Archive for Disappointment

I can’t decide if I agree

Posted in Finds, Random, Thoughts with tags , , , , , , , on September 26, 2010 by Mitch Leuraner

I stumbled upon this tonight.  And for some reason this thought is sticking in my mind. It won’t go away.

Maybe it’s the 15 year old Glenfiddich I’m sipping – maybe it’s Siamese Twins playing the background.  Or maybe it’s just the total disregard for punctuation.

I don’t know.

Either way, it’s an interesting suggestion.

Advertisements

FIFA World Cup 2010: England vs. Germany

Posted in Aggravations, Thoughts with tags , , , , , , , on June 27, 2010 by Mitch Leuraner

England’s loss today was probably the most disappointing match so far.  They played terribly, and deserved to lose, but still totally disappointing.  I don’t know who to cheer for now.

How did I miss the earthquake?

Posted in Random, Thoughts with tags , , , , on June 23, 2010 by Mitch Leuraner

So apparently there was an earthquake today (hit the link for a funny video).  Strangely, I know this only because CBC ran a ticker-tape with the news during it’s afternoon showing of the Germany vs. Ghana match.  Somehow, despite being in Centretown all day, I didn’t feel a thing!  I’m not sure if I should feel lucky, or ripped-off!

Sex and the City 2 is bad

Posted in Aggravations, Movies, Thoughts with tags , , , , on June 6, 2010 by Mitch Leuraner

Let’s get one thing straight – I didn’t want to see this movie.  My aversion was not because I thought it would be bad – I try to have an open mind – but because I was simply not interested in a story about middle-aged women coming to grips with the fact that they are middle-aged.  Unfortunately, I saw it anyway.

And it was bad.

First, there is no plot. This movie uses a Seinfeld-esque methodology in that a lot goes on, but nothing really happens.  This would be fine if we were still living in 1998, and I were talking about a 30 minute sitcom.  But this is a movie – a very long movie – and I generally expected that something would happen.

Next, the messages that this movie sends are deplorable:

  • We have woman #1 who is clearly getting bored with her two-year marriage. In her words, it has lost its sparkle, because she wants to go out partying on a Monday night while her husband would prefer to stay home and relax.  She ends up taking a few days to live away from her husband (in her old apartment which she has apparently kept fully furnished despite being married for two years), and when she comes back she gets upset that her husband wants to be able to do the same thing once in a while.  Somehow, checking out of the relationship for two days was just fine when she wanted to do it, but not when he wants to.  Then woman #1 goes to the United Arab Emirates where she purposely entices and kisses an old boyfriend – a man who has been married for years and has three kids.  Make no mistake, she does purposely entice the old flame, and while this certainly doesn’t let him off the hook, it at least puts her on it with him.  After all of this, woman #1 tells her husband what happened, and how does he respond?  He buys her an enormous diamond ring, which she must wear as punishment! What? How is that punishment?
  • We also have woman #2 who is having so much trouble taking care of her two children that she hires a full-time nanny.  She hires the nanny, but when everyone points out that this nanny is hot and doesn’t wear a bra, woman #2 gets worried that her husband is going to cheat on her.  But in the end she finds she had nothing to worry about because the nanny is a lesbian. Huh? So she doesn’t actually trust her husband, or the nanny – she just figures they won’t have sex because of clashing sexual preferences?
  • Then we have woman #3, who is so completely liberated as a woman that she goes well beyond the realm of equality and into basic indecency.  We are supposed to laugh because she does all sorts of indecent things in the UAE that supposedly embarrass and enrage the highly conservative culture.  The problem is, most of what she does would embarrass and enrage people in Manhattan too.  I won’t go into the gory details, but I can assure you that if she was acting that way at a restaurant table next to mine, I would be just as angry and far less restrained in my response than the caricatured Muslim people in this movie.
  • Finally, we have woman #4 who has a terrible job that pays buckets of money but keeps her from spending time with her family.  So what is the solution?  She quits and finds another job that is equally fulfilling, but less demanding.  This is of course the obvious and sensible thing to do, but for some reason she is made to seem like a hero.  I’m sorry, she’s not a hero – she’s a normal, sensible person.  The writers were clearly trying to use the “inequality for women in the workplace” card here, but it fails.  Why?  Because she isn’t your basic underpaid, overworked, single parent stuck in a dead-end job.  She is a highly paid lawyer who happens to have a crappy boss.  She doesn’t need to courageously quit her job – she knows that she can find another job, and has more than enough money to keep her going in the mean time.

Even ignoring all this, the movie is one long homage to luxurious American excess.  The four women go on vacation for a week and each one gets their own butler and car – while they stay in a suite that is supposedly $22,000 a night. Plus it seems that they each have a new outfit for each hour of the day – none of which are respectful of the culture they are in.

There are definitely some funny moments in this movie, and there is a long scene in a karaoke bar that is clearly meant to be a woman power moment.  Unfortunately, they are all completely overshadowed because of the incredibly unlikable women involved.

This movie is about offensiveness for its own sake – a goal that makes even less sense coming from a middle-aged woman comedy than it does from a teen comedy.

Add to: Facebook | Stumbleupon | Twitter

Sometimes PostSecret makes me mad

Posted in Aggravations, Finds, Thoughts with tags , , , , , , on May 26, 2010 by Mitch Leuraner

I really like PostSecret.  I’ve visited the site every Sunday for more years than I can remember, and I own all of the books that Frank Warren has put together.

But every once in a while a secret is posted that really bothers me.  Sometimes I’m bothered because I can relate to the situation; sometimes I just think the situation is fabricated. And still other times I am bothered by a secret simply out of principle. For example, this secret was posted in most recent Sunday batch:

From PostSecret - 23 May 2010

I find the sheer selfishness of this person appalling.  They are literally wasting some poor guy’s time, for nothing more than convenience. Some people are really just terrible.

Add to: Facebook | Stumbleupon | Twitter

Google’s April Fool’s hoax sort of a let down this year

Posted in Finds, Thoughts with tags , , , , on April 1, 2010 by Mitch Leuraner

I’ll admit it – I wait with a rather lame sense of anticipation for the Google April Fool’s hoax.

So far, I think that 2007 was my favorite year. That year included Gmail Paper – a free, ad-supported, service that offered Gmail users the ability to have all of their email printed and snail-mailed to them. It also included Google TiSP, which was supposedly Google’s first foray into the Internet Service Provider market. The service was to offer broadband speeds through a connection in your toilet.

But this year, the hoax is simply that Google has changed it’s name to Topeka in honour of the stupid town in Kansas that changed its name to Google in an effort to gain Google’s favour.  Somehow the hoax just doesn’t have the same level of creativity that I’ve come to expect.

So I’m disappointed. But I am holding out hope that there is some other more creative and amusing hoax yet to be discovered.

Update:

Over at iFixit, they definitely know how to do an April Fool’s prank. They have a tear-down of what you would presume is Apple’s soon to be released iPad, but then come to realize is actually the decades old Newton.  Well done.

Facebook project update

Posted in Thoughts with tags , , , on February 18, 2010 by Mitch Leuraner

It seems that my Facebook project is taking off significantly slower than I had anticipated.  Dispite all the hype and hoop-law around social networks and privacy issues, people seem to be genuinely hesitant to add a stranger as a “friend”.  Now I readily admit that social networking has never really been my thing – online and offline, I’m just not that good at it. In fact, the Facebook profile that I have created specifically for this project really is the only one that I have. There isn’t some other Mitch Leuraner profile with connections to dozens of my friends and family. (At least, not one managed by me!)

But when I came up with the idea of creating a profile specifically for interacting with complete strangers, I figured it would be easy.  It feels like the media has been constantly warning people about the dangers of allowing personal aspects of their lives to be displayed.

I figured that, since everyone had already become comfortable with strangers pretending to be “friends”, I would surely be able to gain trust by admitting to my plans upfront.

Surely nobody would object to such a simple project…

Well, I was wrong for sure. (And so was the media!) So far I’ve found that people are genernally not willing to share their lives with me.  And I can’t really blame them of course – other than the knowledge that they are contributing to my own understanding of humanity, they have nothing to gain from letting me into their lives.

But, I’ve been thinking about the near wholesale rejection (at time of writing I had only managed to amass three friends) in terms of what it might say about people, our news media, and online social networking in general.

I’m not ready to proclaim that all friends really are friends, but I am learning that few friends are actually strangers.

For now, the project continues.  I’ll keep you posted.

ps. Take a look in the links (on the right side of the home page) to find my Facebook profile!