All the talks and build leading to Apple having a tablet released, and it finally came…Unfortunately, maybe they should have spent a little more time with the name. iPad, yep, that’s what Apple is calling it, and it seriously is a horrible name. In fact, on Twitter, iTampon was (and still is) a trending topic, and earlier I saw it and didn’t know what to make of it, until I got an email from Apple (as I subscribe to the newsletter for updates) introducing the “iPad,” then it all made sense.

They could’ve been better off with iTablet, or just iTab, maybe, but iPad?

It is most obvious that there are no women working at Apple, as this article from the New York Times suggests.

Now, looking past the name, here is a breakdown of what the iPad has in store for consumers:

POSITIVES:
Ability to utilize iPhone apps
With that, it’s essentially a larger iPod Touch or iPhone, so anyone with those can use this with ease
Price – $499, yep, Apple’s tablet is $499 (for a 16GB model, $599 for 32GB, it’s $699 for 64GB, and it starts at $629 instead for the 3G version, plus the AT&T plan requires $30/mo for the data plan to even use 3G)

CONS:
No a widescreen (16:9) aspect ratio
No USB ports?
And no video camera (some of your cheapest Notebooks (Hell, even Netbooks) come with web cameras at least)
And for having a browser, no flash support

5 Things the iPad is Missing – CNET

I have to agree with that CNET article (the 5 Things one I just linked above), that though I find Netbooks stupid (just go a couple hundred dollars more to have something with a little more power, a little more space and memory, and more importantly, an optical drive (which none of the Netbooks I’ve seen had, and I think that alone makes them not worth getting)), I don’t see them going away because Apple has a functioning computing unit that starts at less than $500, because it too isn’t very expandable, it’s ridiculously thin (what is with people wanting so much from so little, bulk it slightly, and have an optical drive or something), and, as mentioned, iPad is without a web cam, which dirt cheap Netbooks have (even if they are shitty quality, it’s better than nothing).

Honestly, the larger screen is the only plus which would be best for watching videos (such as the lovely ones you may (that I have) purchased through iTunes and stuck watching on my laptop since the DRM crap confines it to devices iTunes supports (and I have no iPods [nor the Apple TV], since I find the costs high), and it’ll be better as an ebook reader, that could compete with Amazon’s Kindle (though I’ll still want a Kindle, ’cause, based on the pictures of the iPad, the glossy-ish screen could be bad for reading, while Kindle’s screen is crisp and designed for text, making it an easy read, plus the Whispernet service is included with no data charges (you pay for the books, which are cheaper than the physical hardback versions, so it’s not only cheaper, it’s better for the environment).

Another article to learn about this new device –> Review: Apple’s iPad has potential – San Francisco Chronicle

So, no, I probably won’t get one, I’d rather just invest in an iPod Touch, ’cause I’ve seen one of those in action, and it is pretty fuckin’ sweet.

Oh, have I mentionted that #iTampon is still trending on Twitter, if the Trending list is in order, it’s more talked about than the actual name of iPad. I mean, seriously, no women work at Apple?

Bravo! Don’t let NBC walk over you. NBC can barely get regular primetime shows right (I don’t watch Southland, but I do think it was rash and stupid to cancel it before the new season premiere, now TNT has got it, and well, we’ll see how ratings go before making any more comments). Back in 2004, NBC made the deals between Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien, where Leno exits and Conan takes over The Tonight Show which starts at 11:35PM (and has been for a long time, about 45 years, but always after the news (*fun fact, the local news used to be only 15 minutes, so the early days of the Tonight Show started at 11:15*)). Of course, there was already previous controversy surrounding the early 90s when it went from Johnny Carson to Leno (Letterman, who was Late Night host at the time, was gunning for the job and even Carson was pulling for him, but it went to Leno and that caused emotions to stir and Letterman left NBC to have his own show (Late Show) on CBS).

Deja Vu all over again, as when the transition from Leno to Conan started becoming more of a reality, NBC was afraid to lose Leno since ABC became interested (guess they just don’t like talk show hosts jumping networks and potentially competing against them). Now with the whole Jay Leno Show debacle, NBC wants to move a shorter, half-hour version to late night after the news and move Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon 30 minutes later (12:05 and 1:05 respectively). At the same time, FOX is showing interest in wanting Conan (though Conan has gone on record saying no offer has been made). So, will NBC wise up and keep Conan and ditch Leno to keep Conan from moving to FOX, or will they remain stupid and appease Leno and lose Conan.

Here’s what I think they should consider: Keep Conan at 11:35, ’cause The Tonight Show is an American Institution of late night goodness that always follows the news. If they positively have to keep Leno, how about this: ONE FUCKIN’ DAY IN THE WEEK. Is that so hard? Pick a night where The Jay Leno show did somewhat better, and make that the one night it’s on. Avoid filling the 10PM void with repeats (which could actually end up just hurting the local affiliates more anyway), and make all three parties happy (though, don’t know Jimmy Fallon’s view on everything, and no one seems to care about Last Call with Carson Daly (and yes, that show is still on)). I know I’m no TV exec. person, but it seems like a no-brainer.

But, like I said, I’m not a TV exec, nor a professional TV critic/blogger, I just watch the damn thing and I happen to prefer Conan over Leno. I find Conan to be much more enthused, and a hell of a lot funnier. Don’t get me wrong, there were moments when Leno hosted (such as my favorite ‘Headlines’ segment, which he brought over to the Jay Leno Show). At the same time, there was the ‘Battle of the Jaywalk All-Stars’ which no longer exists, because after moving to 10PM, it’s changed to some idiotic Battle of the *insert ridiculous reality shit-show here* Stars (such as the more recent ‘Jersey Shore’ dumbasses). He basically turned a funny segment into a bloated possible PR-bullshit parade.

What Conan brought from his stint at Late Night are still the same segments that WORK, and he added the new ‘Twitter Tracker’ segment (kind of weak, but the animations for it is what matters), but what’s great about Conan, his monologue. He jumps and hops onto the stage, jumps here and there, does his usual ‘puppeteer’ bit, and gets the show going with full energy.

In the end, I’m on Team Conan, and that’s that. If he leaves the Tonight Show because of NBC’s stupidty and finds a gig with FOX, then I’ll have one more show on FOX to look forward to, and one less NBC (even if Leno gets Tonight Show back, I just couldn’t bring myself to watch it, even though I’d miss Headlines). So wherever Conan goes, I’ll watch, but I thing he deserves to be a part of The Tonight Show, it is his time for it, and in these tough times with our economy and everything, we need someone to make us laugh our asses off.

Read Conan’s statement to NBC’s plan: Conan O’Brien Rejects NBC’s Offer

And here’s an article on ‘NBC’s Idea’ to keeping all Leno, Conan, and Fallon: NBC moving Jay Leno out of Primetime

BTW, Conan is hosting tonight’s show, and Zac Levi (Chuck) will be a guest, so YAY! Watch it!

*Update [1/13/10]: Jay Leno May Leave as well, because he too isn’t happy with how NBC themselves are handling everything.

I didn’t know really how to title this post, but I found out that CBS has shelved, though not officially canceled, the freshman medical drama Three Rivers, which stars Alex O’Loughlin (Moonlight). I watch a good 40 or so shows regularly over the course of the year, and a handful of those are new series, in which majority of those never come back (sometimes, along with a few previous favorites of mine). Anyone who may also watch TV as much as I do, knows the frustration of a good show getting canned because there is simply not enough people (or the right people) watching.

Some shows can have a miraculous save, such as last season’s Dollhouse on FOX, although, this was a temporary redemption, as the series had been canceled, officially, a few weeks back. ABC also has some hiccups, though it’s on the bubble gem Castle has a full 2nd season now, there’s no guarantee ABC will keep it next year, which would be a shame, ’cause I know several people who caught one episode and loved it, but being they are not a TV viewer like me, they probably don’t watch it every week. As for their freshmen dramas, the weakest links were that of Hank and Eastwick, both of which were canceled. They seem to be getting by with the forgotten, which isn’t high, but at least did better than Eastwick. NBC also seemed to have followed a similar route. With two of their new dramas, Trauma and Mercy, Mercy performed maybe slightly better, so it got a full season while Trauma got canned. However, NBC decided to order three more episodes, so they may just be trying to fill the schedule with any existing show they can until the new season slate arrives.

Of course, NBC has a whole other dash of weird. With Jay Leno having his own show five nights a week in the 10/9c hour, let’s just say those ratings aren’t stellar neither, but at least it’s a much cheaper show to produce instead of a full-fledge scripted drama.

But what has caused networks keeping series with such low ratings? Simple, they really don’t have much of a choice. They could cancel the low performed and got for repeats of top-performers (such as FOX filling Friday with Bones and House while Dollhouse was on hiatus. And for a Friday night, those repeats did only slightly better than new Dollhouse (I think, .8 vs 1.1-ish). Would networks really be better off to just air encores on Fridays? CBS could probably still get away with new episodes, but it doesn’t seem to happy, even though it wins the night. Shouldn’t the nights ratings be compared with those it is competing against, whether than the rest of the week (Meaning, CBS cut Numb3rs‘ season order, having got around a 1.7 with the last new episode, behind ABC’s 20/20‘s 1.8, but still ahead of NBC’s failed experiment The Jay Leno Show, so instead of putting it side by side all the other crime dramas of the week, it should only be compared to those in the same timeslot, or even just of all shows for that day.) Nope, TVByTheNumbers.com has a Renew/Cancel Index that uses data for all shows for the network throughout the week (simpler terms, you have an average 18-49 rating, and it’s a matter of seeing how shows score in relation to that number, with a .9 being borderline).

Of course, there are always exceptions. Networks keep shows for syndication revenues, such as ABC holding onto Ugly Betty, or CBS taking Medium in when NBC gave up on 10pm shows. ABC keeps Scrubs, also taking that series from NBC a season or two ago, since it is an ABC Production (in-house), so in these cases, no worries about a broadcast fee, but they can collect a lot in syndication (which almost questions FOX for not getting My Name is Earl (a 20th Century FOX) show when NBC canceled it last season). This would’ve been the 5th season, with that golden 100th episode, why not have sweeten it, instead of going for a new series which pretty much stunk in ratings (Brothers). They kept ‘Til Death on, since Sony lowered the fee, but there’s only so low they can go, was it even worth keeping that which even I stopped watching in the 2nd season? My Name is Earl was actually good. Well, it was also a little more expensive, being a single-camera comedy, which carries a higher production value. But, then the next question, what is wrong with keeping a few shows of high-quality, even if the ratings are what you’re looking for? A network can offset costs from their more top-performers, and could gain, especially in My Name is Earl‘s case, from syndication and DVD sales (if they are under the same parent company of course).

Plus, high-quality shows have a higher ratio of loyal fans. Take Pushing Daisies, which was a Warner Bros. Production. ABC canceled it after it suffered a major ratings loss (I blame the fact there was about a 10 month gap between season 1 and season 2, due to the strike and ABC not order a few post-strike episodes, but I can mention that everytime and it still isn’t gonna change the fact that it was axed). Now, of course it may not make since for ABC to stick with a show they didn’t even produce, but there are chances to become a co-producer of some sort with Warner and split syndication, or Warner could’ve done more to shop it around (could the CW have worked, since Warner has a 50% stake in the network?). Truth is, Warner doesn’t do much for their shows, case an point, the main reason I feel the need to ramble on. I decided to watch Veronica Mars from the beginning, and the high addictive show was highly-loved by critics, and had the most engaging stories, and a season-long mystery mixed in with day-by-day life of the title character, that kept us watching week after week. That is until the CW canned it and stayed with the more soapy One Tree Hill.

I know I’ve mentioned this before, at least once or twice, but shows like Veronica Mars were cursed from the beginning. It was a Warner Bros. Production, and instead of starting on the WB (a Warner network), it was broadcasted on UPN (a CBS network), where it was for two years, before the two nets merged, and the show managed to survive to the new network (the CW). Joel Silver was even the Executive Producer, and he worked on hits such as the Matrix trilogy (as well as that other failed series, Moonlight). What went wrong? Simple, CW is a low-rated network, and many people will shun shows on them, thinking it’s filled with nothing but Dawson‘s and One Tree Hill‘s. But Veronica Mars wasn’t the average teen drama. Yes, the character of Veronica Mars (played by Kristen Bell) was a teenager in high school (then college in the 3rd season), with teenage problems, but the series was also more mature. Like Buffy the Vampire Slayer it was able to reach a broader audience, more-so than what UPN could provide. Could the series have been even slightly better off if it got started on the WB, getting the Gilmore Girls pairing earlier in its existence? Maybe.

Truth is, there’s no way to know. I know I am just one of many who hate seeing their shows get canceled, because they are too smart and witty for the general public. But that’s why there are blogs. Gives a chance for people like me to vent their frustrations.

So why do I support Three Rivers? Because, it wasn’t a bad show. What hurt it? It could be all the NFL overruns, that pushed it passed 10PM (it was a 9pm show) and people started to go to sleep. Also, tuning at 9PM and seeing The Amazing Race might of just made people flip the channel (I’ve had to adjust my DVR manually, hell, I almost missed it once because of this). Oh, DVRs, now that’s another thing, and right now I’m clockin’ in over 1300 words, so I won’t get into it, again.

Happy Winter!

Sources used: TVByTheNumbers.com, the futon critic

Plus, here’s an article stating that a Veronica Mars movie seems to be out of sight now, tvSquad Article, which is a shame, although I think I’d prefer the series to come back, like how Family Guy did.

I don’t do many political posts, but I have taken in interest from all the stupid crap that has been fed to the public when it comes to this whole health care issue. I myself do NOT have insurance, simply because I can’t afford it. So I’m taking my vitamins and brushing my teeth better than before to keep myself from doctors and dentists, because without insurance, it’s also expensive. Therefore, I am in favor of a public option that can create competitive rates and could, therefore, increase the chances of affordable health care. I also am in favor of family planning and reproductive rights, especially since I don’t think teenagers should have kids (they should be teenagers, not bogged by a life changing event).

[Warning, I can tend to be considered offensive to people (for some reason). You can dislike it, it's your right, just as its my right to read articles and point them out and point out my opinion on current situations; Oh, and it's long and lengthy, I googled many, many times over a few hours, and didn't really organize it well, so it's kind of a bunch of notes and stuff with some commentary]

Yet, the scary Republicans of the South (a red state/blue state map shows southern states primarily Republican) want the general public to think that this whole health care reform thing is a plot to kill old people and another means of government control (as seen in many clips of the current Town Hall meetings, lots of elderly want the government to keep out of health care, hmmm, okay, then I guess maybe we should discontinue Medicare). But how is it that these people are buying this crap?

There’s a beautiful little chart that shows the average I.Q. of each state and what president won for that state back in the 2004 election. Red Vs. Blue/Bush Vs. Kerry. Check out the I.Q. and Politics chart. What it basically shows, smarter people live in the blue-states, and the bulk of the south (Red States) are the reason we got stuck with Bush for another 4 years, turns out, they are the dumbest. I’m not saying everyone in those areas are dumb, this is nothing but a chart pointing out the average (meaning there are smart people, and then there are the REALLY dumb that bring their average down). I picked out that chart only to show what the dumbest states are, and the fact they are Republican States. Therefore, they fall for these stupid Republican tactics, because, as it turns out, they don’t know any better. Side note, apparently Red States are also the fattest: TIME.

Of course, part of the reason could be less money being spent in Southern States on education, and because of that, the food, which school food is supposed to be bad, [being from a southern state myself, and dealing with a terrible school (which has gotten worse as the state is now one of those dumb abstinence-only bullshit schools, luckily I graduated five years ago before that happened)], I should know, the food is TERRIBLE. Less money should be spent into Abstinence-Only programs, in favor of medically accurate sex-ed (and mention Abstinence, since it does work, when practiced, which in teenagers, least likely); less money should be spent trying to teach creationism, in favor of scientifically accepted evolution; less money should be spent on unnecessary building (When I was in Elementary School, they started on a new cafeteria, ran out of money, it remained a pile of sand for so long, eventually got done, only for them to decide to build a whole new school. They should’ve just waited for the new school, what a waste); more money should really go into nutrition, teachers (looking back, they really had to put up with a lot of shit, so I don’t think they get paid enough for it), and for better programs themselves (look at smarter countries, there’s about dozen that perform better than the U.S. itself). When it comes down to it, it’s not just the southern states, the entire country really needs a reboot.

Related/Source Articles: What U.S. can Learn from European Countries | Different List of Smartest to Dumbest States | IQ and the Wealth of the Nations – Wikipedia

To give an idea of how stupid us Americans are, here are some fancy numbers and percentages to illustrate the point. Only half can name the three branches of government (Civics 101: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial). Less than 10% (small percentage, yeah, but it really should be 0%) believe Astrology to by scientifically right. More than half of about 2,000 surveyed (in 2000) thought humans co-existed with dinosaurs. [Americans Don't Know Much About History or Science - by Stephen Goode].

Here’s a great little article, as well as a 5-question sample of a civics test (BTW, I got 5 out of 5): Americans don’t know civics – USATODAY.com, and here’s the full 33-question on (BTW, I got 24 right, about 72.73%): Civil Literacy Quiz. While I’m mentioning quizzes, how about an I.Q. Test: www.iqtest.com (BTW, I scored a 114).

Most Religious States

18% think the Sun revolves around the Earth. Yeah, you heard me, nearly one in five Americans. That’s scary. Another ludicrous belief: those that think the Earth is 6,000 years old, despite scientific EVIDENCE that places Earth in the 4.3 BILLION year range. The Bottom 10 States, Intellectually:

40. Oregon
41. Georgia
42. Hawaii
43. New Mexico
44. Louisiana
45. Alabama
46. Alaska
47. California
48. Mississippi
49. Nevada
50. Arizona

Less Religious States

This comparison shows four of the more Religious states, appear in the list of the dumbest states. This means nothing, since that’s less than half, however, if we look at the Less Religious, and then the Smartest states:
1. Vermont
2. Massachusetts
3. Connecticut
4. New Jersey
5. Maine
6. Virginia
7. Montana
8. Wisconsin
9. Iowa
10. Pennsylvania

Right off the bat, none of these states are among the top 10 Most Religious, and four of these are among the Smartest, including the Least Religious State, Vermont, is also the Smartest. The one thing this does show, the Smartest states, are mostly in the Northeast, which is generally less religious.

Now, back to the current issue of Health Care. I’m pointing stupidity out, because Republicans have been twisting the idea of Living Wills into Murder. Let me point this out, plain and simple. There are no death panels. A Living Will is nothing more than an advance directive to patient treatment to be followed by the doctors, this includes forbidding use of certain treatments, should the patient be at a point where they can’t speak to themselves. A person can disclose that if they get an incurable, terminal disease of some sort, that they don’t want to prolong their life with ventilators and the like (prolonging their suffering). Living Wills are documents made by an individual to express what THEY (not the government) want done to them shall they become extremely ill. (Advance health care directive – Wikipedia).

Furthermore, other Republican bullshit is the gay-marriage “storm” scare tactic ad from earlier this year. Again, only the dumbest of dumb fall for this shit, which is why there is so much turmoil and chaos that exists. I support gay-marriage, because I think they have a right to happiness, plus the opposition towards it is mostly religious, and therefore, there’s no reason for it to be such an issue, as, as our Founding Fathers wanted, this country is a place of freedom, and religion plays no part in government. Then there’s the death of an abortionist earlier this summer (I think) which is an act of terrorism by a so-called “pro-lifer” (hm, pro-lifer kills someone, there’s a headline). The sheer stupidity of this. BTW, the fetus stage begins at the 11th week, (~3 months), before that, there’s only an embryo (group of cells). Roe V Wade make abortion legal, and most abortionists rarely perform late-term abortions (or even third-trimester), unless health of the mother is at risk. Other than that, first 3 months, shouldn’t be an issue. Then again, the whole thing wouldn’t be an issue if schools taught medically accurate sex-ed, minimizing teen pregnancies, who get pregnant b/c they are extremely misinformed about sex (many may believe they can’t get pregnant the first time, which they can). Birth control should be covered by insurance as well, and any female teenager should really be on it, especially if sexually active. This whole thing is also got religious backing, as more religious men think women are supposed to have babies, and lots of them. [What's wrong with just two kids, at least then, maybe overcrowded schools wouldn't be a problem, and then people may actually learn something.]

For the most part, if men were the ones that got pregnant, there wouldn’t be any issues.

Sorry for all possible mixed up, incoherent ideas and comments. But thank you if you made it all the way through that mess and made some sense of it. I applaud you, and if you are like me, and was born and raised in a southern state, remember, we are the exceptional ones. We get it (or at least try to).

I just want to make a quick comment to an article I just read from io9.com on the subject of today’s vampires in tv and film are weak and pathetic because of Joss Whedon’s Buffy.

This came up after this weekend’s new YouTube mash-up of Buffy taking on Edward Cullen (Buffy v Twilight). [The YouTube video is at end of this post in case you haven't watched].

I get the whole Buffy is a Vampire Slayer (thus the name of the show, Buffy the Vampire Slayer), and she is supposed to be doing just that, killing vamps and other creatures that go bump in the night. In the beginning it was all that, with the exception of Angel, whom she was ready to kill (and as we do know, does sacrifice his life in the end of the 2nd season to save the world), but the complication emerges: he’s got a soul. Sometimes, the best way to win is to know your enemy, what better way than to have an alliance with what is your natural enemy (in her case, Angel is a vampire, and vampires are her enemies).

But Angel is not the main attack in the article, it’s Spike. Yeah, he was real badass, and yes, I found it pathetic of him to follow Buffy around with puppy-dog eyes. Nontheless, even when he was still evil, she let him go on a deal she made in order to save the world (he helps her possibly destroy Angel, she let’s him and Drusilla go). Then again, in the 3rd season, Spike returns for one quick episode (interestingly, though, the DVDs for S3 actually has Spike on the disc, despite being in only one episode in that season) wanting a love spell done on Drusilla (another vampire, might I add), but withdraws from it all when he realizes all he’ll have to do is prove to her he is the same badass vamp (I believe to tie her up and torture her, or something to that note). Then he becomes a regular in the fourth season, having had a chip implanted making him unable to feed on humans. He still helped baddies that could defeat the Slayer, but ends up helping them fight demons because those are the only beings he could fight and kill (and he’s still a badass vampire that wants to do some killing).

The whole chip thing only made him unable to kill humans, and it can be seen that spending time with the Summers girls (hanging with Buffy’s mom watching Passions or watching over Buffy’s little sis, Dawn), w/o being able to kill, he gets to know them and finds humanity himself (which is what eventually leads to the end of the 6th season, him fighting to regain his soul).

True, there can be mushy moments, but Buffy giving into Spike in the 6th was her coping with dying, going to Heaven, and being ripped out of there by Willow, Anya, Tara, and Xander. She was lost, and did feel empty, and as she said in the show, he was “convenient,” and was being used.

Plus, she saw no reason to stake him, since he was no threat to humans (chip worked, just not on her, and he had no desire to kill her).

As for all the other shows, such as True Blood, depending on how much of the book does get retained, there’s more supernatural reason behind Bill’s (and also Eric’s) attraction to Sookie, and just from the season two opener, Eric is still very much badass (ripping that dude to bits). Also, in the Buffyverse, our two soulful vamps, don’t feed on humans, while in <True Blood, they very much still do, even if there is an alternative. True Blood also has a more political tone that is practically paralleled to our world today (Highly religious societies close-minded toward vampires is same as same such societies close-minded to homosexuals, using scare tactics to frighten the public (yep, that’s the same too) to get their ‘message’ across).

As for Twilight, yeah, Edward is a wuss. I mean come on, vampires fry in the sunlight, the whole sparkling thing, ehk, LAME. Not to mention the whole “I feel protective of you.” But remember, also, this series is targeted toward more so to young teenage girls, so there’s not gonna be a lot of blood and gore, which is present in HBO’s True Blood.

The point is, yes, vampires have taken a different turn, but doesn’t make them any less cool. Look at the Underworld trilogy, the first movie showed that they too had synthetic blood, and they live in the shadows as a high society, high-class, minimal feeding on humans (only a flashback mentioned anything of humans getting killed by vampires). Most of the killing in these movies, among their own kind (or Vampires killing Werewolves (Lycans) and vice versa). There’s no mention of sympathies to humans, but they do see them as lower beings, not worth their attention (at least, that’s what I got from them).

Okay, no more rambling, so onto the little Buffy vs Edward mash-up:

And a quick note, I happen to love vampire stuff. I was actually named after a Dark Shadows character, which was a popular daytime soap my mom loved as a kid that feature vampires, werewolves, witches, and ghosts. That’s why I love Supernatural, Buffy/Angel, and True Blood so much. I do find it somewhat disgusting knowing that Moonlight would’ve saw a second season, had it premiered a year later (last fall with True Blood and Twilight making their debuts), and because of this Twilight thing, we’re now gonna have Vampire Diaries on CW, and IFC are interested in bringing the Anita Blake series to film (I think as a TV-Movie, though it would benefit more on Showtime or something [not HBO, since they have True Blood, that may be too much]). So, yeah, CBS would definitely had kept Moonlight had it premiered in the 2008-2009 season to benefit from the increase in vampire interest. Now, I’ll end the ramblings.

Warning, I’m in a venting mood:

Being I work at a retail store (a home decor actually, where I know nothing about decorating, but they don’t know shit about computers), I see a lot of fucked up shit. I don’t know how many times a customer may buy a whole bedding set (quilt, shams, ruffles, blah, blah, blah) and then come in the next day to return the whole thing because it wasn’t right for their room.

First off, you know what your damn room looks like. Second, if it’s a matter of color, don’t come back and say it was too blue or something, ’cause, you knew there was a lot of blue in it (this argument also ties in with “you know what your damn room looks like”). Third, not only are you wasting my time, you’re wasting your time as well (and money too, think about the gas it took to get your ass to the store).

Another thing that pisses me off.  Why won’t people keep their damn packaging.  Most stores will not accept returns without the original packaging.  Think about it.  If you owned a store, are you gonna wanna deal with products that have no packages?  And it’s listed on the damn receipt.  I know, ’cause I put that on there in hopes it’ll decrease the ammount of stupidity;  it doesn’t.

You see, when I shop, I know what I want, and only a few times did I get something to try out (electronic stuff is about the only item that you may need to test out and see if it works for you, especially something like an antenna, ’cause I may not do any better than a standard non-amplified antenna).  And you know what I did when I bought that more expensive amplified antenna?  I kept the fuckin’ box and everything.  I stuck it back in there, nice and neat just like I have opened it.

It’s not hard folks.  Same thing goes for the receipt.  Most stores won’t except returns without a receipt, and for good reason.  They may have a 30-day policy, and the receipt is the one thing that’ll show it being within the 30 days, and how it was paid for.  Now, we are more lenient, in we allow returns w/o a receipt, but with store credit only.  I wish we didn’t.  It’s not hard to keep a receipt.  There’s actually a regular returner (new word: noun, someone who buys just to return it later, for some dumbass reason).  This person apparently has racked up quite a good amount of store credit, giving us lame excuses (elementary student excuses, such as “the dog ate it”).  Not joking, it’s true.  And, if I remember correctly, I think it happened twice.  If the dog did eat it, then maybe you should keep your receipts “out of reach of pets.”

If I owned and operated a store, I would be much more strict towards a return policy.  I don’t care if they don’t end up buying something, because if they end up returning it, it’ll cancel that purchase out anyway.  Plus, time is money, so why waste employee time on stupidity?

Oh, and the customer, truly, is not always right.  We just have to work like that’s true, but you know what, we don’t really think that.  And anyone who has worked in retail, feels the same way, yet, despite this, they may be some of the same people who do the same shit they hate customers of their own stores to do.

I also hate it when customers fill a cart, and somewhere in rugs, decide to just leave.  Unless it was some dire emergency, like a sudden family death you found out about or something, then you are an ass.  I hate people who take towards using every fuckin’ coupon.  I get it, everybody wants to save some money, BUT, how do we make money to stay in business if we end up selling you every item at or below cost.  More importantly, I hate other employees who allow certain coupon usage that had been forbidden.  Items on sale dirt cheap, are sale items.  Most stores do the same thing by not allowing coupons on sale items.  Unless it says something like “an additional on top of an existing offer” or something, chances are, you can’t use a coupon on a sale item.

I hate customers that feel the need to take an entire sheet set out of the package, allowing pillow cases to fall on the floor and get dirty, making it almost unsellable.  Do you really need to take the whole fuckin sheet out?  Do you know that size of your own bed you sleep on everyday?  If so, why the fuck do you need to take it out.  Or the window panels, or even quilts.  Half the shit gets displayed, so it’s not that you can’t see the whole pattern.  Is it measurements?  Most of any quilts, panels, and the like have the measurements on the damn package.  Don’t know how long of a curtain you need?  Well, if you were thinking of getting a curtain, maybe you should’ve taken some damn measurements before you left.  BTW, we’re not mind readers.  You cvan describe your house all you want, but it isn’t gonna make us qualified to give you decorating advice on YOUR house.  Customer service is really just needed to help customers look for certain items.  Unless a place says there are Interior Designers for hire, you do your own decorating.

Point A: Know what you want/need before you buy.  Point B: well, there is not point B, just have at least an idea of what you need or want before you go and buy something.  It not only saves us time, but as an advice to other customers out there (we are all customers, some of us are just better to stores than others), it also saves us all time and money in the long run.