Post 172: Thoughts after Avengers: Endgame

I really empathize with Hawkeye in Avengers: Endgame. Imagine you are on a cruise with your family, everyone you care about, and everyone you admire. The cruise ship starts to sink, so everyone scurries to the lifeboats. You are separated from your family and friends, but make it to a life boat. You are there desperately trying to see if your loved ones made it to your life boat, to the other lifeboats around you. You see some of them, but not your family and not everyone. Your family is gone, half of the people you care most about are gone. And you find out it is because there wasn’t enough space for everyone in the life boats. Maybe, you would have gladly given up your space in the lifeboat. You are hurt enough as it is that they died, while you lived. And then you find out that there were murders, pedophiles, human traffickers, and rapists on the lifeboats. Your family died. Hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people including children all died, while these criminals lived. More than that, they died specifically because the others lived. And it isn’t like this changes their ways and they decide to be better people, nothing changes for them. They continue to hurt those who survived. It would be hard not to hate them. In Hawkeyes’ case it wasn’t a cruise, it was Thanos and it wasn’t hundreds or thousands that died, it was billions.

The survivor’s guilt alone probably made him hate himself. He would have gladly died for them, for even one of them. He probably thought they deserved to live more and hated himself for surviving while they died. Hating the criminals that survived probably both helped him alleviate his hatred towards himself, but gave him a purpose. A way of reasoning why he would survive without his family.

I thought the movie had some good humor and some interesting twists. But, there were some big questions I had about the overall time travel. They make fun of time travel a lot so the fact they had such weird plot holes made no sense. I think it is less about it not making sense overall and less they didn’t explain it. For example, Thanos comes from the past to the future and they kill Thanos. With the big push to “not change the timeline, you can’t be seen, everything has to be put back where it came from”, Thanos is a pretty big absence from the timeline. It actually creates multiple diverging timelines.

In the second time line (Tony/Steve/Scott), Steve tells them in the elevator that he knows that they are working for Hydra and Loki disappears after being captured at the end of the first movie. Who knows how that effects the timeline? Captain America also sees Captain America, but because Loki disappeared it is entirely possible that it is explained as Loki’s doing.

In the next time line Rocket removes the stone from Jane and Thor meets his mother, he even temporarily takes his hammer.

In another, Natasha dies and Thanos, Gamora, and Nebula learn about the future. This timeline is the least fixable. If Steve goes back he can maybe fix the Thor/Rocket timeline, depending on the time he went back he might even be able to fix the Tony/Steve/Scott timeline, though it would be hard to return the stone and recapture Loki without running into his past self from that time or the past self that took the stone in the first place. So, it is likely Loki will still be MIA.

And then the final timelines are not really fixable at all. Past Nebula is dead. Past Thanos is dead. Maybe Past Gamora went back into the past, but that would create another time line. She might be able to take down Ronan herself and dismantle Thanos’ following since his army and advisors basically all died in the future. And with Thanos dead and without a need for the stone the whole first Guardians of the Galaxy really wouldn’t have happened. Either because Quill wouldn’t have been sent to fetch the stone, or because he went to get it and ended up being captured by Rocket and Groot and sent to jail. In which case, both her going back and staying would be the same because without her there to start a fight, they wouldn’t have been arrested together or banded together. But, if she doesn’t go back, Ronan would still likely try to take the stone. And without them working together, Ronan would have succeeded in destroying the planet. If he still had the stone when they turned him in, Ronan would kill everyone in the prison including Drax and Quill. Or, if Rocket and Groot kept it, he would have killed them.

So, there isn’t really a way to fix that. I think instead of a three hour movie, they should have split this into another two movies. Because I want to know how Steve got everything back! It took teams of 2/3 people each to get these things gone in the first place! Loki disappeared, he saw himself, SHIELD officers think he knows that SHIELD=Hydra, he can’t put it back before they took them because then two would exist. And he can’t put them back in the exact moment, because he could run into either of his past selves. Or do more damage. He has to wait a certain amount of time, but not too long either. And did he even take a ship? How is he going to get into space? Does he put all of the stones back? Surely, some of them didn’t need to go back. Like what about the stone that brought Vision to life, couldn’t they have kept that and brought Vision back? Why not destroy one of the stones (like the one someone has to die to get) and then put the rest back so NO ONE can pull a Thanos in any future.

Plus, how did Steve explain his presence to Peggy? Did he tell her that he was alive and under the ice and was from the future? What did he do as a job? He was relatively famous, did people not recognize him? He knows Bucky is a live, does he try to find him in the timeline? He meets Peggy again when she is old in their timeline, so does that Peggy know him or is it a new timeline entirely. But it can’t be a totally different timeline because he is sitting on the bench as an old man to pass the mantle on. I just have too many question. And I don’t think it is because any of them are unanswerable. They just ran out of time.

This is a question that has actually only come up recently, but I was thinking about it and I’m seriously wondering what happened to mess up the future in Endgame. Dr. Strange insisted that Stark live. Which makes sense, Stark is who actually defeated Thanos and brought about a victory in the end, in more ways that one. Without Tony, they wouldn’t have been able to time travel to get the stones. And without Tony, even if they brought everyone back they will would have all died when Thanos snapped again. So, Dr. Strange had to save Tony.

Dr. Strange knew this. He went through the possible futures and saw how many of them they actually won and defeated Thanos. Tony asks him and Strange says he can’t tell Tony, because if he tells Tony it won’t happen. But then, in the final moments of battle, Tony looks to Strange and Strange singles that it was one. That he saw only one future where they defeat Thanos. And that spurns Tony into the action be took that leads to their victory. But, that also seems to suggest that it isn’t true that he couldn’t tell him. He did tell him in the end. And if he hadn’t told him, he might not have jumped in and did what he did. Which makes me wonder, if there were more but at that point other things had happened to reduce their chances.

I didn’t actually see Dr. Strange. Which might be why I’m confused about how he sees the future. If he sees all the possible (or even some/most) of the possibilities, how much does he know about each future? There is a movie with Nicolas Cage, I can’t remember what it is called but he basically can go through different possibilities to see what happens but it seems limited to what is in his knowledge and the possibilities he looks to explore (ie. “If I go left or right what happens?” But he doesn’t also know what would happen if he turned around.) He asked for Tony to be spared which means he knew that Tony would play a major part in the ending. And people say he specifically planned the timing so that the snap would happen while Ant Man was in the Quantam Realm. But, without Nebula going back in the future, past Thanos wouldn’t have come to the present. Without Natasha, Clint wouldn’t have come back to the Avengers. He didn’t even ask about Captain Marvel, was the assumption just that she would be safe? Though, her character was really minimally present and almost unnecessary. I mean, Scarlet Witch actually did more damage to Thanos than she did. Plus, she was absent for so much of the movie. And I get it, she says it herself that she is going around to other planets too but it just leads to more questions. Like wasn’t there a sort of galactic police force introduced in Guardians? And what about the Guardians themselves, even before the snap how did they not cross paths? How is Earth the only planet that had heroes/superheroes?

Anyway, back to my original question, there are so many characters that brought about the victory. Yes, having Ant Man was important. But if Captain Marvel hadn’t been there to save Tony he would have died, if Pepper hadn’t been there to keep Tony sane, he probably wouldn’t have been of any help to anyone.

Steve and Natasha also probably knew the most about Fury and the pager too. I mean, it really seems like it wasn’t just Tony, the people who survived are the exact people that needed to survive for them to win. Which is why I wonder if Tony was originally going to be snapped away and that is why Strange specifically asked for him to be spared. Which actually also leads me to another question, if Thanos could specify who he gets rid of and what, why did he just specify half? Why didn’t he specifically target like everyone who was violent? Or just certain families? Was it just a lack of empathy that lead him to not realize that if he killed half of all living things that it would cause them pain? With his power, could he not have done something to specify the most violent/cruel people would be those to die? Or even those people and their connections, so that there would be no one left to really miss them or be sad they’re gone.

If a family of ten loses 5 people, they will obviously be very upset. If a family of ten hears about the disappearance of another family of ten, they will feel sympathy but more than that relief it wasn’t them. And I know Thanos agreed to keep Tony alive, but can he really not specify more than that to get rid of all Avengers but Tony? If he really had no control beyond a few, then he could have snapped away everyone good leaving only the most violent? I don’t know I said it earlier. But I think this should have been two movies. I am just left with so many questions. And I feel like we totally miss out on seeing Nebula and Rocket bond. I think they would be a really interesting relationship duo to explore. Both of them started out as normal and were experimented on and medically altered with technology against their will from a young age. Rocket doesn’t like talking about what happened to him, but I think if anyone would understand it would be Nebula. They are both not used to affection or compassion and have a loose sense of right and wrong.

Also, like I get that scene that everyone is freaking out about is when Captain Marvel gets the gauntlet from Peter Parker and he asks how she is going to get it across and all the women show up to have her back but…what can Mantis do? Like, if Captain Marvel is supposed to be that strong and with Scarlet Witch, should they have even really needed the rest? Can’t Dr. Strange create teleport portals? Why couldn’t he just create a portal between Peter and the van? Or himself and Peter and then to the van?

I mean, yes the scene had me like “women represent” but it also had me like…okay but are they only all there because they are women? Like, it is the middle of a battle that decides the fate of literally every single life form on the planet, I think making sure that the best people for the task are always the one on the task regardless of gender.

The whole Thor plot line was a little questionable. Like, they constantly seemed to be making fun of his weight quite a bit. If they had pulled that with any of the female characters, people would have had a fit. I mean, they even had Rocket grossed out by being hugged by him with a close up on Thor’s beer belly. Like...they’ve all been through some serious crap. Tony had serious PTSD that I don’t think they ever explained if it went away, it seems like it just sort of stopped being an issue they talked about. Meanwhile, Thor is clearly going through a traumatic time. And the fact they were all surprised shows that no one had been there to see him. They basically just all went their separate ways instead of making sure that they were okay. And some of them were definitely not okay. I mean, sure Steve ran support groups but he literally risked the timeline to stay back with Peggy, so he was clearly not over his loss either.

Post 171: No to Starbucks Sippy Cups

Not a fan of the Starbucks sippy cup. In order to prevent further straw pollution and be more eco-friendly, Starbucks has redesigned the lids of their cold drinks to look and work like adult sippy cups. But this does not work well. When the cold drinks sit, the liquid sinks and the ice floats. And when the ice sits on top and the liquid goes to the bottom (as well as the flavor) the first half of the drink tastes like watered down slush and the last half is way too sweet.

Paper straws or biodegradable straws would have been so much better. You wouldn’t want to drink a Slurpee without a straw. That is what it is like drinking a Frappuccino without a straw. I would much rather have a paper straw or even pay an extra $1 for a metal straw. You can buy re-usable metal straws in bulk online for like $0.23 each, so they’d be making money off selling metal straws and they’d still be green. In fact, they could sell branded metal straws and it would get their brand out as well as being green. It’d be like their reusable coffee mugs but at a cheaper price point, so if offered whenever someone bought a cold drink (especially if their other option was straight sippy cup) they are likely to buy it.

And really, that seems cheaper than redesigning the lids anyway. Which probably had to go through testing both on the practicality/utility level as well as customer acceptance level. And as they make new lids and test the different kinds, that would have cost money and time. And since I saw at least six people getting straws from somewhere else (like the nearby Tim Hortons) it isn’t really reducing the waste of straws.

Sippy cups are not the solution.

I don’t generally get Starbucks anyway, though. I generally find it over to be overpriced. For the same price of just a medium Frappuccino at Starbucks, I can get a large iced cappuccino and a bagel at Tim Hortons (plus, I like Tim’s Iced Capps better).

Post 169: Lactose Intolerance and Respect in Business pt. 2

Click here to read Part 1. 

It is hard to exactly relay the events that occurred through the last metaphor I used. So, I will try my best but it might be a little weird. Basically, last time, the overall metaphor was a catering company at an event that was already approved to come through and the people at the event had to pay for grilled cheese despite being lactose intolerant. The people asked if they could just have bread or toast, but their requests were refused. They were also told that if they didn’t get a grilled cheese, no one at the table was allowed to have one either.

To me, the big red flags were in terms of just blatant disrespect. But, I still suspected she would order the grilled cheese. And I was right. In doing so, everyone got a grilled cheese, and let’s say, after everyone was able to order they symbolically protested the grilled cheese at a lactose intolerant dominated lunch.

(Realizing now that it might have been easier to make the metaphor with Vegans).

Now, in the end she basically ordered the grilled cheese anyway because she was told that no one else could order unless she ordered. So, taking a step back, if she was on a committee over seeing an event, she is told they have to order grilled cheese. If she doesn’t order it, no one gets any at her table or any other table. But, her table is also the only table that gets a say, if they all order then the other tables can order too. If she doesn’t order, no one gets anything. So she orders, so that the other tables can order and when they find out that they can only get grilled cheese, they are upset. Together, now that they’ve all been asked to order, they tell the catering company that no, they will not eat the grilled cheese and petition for a new catering company.

On the one hand, I think this was a good turn of events. Because she ordered, it gave everyone else a chance to order. If she had said no, no one would have gotten anything and they wouldn’t have known why they weren’t getting anything other than that it was her fault somehow. But this sort of assumes both that enough people will be lactose intolerant or realize the inconvenience to those who are and that enough people will stand up and say something.

It could have easily gone the other way and they’d have been stuck with grilled cheese sandwiches and with the authority they got from rolling over this time, maybe the catering company would come back with a just a slice of cheese option.

I think she had to have a lot of faith in the people at the other tables to put the decision up to them and hope they’d make the call that they did. And the bigger issue is on the end of the place that hires the catering company. What if they decide to ignore the petition? All the wiggle room will be gone if the place hosting the event says they still have to use that catering company anyway. And once they’ve been given that authority regardless of the opinions of those on the committee or attending the event, they likely won’t even bother to ask anything at all going forward.

Too many other people (those who can eat cheese and, perhaps, don’t believe or support those who are lactose intolerant) might like and support the catering company to make expensive changes on behalf of the non-grilled cheese eaters.

Is it better then if they still continue to serve grilled cheese? Does giving people a voice negate the problems of accepting the disrespect, if the outcome doesn’t really change.

It is just such a hard dilemma. I believe I said this last time as well, I’m glad it is not a decision I had to make.

Post 168: Celebrity Sightings and Keeping Cool

I am aggressively eating a gummy worm as I type this. I had a realization today that has thrown me for a bit of a loop. I would like to think that if I met a celebrity I wouldn’t freak out. I’ve met Kyle Massey. In like 2006-2007, I was 14/15. He was with his friends at a Dave and Busters at the Irvine Spectrum Mall in California. I was there with two of my friends, one of whom played DDR with him. It was a brief hang out. I believe they exchanged numbers, but she was pretty in love with one of the Jonas Brothers, so if anything she would have texted to see if he had their number.

If you are in Southern California and want to meet a celebrity, Irvine Spectrum and Fashion Island are the malls to hang out at. At Irvine Spectrum, I also ran into Vince Vaughn and Rebecca Black. At Fashion Island, I ran into Lo Bosworth. At a restaurant near them both, a teppanyaki place, I ran into Kobe Bryant.

Actually, he ran into me. Literally. He practically ran me over.

If you don’t know, a teppanyaki place has a big flat stove where the entire thing is one big heating surface. Around the stove is a table for people to eat. There are usually at least 8, but as many as 16, chairs around that. Like an island bar, but instead of a bar it is a stove. Chefs prepare your food right in front of you. Because of how big these are and how many seats they have, people in small groups will eat with other groups. There are no tables for two or less. He was there with his date and without a reservation, demanding not only to be seated right away but to have a whole table to themselves. Despite being two people, in a busy restaurant on a Friday night with at least 15 people with reservations still waiting to be seated. And he was so upset. The manager handled really well and said, “no, we can add you the waiting list or see if a spot is available at a table but we cannot give your party its own table with only two people.” Finally, tired of waiting and being told no, he turned to storm out. And little 11-year-old me was in line behind him with my family (we did have a reservation, it was my birthday dinner and we did have a reservation. I don’t know if he didn’t see me or didn’t think to look because he turned and stormed right into me before I could move. He almost knocked me over. And did I hear an apology? No. Did I hear a grumbled, “move”? No. He didn’t say anything. He just kept going, probably a little upset that I ruined his dramatic exit.

I’ve also met a couple singers in concert. I couldn’t tell you their names, I just remember lining up with my aunt because she wanted their autograph. I got a picture with them too, but I didn’t know who they were so didn’t really care.

Anyway, my point really is that, I have encountered celebrities before and been ambivalent, except with Kobe. Then, I was annoyed because he stepped on my foot and it had hurt.

So, I often would like to think this reflects the rationale knowledge that celebrities are people, not their characters and not magazine articles but actual people. When people spazz about how much they love a celebrity, I ask “but do you even know them?” When fangirls on YouTube get all “you don’t belong with X, you belong with Y (or me)” or “why did you guys break up? You were perfect together.” I can respond (though I don’t usually) that they don’t know what happens when the camera is off. They don’t even know if the person on camera is the same as they are off camera. So, they don’t know better and shouldn’t be telling people they don’t know how to live their lives.

And it followed, to me at least, that I could then meet a celebrity in real life without becoming a fumbling idiot. But, I probably couldn’t.

I remember when I went down to meet Meg Cabot (author of such works as The Princess Diaries and The Mediator series) and I was so nervous. I was so excited to meet her. After her talk, we were able to go up and meet her. I’m not going to lie, I was so excited. I really wanted to talk to her, to let her know that I love writing and want to be a writer too. The girl in line ahead of me (though she didn’t actually talk at all) was about my age and apparently was published at 14. Her mom was going on about how she’d been published, been on TV, how Meg Cabot was a huge inspiration, and on and on. And there I was, the same age loving to write but not having finished anything, let alone published anything at all. And I was still freaking out about whether I should say “hi” or “hey”. It felt kind of like a kick in the stomach. Here was this girl, who was basically like a child writing prodigy and one of the youngest Young Adult others, what was I compared to her?

Anyway, thinking about that event, I realized that I didn’t get all weird and fumbling or excited in the past because I didn’t care about those celebrities. I knew of them. But, that’s about it. I’m not enthralled by their fame. It isn’t even the fame that gets me hyped or not, it is what they are in and what they have done. This point was really sunk in when I found out Sandra Oh was hosting Saturday Night Live. I thought, “oh! I love her”. Christina Yang. I love Christina Yang from Grey’s Anatomy, that is the only work I really know Sandra Oh from and, while she does a great job of portraying her character, that is all I know about her.

So, in the end, my ability to meet celebrities without freaking out has not been because I am cool about it or possess self-control in the presence of fame, but rather that they weren’t celebrities that meant anything to me.

This theory might very well be put to the test on April 5^th, when I see Pink in concert. I don’t have backstage passes or anything, but who knows what will happen. More later.

Post 167: Lactose Intolerance and Respect in Business pt. 1

I was reading an article by a woman who was talking about a difficult decision she had to make when selling her small company to a much bigger company. As the article is not yet published she has requested people not post names or share her article. So, instead, I will use a metaphor to describe her situation.

Say you’re really hungry and someone offers to make you a grilled cheese sandwich for $2. But you’re lactose intolerant. It’s not made yet, so you tell them that you’re lactose intolerant and ask for just toast still willing to pay $2, but they say no. They says it is a grilled cheese sandwich or nothing. On the one hand, your stomach hurts and you feel tired because you’re hungry. On the other hand, the cheese will make your stomach hurt later and you will be paying $2 for that stomach ache. Either way, there are benefits and consequences.

That’s sort of like the situation she is in. But with much wider scale issues than stomach aches and dairy intolerance. And instead of a request for no cheese, it was a well researched list of 86 concerns and suggestions to make the deal more positive without adding too much work to either party. But the list was totally disregarded. Because they assume they will take the deal either way and by not doing anything they save themselves time. Like in the example, if they’re making grilled cheese in mass and they know they have a room of hungry, lactose intolerant people, some people will cave so why should they go out of their way to make you toast? They will make money without you, you’ll be hungry without them.

She goes on to argue the pros and cons of both, but it wouldn't have gotten that far for me. I would have said no, from the moment they said they wouldn't make toast.

This isn't just a random, imaginary room with lactose intolerant people. This is a medical convention of some kind for people with lactose intolerance and/or studying it to come together, so the majority of people are lactose intolerant. Not everyone is, but most are and these people were invited as a catering company knowing most of the people would be lactose intolerant and they did not come prepared to accommodate them and were unwilling to take their dietary needs into consideration because they would be the only food option at the event (which for the sake of the metaphor, people are not allowed to leave so couldn't get food elsewhere). And now they're saying that everyone at they table has to agree to eating the grilled cheese, despite being lactose intolerant, or they might not bring food for the people at the table who do want the grilled cheese. So, they're relying both on your hunger and that the people around you will pressure you into doing it, because you don't want to be the one person who stops them from eating.

This company knew they were going to be dealing with people who had issues with the process, but have ignored their concerns. Her team went and did research on the concerns and made suggestions supported by that research for how the concerns could be addressed (like I said) and did really what the company should have done in the first place, but the company ignored the list entirely. And while I am not saying they have to take the suggestions, all or any, they should have, at the very least, addressed that her company had concerns. They could have just acknowledged the list or explained why they didn't address the list. But, no. They dismissed it entirely and, with it, all the work her team did on it.

To me, that is a sign of serious disrespect. It shows they don't care what the people they make the deal with think or get out of it, so long as the deal is made. And if there is not mutual respect going into the agreements when the company still wants something, there definitely won't be respect once they get what they want.

Their resources are also far more expansive (as well as their legal team). If the agreement is made and the company suddenly decides to utilize a loophole in the contract that they wrote, her team would not have had the legal power to combat it. And the company itself is already used to dealing with negative press, so would hardly need to worry about her small company saying they did something wrong.

I think, when it comes to business, where there is no respect, there can be no trust. And I would not put my company or team in the hand's of a company I could not trust. Especially when the pros and cons are still up for debate. Her article ends with her saying she made a decision, but not what decision she made. Whatever she has decided has come to fruition at this point, so I could look it up if I really wanted to know.

Or I could just ask her.

But, really, what I took away from her piece was about how differently we came about our decision to make a deal or not. True, I was not in her situation so might be missing some of the details and context she had. However, I think the overall arch of her article showed that she was so focused on her own company's situation and debating her own morals about the pros and cons, that she did not do a thorough enough job of thinking about the other side's position. From reading the article, it sounds like she started and continued in the defensive and never reached equal footing because of it.

And I think the company got away with what they did, because they knew that. The list, while helpful, just showed how eager they were to work with them and how much they would be willing to put up with.

The catering company knows people can't leave the event. Maybe the attendees can try to order food in, but the fact they keep sending back suggestions for toast or bread or just a side, shows that they want to order from the caterers. And will, therefore, likely cave in on the grilled cheese.

For that reason, I think she accepted the deal. She bought the grilled cheese sandwich. I just hope she doesn't end up with a stomach later on because of it. 

Post 166: WYCLF - Criminal Minds

I must admit, I love Criminal Minds. Reid and Garcia are my favorite characters and if you don't think those two together are a powerful force, then feel free to tell me and I will patiently listen, but be prepared for an essay on why you are wrong with many, many examples. Partially because I love them and love to write, but also because it will give me an excuse to re-watch the show. And you best believe I own it on iTunes as well as the DVDs.

Anyway, I have had this post saved in my drafts for awhile because I was waiting for the right message to write about. I have learned a lot of things from the show, like don't use your birthday as a password and most serial killers are white men between 30 and 50, but that is not really what I wanted to share.

The last episode I saw had the perfect message. The perfect lesson to share.

David Rossi was talking to Emily Prentiss. Two other beloved characters, but not quite as close to my hear. They had, had a particularly bad case and after having many people ask if he was okay, he was thoroughly frustrated. And I get it. When you are upset, but trying to keep going and push through people constantly asking if you are okay is just frustrating. It makes it harder to keep it together and if you are trying to convince yourself that all is well, it is even worse.

He and Emily talk and I think it becomes clear to him, that he isn't really okay. But Emily says she won't ask him if he is. Instead, Emily then says she is going to ask him a question, not if he is okay, but who does he trust enough to admit that he isn't okay.

I loved this. When people constantly ask if you are okay, it is like they are insinuating you aren't. It is like a prodding question that can turn a sore spot into a full on bruise. It makes things worse, especially when the person is not someone you want to or can talk to. Instead of suggesting he wasn't okay, instead of trying to get him open up to her. She is straight with him. Her question is saying, I know you are not okay and you need to tell someone, but that person isn't me, so who is it that you can tell you are not okay too.

I liked it a lot because I remember times when I was upset and people were constantly poking and prodding into why and I didn't want to tell them. Sometimes because it was them, sometimes because it was nothing really and I was just emotional and I didn't want to talk about it. And them constantly asking just made me angrier. It also made me feel more detached. It was like having a secret and people constantly asking you tell them, even when they barely knew you.

I like this because while it was saying he wasn't really okay, it was also saying that it was okay if he didn't admit it to her or anyone else except the person he trusted to tell.

Honestly, it was just such a good line and I think really goes to emphasize the closeness of their friendship and her support as his friend and supervisor.

Post 165: Worst Mistake to Make When Applying for Jobs

There are many mistakes that you can make when applying for a job. There is one that is particularly bad because it will stop you from even getting an interview nine times out of ten. What mistake is it? Not having the proper contact information done on your resume.

This is a mistake I have made three separate times in different forms.

The first is not having the correct phone number. Now, jobs will either email or call so having the correct number, but wrong email or vice versa will not always lead to a missed opportunity. However, it will from time to time have the potential employer calling the wrong person or sending out email correspondence in vain. And unless you are very high quality candidate, they will have other people to contact and move on to without trying to contact you other ways. 

I have done this. I got a new cell phone and my number did not carry over. I forgot to change it on my resume for one job, thankfully I caught it after I PDFed it. 

Another mistake is to put an email that you do not often check. I used my University email when I applied for jobs at the university, but when I switched from a student to an alumni they stopped forwarding to my main email. I almost missed an email about coming in for an interview because I don’t often check in as I assume it forwards. I realized that I hadn’t received any notifications that I applied and signed in to check. Thankfully, I didn’t miss anything but junk mail. 

This is the worst mistake because it is the most likely to keep you from getting a job you are qualified for. It is likely shooting yourself in the foot even before the interview happens. So, when applying, make sure your contact information is not only correct, but the ones that you will actually check. 

Post 164: Counterpoint - Flight Plan

The movie has a lot of plot holes. A lot. But the biggest or most commonly picked at one is the end of her searching for witnesses so soon.

The main plot of the movie revolves around the idea that the main character believes her daughter is on the plane and went missing. The pilot calls the morgue and says that he heard from them that her daughter died too. The main character then doesn't bother to call anyone else. Not her daughter's teachers or her neighbors or other family members. No one who could have backed up the fact that her daughter was, in fact, alive. 

This is thought to be a big plot hole in Flight Plan. While it is true that she could have called others, I doubt the pilot would continue to let her call people. No one saw the daughter on the plan. No one remembered her. The pilot is saying she was never on the plan. The pilot is saying that the morgue says the daughter is dead. It isn't like some stranger is saying it. 

Then she continues to act more and more erratically. She clearly didn't seem stable. You can only give in to the demands of someone acting irrationally for so long. Not to mention there were multiple people in on it. So, who knows if they hadn't influenced others in her life. 

She also seems like she had gotten more standoff-ish. She probably withdrew from her friends and family. Also depending on when her husband died, which probably was not far too long before considering she was flying with his coffin on the plane, is a sign it was pretty recent, the daughter may not have returned to school yet.

After a significant death, like the death of a father, kids and students are often encouraged to take time off. So, they also may not have seen her since her dad's death. 

So, it makes sense she didn't start calling other people. She probably didn't have too many people to call. She also was paranoid, quite rightly. And she had no way of knowing who was in on her daughter's disappearance. Maybe they were all involved. Maybe the pilot was involved. Maybe every single person was involved. She had no way of knowing.

So, it was best to go off and do her own thing.

Post 163: A Post from Unfamiliar Territory

I am currently in the Sprott Shaw College student lounge. There are two tables. Two! Which is not nearly enough as they are smaller than your standard dining room table. They are also both full. There is a giant made couch in the shape of an 'L' made of small seats. There are 6 rows with 4 computers each. There is honestly more computers than there is convenient places to sit. Which must explain why there are no "no food or drinks at computers" signs and trash wrappers abandoned on desks. It is fine with me. I have dinner to eat and it is easier sitting at a desk than trying to balance my food on my knee.

The computers seem to require some sort of log-in information, but some of them are also signed in. Which is how I got on to this computer. They seemed to have left a lot of things signed in. But I don't care really so haven't checked. And being that I am already taking advantage of the fact that they forgot to sign out to do my own thing. It seems like it would be wrong to butt into their's. I will sign them out when I am down.

But they should really have more tables. What kind of student lounge cannot accommodate more than two groups of people at a time? I mean, it seems like one of the professors/instructors has actually sent the two groups out to discuss things. So, it isn't even being used as lounge space but as classroom space. That is a little unfair to students that would like to actually use the lounge, as a lounge.

That being said I cannot talk too much considering I am not actually a student here. I am a student at City University, which is their neighbor upstairs. There is actually no lounge space that I saw up there at all. There are a handful of classrooms, but it is lacking space the same way I am lacking a place to put the shrimp tails from my dinner.

It seems so weird eating here. I am trying to keep my food on the window ledge and off the desk. It is weird, in general, not to see any cameras anywhere. SFU had cameras everywhere.

You know, it occurs to me that I have taken classes at five separate Universities, four as a University student. I took classes at Alfred University. I attended University of Victoria, Simon Fraser, University of Copenhagen, and now City University. (Since I didn't previously say, I am now taking classes).

That's kind of weird.

I don't think I took enough classes at really any of them other than SFU to do any sort of real, fair comparison. And I have always found classes to be very dependent on the professor. I loved my Philosophy class when I had it with the professor who put on Beyonce and Lost and made everything relatable and often humorous.  Meanwhile, when I had the professor that put up those old clear sheets on a projector and either read straight from the or from the book, never adding anything or expanding...well, let's just say if the grading had actually required I show knowledge of what we learned in class I would have failed. Thankfully, it was 6 4-page essays where we were given the discussion question relatively early in the year so we could look up anything we needed to know ourselves. And he was hardly a tough grader. I vaguely remember having difficulty coming up with word length for one and spending a page and a half relating the material to Harry Potter.

It is about time to start wandering my way to class now. Ta-ta for now.

Post 162: Navigating the Job Market with an English Degree

It has been some time now since I graduated from University. And I have entered those years where applying for jobs is sort of awkward, because you might have both too much and not enough experience for the jobs you are looking for, assuming you don't just dive into minimum wage retail positions (that even for entry level still often asks for 6 months or even a year of experience). 

I have worked in lots of different jobs, though they probably aren't as diverse as the Job Titles would make them seem. They all boil down to some sort of personable attitude (either with coworkers or customers), tech skills of a basic to moderate level, and daily Spam emails.

I have to say, looking back, I may never have really loved any of them (I mean, obviously or I'd likely still be there) but I don't think I really disliked any of them. It was generally not even that I wholly liked or was ambivalent about any particular job. It was just a varied extravaganza of pros and cons. 

None of which is relevant to today's topic, which is basically "I have an English degree, now what?"

Well, there are lots of ways to go with an English degree, but today's main focus is going to be writing jobs that would be classified as weird or obscure that you might not even know about, like Fortune Cookie Writers. 

Fortune Cookie Writers:

I'm going to be honest, I never really thought about who was writing the messages that turned up in my fortune cookies. There are post generators and content generators galore out there, so I think I always just assumed that is where they came from and that is why they are often random. I think the strangest one that I can recall was something along the lines of "May a bird nest in the tree of your heart" or something like that. It seems very poetic, but also pretty weird to me. 

But it is a job, a writing job, with the potential of being pretty entertaining. 

Website Content Writers:

Do you know who aren't writers? Engineers and scientists. Now, not all of them struggle with writing. But most that I know struggle with writing in a way that is interesting or comprehensible to non-STEM scholars. So, they often pay writers to write or re-write content for them. Technical writers are given reports and help, essentially, translate them into a more everyday level. But, as we further delve into this digital age, more of these non-writing types are starting websites to explain what they do and why. 

For example, these quotes taken from a website about colors and psychology:
"When red is placed on a black background, it glows with an otherworldly fire."
"Could mellow yellow be the color of insanity?"

Now does that say writerly or what?

Ghost Writers:

There are a lot of celebrities out there that have "written" autobiographies. And by that I mean, there are a lot of celebrities that shared their life story with writers who then turned them into autobiographies. But the thing is, ghostwriters get 0 credit. As in nada, zip, nothing. 

By definition, it sounds like plagiarism. Hiring someone to write something, so you can sign your name on it and get the credit? Sounds sketchy. But its actually very common. And if what my one and only ghostwriter friend says is true, it pays better because you are signing away credit. 

Now my lovely dears, it seems as though I have run out of time to keep going. But those three strange but English major appropriate jobs will hopefully at least inspire you to check your options.

Post 161: Story Prompt

This Story Prompt was shared by my friend on Facebook (she's my friend in real life, she just shared it via Facebook):

"Its 3am. An official alert wakes you up. It says 'Do Not Look at the Moon'. You have hundreds of notifications. Hundreds of random numbers are sending, 'Its beautiful tonight. Look outside.' "

And I wrote a short little story blurb on the train in response:

It is almost 3am. My phone is playing part of the Muppets song on repeat. It has fallen between my bed and the wall. Mah Na Mah Na can be heard faintly every few minutes. Is it worth the search? Surely the texts will stop?

But they don’t. I roll over and grope blindly feeling the cold wall against my knuckles. I say a silent prayer along the lines of “dear god, please don’t let a spider crawl out.” Finally I find it and look to see who is dying or is losing a friend.

It isn’t one text, but many. None of the numbers are associated with names. I have a new number. The owner of the old number told no one it wasn’t his number anymore. His car is ready for service.

His friends must be texting him. All the texts are the same, “It’s a beautiful night. Look outside.”

There are so many messages. It must really be beautiful. It is supposed to be a full moon tonight. I put my phone on silent and close my eyes to go back to sleep.

But I can’t. I’m too curious. And all I have to do is get out of bed and open the curtains and I can see for myself if the moon is out and full.

I throw off the covers and get up. I trip over my desk chair on the way before grabbing my phone and putting on the flashlight.

Just as I reach the window I receive an emergency alert: “Do Not Look at the Moon.”

I look up at the window. The last thing I see before darkness overtakes the room is my hand on the curtain illuminated by my phone’s flashlight, it has switched to camera mode. The room is dark. I am going back to bed. I have to be up for work in two hours. It is Monday.