#fail : AMC Runs Out of the “C” Part

Tune in for the American Classic "Catwoman"!

We’ve long ago established that cable is pretty much the best thing to happen to men since the vagina.  And let’s face it:  most of us spend more time with cable and are better at it than that most mysterious of girl parts.

But oh, how cable can be just as much of a fickle mistress.

I’m not sure why I was watching AMC Saturday afternoon.  Perhaps that’s a #fail in and of itself.  But then the spot came on for that night”s American Movie Classic lineup.  There’s a reason I’m spelling out the name of the channel.  Take a look there to the left.

Go ahead.  Take your time.  You may need to look twice because your brain will assume your eyes are tricking you.  Or your eyes are tricking part of your brain, and the other part is calling shenanigans on the tricked part.  In any case…

Berry had to write "I will not make Catwoman 2" at the Golden Razzie awards in 2005. She had no idea Catwoman would be consiered a cinematic triumph by AMC six years later.

Catwoman?

In some programmer’s office, probably with a very comfortable leather chair and a nice view, the decision was made that Catwoman fits the bill as an American Movie Classic.  The same Catwoman that Halle Berry herself has panned as the worst decision of her movie making career.  She even had to write “I will not make Catwoman 2″ on a chalkboard four times to receive the Razzie for worst actress in 2005.

Let’s just parse the acronym AMC for a moment.

Classic?  No.

Movie?  By even the most lenient scientific standards, no.

Amurrican?  Well, it has Halle Berry in black latex.  That’s not half bad.

I Don’t Care About Pictures of Your Baby

This could be one of the most controversial things I’ll every say or write.  Even more controversial than the time I suggested NASA only select astronauts aged 75 and older.  Think about it.  Space exploration would be so much cheaper if we didn’t have to worry as much about getting them back to Earth.

This needs to be said, if not for my own peace of mind, then for the millions of people forced to feign interest in the same thing.

I don’t care about pictures of your baby.

Let me clarify.  I’m so happy for you that you have a healthy, happy baby.  Really, I am.

But I don’t need you to send me a gigabyte worth of snapshots capturing every millisecond of your baby’s first steps, or showing me how they slathered chocolate cake all over their face at their first birthday party. I’m not thinking “cute.”  I’m thinking “unsanitary.”

Even worse is when a friend or relative chooses a picture of their baby for their profile picture on Twitter or Facebook.  I realize your child is the most important thing in your life, as well they should be.  Please refer back a couple paragraphs to where I said I’m happy for you.  But when you choose their picture as your picture, at least in my deluded world, you are sending one of these messages.

1. “Help me.  Dear Jesus, help me.  This baby has consumed my life force, my personality, and has infiltrated my thoughts to the point that they even managed to steal my Twitter and Facebook passwords and replace my picture with theirs.”
2. “I am smug and I am better than you because I have a baby and you do not.  I am now part of an exclusive club that can openly talk about poop without sounding juvenile”.
3. “When you talk to me, you’re actually talking to my baby.  My baby will then forward all relevant messages.  So keep it family-friendly or baby related, or don’t even bother.”
4. “Remember when we were friends?  Remember when I’d call you or hang out with you?  This is why it will never happen again.”
5. “Look!  My sperm works!  AND I found a woman willing to accept it!”

This post will probably elicit two kinds of responses.  Either you agree, or you think I’m a big jerk.

Both would be right.

#fail: Is Cincinnati Really This Heartless?

I’m not sure if you’ve heard about it, but there was this terrible earthquake in a place called Haiti.  There hasn’t been much in the papers, but it was really bad.  Really, really bad.  Haiti’s government says as many as 200,000 people may have died because of it. Remember how horrifying Hurricane Katrina was?  This may very well end up being much, much worse.

So, you know, it’s not really a “ha-ha” kind of funny situation.

Well, it was to Cincinnati’s Derf Magazine.

Last week, Derf posted, quote, “Earthquake improves condition of Haitian buildings by 11%.”  I wish I could show you the actual witty rejoinder on Derf’s Twitter page, but someone erased it.  I tried to find it on Derf’s website itself, but there’s no sign of it there either.  But just as tough stains cannot hide from the power of Tide, piss-poor jokes can’t hide from the indexing powers of Google…

Okay, we all make mistakes.  Comedy is hard, and give credit to whomever at Derf realized this was in poor taste rather than sticking by their guns and telling everyone to lighten up.

But then I found another nugget over on Fox 19′s website:  the poll of the day, a newscast standard, asking viewers to weigh in on how much aid we’re giving to one of the poorest (and now most decimated) countries in the western hemisphere.

I didn’t want to crop out the “Super Duper Interactive Doppler 2000″ banner because it’s just so unintentionally funny.  But you gotta love the poll question framing a major humanitarian crisis in the same terms as Goldilocks and the Three Bears.  Do you think the porridge is too hot?  Too cold?  Just right?  Cast your vote and we’ll read your responses on the air!

So I voted “not enough,” just out of the curiosity of seeing the results.  I mean, who in their right minds could vote otherwise?

Ugh.

Excuse me.  I think I need to go clean up the disgust I have for Fox 19 viewers now.

On Productivity: Please Let Me Work in Sweatpants.

Think back to when you were in college (or, if you haven’t been to college, bear with me). When you met up with your friends to get some homework done on Monday night, probably the only night you weren’t drinking, what did you do beforehand? Grab a bite to eat at the dining hall, head back to your dorm room, then change out of your comfy sweats into a suit and tie to meet up with your friends to really focus and knock out that stupid physics problem set you told yourself you’d do over the weekend.

That better have sounded a bit weird to you. But, if you have a typical 9-5 office job, it may be kind of how you feel every day. What about wearing expensive, uncomfortable clothes makes you more productive?

...A cap on hours worked should probably be encouraged...

The argument’s been made that it leads to a more professional environment. Honestly, I think that’s kind of bullshit. I can understand if you’re meeting with a client from another business it may be a common courtesy (which I also think is bullshit but that’s even more ingrained), but for the worker bee who’s just at a desk for 8 hours, what purpose does it serve? Talk to anyone who works in an office with a dress code or just read a few Dilbert strips and you’ll see that dress codes are generally despised. Lower morale at the office inhibits productivity.

Me?  I do my best work in a comfortable chair, wearing shorts or sweats, with a laptop. The problem is, I can’t show up to work in my favorite T-shirt and ask maintenance to carry my recliner from the trunk of my car to my cubicle, and working from home often is a good way to develop a bad reputation in the office. In my personal experience as well as talking to friends, people tend to judge a co-worker by how long they are in the office and at their desks. The employee who comes in at 7:30 in the morning and is still typing away when most people leave at 5 is labeled with a combination of reverance and annoyance as a workaholic: Impressive for putting in the long hours, annoying for making everyone else look bad.

That doesn’t always make sense. The office worker who comes in, focuses, gets everything done efficiently, and goes home at quitting time shouldn’t be considered a lesser employee than another who gets the same amount done but puts in longer hours. Total productivity, regardless of time spent, is what should matter.

Besides that, a cap on hours worked should probably be encouraged when taking the long term view. Companies that provide healthcare are looking for ways to cut those costs, yet at the same time wouldn’t mind having keeping their employees sedentary 60 hours a week. It’s hard to keep up a good diet and exercise when you’re working long hours, and the health detriments add up. On top of it, I feel like working longer hours just leads to a higher burnout rate and less productive hours. I know I can get a lot more done in 4 hours when I’m awake than in 8 hours when I’m tired.

This is probably just a generational gap between those in charge and those entering the workforce (obviously, I fall into the latter group). Hopefully we’ll challenge the convention in the coming years as we gain power rather than getting complacent and accepting things the way they are.