The Rantings of SpikeRants

I'll start off by saying I used to work in the retention (i.e., we don't want you to cancel your service with us department) at Sprint.

The then $150 cancellation fee was explained to us as a way to reclaim potential money from the customers who opt out of the contract early. The futures of the cell phone companies, my trainers said, were based on X amount of customers spending Y amount of money. If A amount of customers canceled, they would lose B amount of money, so the cancellation fees would help balance that out and make them look like they weren't hemorrhaging money.

Kinda sounds like a line, but it makes a bit of sense.

So, many companies put in a "retention" department to keep customers from leaving. There were loopholes for getting out of a contract, like leaving on military duty, leaving the country, etc. But for the most part, you were stuck. If we set you up with a better plan, one not nationally advertised, yes, you would have to sign a new contract. Makes sense.

But those plans didn't always work. Some customers wanted a new phone. We had no "existing customer rebate" program. So, it was an incentive to get new customers to an opposing company to give them a free phone. Or, a greatly reduced one.

So, eventually, the big wigs listened, and existing customer rebates were put into place. Now, after 18 or so months of service, you could sign a new two year contract and get a phone at the new customer price. That made my day when I heard that!

So, long story slightly shorter, I get a new phone from AT&T in August with a new two year contract.

But, if the FCC puts in what I've seen, such as lowering the cancellation fee based on how long you've had it, does this mean the end of the existing customer rebates?

These companies are in it to make money. Now, don't get me wrong. I know a bunch of people I worked with would stick on a new contract to people who made them mad, or not tell people when they had to sign a new contract to ensure they kept their four minute average talk time. But for the most part, you knew you had a contract. You knew for how long. If you weren't told, well, heck, we live in the internet age. It says on your account. Your first bill. If you didn't look, that's your bad.

Do we need to get rid of the cancellation fees? No. It helps the companies make back their money. You were told (mostly). At Sprint, we RECORDED the person agreeing to the contract. Name, SS# and Date of Birth were all given.

BUT-- and here's the thing that brasses me off the most-- when a customer would ask to hear their voice, I was always told to tell them "That's proprietary information, and Sprint doesn't disclose that."

Huh? No. If a customer has a dispute, pull up their voice. If there is no recording, no signed contract, or if it's their friend calling and pretending to be them, LET THEM OUT.

This might mean the end of the benefits to existing customers: retention plans, new phones, special offers. Because they all require a new contract.

I canceled with Sprint before my two year contract was up. My phone was broken, the insurance was asking for about $70, and I was sick of not having service on 75 just north of Plano. I paid the $150 when I got the bill. It would have cost me more to keep the service for the next six months AND pay $70 for the replacement phone than just the $150.

Yes, it stinks. But these companies are in it to make money. They should NOT be allowed to rip people off. But you should know what you're getting in to. And if you don't want a contract: GO PRE-PAID.

Okay, I was on eBay checking the "Cranky the Crane" auction for my boy. I saw a banner at the top of the site saying "Myanmar relief: donate, buy, sell."

So, I thought they weren't allowing US aid. Or any aid, as they stopped the UN envoys from entering due to a two-week holiday the government was on.

These tossers don't want our help. They want to be able to tell their people "The US hates you! We weren't even offered help from them in YOUR TIME OF NEED!"

So, and I ask this as a genuine question, where does our money go that we donate to the Red Cross and other charitable organizations? I have no idea. If it's not going to Myanmar, who's getting it? And, if they don't accept our aid and we donate, will we get our donations back? Why should I donate if they don't want our help?

I'm serious. I don't know why we're being inundated with requests for monetary donations when they aren't accepting it.

I love my mother. I love my wife. They both do fantastic jobs with their kids. And they both spoil the crud out of their kids.

That said, I find myself distraught at the salary.com feature about how mothers should make around $117,000 a year.

No, don't get me wrong. I know mothers and wives do a mess of work around the house. My mother cleaned the house WEEKLY, cooked every night, did the dishes every night, tucked me and my brother into bed (along with my father), and held us as we cried over a cut knee or a lost girlfriend.

But my father? He did the lawn work. Killed the spiders. Did house repairs. The tasks were EQUALLY DIVIDED. Sure, my mother did the housework, but my father did the housework too-- just not the same house work as my mother.

My house today? My wife gets about 95% of the diapers. I get any eye problems, like eyelashes in her eyes, glitter in my sons eyes, whatever. I win out on that deal, but hey, it's all good in our house. We both cook. Both do the baths on alternating days. We both clean the house (not near as often as we should, mind you, but we hit it hard once every two or three.... months.)

She's preggo now. I get the cat box. She gets the food and water. I get the lawn work. She gets the driving. I chase my boy around at night and let him attack me. She holds him as he drinks his warm milk before bed.

We BOTH get up in the night to take care of him if he cries, wants his ba-ba back on him, whatever.

So, on Father's day, will I see a report from salary.com about all I do and how much I should be making as a father? HA! Whatever.

I'm a landscape architect. I'm the tech support around the house. I'm the pest control, pet waste technician, plumber, electrician, handyman, part-time chef, part-time nanny, and security.

I think that's worth about $117,000 a year.

Where's my props? Where's my brother's? My father's? My co-worker's?

Nah. We won't see any props.

I'm glad women are in the workforce. I'm all for giving them their props for taking care of kids at home. But the men are taken for granted.

So yes, look your mother in the eye and say you love her and thanks for taking care of you when you were growing up. But, on Father's day, remember to look HIM in the eye and say thanks for all the sacrifices he made. Working late when he'd rather be home because "it's a man's place to make the bacon." Keeping a well-kept lawn. Bugs out of the house. Teaching you how to burp. Showing you how to fix a car, fix the plumbing, fix a fan, hook up the television, fix the computer when some site gives your computer a trojan.

Remember your PARENTS. Thank your PARENTS.

And let's have a study showing how much fathers should make if they got paid for the work around the house.

Well, it's about bloody time that a jury comes to a proper verdict.

I speak of the woman who was caught cheating, lied about rape, and got her lover killed.

Here's how I think. If I came upon my wife being raped, he (or she) would be dead. I don't own a gun. I'd use my bare hands. That rapist would be dead. Plain and simple.

So, did the man do right? Yup. He protected his wife. Now, if he hadn't protected her and she really HAD been getting raped, I'm sure he would be in prison for a long time for not protecting her. Accomplice to rape.

A woman lied about rape. She got a man killed. It's about time a jury starts to tell women, "No more lying about rape."

It's doing injustice to the men and women who are REALLY raped. Not "I didn't really want to do it, I just did it to get him/her to stop begging for it, RAPE!" or "I said yes, we started, I said no, and he didn't pull out the nanosecond after I said no, RAPE!" or "I got caught cheating and I need to be the victim, RAPE! Wait, don't kill him!"

Good on ya, jury.

For years now, women have been using abuse and rape and threats to get their way. Anybody remember the Kobe Bryant issue? That's when I started to think to myself, "Hey, a woman would lie about rape for personal gain!"

Before, I believed any girl who would say she was raped.

Oh, before I go any further, I don't believe EVERY woman who says she was raped is a liar. And for anybody who thinks I'm a misogynist, my wife was raped when she was 13-14 for seven months. Don't say I don't know first hand what that can do to a woman.

Anyhew, I had a girl lie about being "raped" when she was drunk. She was only telling me that so she could get away with not being a virgin in case we ever got together. A few months later, I learned she was the PetsMart bicycle.

So, everybody's peeved that she lied about being attacked by Hispanics. What about her saying that they threatened to rape her? All lies are bad, but this one is going unnoticed.

So, has society gone to the point that if any woman says that she was raped, or abused, or whatever, we automatically believe her? If I called the police and said that my wife beat me, they'd laugh. If I called a shelter looking for help to take me and my son away from my (fictionally) abusive wife, what do you think would happen? Yup, I'd be told "Men don't get beat up without reason. What did you do to her to make her DEFEND herself? We'll send a car to take your abused wife and son away from YOU."

This girl lied. She lied about being attacked. But, she lied about them threatening to rape her. That's terrible. She's smart in not saying that they DID, because that would have been proven wrong in a second with a rape kit.

But think about it. Vanilla Ice was in prison because his wife said he beat her. She changed it to pushed her. He says she was hitting him. I don't know who to believe. Knowing his history, and his desire to tear up things (as seen on MTV and "The Surreal Life"), I kinda believe her. But he was put in prison on HER WORD ONLY.

A few years ago, I read a story about a man who woke up, went to breakfast in a cab, ate there, took a cab to a doctor's appointment, finished up there, took a cab to his job, and worked the rest of the day.

Meanwhile, two girls around 13 years old and one of their boyfriends were skipping school. The young couple proceeded to have sex. Then they were caught being truant, whereupon the girls said they were kidnapped and raped. The police became very concerned and showed them some photos from drivers licenses. They pegged this guy with a ton of witnesses as the rapist. He was tried. The witnesses came out. The jury still sent him to jail. He spent a couple years in trying to prove his innocence.

THESE GIRLS LIED ABOUT RAPE AND SENT AN INNOCENT MAN TO PRISON.

This Athens girl lied about a rape threat. But nobody cares. Maybe it's time we start caring.

The article regarding the terrorists using robots to attack us shows a nice picture. When I saw it, I had to laugh. It's a science fiction robot from "Doctor Who," called a "Dalek." This picture is from circa 1965:

 

Just thought that it would be good to let some people who are not exposed to the wonders of Doctor Who (Fourth Season airing on SciFi hopefully sometime this summer). It's not a war robot, never used in real life as a war robot, and it's kind of klunky to be used as a real war robot. Funny they pick a Dalek to show terrorist potential.

Okay. Just a few minutes ago, I was sitting peacefully with my wife on the couch, her resting in my arms, watching Fox 4 News at 5:30. I was peaceful, content, and happy (all thanks to the upping of my Zoloft, HORRAY!)

Then, on the Viewers Voice, Steve was showing the good and the bad of the callers. A black man came on and called Steve a "Cracker."

I CRY RACISM.

Michael Richards was recently castigated for his use of the term "BLEEP" on stage, when addressing some hecklers in the crowd. I hear that a little under-reported fact is that he was called a cracker first. (BTW, any censors reading this and deeming it necessary to remove "BLEEP" from this post better also remove "cracker" and "honky" from this post, as both are racist.) I don't know how accurate what I heard is, or where I heard it from, but it's telling, I think.

Why is it okay for black people to call white people "honky" or "cracker," but race riots erupt when we dare utter the word "BLEEP?" I don't think it is okay. And I think that we should start calling people out on this.

Paul Mooney said he would never utter the N word again in any of his acts after Michael Richards. Good for him. Dave Chappelle flings the word around almost every other word. Rappers use the word in their songs. But heaven help us if a white person says it. It's okay for them to use it, and to call white people racist names, but not okay for us to do the same.

Why in the world is that?

NOBODY should use ANY of the racist and denigrating words mentioned above. Steve should have been less jovial about it. I am incensed that somebody would call him that. And I hope others of ALL races are incensed as well.

Post Script-- I just read my published blog, and it censored out, you guessed it, the N word. But, for some reason, "cracker" and "honky" are still there. What's the word, Fox4? Okay to be racist against whites? Add the other two words to the language filter (or at least "honky," since somebody may want to talk about an eating cracker.)

Okay, so I don't know if the article is on this website. Probably not, as this one focuses on local events and major national ones. But I was at work reading CNN on my phone today, and I saw this article that piqued my interest:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/31/teen.sentenced.ap/ind
ex.html

The headline is "Teen girl gets 53 years for killing romantic rival." I thought to myself as I read it, "Bet any man involved is in for life with no parole and up for the death penalty."

Imagine my suprise when I read that the man involved got a lesser sentence on a plea deal. Suprise that a man got a lesser sentence, and suprise that anybody equally involved in the case got a lesser sentence.

Now, I'm happy that she's being locked up. I NEVER thought of killing any of my wife's previous boyfriends, though I didn't like them too much. Anybody who kills outside of self defense should be locked away, and I say kill them too. That's just me. I'm also happy that HE'S being locked up, since he was involved in the murder as well. But the shocker was that, in many of the cases I have read, the man gets more time than the woman.

Take, for instance, the case in Canada. A husband and wife videotape themselves having sex with her sister. The details are a bit fuzzy, but some girl (the wife's sister or another girl) was brutally raped and murdered. She's out now, got out about a year ago. Canada was up in arms about it, as any decent citizenry should be. But the man is still locked up, never to be released. They did the SAME CRIME, but paid different times. I believe it was even said that the man "MADE" the wife do these things. Sorry, but I don't believe in the "this person MADE me feel/think/do this way/thing" excuse. Okay, rape, sure, that's different. But when somebody says, "You MADE me angry." Um, excuse me, but I didn't know I had mental powers to affect your emotions. Maybe you meant you became angry at what I did, but that's different. I don't see how ANYBODY can "MAKE" you molest, rape and murder a child. That's horse-hockey.

There's a bias in the teenage-girl romance murder. It is towards the male, but it's probably due to a plea agreement. If a woman did a plea deal, I'd say the same thing (for those that think I hate all women.) He'll probably get more time now that he's retracted his guilty plea; however, I still feel it should be the same sentence, since it was the same crime. And if he does get a steeper sentence, I'll be upset then about that. No wonder I'm getting an ulcer.

On another note, there's another article about a man who killed his neighbor because his 2-year-old daughter said he molested her (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/31/neighbor.stabbing.ap
/). I have to side with ANY parent who would do anything to protect their child. Murder is extreme, but I know I've thought of somebody hurting my son, and I feel I could get to that point. What should his sentence be? Prison. That's what police are there for, to handle monsters like that molester. But I think the protection of his child should be taken into consideration during the trial, since that could drive any parent to extremes.

Thoughts? Opinions? Hate mail? Post 'em.

Okay, now don't get me wrong. There ARE many cases where a man does assault a woman sexually, and it goes unpunished, or even unreported.

But I have to take any rape case with a grain of salt these days. It once was when a woman said she was raped, or abused by her boyfriend or husband, I hated that man forever. I wanted to see him get castrated.

However, that was well before the Kobe Bryant case, and the Duke LAX team debacle.

Now, I wonder if each rape case I hear is an attempt to get money and notoriety, or if it's revenge because the man wouldn't love the woman; is every abuse allegation because of a divorce with child custody battle?

Denise Richards went down a few notches in my book after claiming abuse from Charlie Sheen. Did it happen? Dunno. Only those two know. But I was upset about how the media criticized him without a shred of evidence. Jody Dean himself said on the KLUV morning show, "I have to go with the woman every time."

Now, the Hornbuckle case. Again, I don't know if he did it or not. But the FARCE I see (I guess I like that word today, farce) is that, on a supposed jury of peers, there were NINE WOMEN AND THREE MEN.

Sorry, how is that a jury of his peers? The men were outnumbered three to one. And these days, more and more women are "banding together for the sisterhood" and attempting to "gain equality" by dumping most men into one category: abusive. Sexually abusive and/or generally abusive.

What about women abusers? The rapist in Florida who slept with her student? The mother in Plano who CUT HER BABIES ARMS OFF and got away with it by claiming insanity? The mother in Houston who CHASED HER CHILDREN AROUND THE HOUSE WHILE THEY WERE SCREAMING AND YELLING who is now getting a vacation in a mental hospital (rightfully so on the retrial, however, due to the non-existant television episode)? Why are they given such leeway that a man wouldn't? And how is that "equality?"

Put a man in those situations above. Heck, I can. A highly depressed man on vacation jumped off a balcony with his two children after getting into a fight with his wife (who was made to be the victim,) killed one of his children and seriously injured the other. He survived, was spat upon by people in the streets, and the director of the hospital he went to said that he should kill himself after he gets better. Wanna know what would happen if it was a woman? Look to Andrea Yates and Dena Schlosser. They set a HORRIBLE precident for mothers wanting to kill their children. It would have been justified as her being horribly depressed from an abusive husband, or post-natal depression, or just general insanity.

Did Hornbuckle do it? I can't say for sure. I wasn't there. But did he get a fair trial? Doubt it. Not with the fact women are so misandric these days.