MySpace
myspace music my music  featured playlists  top artists  music videos  karaoke  shows  forums 

Axella Johannesson's Blog
MySpace.com | rss | sign in
Axella Johannesson



Last Updated: 7/15/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Status: Married
City: Traralgon
State: Victoria
Country: AU
Signup Date: 7/6/2005

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
[16 Sep 2009 | Wednesday] 

Current mood:  contemplative
Category: Jobs, Work, Careers
I've always wondered why it is that when someone dies who was a complete asshole, they suddenly become a nice person. Why does a louse in life, become loved in death?

For example, I once knew someone who had very few redeeming qualities. He was selfish, a pervert, and controlling, to name just a few. But he died suddenly, not all that young, and people said "what a shame" it was. People who used to wish out-loud that he'd drop dead, were suddenly reverential and respectful, when he actually did.

There are those who believe the dead are watching us. We are often told that, when we're children (which is kind of creepy, really. I used to think they could see me in the bathroom!). They're said to be "watching you from heaven". So maybe, outward demonstrations of anything but misery and sadness at the death of an asshole, could bring retribution and angry visits from the spirit world! Fear of such an occurrence should guarantee that the crocodile tears keep flowing.

What happens when the asshole was a close family member? Now, that's even worse.

Your brother or sister could've been a serial child murderer. You could have had a parent who used you as a slave,  systematically tortured you, kept you tied to a post, pimped you out for drug money, beat you with belts, whips and chains, locked you in a dungeon with starving rats, fed you human flesh, ran you over with the car, then backed up, did it again, and again, every single day, for years and years... and yet when he or she died, you would've been expected to be sorrowful for them. And you may be expected to pay the funeral expenses, too, or people will talk about what a skunk you are, and disrespectful, to boot!

Perhaps we try to see the best in people, and only focus on the good things about them when they go. George Dubya and Dick Cheney will get glowing tributes someday when they die, though many, many people think they're among the world's biggest assholes. I'm sure even Jeffrey Dahmer's mother had nice memories of her son, and chose to focus on those, instead of the bad stuff that ultimately saw him killed in prison (but that's a different scenario to the others, as no parent wants to think of their child as a cannibalistic, serial-killing monster).

I think as a society, we're simply scared to say, "Who cares? He was a complete asshole!" This is especially true about someone we knew personally, perhaps because we're afraid of jinxing ourselves. Or perhaps it's seen as being mean to someone who's "defenceless" and can't fight back, which may cause us to be seen as assholes! We'd hate the idea that we could die and people would stand around talking about it, saying, "Who cared about that asshole, anyway?"






5:15 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[04 Dec 2008 | Thursday] 

"Worker dies at Long Island Walmart after being trampled in Black Friday Stampede"

Seeing that on the news was like a kick in the guts to me. And I know exactly what it would've been like.

As kids, my sister and I camped outside a Long Island Macy's overnight for Led Zeppelin tickets, with lots of others.  And as soon as the poor employee made a move towards opening the doors, the crowd surged forward and pushed people right through the doors. There was blood everywhere and absolute mayhem as everyone raced to the upstairs Ticketron. People were even running up the "down" escalators. It was utter chaos and Every Man for Himself. I remember seeing stuff knocked over and seeing Samsonite luggage, among other things, that had been trampled and destroyed. Thank goodness no people were destroyed.

One guy who was cut up and bleeding wouldn't go to the hospital without getting tickets, so the police got him to the front of the line and everyone cheered when he held the ticket envelope aloft. Only then would he get into the ambulance.

Meanwhile the crowd continued to surge and I was being seriously squashed in the small Ticketron room, which was unbelievably packed. The heat and body odours were unbearably intense. I thought I would be squashed to death because I could hardly breathe. My arms were pinned at my sides and I couldn't move them at all, not even to get something out of the front pocket of my jeans. I could see the ladies who worked there were terrified. It wasn't long before the surging crowd caused ticket sales to be stopped and Ticketron closed for the day.

That was one of the dumber things I've done in my life, but I was only 15 and Led Zep was the centre of my universe back then. I have never put myself in a position to queue up for something like that, ever again. Nothing is worth it. I kept getting "invited" to line up for the midnight sale of the new I-Phone some months ago, but there is no consumer gadget important enough to get me to line up like that, ending up in a mob. I don't need "stuff" that badly, and don't care if people look down on me for not having the latest overly-hyped piece of plastic crap. That would be their problem, not mine.

The people in Valley Stream weren't kids, and trampled this poor man, Jdimytai Damour (a.k.a. "worker") to death to save a few bucks on stupid things like video games and TVs (I believe it was the <$800 Samsung TV which caused the biggest frenzy).

The sad thing is that the stores will continue with this idiotic tradition, because one death will cost them peanuts, compared to their takings for the day. That is just plain WRONG. Wal-Mart has to accept its share of culpability for whipping the poor morons into a frenzy, and providing inadequate security measures for its customers and staff. This incident highlights how little respect Wal-Mart (and the Walton heirs) have for the little people who made them filthy rich.

No matter what, there will still be insecure individuals for whom buying, showing off, and bragging about their purchases, will be one of their greatest pleasures in life. "Look at what I bought! How cool am I for having something that costs so much (or for being the first person in the neighbourhood to get one)?", in the hope that it impresses other people. And let us not forget people who show their love by loading their kids up with expensive or hard-to-get junk, which has the added benefit of impressing others with the amount spent on those kiddies.

We used to pity people in Eastern Europe for lining up for basic things. Christ, now they must pity us, for living in a society where people turn savage and trample a man to death in pursuit of cheap consumer crap that no one really needs.

I hope the losers who got the Samsung TVs see Jdimytai Damour's bloody body every time they look at it, and take a moment to think about what kind of holiday season his family will have this year. But that's wishful thinking.

No doubt, they'll enjoy sports on their 50" Samsungs, right after they've retained a lawyer to sue Walmart for "making" them stomp a guy to death for it. There's always someone else to blame, after all, and "Someone may owe you money", as those lawyer ads are so fond of saying.
2:46 AM 
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[30 Aug 2008 | Saturday] 

Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities
Two common terms with the capability of causing me to spit bile are the acronym "VIP", and "A-List".

What makes one person more important than anyone else? Is it being a great statesman/woman, or one with the capability of curing cancer, eradicating global hunger, or bringing about world peace? Apparently not.

It's being an actor on a sitcom, or maybe a race-car driver. Or, it could be someone who, as a member of a long-defunct band, had a hit song or two in the '80s. Or, best of all, perhaps it's someone whose claim to fame, is attending parties.

The amount of money someone's most recent movie or TV show makes, or how much their Daddy has, determines upon which list someone's name resides. Those who are "hot" are on "The A List". Being on that list makes one an Important Person, it seems, or indeed, Very Important. Those who are not as hot, live on the "B-List".

While B-Listers may be snickered at by A-Listers and may not be invited to the coolest parties, to the General Public, they are still Important. This is because they are, or perhaps were, famous to some extent for some reason, any reason. Their faces have appeared on a screen somewhere.

Have any of you ever had to visit the Emergency Department of your local hospital and wait for hours and hours? I have, and have waited in utter agony.

For that reason, I was rather distressed to read once that when the Formula One Grand Prix was to occur in Melbourne, places in local ERs were to be set aside for "VIPs". A lot of "A-Listers" and "B-Listers" follow the F1 circuit around the world, because it's a "glamorous event" and someplace to "see and be seen".

Reserving space in ERs for celebrity tourists means that someone who may have been experiencing severe pain, would've been made to wait longer for medical attention because places had to be kept open to whisk in a "VIP", had the need arisen.

Just think - should a "VIP" at the event have over-indulged on something and collapsed, they'd get to go right to the front of the line - past the guy with the suspected broken leg, or the lady with the nasty knife wound on her arm.

"VIPS", after all, are so much more valuable as human beings than the rest of us. Look at the contributions they make to society, for the greater good of all.

Imagine life and culture without a great talent like Pauly Shore, or without Adam Sandler movies. Too horrible to contemplate! And where would we be without the Paris Hilton video, or the Pam and Tommy one? Who could ever fairly question the right and privilege of Great Artists of the ilk of those above, to be shown right to the front of any line?

It is comforting to know that if someone like Trevor Biden, for example, turns up at a Melbourne ER needing treatment during the Grand Prix (or any other major event which attracts "international celebrities"), he may have to sit in the waiting room all night, while celebrities are treated immediately. He is, after all, only someone who led the Australian research team which made a major break-through in Diabetes research some months ago, which could lead to a cure. He is not a "VIP". Therefore, he is not nearly as important as someone who appeared on "Friends", and cannot expect the same treatment. We have priorities, after all.

American society, especially, loves to create celebrities for the silliest of reasons. I've beaten this drum before and won't reiterate what I've written in older posts (they're here in the "older" Archives). I simply hate seeing those who may be superficial weenies, being fawned over because anyone with fame or money, or indeed, even notoriety, is worshipped.

Those who love reading "celebrity gossip", who are helping to build up these people that you don't even know and may not even like if you did - would you be happy to sit there with your sick child, while someone who is famous - perhaps for sucking off the U.S. President - gets medical attention first? Because that's the end result for those who kneel at the altar of the famous. You worhip them, as they step over you.

I loathe the Cult of Celebrity. You never would have guessed, would you? 

We are all human beings, and famous or not, we all have the same daily bodily functions - and this includes "royalty". The life of an "untouchable" in an Indian slum, to those who love him or her, is just as valuable as that of a Queen or King is to anyone loves their monarchs.

A wealthy or famous person should not always be sent to the front of the line. He or she should not be able to buy his or her way to the top of an organ transplant list by making a huge donation to the hospital, and thereby doom an "ordinary person" to death.

And a person who murders a celebrity, should not receive a longer prison sentence than someone who robs and kills a taxi driver. The taxi driver's family will do a life a lot harder than the celebrity's family as a consequence of the crime. It's simply not fair to assess a person's worth as a human being on the basis that their activities have caused them to accrue a lot of money.

"Average" people are important not only to their loved ones, but to their friends and communities, too. Surely that has to be worth at least as much as being a pretty celebrity who is admired by a lot of strangers whom they'll never even meet, for nothing of any great importance.




10:39 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[13 Jun 2008 | Friday] 
Why is there never a category to fit whatever it is I want to write about?

I've been thinking, lately, of  people who are our friends and family one day, and nothing at all to us the next. Associating with, or sometimes even just talking to them, may render one a "traitor". I refer, here, to ex-in-laws, or in my case, specifically, ex-brothers-in-law. 

My sister-in-law was married to Lew, a guy I liked a lot. He was entertaining at family gatherings. However, he and my sister-in-law split up, and that was that. He became The Enemy and was excised completely from our lives.

My sister was married to a guy who we all liked. I couldn't have loved him more if he'd been my own brother. But that marriage ended, too, and I felt like I couldn't have contact with him without being disloyal to my sister.

My husband's sister was married to a great guy named Geoff. My husband and I thought the world of him, a top bloke. We still say so. But my sister-in-law split up with him, and although we had an awkward visit once since their divorce, we've not seen or heard from him in years. He's since gone on to start a new family.

It's mind-boggling to think that a relationship that was once so friendly, affectionate, and easy, suddenly became stiff and awkward. As is often the case, his new spouse wasn't happy about any ties to his "old life", and contact ceased.

I guess this is the nature of in-law relationships now. When the marriages end, so do our friendships with the exes, in most cases.

We feel awkward talking to them about our family member who dumped them and has since moved on with another partner. We almost feel embarrassed for what was done to them by someone in our family.

We feel awkward telling our family member that we've been talking to their ex - because they probably think that all we do is talk about them and rake them over the coals. Or they may feel hurt because we're even talking to their ex, if the split was acrimonious.

What's really awful is when your family member is the one who turned out to be such a horrible spouse, that it's an  embarrasment to the whole family. You actually want to take the side of the ex, but doing so would be disloyal to your own sibling, so you can't.

I am fully aware that no one's perfect. I'm sure that every divorced person I know can relate tales of how their exes were less-than-wonderful at times - insensitive, moody, self-absorbed, whatever. We can all exhibit those traits at times. I would, however draw the line is if there was violence in a relationship, or if the ex turned out to be a child-molester or committed some other horribly anti-social crime. If that's the case, I wouldn't care how charming or funny someone was while they were an in-law. Sayonara.

In writing this, in no way do I mean any disrespect to my current in-laws, who themselves are fine individuals. I am merely commenting on the transience of some familial relationships in modern life. This transience probably discourages many people from bonding too closely with relatives-by-marriage because next week, they could be history.

I found it confusing when, as a kid, I'd have an aunt or an uncle, and then suddenly, I wouldn't. One day it became OK to drop the "Aunt" from "Aunt Carol" - though it would've never felt right to drop the "Aunt" from "Aunt Rita". Some Aunts are Aunts for life, even if they're no longer married to your uncle, and you never see them.

People born before the Great Depression are probably the last generation who spent their lives as more or less complete families, where the cast of characters didn't change from year-to-year. And while it's easy to be nostalgic about the  olden days when families stayed together through thick-and-thin, it's just as easy to forget that it was often the women who got the thin edge of the wedge and had no choice but to stay, no matter how badly they may have been treated.

But now, things have gone to the other extreme.

Marriages are ending after a few years, or even a few months because "it just didn't work out".

As my sister is so fond of saying, people spend more time thinking about and planning their weddings, than they do their marriages. When the build-up to the Big Event is over, only boring "real life" is left. That's when the "best behaviour" period is over, and the bride and groom find out who they've really married. Sometimes they may decide that they don't really care for each other all that much, after all, and go their separate ways. When that happens, the nice person with the great sense of humour who was accepted into the family with open arms, is abruptly booted out.

I have a son-in-law whom I think of as a son.

My husband and I were talking last night about how awful it would be if my daughter and son-in-law suddenly called it quits one day. It would be positively heart-wrenching. And if it wasn't entirely amicable, then what? How would it be when I run into his mother in the supermarket? Friendly? Polite? Awkward? Hostile? Pretend we don't see each other? Will there be blame and repercussions from each mother, for the other's child?

There are so many things about modern relationships to value. There is more equality between the sexes in relationships than ever before. And women are no longer bound to stay in bad marriages, because they have options that their mothers didn't have.

The flip side is that having so many options can cause people to take committment to another person for years, a lot less seriously. There is too much temptation to bail out when things aren't as exciting or fun as they were in the beginning.

I've seen marriages break up after only a few years because the parties "grew apart" Huh? How does a couple manage to "grow apart" so quickly? Could it be that no real effort was made to "grow together"?

Every time a couple "grows apart" and calls it quits, someone loses a friend, someone loses a son or daughter by marriage, and some kid loses an aunt or uncle.

It's all very heart-wrenching.
3:40 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[17 Nov 2007 | Saturday] 

After a busy day of ripping out the old dining room floor, I was looking forward to sitting down and watching one of my favourite cable shows, "The Hotel Inspector".

In it, Ruth Watson, an "award winning hotelier", visits small hotels around England that are losing money and need expert help to start turning a profit. In the process, Ruth may swear a bit and drop the "F" bomb here and there as she tries to get stubborn owners to listen to reason, but that's as bloody as it gets. By the end, the hotel has been spiffed up, and everyone's happy and ready for the money to roll in. All in all, it's harmless entertaiment at the end of a long day, for a tired home renovator such as I.

As I sat down to watch "The Hotel Inspector", I caught the last few minutes of the preceding program.

In that two or three minutes, a group of young people giggled as they held down bleating baby goats and pulled out their testicles. Included were lots of close-ups of the goats' faces as they wailed in fear and pain, as well as the plate piled with testes.

The testicles were cooked, served on rice, and everyone laughed as one girl gagged while trying to chew and swallow one.

I quickly looked it up to see what this show was, and it said, "Jack Osbourne - Adrenaline Rush".

For my life, I cannot understand why something like that is considered entertainment, or indeed, an "adrenaline rush". I thought that's what roller coasters, skydiving, and bungie jumping were all about - putting yourself at "risk" for a thrill. What I saw tonight is the kind of "thrill" that sadistic murderers would get.

To say I was grossed out would be an understatement. Those who know me, know that I abhor any kind of cruelty to animals (even cats!). To see people doing something like that to a creature, a fellow mammal, and finding it so hilarious, literally made me sick to my stomach. I had to leave the room until the show finished, and record the show I wanted to see.

The TV guide blurb about the show says that Jack Osbourne is supposed to be trying to save young people from being like he was – but who will save them from being like he is?

1:52 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[08 Nov 2007 | Thursday] 
On my last visit to the USA, I was appalled by the number of TV ads for prescription drugs. In the few years since a prior trip, it appeared that the country as a whole had become depressed and impotent (or maybe the other way around) - such was the volume of ads about cures for those afflictions. I was shocked at the number of them.
 
Large pharmaceutical companies pay a lot of money for TV ads in order to encourage patients, most of whom have no medical training,  to demand prescription drugs by name. One ad for an anti-depressant drug showed a woman becoming stressed as she tried to navigate her trolley through a crowded supermarket. Its message appeared to be, "You hate grocery shopping? You must be depressed". The ads reflect the American mentality that there is a pill to fix everything, even something as banal as grocery shopping.
 
Ads by the big, multi-national pharmaceutical companies (aka "Big Pharm") are now beginning to appear on Australian TV. They cannot show the American type of ads here yet, so they are starting us off with the same ones they started the Americans off with. The ads describe an ailment and a cure, but do not name a specific drug. They simply say, "Ask your doctor". Eventually, like the Americans, we're meant to get used to those ads, so that it won't be such a huge leap to get approval for the next phase. And then the bombardment starts.
 
I would hate to see a US-style explosion of brand-name drug ads on Australian TV. As anyone who has been over there and seen them can tell you, it is truly annoying to see that many sexual performance-enhancing drug ads in an hour of TV viewing. That notwithstanding, slick, expensive ads with good production values and beautiful scenery should not be the basis upon which laymen decide that we "want" a particular drug.
 
Please don't wait until the horse has bolted from the barn. Now is the time to speak up, before it's too late.
1:28 AM 
2 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[06 Nov 2007 | Tuesday] 

Current mood:  hungry
Pay-TV has brought about an explosion of cooking shows, along with a creature called the "Celebrity Chef".

Each one has his or her own little gimmick to try to suck us in.

One show aired on my cable provider's food channel is from Canada, called "Chef at Home". The guy talks and talks and talks, and his shtick is "improvising meals from what he finds in his own fridge and pantry". Yeah, right. If his fridge and pantry had glass doors, they would be Safeway.

Any bonehead could "improvise" if they had virtually any meat, produce, herb, spice, grain, condiment, and everything else, at their fingertips (and probably purchased by a staff member). I come from an Italian family and anyone who knows Italians and food knows about "abondanza". We always had a full larder, or so I thought, until I saw what pass as these people's pantries. Could anyone really have that many "ingredients" hanging around? And could they all be used up before they spoil? How much do these people spend on groceries?

Another show I watched a bit is called, "The Barefoot Contessa". I actually like that show, even though much of what she cooks can clog my arteries just by looking at it (but hey, I'm only gonna live once, so I'm living it up!). And I like the fact that Ina looks like she actually eats all that butter, cream, and cheese! Otherwise, I'd feel like she was being hypocritical.

Ina's shtick is cooking hearty foods for various friends at her Hamptons summer home. Most of Ina's friends appear to be gay men. Or maybe that's just the Hamptons. Anyway...

The show does a good job of making it seem that Ina is cooking just for my benefit. Having worked in TV, though, I can tell you that there would be a lot of people in that room, 10 minutes before airtime. There would be food prep people, a hairdresser, a makeup artist, director, lighting people, sound techs, and lord knows who else. And someone would probably be responsible for buying the food, and cleaning up afterwards. But the magic of TV means Ina cooks just for me.

I like a few of Nigella Lawson's shows. The way she describes the food in her running commentary, just about makes cooking sexual. Ingredients are "lush" and "voluptuous". And Nigella, like Ina, doesn't skimp on the rich ingredients, and does a good job of hiding the army that makes the show appear so intimate.

Nigella's been criticised lately for appearing to develop a pot-belly and spreading hips. OK, so maybe she's eating up the profits, but so what? Who was it, James Beard, who said to never trust a skinny cook? I am tired of these ridiculous standards being applied to women on TV. No one cares whether or not a male chef is thin!

There are many "ethnic" shows that I enjoy as well, like "New Scandinavian Cooking". Man, they eat some weird things up there!   Fish seems to be high up on their list of preferred foods. Actually, come to think of it, a lot of TV chefs are big on fish. I guess it's "healthy" and "in".

The chef is so cute and happy, she is adorable. I wouldn't cook much of what she makes, though. It's not to my taste, my Swedish ancestry notwithstanding. My father's parents were born in the USA, and my grandmother never cooked any Swedish foods. She was purely an "American" cook.

On Saturday nights, it's Italian night. We have shows from a bunch of "Italian" chefs. Georgio Locatelli and Lidia Bastanich are the ones I take most "seriously". Giada DiLaurentis had my attention for about 5 minutes, but is more an "Italian-American" cook than anything. I would not have been surprised to see Velveeta in her lasagna.

On one of her shows, she was set to make fresh Cheese and Rosemary breadsticks. Ummm, ummmm, good! I stuck around for that one.

She showed how she mixed up the cheese and herbs in the food processor, and explained that the breadsticks would be covered in the mixture prior to baking. I was probably beginning to drool at this point.

Next, she grabbed a can of refrigerated, pre-prepared breadstick dough! Shock, horror! That was where Giada lost me forever.

Firstly, that stuff isn't available in Australia, and syndication companies should take that sort of thing into account. Where else are cans of breadstick dough available, besides the US and Canada?

What really irritated me about it, though, is I'm not watching cooking shows to learn how to open cans - which leads me to the "Junk Cook."

Rachael Ray is a prime example of a Junk Cook (thanks to my sister's hairdresser for this phrase).

Her shtick is "30 Minute Meals", and terminal "adorableness". I'm not sure whether or not "adorableness" is a real word, but that's a good word for her.

One day, she was going to be making "Homemade Tomato Soup". That sounded good to me, so I stuck around. Needless to say, I was terribly disappointed when it turned out to be a can of crushed tomatoes, and a can of chicken broth, cooked together. Heating up processed foods that come from a factory - is that what passes for homemade now? If I buy a pack of that UHT, oily, pre-cooked pasta that comes in a bag right off the supermarket shelf, mix it with a jar of spaghetti sauce, and heat them together, would this qualify as a home-made pasta meal? Well, perhaps to Rachael Ray, it would.

It would be easy to throw together a meal in 30 minutes, if I had others to wash and prepare the foods beforehand, and if I were free to use lots of processed foods. All she has to do is grab something and use it. There could be a whole generation watching these shows, who don't realise that vegetables and fruits need to be washed before use, and that lettuce doesn't always come pre-washed and pre-shredded in a bag. And those desserts!

I once worked as a pastry cook for a very demanding Italian restauranteur. His restaurants have their good reputations for a reason, and there are always lines to get in for dinner. If I'd ever tried to present one of her creations for dessert, he probably would've kicked me.

If it appears that I'm being unfair, I apologise. However, I resent "take-out" food being presented as something bad, and this sclock as something "good" and wholesome because it's mixed together at home. I'd rather see someone have a nice restaurant meal, than a quick one made with salty, processed foods, and stuff poured over store-bought ice cream (at least Ina makes her own!).

As I type this, Ming Tsai is cooking about 10' away from me, just for me, because I can't see the assistants and hairdressers behind the scenes. He's making a beautiful meal of "real" ingredients. I've never seen him open a can, ever! In fact, no Asian chef I've seen uses anything canned - with the possible exception of coconut milk. They're forgiven for that.

If I ever have the chance, I'd introduce Ming to Rachael and Giada.
1:41 PM 
2 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[05 Nov 2007 | Monday] 

Category: Religion and Philosophy
Do most Christians realise that the 'founder' and propagator of the religion had never even met Christ?

Paul was actually a Roman who had a 'vision' while traveling in the desert after Christ's crucifixion. Now, when others are traveling in the desert and have these occurences, they are called 'hallucinations'.

Hallucinations are a frequent occurence under those circumstances, and are discounted by rational people. If someone today were to have such an occurence and attempt to start a new religion from it, they would be immediately dismissed as a crackpot.

Jesus' family belonged to the sect of Judaism call the Essenes, and they were very devout. Jesus would've been horrified to discover that a new, non-Jewish religion had sprung up around him.

When someone in modern times is pronounced dead and 'wakes up' before their funeral, we know that the person wasn't really dead at all - just in a state of 'suspended animation', where their respiration is slowed to the point of being virtually  indetectable. Those who lived 2,000 years ago didn't have that kind of scientific knowledge, and to them, the person would've 'risen from the dead' and it would be called a 'miracle'.

The bible has undergone several edits during its time, each time serving the editor. There are bits and pieces that go nowhere... The 'wedding' bit is one. Some believe it may have referred to Christ's own wedding (to Mary Magdalene, who would probably not be pleased to have been recorded in history as a prostitute).

Then there are all the contradictions. Which god is the real one? The merciful one who loves all and forgives sins, or the prankster who made Job, the 'most devout man on earth', suffer unspeakable horrors just to prove a point to Satan?

The Catholic church has the most to answer for. They probably set science back a millenium. Read about the persecution of Gallileo, when he advanced the theory that the planets revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around. He was forbidden from publishing his works, and spent time in prison and under house arrest. The Church didn't much care for facts when it contradicted church dogma. Even in recent history, the Dead Sea Scrolls were kept under Catholic wraps at the Ecole Biblique, as information is contained therein which contradicts offical dogma.

I dislike the way religion has turned sex into something ugly and shameful - so shameful, that Christ couldn't be born of it, nor could he be borne of a woman who'd ever had it.

Few modern Catholics realise that at one time, priests, bishops, even popes, were allowed to marry. This came to a halt (around the 11th century, I think) because others in the church hierarchy were afraid of 'papal dynasties'. They didn't want a pope's son to automatically have the right of succession. So, marriage (and consequently, sex) was out for everyone in the clergy.

Sometimes when I'm flipping around the dial at night, I'll come across one of those TV ministry shows. I find them frightening, in that the 'preachers' often spew some very vile, 'un-Christian-like' drivel, and the audience nods along, rapturously.

Scary stuff.
12:00 AM 
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[29 Sep 2007 | Saturday] 

Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

Yes, I admit it - I grew up watching "soaps" (the ABC ones), beginning with "General Hospital". I watched it after school each day with my grand, beginning,when I was 7.

I still watch a "soap". I wouldn't exactly call it a "guilty secret" because I don't care who knows that I watch it, or what they might say.

A bit after my indoctrination with GH, my cousin Gail turned me on to "Dark Shadows". As I was under 10, I thought it was so cool and scary! But even then, I thought it was ridiculous how, when the characters "went back in time" (which happened quite often), each generation looked exactly like the previous one, except with bigger sideburns, or ornate Grecian curls.and hoop skirts or bustles for the women.

In high school, I discovered sex and drugs and rock and roll, and didn't bother with soaps, but resumed watching them a few years later when I was at home with my babies. When I'd return to work, I'd forget about them again, and didn't see any for about a decade.

During a period when I was off from work after relocating to Australia, I picked up the soap habit again. However, no ABC soaps were shown here at that time, so I had to make do with "The Young and the Restless" (or "The Hung and the Breastful", as I often refer to it). When I returned to work, I taped it and watched it in the evening, and continue to do that, to this day.

I will often be heard yelling out loud while I'm watching, because it really, really does insult my intelligence, more often than not. Still, I like to see what the characters get up to, because I feel like I've known them for so long (even though new writers can come in, and make major changes to a character's personality where if it weren't for the fact that they're being played by the same actor as before, you wouldn't recognize them).

Anyway, as I'm always bellowing about all the ridiculous cliches that abound in soaps, I've finally decided to compile a list of Soap Opera Clichés for your viewing pleasure. Here goes:


You know you're watching a Soap Opera when…


  1. A character who starts seriously irritating people, is guaranteed to be found dead in the very near future;
  2. In the weeks leading up to their demise, they will have infuriated nearly everyone in town, so that virtually the entire city will have a motive for murder;
  3. Nearly everyone in town has been responsible for killing someone, and/or has been on trial for murder at some time in their lives;
  4. The person who is tried for murder is never the one who actually committed the crime;
  5. If someone needs to stand trial for any reason, the District Attorney will personally prosecute the case – however trivial the matter, because it's the only case he seems to have;
  6. People who are charged with crimes are sent to trial within a few weeks;
  7. Every crime, however small, will result in prison time for a conviction. This applies even for a well-connected, wealthy person without any prior offenses;
  8. Defense attorneys seem to have only one client at a time, and are always available to that client;
  9. Judges always have time "after hours" to hear civil matters upon request;
  10. If someone comes up with an idea for taking legal action against someone else, the papers are served within an hour or two;
  11. Legal and court personnel often forget to file crucial papers, which will later invalidate marriages, adoptions, and whatever else.
  12. Private investigators could not even find their own "privates" with a magnifying glass the size of the Hubble telescope;
  13. Black people who are on trial never "play the race card"; However much Y&R's Winters family was harrassed during he Carmen Mesta case, not once did it occur to them (or their attorney) to say, "You're only being this harsh on us because we're black".
  14. Major black characters often look like little more than white people with great tans; That's because white folks would find it harder to identify with, or sympathize with, someone of obviously African appearance. And the more "white" a black character appears, the easier it is to "mix them up" with the white characters;
  15. Black people are always religious;
  16. Even the poorest, down-on-his-luck homeless person, has great teeth;
  17. The destitute homeless person will turn out to be a very rich or educated person who suffered a past trauma which prevented them from living in a house;
  18. Hookers will always have hearts of gold, and will only be in the profession forcibly, never for the hours or the money;
  19. People can have plastic surgery to look exactly like someone else (and miraculously, they even come out sounding like them!).
  20. Few people say "goodbye" when finishing a phone conversation;
  21. Many people who "leave town" may as well have been abducted by aliens, as they're never seen or heard from again;
  22. Dead people routinely reappear, alive and well, even if their death crushed them like a pancake, or ground them to a pulpy liquid;
  23. A person known for a fact to be dead, returns in the form of a previously-unknown twin, or identical cousin, and scares the hell out of everyone;
  24. Nearly no one owns a dog (or any pet, for that matter);
  25. "Star-crossed lovers" are always being torn apart either by simple misunderstandings, or  scheming harpies, over and over again;
  26. People never think to close the door when talking about someone else behind his or her back, even when they're known to be in the same building;
  27. Those with "flip phones" always seem to snap them shut, hard;
  28. At least half of the characters are multi-millionaires, or are good friends with some;
  29. No matter how wealthy someone is, they are never snobs, and are friends with people of all income levels;
  30. No pregnancy and birth ever occurs without major complications;
  31. All pregnant women seem to desperately want a son;
  32. Every pregnant woman who falls down, miscarries;
  33. Pregnant women go into labor after clutching their abdomens and doubling over with one huge pain, and have the baby within minutes; Being in elevators and isolated places without phone coverage are great for starting a reluctant labor;
  34. Babies seem to be born every place but hospitals, because the mothers can never seem to make it there in time;
  35. Pregnant women never put on any extra body fat;
  36. After giving birth, new mothers instantly fit back into their pre-pregnancy clothes, and their bodies snap right back into shape;
  37. "Breast-feeding mothers" never seem to breast feed. They are able to go off and leave the baby with a sitter for extended periods as soon as they are home from the hospital;
  38. Mothers of newborns do not have nannies, even when they're millionaires or billionaires;
  39. Despite complaining about exhaustion due to a colicky baby and lack of sleep, a new mother will still dress nicely with appropriate accessories and jewelry, have beautifully styled hair, and perfect makeup;
  40. At the head of every wealthy family is a patriarch who is a "great dad";
  41. Home exteriors are nearly never shown (it would be difficult to think of the characters as "like us" if we see that they live in a stately manor house);
  42. Dollar amounts are almost never discussed, for the same reason (It would be hard to identify with someone who could easily hand over millions – a dollar figure is often written down and shown to another character, but not uttered aloud);
  43. Children will be shown right after they're born, then disappear for years;
  44. Children have no toys around the house;
  45. Children make no noise;
  46. Children spend nearly all of their time in their rooms, or "spending the night at a friend's";
  47. When children are shown, it's to bring them out for a serious talk on the sofa, where they sit and listen attentively, before making considered and mature comments; Never will they say, "Can I go now? Because 'The Simpsons' are on in a minute" - they will take whatever bad news they are given like the brave little troupers they are, then go back to their rooms and leave the adults to get on with their hand-wringing;
  48. Children are never cranky and do not throw tantrums – they are asked nicely to do something, and always cheerfully comply. Just like in real life;
  49. A young child will be sent off to "boarding school", and return a year later, ten or more years older (though the parents don't get any older);
  50. Young people nearly always leave home in their teens;
  51. Rich kids who have drug or alcohol problems, can be completely "cured";
  52. No one seems to own a gaming console;
  53. Only working-class people, women looking for a sleazy pickup, or alcoholics, go  to bars; The well-heeled, however, may go to upmarket "clubs", where they don't really drink, but will be waited on by the teenaged kid of a zillionaire (a la Coleen Carlton). We all know that rich kids start their adult lives waiting tables;
  54. Baby-switching is rampant, whether intentional or not - a later consequence of this is:
  55. A person's mother or father, later on, turns out not to be their real one;
  56. Women who are worried about something, pace around their livingrooms, wringing their hands;
  57. Few characters seem to have a group of same-sex friends to hang out with;
  58. Few characters seem to have more than one real friend;
  59. Once a character gets a boyfriend or girlfriend, they don't seem to have any other friends anymore;
  60. A "set" with dated décor may be used as a character's home forever (even if the character is a millionaire fashion model who is very hip and trendy, otherwise).  Y&R's well-to-do Winters family still has the dark, dated "condo"-type kitchen that's existed since Neil's bachelor days two decades ago;
  61. Few people are actually shown cooking or eating; On Y&R, it seems that the only people with a kitchen are indeed the Winters, but even they don't have a bathroom, which is something they have in common with everyone else in town;
  62. No one ever seems to watch TV;
  63. Billionaire company presidents do their own home repairs, and their wives wash their own dishes;
  64. Lawyers don't seem to work at law firms; in fact, few even seem to have an office at all;
  65. A character opening a brand-new nightclub, can be seen sitting around a coffee house in the afternoon of "opening night"; Ask anyone who has ever opened a new business like that, if they could go off to hang out somewhere just before the place opened for the first time!;
  66. Evil characters can "change" and become model citizens;
  67. A disbarred lawyer can be reinstated after doing time, with the help of the person he was convicted of trying to rape or murder; just as a rapist can be redeemed by the love of his victim;
  68. Same-day appointments are always available with any medical specialist – often because "the doctor had a cancellation".
  69. Doctors answer their own phones when called for an office appointment.
  70. Every surgical procedure is a matter of life-and-death.
  71. Every life-and-death hospital scene will feature someone in the hospital's chapel, tearfully trying to barter with God for their loved one's life.
  72. Characters are never "worried", but always "concerned".
  73. Characters do not marry outside of their small circle of family and acquaintances – the same man can marry a woman, then her sister, and later her daughter, daughter-in-law, and even her mother!
  74. A guy can marry his stepfather's ex-wife, who is older than him, and it seems perfectly normal; and no one finds it odd when a young woman marries twice, to two different men who had previously been romantically involved with her mother - and it's neither a psychological issue, or part of a pattern - just a coincidence, and symptomatic of the shortage of men in town;
  75. Many main characters have been married at least 5 times, sometimes twice that, and it doesn't seem odd;
  76. Despite the "obesity epidemic", there are nearly no overweight characters on soaps; Those who have appeared, were usually there for the purpose of being teased until they were put on a diet and made-over;
  77. All the women are stick-thin, and looking at the men (especially the younger ones), you wonder how they manage to tear themselves away from their workouts and find the time to be private eyes, or run multi-national corporations;
  78. Any feeble excuse is enough to get these muscle-men out of their shirts; You half expect to see them, one day, wearing those break-away outfits that male strippers wear, so that they can get out of their clothes even quicker;
  79. While I've seen "flamboyant characters", I don't recall actually seeing a gay couple;
  80. Few characters seem to have household help, except for perhaps a maid, who is supposed to cook as well as single-handedly look after a "mansion";
  81. No maids are "illegals";
  82. A maid will, more often than not, be shown with feather duster in hand;
  83. Most characters have "Anglo" surnames, and those with "ethnic" names fit in with their ethnic stereotypes (eg Italians will own the Italian restaurant, and Jews will be SuperJews who are devout and take great pride in their Jewish heritage and customs);
  84. All of the principal characters, no matter how filthy rich, volunteer to help feed the needy during the Holiday Season;
  85. Men rarely have any sexual problems – it's only ever women who are "frigid";
  86. A character who decides to leave town, is gone by the end of the day, lock, stock, and barrel, and often without a goodbye;

 
I may add more at a later date, as I think of them. 

 -Axella Johannesson

 

8:27 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[22 Sep 2007 | Saturday] 

Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities
Yeah, so what? He's got the body for it! 

Naturally, the first thing the de la Hoya camp did was to claim that the photos were "Photoshopped". And as you'd expect, they released a statement that they were "considering legal action".

People who are truly victims of a hoax, do not "consider" legal action - they take it! Obviously, some lawyers believe the public to be so dumb, that all we need is to hear the words "legal action" from their side, in any context, and we'll form an opinion that the photos are false. Unfortunately, not everyone is so easily taken in.

Now, with regard to the "act", if you can't indulge your kinkier aspirations in the company of so-called "exotic dancers", then when can you? Isn't that why those ladies make house calls to hotels - to provide a service that can't be had at home?

I've heard lots and lots of stories about those who summon up the courage to ask their partners for something that's a bit beyond "me on top, or you on top?", only to be rebuked and called "sick".

"Sick", to me, is enjoying being tortured to within an inch of death, or beaten bloody. Or hanging from the ceiling by hooks in your skin. Or a man sticking needles into his scrotum so that they remain embedded in the testicles. Or killing your lover and eating him. Or asking your lover to kill and eat you. While I am not anointing myself The Arbiter of Normalcy, I, and most people, would define  those things as sick. Asking your wife to spank you, or asking your girlfriend to dress up in a nun's costume, are silly, harmless, fantasy things - much like dressing up in a fishnet body stocking, high heels, and a ladies wig.

If a guy wants to dress up in women's clothing in the privacy of his hotel room, that's his business. Who cares? Or rather, who should care, besides no one? I think a lot more guys probably do the dress-up thing, than we'd like to believe.

Who has de la Hoya hurt, other than himself - by torpedoeing his macho Latin image? Because in our hypocritical "Puritanical" society, where priests molest boys, Baptist ministers hire hookers, pubescent girls are ogled on magazine covers and catwalks, and politicians and judges are on the client lists of illegal brothels, we are shocked by de la Hoya dressing up in a costume! Still, I think it's safe to say that "Old Spice" or "Brut" (by Faberge) won't be calling Oscar to do a commercial for them, anytime soon. What a huge loss!

de la Hoya's mistake, if he wanted to keep this side of himself private, was in trusting this woman to such a degree that he allowed her to retain copies of the photos.

But the rest? Big deal. What he wears in his own "space", is his business, not ours.

Viva y dejar vivir!


9:04 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[21 Sep 2007 | Friday] 
MyFreeImplants.com is a website for women who, after being bombarded with media images that make them feel "inadequate" for being normal, can beg strangers to donate towards paying for breast implants. All they have to do is post pictures of themselves, and chat on-line with their "benefactors".

My Free Implants

There was a barmaid who worked at a place where we used to play. She turned up one Friday with triple double D's, and after that, was ogled non-stop from across the bar (hey, some women love that, and that's their business, I guess). She got them because her boyfriend pressured her to!  What a great guy! He must have really loved her, to ask her to do that for him!.

I wonder how many men would get their weenies sliced into and messed with, if their girlfriends told them that they weren't "big enough". Hell, as if that could ever happen! When was the last time you heard of a woman telling a man she cared about, that his penis was simply too small? Hell, most of the time women end up reassuring men that they are indeed big enough, even if we secretly believe otherwise, because a lot of men are insecure about that stuff. So we prop up their spun-glass egos.

That doesn't always seem to work in reverse, though, because men are still pressuring women to get these disgusting plastic blobs inserted into their bodies.

"My Free Implants" is pathetic. It panders to all that is shallow and superficial in our society. It's just another means for a couple of guys to make a fortune by making women feel insecure, and then by exploiting that insecurity.

First, make women feel inferior for being normal.

Then, make them beg for the "cure" - a surgical procedure, which, although now considered routine, indeed has the capability to cause patient deaths.

I loved watching the two retards who thought up this brilliant concept, defending it on TV tonight. Ha ha. Yup, the dollars are rolling in for these scumbags. Just like they did (and do) for the Bumfight bastards. What has society sunk to? Or need I ask?

And the doctors? Well, they said that they think it's a disgusting concept. So disgusting, in fact, that they happily take the money from this outfit to do the surgery, "while not condoning it"!

Hypocrites. Pigs.

It reinforces my belief that many doctors (not all, mind you), are little more than whores - whether to drug companies, or outfits like this.

Is it possible that those who pressure wives and girlfriends to get big, fake breasts, do so because they themselves have little dicks - or feel otherwise "unworthy" of a good woman? It's well-known that one way that insecure people build themselves up, is by tearing other people down - by belittling them so that they end up appearing "inadequate". On that basis, I have to wonder what these "boyfriends" have under the hood, so to speak.

And the doctors? Well, we know where they're coming from, and what motivate$ them, don't we?
 --> -->
4:00 PM 
2 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[20 Aug 2007 | Monday] 

Category: Quiz/Survey
OK, I stole this from Robert Ewing's page, and he got it from Elmo Lincoln's (didn't he used to play "Tarzan" in silent films?).

50 Questions

1. How old will you be in 12 months?
50

2. Do you think you'll be married by then?
Who knows what can happen in 12 months?


3. What do you look forward to most in the next 3 months?
Putting in two new toilets and a closet. Who says I don't know how to live it up?

4.Who was the last person to call you?
Adam, my son-in-law (while the football game was on TV, to rub it in that his team was beating mine).

5. Who was the last person to text you?
My friend Stu

6. Do you prefer to call or text?
Depends. Usually text, I guess.

7. Do you have any pets?
Jack Russells, Ralph (10, the drummer) and Casey (2). Both can be seen on YouTube.

8. What were you doing at 12am last night?
Editing a video.

9.Do you like carrots?
Yup, cooked.

10. When is the last time you saw your mom?
2001. But she's coming to visit in December.

10. Have you ever traveled to another continent?
Yes.

12. How many houses have you lived in?
So many, it's ridiculous.

13. How many cities/towns have you lived in?
9, I think. Maybe more.

14. Do you prefer shoes, socks, or bare feet?
Sneakers.

15. Are you a social person?
Only when I'm in the mood.

16.What was the last thing you ate?
Homemade vegetable and pasta soup.

17. Favorite color?
Blue

18. What are you doing for your next birthday?
No idea.

19.What is your favorite TV show?
"Jeopardy"

20. What kind of jelly do you like on your PB & J sandwich?
I hate PB & J sandwiches!

21. Do you like coffee?
Yes, but I'm primarily a tea drinker (milk, no sugar).

22. How many glasses of water a day do you drink on average?
3-6 - the hotter the weather, the more I drink.

23. What do you enjoy most about winter?
Not sweating.

24. What are you listening to?
"On My Mind" by Powderfinger.

25. Do you sleep on a certain side of the bed?
I sleep on the right side, but get up on the wrong side.

26. Do you know how to play poker?
Maybe a little bit, but have no interest in it. I hate gambling.

27. What are you thinking about?
How I can get a builder to give me an estimate on putting two new doorways in load-bearing walls. No one can say I don't know a good time!

28. Any plans for this weekend?
Finish a wedding video I'm editing, sand down the plaster I've patched, and break in a new guitar.

29. Do you eat out or at home more often?
Mostly at home. I like to cook.

30. Do you have any hobbies?
Yes, lots - doing stained glass, home renovations, graphics stuff, making clothes, baking, lots of things.

31. What is your proudest achievement?
My children, if you could call them an achievement. I'm very proud of them.

32. Do you have a favorite film?
I will have lots of favorites over time, but I always come back to "In Cold Blood" - the original version from 1967. Classic. I loved "Brokeback Mountain", and Tennessee Williams' films (or rather, films from Tennessee Williams' stories).

33. Have you ever been in an ambulance?
Yes, most recently was last year when my appendix burst.

34. Do you prefer an ocean or pool?
I love going to the beach, but ocean beaches are too rough for me as I'm not a very skilled swimmer. The pool is convenient - all I have to do is walk out the back door and jump in.

36. Do you know how to drive a stick shift?
Yes.

37. What is your favorite thing to spend money on?
Gadgetry of all kinds (kitchen and electronics), and guitars.

38. Do you wear any jewelry 24/7?
No, not at all. Why buy jewelry when there are so many instruments and fx processors out there calling my name?

39. Do you speak any other language?
Sí, pero solamente las palabras sucias.

40. Who do you most admire?
Scientists who slave away in labs, trying to cure diseases.

41. Who is the funniest person you know?
The Pope. But I don't think he knows he's funny.

42. Do you sleep with stuffed animals?
No.

43. Do you believe in God?
Nope. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, either.

44. What is the main ring tone on your phone?
Some Nokia tone.

45. House or apartment?
House.

46. What is the color of your bedroom walls?
Some disgusting terracotta colour, but that came with the house and will be changed soon.

47. Do you shut off the water when you brush your teeth?
Yes. We are in a drought here.

48. Do you wish someone was with you right now?
Yes.

49. Do you miss someone right now?
Yes. Don't we all?

50. Do you talk to the person who posted this before?

Not in person, unfortunately.

2:33 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[18 Aug 2007 | Saturday] 

Current mood:  contemplative
Category: Life
We live in a 24/7 world. It never sleeps.

 I can pick any of the 7 days in a week to go out to buy a guitar if I want to. No more of that wimpy "closed"-on-Sunday stuff. The store's open every day. Woo hoo! And in most cities in the developed world, people can go out for a hot meal or snack any time, day or night. We like to be able to get whatever we want, whenever we want it.

Any kind of discomfort is another no-no.

Some people so despise the idea of getting into a chilly car, that they heat their garage floors. Many people, even those in warm climates, heat their swimming pools (I guess so that it feels more like the nice, warm ocean. Heh.). And we've evolved as a species to the point that we can't seem to work in an office without it being completely climate controlled. Office windows aren't made to open anymore, so even on the mildest, most beautiful day, the climate control system is running. And it's the same for a lot of people at home. Too warm to run the heat? Then it must be time for the a/c.

New power plants are being built to include state-of-the-art anti-pollution technology, and many older plants have been retro-fitted with it. The sight of dense black or brown smoke eminating from power plant stacks is becoming a thing of the past, as attrition rids us of those obsolete installations. What we see now from those huge chimneys is probably harmless water vapor. Therefore, we don't have to feel as bad about the whole "carbon thing". So the only real issue facing us with regard to our energy usage is paying those big bills, right? Not exactly.

The problem that many choose to ignore is that the higher the demand is for energy, the higher the cost in human misery for the fuel needed to provide it. It means American and British oil conglomerates continue to act like colonial governors in their cavalier treatment of the "natives" they employ in Middle-Eastern oilfields.

It also means some of our own citizens at home are forced to go even deeper into coalmines every day. They do this to feed the big boilers that make the steam, which turns the turbines, that generate the electricity needed for our 24/7 lifestyle (which includes warm garage floors and climate control). Unfortunately, sometimes things go wrong in the Quest for Coal, and miners are injured or killed. Sometimes those sent to rescue them suffer the same fate. Of those who die, the lucky ones are those who die quickly from catastrophic injuries. The unlucky ones die from starvation, dehydration, and perhaps infection, trapped in a cold, pitch-black tomb, thinking about their loved ones.

We hear about trapped miner stories, and hold our collective breath as we hear details of rescue efforts. We know that those who are trapped are people like us, with families, hopes, and dreams, because news reporters tell us so. The news people do all they can to get us to empathize with those poor souls and their families, because it hooks us into tuning in and following the story. So we watch, and hope for the best because fundamentally, we're decent people. We don't want to see others hurt or suffering. We hope and pray for a successful outcome.

Most of us believe that in paying our bills to the power company, we're covered for what we use. But are we? Or are people that we're unlikely to ever  meet, helping to pay for our ravenous consumption? Are they, cliched as it may sound, paying "the ultimate price" for the rest of us, because we can never get enough?
2:55 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[21 Jun 2007 | Thursday] 

A few weeks ago, Australian newspapers printed the results of customer satisfaction surveys regarding airline travel. Qantas expressed surprise at their less-than-perfect showing. Having flown Qantas in the past month, I thought that perhaps I could help them to understand things a bit etter, from the perspective of a passenger. So, I wrote to them:


On 1 June, my husband and I flew from Melbourne to Cairns on QF702 (returning on 4 June on QF703).

Both flights got off the ground late.

On the way to Cairns, we were told that a movie would be shown, "The Painted Veil". Not a bad film, it turned out, but as it got to a crucial plot point about 2 1/2 hours into the 3 hour flight, the pilot broke in with the "We are cruising at an altitude of [blah, blah, blah]…", "The temperature in Cairns is [blah, blah, blah]...", while the video was still showing. I'm sure you get the idea.

Now, of course it's great to get that info, but for god's sake, hadn't anyone in the crew ever heard of "Pause" on the video player? I have to rent the movie now to see that important bit, so that the movie makes sense! And this is not the first time they've done it!

On the way back, a French-language film (with English subtitles) was shown. Now, I am not one to avoid a subtitled film, but the economy cabin on that particular aircraft had one screen located at the front of the cabin. It was too far away, and blocked by heads in front of me. Many others also had no view of the bottom of the screen at all, and therefore, couldn't see the subtitles. Whoever chose that film for in-flight entertainment deserves a kick.

Having given up on the film, I decided to read.

Unfortunately, I dropped my reading glasses. My husband and I are still astonished that there was not enough room between rows for me bend forward to pick them up while seated! I had to contort myself to maneuver the in-flight magazine to scoop them up along the wall next to me. And no, I'm not that fat that I can't bend at the waist!

It's seemingly insignificant little things like these which make for an unpleasant travel experience. Anyone who has any knowledge of customer service knows that small details matter when it comes to customer satisfaction.

I have tried to support Qantas over the years but have found that Qantas doesn't really seem to care much about us, the rank-and-file customers who are not jet-setters or frequent business travellers. That's why other carriers beat Qantas in satisfaction surveys, and why, sadly, we will give the competition a try next time and advise others to do so as well.


I initially submitted it via their website's "Contact Us", but thought better of it as it would probably be read and blown off by some anonymous clerk (and sure enough, after an automated reply in which they said they couldn't reply to all emails personally, they didn't.). I decided to get the fax number for head office, and send it to the airline's CEO.

Imagine my surprise the next day when I heard from the personal assistant to the CEO! We went over every point (but one).

1) We got off the ground late because they were doing some pilot training stuff;
2) They are supposed to stop the movie when the pilot talks; and
3) No one ever realized that subtitled movies were a bad idea in Coach when there was a single screen in the cabin (he passed that info directly on to the person who chooses the in-flight films. Victory!).

He offered to send me a gift card so that I could purchase the movie that the pilot talked over, and I said it wasn't really necessary. But today in the mail, I received a $25 gift card to use at a major department store. So at least they're trying...

He didn't address the ever-shrinking leg room in Economy, but until they get to the stage where they can force us to travel upright strapped into little space-saving pods, they'll try to keep fitting as many seats into Cattle Class as possible. They'd probably put seats on the roof of the plane, if they could, or seat people on the wings.

Anyway, the moral of the story is, don't even bother dealing with a Customer Service clerk whose performance is rated not by customer satisfaction, but by how many emails they process per hour (like the ones at eBay or PayPal who reply to you with a form letter which is chosen based only upon keywords in your letter, and often doesn't even address your problem).

Go right to the top if you want results!


12:51 AM 
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
[09 Jun 2007 | Saturday] 

Current mood:  sympathetic
Lots of people, everywhere, are revelling in Paris Hilton's so-called "downfall".

However, she has, as we all know, lived a very cosseted life. She doesn't have the strength that comes from surviving hard knocks. To those who know her, she really is a very sweet and kind soul (who just happens to like to party a lot - and who wouldn't, if they could?).

People resent her because she's had all the so-called "advantages", and is happy to simply be a bubblehead, while the rest of us have had to wait tables or stock shelves and the like, to put ourselves through university. We slave our guts out and will never have a cushy life like hers. So, yeah, for many it's very satisfying to see the "spoilt little rich bitch" get her "comeuppance".

I know that she, like lots of others of her ilk, can appear to be rather arrogant in thinking that the normal rules don't apply to them, but, for the most part, they don't. There are always legal teams to run interference, for even the most minor thing. She would probably pay her lawyers more to fight a silly traffic ticket, than your father earned in his best year.

She, like other rich and famous kids, could get into nightclubs and dance on tables at 15 years of age and younger. It was well-publicised, and I never heard of a club losing its liquor license for serving Mandy Smith, Drew Barrymore, or Paris and Nicky Hilton. Having hot, young, famous girls (literally) in attendance is good for business - it brings in the rich old pervs.

Now, I ask, how can anyone with an ounce of compassion in their souls, possibly feel good about seeing a terrified young woman wailing for her Mom, like a little lost kid who becomes separated from her mother in a shopping center? And now, she's on suicide watch, for Christ's sake. If anything, it's pathetic, not funny.

The only good thing about all of this is that the "Parisites", her impressionable young fan-base, will see it all unfold... Before, who knows? It may've been cool for Paris to go to jail (albeit in the celebrity wing) - you know how people seem to love outlaws, especially the young... But her smug statement about others learning from her mistakes, made when she was initially released after only 3 days, will have a lot more impact now. No young girl is going to think Paris' genuine terror is something they'd like to experience.
5:34 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate