Monday, March 29, 2010
South Korea
Currently, I am in South Korea. Will be updating this blog again via a domain (thehiccupaccount.com) when I am fully settled. My personal Korean blog is sujistella.blogspot.com !
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
I'm back!
I'm back!
Dearest nonexistent reader pool,
You can now ease from the edge of your seats and sleep easy tonight as I am back to blogging after taking a long overdue trip to Florida to see family (see: previous rants about airplanes). To be fair, I did return several days ago, but I have been preparing to go overseas to work in Korea in two weeks, (learning Hangul/eating kimchi, perfecting my use of chop sticks, etc.) These are obviously time consuming tasks of monumental importance.
The upper house of India's parliament passed a bill this evening requiring a third of seats in its national parliament and state legislatures to be given to women. This is exciting and of course, I strongly believe that women should hold more positions of any kind in governments around the world. India's move sets an example for the world that women are grossly underrepresented (women make up 10% of India's lower house and even less than this in its state assemblies). Most people in India seem to agree with the bill, as only a very few members of parliament objected to its passing. Those who did object though were pretty vocal about it and not because they disagree with the advancement of women per say. I think that the bill is necessary, but I do feel for these nay-Sayers.
Here's why I initially disagreed with the bill-
Quotas: A quota of any kind can be risky as this leads people to obtain positions based on reasons that have nothing to do with merit. Although it is completely possible that all of the women who will obtain seats in parliament will completely, 100% be the best women for the job, there will always be that lingering field of doubt that those who speak against women's rights will play up to prove some inane "point" or another.
Dynasties: Some say that the bill will further strengthen political gharanas, giving more power not to all women but to those who belong to the strongest political families. One blogger's stance
Yet, it is the lesser of "two evils"
Yeah, the dynasty argument holds a lot of weight, but it is a risk that I think is completely worth taking. The fact of the matter is, these quotas may be necessary in this case to break through centuries of lack of representation and power that women have had to face. We should be applauding India, and should use the bill as an example to follow for our own country. I don't think that we should use quotas in the US, but the lack of the appearance of women in our ruling bodies is appalling.
Not to mention the fact that the US still is yet to have a woman serve as president although there have been dozens of female heads of state that have led all kinds of countries, many of which we often claim to be more "democratic" than. hm.
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Female_Leaders.htm
Dearest nonexistent reader pool,
You can now ease from the edge of your seats and sleep easy tonight as I am back to blogging after taking a long overdue trip to Florida to see family (see: previous rants about airplanes). To be fair, I did return several days ago, but I have been preparing to go overseas to work in Korea in two weeks, (learning Hangul/eating kimchi, perfecting my use of chop sticks, etc.) These are obviously time consuming tasks of monumental importance.
And what a better day than today to be back?
The upper house of India's parliament passed a bill this evening requiring a third of seats in its national parliament and state legislatures to be given to women. This is exciting and of course, I strongly believe that women should hold more positions of any kind in governments around the world. India's move sets an example for the world that women are grossly underrepresented (women make up 10% of India's lower house and even less than this in its state assemblies). Most people in India seem to agree with the bill, as only a very few members of parliament objected to its passing. Those who did object though were pretty vocal about it and not because they disagree with the advancement of women per say. I think that the bill is necessary, but I do feel for these nay-Sayers.
Here's why I initially disagreed with the bill-
Quotas: A quota of any kind can be risky as this leads people to obtain positions based on reasons that have nothing to do with merit. Although it is completely possible that all of the women who will obtain seats in parliament will completely, 100% be the best women for the job, there will always be that lingering field of doubt that those who speak against women's rights will play up to prove some inane "point" or another.
Dynasties: Some say that the bill will further strengthen political gharanas, giving more power not to all women but to those who belong to the strongest political families. One blogger's stance
Yet, it is the lesser of "two evils"
Yeah, the dynasty argument holds a lot of weight, but it is a risk that I think is completely worth taking. The fact of the matter is, these quotas may be necessary in this case to break through centuries of lack of representation and power that women have had to face. We should be applauding India, and should use the bill as an example to follow for our own country. I don't think that we should use quotas in the US, but the lack of the appearance of women in our ruling bodies is appalling.
Not to mention the fact that the US still is yet to have a woman serve as president although there have been dozens of female heads of state that have led all kinds of countries, many of which we often claim to be more "democratic" than. hm.
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Female_Leaders.htm
Monday, February 22, 2010
Round Two: Expedia
Round Two: Expedia
So, it was bad enough that I had to cancel my trip, re-book a flight with an airline I was annoyed with and which doesn't provide international service so I basically can't use it ever except right now, three weeks before I leave the country. That was bad enough. It was also bad that my little sister, who doesn't like airplanes in the first place (thank you, Samuel L. Jackson), is now traumatized for life and can't go on this trip with me.
Then, I call Expedia, try to use my credit for a new flight and all hell breaks loose. Seriously. I called Expedia and this man, whom I could barely understand over the phone, tells me I need to book my flight before he could apply the credit and that I should call back. I was a little bit leery about this, seeing as in doing so I would have to pay first and then receive the credit, but I did it anyway. I get the itinerary number and I call Expedia back. This woman tells me, "Oh, no you were supposed to get the credit first and then book the flight." What?! I freak out. So she promptly tells me I will be refunded for that charge and proceeds to re-book the same flight with the Delta credit. Okay, annoying, but OK.
Then... She is reading back all of the ticket information to confirm that it matches the original flight I booked. Yes. Yes... She then tells me that she is going to charge it on my debit card. I say NO, NO. As this debit card was already used to buy TWO flights (since the refund takes some time to kick in, I figured). I knew I didn't have enough money in that account to cover it and I would overdraft. I offered to give another credit card. I pleaded. She said she charged it. I said NO. Then I checked Bank of America, and I already had over-drafted. I told her this. She then hung up on me.
I called back and a man (who I think was the same guy who gave me the bad advice in the first place thus causing all of this calamity), told me that, "Everything was all set." Well yes, that's great, but what about my overdraft fee now with Bank of America because this woman would not listen to me? She charged me, the customer who is shelling out hundreds of dollars for this flight, against my will and it was recorded. I said this to him and he finally offered me a $25 discount.
BS.BS.BSBSBSBSBS. I am never using Expedia again for any of my flights. Nor am I using Delta, and I'm sure I will be doing a lot of flying in my lifetime.
Also, if I ever have to hear that obnoxious Expedia "dot com!" jingle ever again I may vom.
So, it was bad enough that I had to cancel my trip, re-book a flight with an airline I was annoyed with and which doesn't provide international service so I basically can't use it ever except right now, three weeks before I leave the country. That was bad enough. It was also bad that my little sister, who doesn't like airplanes in the first place (thank you, Samuel L. Jackson), is now traumatized for life and can't go on this trip with me.
Then, I call Expedia, try to use my credit for a new flight and all hell breaks loose. Seriously. I called Expedia and this man, whom I could barely understand over the phone, tells me I need to book my flight before he could apply the credit and that I should call back. I was a little bit leery about this, seeing as in doing so I would have to pay first and then receive the credit, but I did it anyway. I get the itinerary number and I call Expedia back. This woman tells me, "Oh, no you were supposed to get the credit first and then book the flight." What?! I freak out. So she promptly tells me I will be refunded for that charge and proceeds to re-book the same flight with the Delta credit. Okay, annoying, but OK.
Then... She is reading back all of the ticket information to confirm that it matches the original flight I booked. Yes. Yes... She then tells me that she is going to charge it on my debit card. I say NO, NO. As this debit card was already used to buy TWO flights (since the refund takes some time to kick in, I figured). I knew I didn't have enough money in that account to cover it and I would overdraft. I offered to give another credit card. I pleaded. She said she charged it. I said NO. Then I checked Bank of America, and I already had over-drafted. I told her this. She then hung up on me.
I called back and a man (who I think was the same guy who gave me the bad advice in the first place thus causing all of this calamity), told me that, "Everything was all set." Well yes, that's great, but what about my overdraft fee now with Bank of America because this woman would not listen to me? She charged me, the customer who is shelling out hundreds of dollars for this flight, against my will and it was recorded. I said this to him and he finally offered me a $25 discount.
BS.BS.BSBSBSBSBS. I am never using Expedia again for any of my flights. Nor am I using Delta, and I'm sure I will be doing a lot of flying in my lifetime.
Also, if I ever have to hear that obnoxious Expedia "dot com!" jingle ever again I may vom.
I Fly Like Paper.
Unfortunately, I've had a lot of trouble fulfilling the second half of M.I.A.'s lyrics, as I have been unable to get HIGH LIKE PLANES (and I'm not referring to drugs), as of late.
The frustration that I feel is that shared by many people, as airlines have been overbooking, overcharging, and in general causing unnecessary dismay and agitation as the industry continues to trudge through the financial blows dealt by the recession. Celebrities aren't even immune to the miserly ways of the industry, as the tale of Kevin Smith (Silent Bob), who was bumped from a Southwest flight for being too fat last week, attests to. The airline offered him a $100 credit (which he did not accept) after he ranted about getting bumped from his flight (which, he had to purchase two seats for due to his size) via Twitter.
And although I'm not getting bumped from planes for that reason, nor am I getting in fights with rappers that have internet jargon-based acronyms instead of names (see: LMFAO v. Mitt Romney), I am frustrated.
Here is my story.
On February 15, 2010, my sister and I were set to take off out of JFK via a flight with Delta Airlines. We arrived at the airport approximately two hours prior to our departure time. We had already checked in the day before our flight and had no luggage to check. So, that was that. After going through security, buying some gifts for our relatives, and all of that lovely stuff, we arrived at our gate about 25 minutes prior to take-off. At this time, I realized that our gate had been changed. Simultaneously, I heard my name called on the loudspeaker and my sister and I (literally) ran to the new gate. However, this gate was on the opposite end of the terminal so we arrived approximately 7 minutes after my name was called. Since our flight was overbooked, our tickets had been given away to someone else and we were not allowed on the plane. We were bumped to "Seat Request" status for the next flight out. And then the one after that. The only flight they could guarantee was for the next day, which was too late because we were on a time crunch. Whoops.
I get that it was the customer's responsibility to be aware of last minute gate changes and the like. I get it. What got me though, was the fact that my sister and I STILL arrived to the gate according to the time frame that was suggested to us on our ticket. In the fine print it says, "Please arrive 15 - 40 minutes prior to departure time." We arrived 25 minutes prior. Maybe even more.
What also bothered me, was the fact that I saw this happen to someone else on one of the flights that we were requesting seats for. In this situation, the couples' names had been called and they appeared an instant later at the ticket counter, as they were waiting very close to the gate. Yet, the Delta employee had already left to go to the bathroom after calling their names. The other employee who still remained was helping someone else and did not acknowledge the couple. A few minutes later, the original Delta employee returned and informed them that their seats were given away. I don't get it. So essentially, I am going to arrive at the airport four hours early from now on, and check-in twice: in person, and online.
So, we had to cancel our flights with Expedia, receiving a Delta credit and a $150 re-booking fee. Awesome.
The frustration that I feel is that shared by many people, as airlines have been overbooking, overcharging, and in general causing unnecessary dismay and agitation as the industry continues to trudge through the financial blows dealt by the recession. Celebrities aren't even immune to the miserly ways of the industry, as the tale of Kevin Smith (Silent Bob), who was bumped from a Southwest flight for being too fat last week, attests to. The airline offered him a $100 credit (which he did not accept) after he ranted about getting bumped from his flight (which, he had to purchase two seats for due to his size) via Twitter.
And although I'm not getting bumped from planes for that reason, nor am I getting in fights with rappers that have internet jargon-based acronyms instead of names (see: LMFAO v. Mitt Romney), I am frustrated.
Here is my story.
On February 15, 2010, my sister and I were set to take off out of JFK via a flight with Delta Airlines. We arrived at the airport approximately two hours prior to our departure time. We had already checked in the day before our flight and had no luggage to check. So, that was that. After going through security, buying some gifts for our relatives, and all of that lovely stuff, we arrived at our gate about 25 minutes prior to take-off. At this time, I realized that our gate had been changed. Simultaneously, I heard my name called on the loudspeaker and my sister and I (literally) ran to the new gate. However, this gate was on the opposite end of the terminal so we arrived approximately 7 minutes after my name was called. Since our flight was overbooked, our tickets had been given away to someone else and we were not allowed on the plane. We were bumped to "Seat Request" status for the next flight out. And then the one after that. The only flight they could guarantee was for the next day, which was too late because we were on a time crunch. Whoops.
I get that it was the customer's responsibility to be aware of last minute gate changes and the like. I get it. What got me though, was the fact that my sister and I STILL arrived to the gate according to the time frame that was suggested to us on our ticket. In the fine print it says, "Please arrive 15 - 40 minutes prior to departure time." We arrived 25 minutes prior. Maybe even more.
What also bothered me, was the fact that I saw this happen to someone else on one of the flights that we were requesting seats for. In this situation, the couples' names had been called and they appeared an instant later at the ticket counter, as they were waiting very close to the gate. Yet, the Delta employee had already left to go to the bathroom after calling their names. The other employee who still remained was helping someone else and did not acknowledge the couple. A few minutes later, the original Delta employee returned and informed them that their seats were given away. I don't get it. So essentially, I am going to arrive at the airport four hours early from now on, and check-in twice: in person, and online.
So, we had to cancel our flights with Expedia, receiving a Delta credit and a $150 re-booking fee. Awesome.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Going Rogue
Move over John McCain, you're not the only maverick around here anymore.
Make way for President Obama, who demonstrated one very important lesson to Americans yesterday when he announced that he will work on generating health care legislation to attempt to bridge differences between House and Senate Democrats and Republicans... alone.
Aside from teaching the American people that if you want something done right you're better off just doing it yourself, Obama's plan to go-it-alone on preparing health care legislation for next week's bipartisan meeting finally gave critics who complain that he hasn't done anything something to chew on.
Yet, the news has been met with criticism by the Republican party, with Congressional members already planning on skipping next week's meeting. They claim, as Republican leader Rep. John A. Boehner's spokesman illustrated nicely in today's Times, that Obama's solo health care performance reflects a sort of socialist-esq takeover of America's health care system by the Democratic party against the will of the American people.
My question is though, why hasn't Obama done anything about climate change? Afghanistan? Guantanamo? Iran? Why hasn't he told us the secrets of the island? WHAT about Toyota?
Maybe next week.
Make way for President Obama, who demonstrated one very important lesson to Americans yesterday when he announced that he will work on generating health care legislation to attempt to bridge differences between House and Senate Democrats and Republicans... alone.
Aside from teaching the American people that if you want something done right you're better off just doing it yourself, Obama's plan to go-it-alone on preparing health care legislation for next week's bipartisan meeting finally gave critics who complain that he hasn't done anything something to chew on.
Yet, the news has been met with criticism by the Republican party, with Congressional members already planning on skipping next week's meeting. They claim, as Republican leader Rep. John A. Boehner's spokesman illustrated nicely in today's Times, that Obama's solo health care performance reflects a sort of socialist-esq takeover of America's health care system by the Democratic party against the will of the American people.
“We have this event to discuss areas of agreement, and then what?” asked Michael Steel, a spokesman for the Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio. “How will they incorporate our ideas? Will they abandon their plans to jam through their latest backroom deal? Or is this just an infomercial for the same government takeover of health care that the American people have rejected again and again?”The panic in Boehner's words (via Steel) is pretty apparent, but he can sleep easy tonight because no one in the Democratic Party knows what is going on either. No, it's just the president. Doing his thing. He has revealed some parts of his plan, namely a requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance or face penalties and a tax on high-cost, employer-sponsored insurance plans. He has not said anything yet about abortion.
My question is though, why hasn't Obama done anything about climate change? Afghanistan? Guantanamo? Iran? Why hasn't he told us the secrets of the island? WHAT about Toyota?
Maybe next week.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Welp, One Way to Avoid Doing Your Taxes
I don't recommend following the route Joseph Stack III of North Austin, Texas took to avoid the IRS.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Myth of Bipartisanship
Once upon a time, there were two parties whose sole identification was derived from the extent to which they oppose the other regarding the biggest issues plaguing our great nation.
This... is their story.
So yesterday, Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) decided he had enough of the Senate infighting over health care legislation and threw in the towel, leaving his party with even more uncertainty as to their fate in upcoming months. Although some are praising Bayh for representing the need for bipartisanship and cooperation in order to actually get things done, the soon-to-be-former senator actually has just added another memo to the Democratic Party's laundry list of problems as they scurry to find a candidate to run for Bayh's seat.
If we can learn anything from Bayh's exit, I think it is this: a focus on being strictly "bipartisan" and "neutral" can lead one to lose sight of the real issues at hand, thus severely limiting their potential to perform their jobs properly. It's the same thing with journalism as a constant struggle for our country's main paper publications to be "neutral" can confine them to the cages of P.C.-ridden reporting that echo the same "solid facts" that other papers have already spouted out or re-circulated from the Associated Press. Not to knock solid, fact-based reporting, (because goodness knows the antithesis of fact-based neutrality, which is the sloppy churning of whatever thread of gossip can be grasped along the rumor mill, is far worse.) But what seems to be happening is that all of this focus on trying to cooperate really ends up steering the House and Senate away from fighting for the issues at hand.
Yes, there has to be compromise between the two parties. Yet, there also has to be change. Let's face it, the issues that must be dealt with right now are primarily those that are already opposed by most in the Republican Party: climate change and broad-based public health care reform. Therefore, in order to put forth legislation regarding these issues, the Democratic Party has to be willing to wade, not in the seas of bipartisanship, but instead as a united front that breaks down the issues individually with the Republicans that oppose them. In other words, a compromise that takes the form of issue-based negotiation, rather than a bunch of Democrats running around making deals with this one and that one screaming "bipartisan" until either they, or the cows, come home. (Or the Republicans take over).
This... is their story.
So yesterday, Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) decided he had enough of the Senate infighting over health care legislation and threw in the towel, leaving his party with even more uncertainty as to their fate in upcoming months. Although some are praising Bayh for representing the need for bipartisanship and cooperation in order to actually get things done, the soon-to-be-former senator actually has just added another memo to the Democratic Party's laundry list of problems as they scurry to find a candidate to run for Bayh's seat.
If we can learn anything from Bayh's exit, I think it is this: a focus on being strictly "bipartisan" and "neutral" can lead one to lose sight of the real issues at hand, thus severely limiting their potential to perform their jobs properly. It's the same thing with journalism as a constant struggle for our country's main paper publications to be "neutral" can confine them to the cages of P.C.-ridden reporting that echo the same "solid facts" that other papers have already spouted out or re-circulated from the Associated Press. Not to knock solid, fact-based reporting, (because goodness knows the antithesis of fact-based neutrality, which is the sloppy churning of whatever thread of gossip can be grasped along the rumor mill, is far worse.) But what seems to be happening is that all of this focus on trying to cooperate really ends up steering the House and Senate away from fighting for the issues at hand.
Yes, there has to be compromise between the two parties. Yet, there also has to be change. Let's face it, the issues that must be dealt with right now are primarily those that are already opposed by most in the Republican Party: climate change and broad-based public health care reform. Therefore, in order to put forth legislation regarding these issues, the Democratic Party has to be willing to wade, not in the seas of bipartisanship, but instead as a united front that breaks down the issues individually with the Republicans that oppose them. In other words, a compromise that takes the form of issue-based negotiation, rather than a bunch of Democrats running around making deals with this one and that one screaming "bipartisan" until either they, or the cows, come home. (Or the Republicans take over).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
