idea for any enterprising filmmaker who wants it. Here's the sell: Drop Dead Gorgeous meets Best in Show meets Miss Heifer USA -- but it's all real. Done and done.]

Or, if that's either too radical or too obvious of a question, here's another:

Who does anyone think they are fooling by including in these pageants a portion that solicits intelligent responses and opinions?

Disclaimer: please, anyone who stumbles across this, spare me comments about how many beauty pageant contestants have IQs >130 or have XYZ advanced degrees, etc., etc. I'm certain there are exceptions. Though I would like to believe most attractive, intelligent women realize there are many better things to be doing with their time and abilities than field questions from the likes of Aimee Teegarden and Mario Lopez.

These People Are Horrible: SalesGenie.com

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:56:00 +0000

Full disclosure: I work in advertising and fully believe in democratic capitalism, so I absolutely support the right of shallow, cynical hacks to develop and run corrupting, crap ads. But that doesn't mean I'm not disgusted when I see something so grossly manipulating and exploitative as the garbage that Sales Genie is currently airing. These haven't made YouTube yet, but if you are interested, click the "Watch our National TV Commercial" link on their site and judge for yourself. This is just one of a series of just despicable spots using 'adorable toddlers' who deliver lines like the following in a Cindi Brady-like lisp for extra smaltz effect:

"My daddy is a salesman. How much money he makes depends upon how much he sells. Last year he worked WEALLY hard. But he didn't make a lot of money."

I also believe in the karmic principle that those who "sow evil shall reap evil", and the asshats behind the current SaleGenie dreck can't have enough blight befall them for uncorking upon us such a purely rotten ad campaign.

Update: 8/3/07 - I just learned through AdHole that the offending Salesgenie commercial is on YouTube. Or, see it below.

Don't Be A Jerk: 3 Basic Violations of Elevator Etiquette

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:52:00 +0000

Image Source: Cabcraft.com

I am not the first and won't be the last to gripe about the annoying behavior of others on the elevator, but a flurry of discourteous elevator transgressions yesterday prompts me to pop off now. All I'm asking for is for people to think for just a nanosecond of what message they are sending with their actions.

Violation 1: Unnecessary last-second door diving
I work in a building that has 5 elevators serving 21 floors. Excepting the high rush periods at the beginning and end of the day, you are never more than 5 - 10 seconds away from the next elevator making it to the lobby to pick you up. So, when there are already 6 people in the elevator and the doors are closing, do you really need to lunge in at the last second? Setting aside the fact that it is nearly impossible to execute such a move without looking like a graceless ass, what you are essentially saying to those other 6 people in the elevator is that the 5 seconds you just saved yourself is worth more than the collective 30 - 45 seconds of their time you just wasted. Sure, each individual instance might not be a big deal, but I would suggest that most of these people are serial offenders, repeatedly wasting their colleagues' time in bite size increments. It would be one thing if you were on the way to the most important meeting of your career, or those 5 - 10 seconds could mean the difference between life and death. But we're in advertising, people, you're not on your way to the O.R. And you had time to get the freaking half-drunk Jamba Juice that's in your hand for crying out loud. Get over yourself, please.

Violation 2: the one floor trip
Unless you are
(1) carrying something incredibly heavy [and I'm not sure what that might be - again, we're all in advertising here ... maybe you have 50 copies of a 100-page presentation in your arms?],
(2) very pregnant, or
(3) in a full leg cast
why are you calling the elevator for a one-floor trip? We have stairs. Do you need to slow everyone else down because you're too lazy to take the stairs one flight? Honestly, I personally would say 2 flights is pushing the bounds of good manners, but I'll concede that maybe my POV is more grizzled than most folks.
[Note: see the nice "Keep it up, boy, I'll take a strap to ya" at 3:21 in the video at that link.]

Violation 3: Obnoxiously loud headphones
Listen, hipster, we are all really impressed by your avant garde tastes, and yes, your decision to pump techno at aggressive volumes first thing in the morning does make a Statement. The statement is you're an a-hole. Buy better headphones. Or, if you really are as anti-social as your posturing suggests, take the stairs. No risk of seeing other folks there.

Why must people throw cigarettes out their windows?

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:17:00 +0000

Image Source:Firekills.gov.uk

I was driving behind someone this morning who just threw his cigarette butt into the street without giving it a second thought. I'm sure this happens thousands of times every day without comment. But if you deconstruct it, the act is really saying that s/he who throws the cigarette believes him/herself to be more important than the rest of us who have to deal with the trash. All you have to do is put the butt in your ashtray, then empty your ashtray when you get your car home or in a garage or whatever. But no. That's too inconvenient for me. Too much work, too much of a hassle, whatever. F that. I'll just chuck it out the window and add just a little bit more stink and trash to the environment that everyone else is walking around in. Because the 10 seconds it might take me to properly dispose of the butt is way more important than everyone else's enjoyment of the planet. A-hole. [See also: people who spit on sidewalks].

Originally posted 5/22/07

Another dumb marketing decision - Citibank

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:04:00 +0000

For the price of one letter and the 60 seconds of customer service time it would have taken to send the letter, Citibank lost my business. Brilliant.

I have had a Citibank credit card for 10+ years now. And I'm sure it's been profitable for them given the finance charges I've paid over the years. Had recently opened a checking/savings account, too, but either didn't receive or had misplaced the PIN# for it, so I could not use it or sign up for online banking. I asked for another PIN# to be sent to me. Was informed I needed to go into a branch and do it live. There's a branch about 8 blocks from me, and it's open Saturday mornings, but I'd rather not spend time on a Saturday morning visiting a bank branch to get a freaking PIN# so I could use their services.

The front line rep who handled my call was pleasant enough and seemed sympathetic, but she had to go to her supervisor on this one. Obviously this is a big call to make. So, I asked her [quite civilly, too - I wasn't one of those clowns who loses his sh*t to the unempowered CSR] to inform her supervisor of the fact that I did have a longstanding, certainly profitable credit card account with them and that I would in fact just prefer to close my checking account with them than be bothered to go visit a branch on a Saturday morning.

Held the few minutes I was asked to hold. Then was informed that, no, they wouldn't be mailing me a new PIN#.

To ease the blow, the front line rep noted that they've even told people who live 20 miles from a branch that they need to go there live rather than have a new PIN# mailed to them. I appreciate what she was trying to do, but if that's really the case, all that does is further underline how moronic of a policy Citibank has in place. Who made that decision? And who is training their customer service supervisors? Brilliant work on their part.

The story may not end there, either, as I recently learned that my employer's preferred airline is likely to change. My Citibank credit card is a miles card associated with the current airline. Might be a useful time to flip the credit card account to someone else, too, no? Something I really wouldn't have otherwise considered. But, the CSR sup did save the price of that letter she would have spent to send me that PIN# so I could deposit funds with them. So she's got that going for her, which is nice.

Originally posted 5/2/07

Buy less crap? How about spew less crap?

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:39:00 +0000

Heard about Buy Less Crap today and checked it out. While it is difficult to argue with the value in giving directly to charities [e.g., The Global Fund] that benefit from the (Product)RED campaign, I think this is just another typical, over-simplified, knee-jerk reaction from radical narcissists who relish any opportunity to illustrate how sensationally clever they can be in skewering the capitalistic bogeyman du jour, never mind the facts of the situation. Any material benefits to The Cause from their grandstanding antics are merely a bonus outcome - the primary goal of their histrionic mewling is to boost their 'F-the-Man' cred at their local co-op grocery store. 'Hey, Gideon - saw your buylesscrap.org site. Really awesome! And have you tried the FairTrade Soy Foot Lotion yet?'

Note to would-be activists: it isn't an either/or proposition, dumbass. While you may not approve of it, the majority of the population still lives outside of The Commune. People still need material goods, so if they are going to buy them anyway, isn't it better that even a small fraction of the proceeds are directed to The Cause, rather than nothing? Would you rather The Cause just not receive those funds? 'No thanks, we cannot accept your donation because we more-altruistic-than-thou types disdain your lifestyle.'

Also something to ponder - if we all retreat to our individual Waldens weaving our own clothing from old newspaper scraps and eating bark, who will generate the income that can fund donations to The Cause?

Originally posted 3/4/07

GMAC Mortgage customer service is a farce

noreply@blogger.com (Art Sindlinger) — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:19:00 +0000

Another item from the tilting-at-windmills department. Below is an email I submitted to GMAC Mortgage after a particularly annoying customer service call. I'm sure it will achieve nothing for me. But venting feels good. And if anyone else sees this and it swings a coin-flip decision re: who they finance a loan with, all the better.

** email copy begins here **

I am extremely disappointed in your customer service. After faxing on January 31, 2007 [as instructed] information regarding a mishandled tax payment, I had not heard back from GMAC today. 28 days later.

So I just called your customer service line where my inquiry was routed to someone whose mastery of the english language leaves something to be desired, which is frustrating. I am not placing a $19.95 order for a Quik-Chop, I am trying to sort through issues regarding my mortgage account. Clear communication is kind of a priority here, no?

But what's worse was her brusque/robotic manner. I am not confident that she truly understood either the importance of the issue I was inquiring about or the details of my situation. And I definitely don't believe she cared about my anxiety whatsoever. When I asked her to fax confirmation of what she was communicating to me regarding my situation being 'all cleared up', she indicated it would be another 3 days before I would receive anything because there are 'work orders' involved. So after waiting 28 days without hearing anything, then having to call myself for a status, I am told matter of factly that there is nothing I can do but wait another 3 days by someone who I am not confident really understands the situation I am facing here.

Net: this has been anything but a positive experience with GMAC and my confidence in GMAC as a whole has taken a big hit as a result of your less than impressive front line personnel. If after waiting another 3 days on this I receive information that does not fully resolve my issue, I will be beside myself with aggravation. Life presents enough inherent aggravations. I am not looking for aggravation amplification from my freaking mortgage company. Please - get your act together regarding customer service. I am begging you.

Originally posted 2/28/07