Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Christmas Observations vol 2

1. Holiday season, in my book, officially starts November 1.

2. Only one holiday should be advertised at a time, and should not be advertised prior to an upcoming holiday.

3. Why are candy canes being sold during Halloween candy shopping? That's nasty.

4. KOIT (96.5 FM): I am fine with you playing Christmas music 24 hours a day. I am fine with you being the "Bay Area's Christmas Station." Start the day after Christmas...not a week before! Sleigh bells should not ring on my turkey!

5. Your Christmas lights...are for Christmas, that means that they need to be taken down. Due date: January 2nd.

6. If you have your lights still hanging up from last Christmas (or 10 years prior) and just plug them in in Dec...then that isn't the point!

7. Why does Santa smell?

8. Am I the only one who thinks that the song "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" is a horrible Christmas song? You're going to traumetize the poor kid seeing Mommy cheating on Daddy like that. Geez.

9. Where can I buy a partridge in a pear tree? (or twelve for that matter)

10. How many Chistmas' is it going to take before Mariah Carey just gives up? (anyone get this reference???)

11. No gigantic Christmas trees in the middle of plazas before Thanksgiving.

12. I do this one, so I shouldn't complain but..anybody find it funny that we take a tree, hang things off of it and then light it up like a big gigantic beacon?

13. Don't forget to reduce your carbon footprint with these nifty solar-powered Christmas lights...hmm why don't these things work? Oh that's right I'm in San Francisco, its foggy and rainy...

14. Does this mean that Rudolph's nose is also solar powered?

15. Apparently Christmas is the only time where plugging something into an electrical outlet in the rain is totally acceptable.

On Pointless Boycotts

Cinemark's CEO Alan Stock donated $9,999 ($1 below the $10K reporting threshold, fishy, yes...) to ProtectMarriage.com . Now, the NO on 8 people are calling for a boycott of Cinemark Theatres, especially for Milk.

While I agree with the No on 8, There are financial reasons why a boycott is not effective in ousting Alan Stock.

- In just the specific case of Milk...the direct effect that the movie's expected revenue would have on Cinemark is....minimal, with or without a boycott. (I point to the screaming teenage girls packing the midnight showings of Twilight...). Plus the studio takes around 50% of the box office gross, so the figure 1,000 tickets x $10 a ticket = $10,000 really only amounts to around $4,000 to $5,000 in revenue...and thats pennies to the company, and what, if any of that, filters up to Mr. Stock is probably the quivalent to low end toilet paper.

- While it is contradictory for the CEO of Cinemark to benefit from showing a movie about a gay supervisor....realize that it isn't the CEO'S choice which movies are played at what theatre...

- In terms of a general overall boycott...Alan Stock will still get his pay regardless of whether or not he is fired by the company. And, he probably has so much that would be unaffected by a job loss in any case. An effective boycott (and, sorry, I point to Twilight, and say that this hasn't happened, yet) only affects the ground level workers, most of whom, probably agree with the No on 8 campaign. The lack of business brought on by an effective boycott means less budget, less hours, less need for there to be workers at the theatres. The ground level workers are the people who really need the money in the first place.

- So you ask...why don't the workers just...not work there? In this economy, if you have a job, you hang onto it for dear life, unless its absolutely horrible.

- Alan Stock doesn't have to directly deal with the e-mails and the calls, its everyone else in the company that has to "clean it up".

- You're taking on a large, global, corporation. The reason why the boycott worked in Sacramento is because it was smaller, with one source of income, not thousands of screens worth of income.

- I don't know what a direct answer would be to Mr. Stock's donations, or even if there should be, except to continue the fight to make gay marriage constitutional, once again. I just believe a boycott against a company of this size unintentionally affect the wrong people.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Personals Stupidity...

Found this one...it made me sort of...hurl...

Is it weird I've never been attracted to an Asian guy? - 21 (SF)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: pers-926411003@craigslist.org [?]
Date: 2008-11-19, 7:16PM PST



And I'm Asian? I mean I guess it has to do with where I grew up and the demographics of my hometown...but yea...I've liked white guys, black, even this one latino guy who was really caliente Lol! I think it has to do with the height, since I'm really tall, or maybe their lack of confidence, or the eyes or something. Was that a weird post, or what? So I guess I'm looking for a relationship, blah blah, attach a picture if you want me to reply, if you're not in San Francisco, don't respond. What do you do for a living, what are your interests, goals etc. Thanx.

By the way, sorry if it's offensive, I just tend to be rather honest. "lookism" it's superficial but hey, it's human nature.


----
The problem with the Asian American community is kind of summed up here..good ol' Asians stereotyping Asians. How does one community ever find the ability to come together when they're busy bashing their own people? The main thing I hate about stereotypes is that people take three to five people, make that the generalization for the entire group of people and that's it for the rest of the population. What happened to that "individuals" thing?

Hope that "exotic asian woman" stereotype works out for this girl...