It drives me nuts when my wife calls me at work to have me call support for something at home.

hm. my uncle got that exact same call today.

::notes how odd the universe is, and goes back to festering::

I can't name a lazy one.

I can. Not your co-workers, but some I knew in my last job. And my job before that (at Countrywide) generated lots of knee jerk negativity upon mention, but I guess I just never identified enough with them to care. If you make the criticism about me (and some tried) it was different, but I wasn't working for the SS and it rolled off my back relatively easily.

Weird that there is a crowd where I'm a news junkie, but a lot of it started with the Olbermann blog. (six days till the Maddow Tv show!!) So I read Washington Post, Kos, local paper(except opinions...BAD juju) And watch "Countdown" every day, and mostly wonder if I'm ever gonna hear mom say "Turn Keith on!" without thinking "Huh, huh, huh!" and cursing the continent between us.

It is like the phrase 'lazy government workers', which often gets tossed around when I am around. I am one, I am not lazy and I can't name a lazy one.

I've heard writers of other genres bash romance as "easy, cheap porn for women," or young adult as "that kiddie crap," so often, that I've learned to let most of it roll off my back-- most of the time. But then there are times it just absolutely gets to me and makes me want to smack people.

eta: I think Chrome is going to give SA a stiffie, because I've never seen her have less than 9 tabs open at a time.

I average about 5 or 6 tabs open at a time. Often I have multiple browser windows open with multiple tabs.

Anyway, Chrome is cool. In some ways the browser has been adopting OS functions for a while now, so it makes sense for browsers to be more OS-like.

Oh, fuck, man. I'm going to have to download Chrome, aren't I?

Heh. I work, technically, (through a couple levels of company-holding) for an insurance company. And contract through them to work for a drug company. There's plenty of evil to spread around, in that!

But the actual job-ness that I do, I feel is good. And I feel free to hate the insurance provided by the company I work for, so I have no problem with others hating on them. I occasionally will correct people when they are flat-out wrong on how some stuff works, about how drug companies do things in re: testing drugs, but...doesn't mean I disagree in how there is evil in some other bits of the business model. Lord knows there's a reason I'm not in the sales part of the company. Not enough showers in the universe.

Speaking of jobs you have and how you relate to them, it seems that Mark Paul Gosselaar might cry his way through his new series. But it's the law I want to comment on. In this week's episode, a defendant was found not guilty of the felony with which he was charged, but guilty of the associated felony weapons possession charge. Both the DA and the defender argued that the second charge is no longer a felony but a misdemeanour, so sentencing should be reduced appropriately. The judge argues that the jury made their decision, and this is what process dictates--obviously we're to feel for the the defendant, but later on they seem to want us to have capacity for feeling for the judge's methods (if not her madness). Is she on crack, or reasonable?

God, I can't believe I just typed all that about the show.

Owen gets off the school bus.

Today was his second day of school. I took him yesterday because the bus was REALLY late (crazy scheduling) and I wanted to talk to his teachers again, anyway.

You know, I don't care if it makes me look less than proactive, but I'm not waiting outside of the men's room for my boss to come out, on the chance that's where he is. Just no.

I may have survived today. Saw some error messages I really don't like just as I was leaving. Oh, and other people broke 1/4 the system. So that's not working. I don't know how more emphatically we could say, two days ago: "We can't make it work until you give us X. It's broken. We need X." To which the proper reply is not,two days later, "Oh, do you really need X? We'll get to it. Tomorrow."

ita, I'm not sure I'm remembering this right but did they bring up that argument immediately or only after they'd "proven" that the acquittal was just when the other guy came up? If the felony status of the weapons charge depended on him being convicted of the rape, then how would the jury have even had the option to convict on the latter but not the former? But I have no idea how that would actually work in process.

My biggest takeaway from the show was so, you've set up your protagonist as a whiny, self-centered borderline racist with a temper. Plus bad hair. How's that gonna work out for you?