today has NOT been a good day for me, and i'm blaming the internet. while it's true that i woke up to a parking ticket and have had a variety of other issues in the so-called "real world" to trouble me, i didn't expect these problems to be substantially augmented by my morning browse. internet, i look to you for solace, support, and occasionally flash games or journal citations i'm too lazy to find in the library. why hast thou betrayed me?
during my internet explorations, i found three independently unreasonable news stories. i will share my outrage regarding each in turn.
yes, APPLE. in all caps. because that is how angry i am.
it's bad enough that i just found out that my beautiful new iphone, which i bought about 5 weeks ago, is now being sold for two hundred fewer dollars. wonderful. but then apple's hot news headlines site has to smarmily crow this information as though it's the best news ever.
it is not.
i'd prefer a handwritten note of apology.
or a REFUND.
but not this chipper "isn't it grand how we're making the iphone so much more affordable for everyone who was more patient than you were" drivel.
i knew the iphone would be encheapened (yeah, i'm a linguistics major) at some point, and that the technology would be improved as well. however, apple generally doesn't slap its hardcore supporters quite so hard in the face quite so soon after the release of new technology. as one site so aptly put it (apologies, i can't find it again to cite it), it will make even the most impassioned of us think twice about supporting apple's newly released products in the future.
oh, and $0.99 per ringtone, plus the cost of the song? lame, apple. way lame.
(i think it may have to do with some licensing issue...but sony's walkman phone never had to do that...nor did motorola, nor any of the other phone companies that let you make custom ringtones for free...)
2) Law and Order Actor Joining Presidential Race
d.a. arthur branch wants to do things like outlawing abortion?
i mean, i will say that schwarzenegger hasn't been as abysmal as i expected him to be. maybe there's something to be said for the exceptional few entertainers who can cross over into politics. but, at its core, the notion bothers me somewhat, because i think people already place far too much stock in what these entertainers say and do (and pay them ridiculously obscene amounts of money). this psychological edge that (i have no doubt) millions of americans give to entertainer candidates is what bothers me more than anything; i'm not saying that all entertainers are unfit for politics, but rather that they're not given a fair amount of critical analysis by the voters. sure, i guess it's possible for actors to have experience in politics and entertainment alike, but i think it's difficult to have the time and inclination to be successful at both, and i think that people focus too much on the success of one arena and unfairly apply that same judgment of success/competence/suitability to the other.
i'm disliking this trend...i thought the california gubernatorial election was a joke, and turned the state into a veritable laughingstock. i'd rather the reputation of our presidency not be tarnished any more than it already has been. more importantly, though, the thought of completely outlawing abortion is frightening to me, and i worry about what other worse-than-bush (i didn't think it possible, but he's worrying me) ideas he'll have.
one thing's for sure, in any case. i'll never look at law and order quite the same way again.
3) Dog Gets $12 million Inheritance
...i don't think i need to say much here.
the fact that a dog has been given more money than most people will ever see in their lifetime is disgusting to me. i can see the argument for keeping the money that you earn if you're going to use and appreciate it, but...this is ridiculous. there are SO many people in need, and...it's sitting there being unused, with a dog who doesn't need it and really CAN'T appreciate it.
on the other hand, i find it pathetic that a housekeeper who worked with the dog's owner for three months is trying to get the inheritance because she got bitten multiple times. how greedy can you be? i understand the inheritance is outrageous, but why not try to convince the estate holders or some judge that that money should be put to some charitable cause because the dog obviously can't use that much of it (trust me, i know, my mom's a dog breeder and we've spent just about as much money on dogs as anyone conceivably could, and we're far short of that mark). anyway, getting bitten over a three-month period in ways that were not bad enough to merit a legitimate case previously should probably not all of a sudden be given new legitimacy now, regardless of how much money the dog has.
apologies for how inarticulate this is. i'm riled up.
your comments, as always, are welcome and encouraged.