Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts

Friday, January 18, 2013

I know all my posts have been about guys lately but I can't help it. Other things in my life are pretty stable so it's what I think about. But really all I want to talk about right now is that moment when you meet someone and you start a REALLY good conversation with them by saying "pants are hard" and then you're talking about gentrification in northeast D.C. and a bunch of other things and you want to keep talking and then you ask them a question that brings up the fact that they recently made a major life change because both of their parents are in bad health and then you feel awkward about having brought it up inadvertently but then the conversation continues and it's still great and you start thinking "it's colder than ANTARCTICA out here" and "what do I do with this plate of half-eaten cheese ball I'm holding" and "hey, maybe he'll ask for my number or something and we can continue this conversation another time and some place warmer" but then he doesn't and it's wrapping up and you're standing there in the bitter cold watching him walk away and thinking "well, that was disappointing" because it was. And then you come home and write a run-on sentence about it. Yeah, you know those moments? They're the worst.

Update: and THEN you find out he's 40 and a high councilman and you have a friend sneakily try to set you up anyways.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Yesterday, the Washington post published a blessedly logical and unemotional call for better gun control by Fareed Zakaria. Its clear organization of the facts leaves little room for doubt as to the cause of America's gun violence epidemic. He points out that while American rates of non-gun related crimes are comparable to those of other wealthy, developed nations, our rates of gun violence are 12-30 times higher than those countries. The difference cannot be culture. The difference cannot be the media. The difference cannot be video games. The difference cannot be higher rates of mental illness. Other countries have violent cultures, media complexes that present violent crimes with sensationalized language and obsessive detail, are far more involved in video games than ours, and have comparable rates of mental illness. The major, glaring difference is our permissive gun laws, originally written and passed to promote the ability of American citizens to defend themselves; laws which now make it a necessity that Americans defend themselves. It is not healthy. It is not safe. I am not willing to risk my life on a daily basis simply so those around me can exercise their government (not God) granted right to carry tools of despair, nor am I willing to join them in their insanity to protect myself.

Read Zakaria's editorial here.

(Sorry for the political digression, I'll be back to posting music videos and boring stories soon, I promise.)

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

So...I posted a while ago about a review of the movie "Anonymous" (I would put a picture here if I cared enough about it, but I don't, so DEAL with a pictureless post), and I went to see it as soon as it came out here because, whatever, I love movies, OK!? And even more than movies, I love a good period piece. Y'all know me. Anyways, I just realized that it's been weeks and I've failed to say anything about it (and a million other movies), partly because I was just. So. Disgusted. by it.

So here's the thing. Hopefully you know a little bit about Shakespeare. And hopefully you know a little bit about alternate theories of authorship of his works. One of the most popular (and most perplexing and obnoxious) theories started sometime in the 1920s with someone who said to himself one day "well this Shakespeare fellow was lower class. And poorly educated. And so was his family. So there is NO possible way that he would have been smart enough to pen the most transcendent works of the English language. No effing way, man" (they talked like that in the twenties). So this man set out to figure out who else could have been behind it and came up with Edward de Vere, then Earl of Oxford. He was wealthy, he was smart, he was close to the royal family (well the royal person, Elizabeth didn't exactly have a family...), somebody said one time that he was a poet, blah blah blah, it must have been him!

Fast-forward about 90 years, and, despite the fact that 10 of Shakespeare's plays were not performed or published before Oxford's death (and they could not have been published posthumously because some refer to events that didn't happen until years after his death), the theory only continues to grow in popularity, supported and propogated by celebrities (and why not? they're famous, so that makes them smarter than us, righ?!), despite the best efforts of prominent Shakespearean scholars to debunk this piece of ridonculosity (Shakespeare made up words, so I can too. Werd yo.)

So all this was floating around in my mind before I went to see "Anonymous", but I thought I'd find a pretty good movie despite the absurdity of its premise. Unfortunately, I found myself unable to willfully suspend my disbelief and enjoy the movie for its own sake. Why, you ask? Because, as the film went on, that premise struck me as more and more offensive. What? I was offended by a movie?!?? Yes, apparently I'm not beyond feeling. Or something.

Anyways, what offended me so much is that this whole theory (and the movie that supports it- director Roland Emmerich has become a major proponent, and released with the movie, a documentary by his prodcution company and lesson plans to be sent to high schools so kids could learn about this hogwash) is based on the idea that poor/uneducated/obscure people cannot do extraordinary things. Can you imagine tteaching that to high schoolers? Oh hey kids, do great stuff with your lives, but probably just accept that since you're pretty average you'll never do anything better than average, and if you do, the credit will go to someone else, because who would seriously believe that a kid like you could do anything extraordinary? I don't know why this makes me so mad, but it just does.

Oh and on top of that, the people who made this movie and who support the Oxfordian theory of authorship probably mourned the recent loss of Steve Jobs, designer and entrepeneur extraordinaire, which strikes me as ironic because, like Shakespeare himself, Jobs' early life was rather unextraordinary.

And. AND...should I spoiler this? don't read any further if you don't want spoilers.

According to this movie, Queen Elizabeth was a raging wanton who bore many children who were farmed out to be raised in anonymity by her noble vassals. So she never knew who they were. So we find out as the movie progresses that Oxford had an affair with Elizabeth that resulted in a child. NOT KNOWING THAT HE HIMSELF HAD BEEN ONE OF HER CAST-OFF CHILDREN. WHAT:SODfao;sh;oqw??!~!orh;oh?!?!?!?!??!! Oh yeah and they had a kid together. So Elizabeth had a child with her son. HER SON.

I like to keep an open mind when it comes to history, but this type of historical revisionism, that drags major players down to the gutter without any supporting evidence is just disgusting.

UGH. What a frustrating movie. I actually almost walked out of it. For me to even consider walking out of a movie is...pretty extreme. It is classist, it is disrespectful, and on top of that, probably its worst crime is that it's just not entertaining.

Not. Recommended.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

I just remembered something that made me laugh. A couple of weeks ago, someone gave a talk in church about parables (well actually, everyone that day spoke about parables, it was pretty intense).

Anyways, I guess he wanted to define and exmplify the uses of parables by sharing his favorite one. His favorite parable just happens to be Les Miserables. The musical, not the book (because who reads books these days?!).

Can you guess where this is going? He spent his entire talk telling all the ins and outs of the plot of Les Mis. It took FOREVER. And...he even ended up quoting most of Javert and Jean Valjean's vocal duet/fight ("I am warning you JAVERT! I'm a stronger man BY FAR!") where they sing overlapping parts you know?

So obviously, there are some pretty strong moral lessons that can be drawn from Les Mis. But those lessons could be conveyed by a short summary. I don't need you to quote the whole libretto at me- also? It just makes you look like you didn't prepare a talk and so decided to fill time by telling a really long story. I could be learning something valuable and edifying during all that time!

But maybe it's just me...maybe I WOULD be learning something if I weren't so hard-hearted! (*snert*)

(and none of this really tops the ward attended by a friend of mine where every month, people have been heard to quote Miley Cyrus, Dave Matthews, Kenny Chesney, and others...)

Also, I put a picture of Enjolras because...he's obviously the best Les Mis character. OBVIOUSLY.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Let's talk about movies.

It's been a while.

Zookeeper doesn't merit a picture, but I saw it. Don't ask me why. I guess that's one of the consequences of being an anti-social hermit (that's kind of redundant) in a "big" city. Anyways...talking animals, Kevin James. It was pretty blah. The highlight was Rosario Dawson who I actually really like, and I'm not sure why she did this movie. She needed money I guess.

Harry Potter 7.2 was...great, of course. I've heard lots of whining about story changes, but hey, guess what, this is a movie, not a book, and it's not exactly like they're playing around with great literature- I've almost always enjoyed the movies better than the books in this series- Harry in the books was annoying enough, an that was at least slightly toned down in movie-Harry. Anyways, I don't care about the changes, and those of you who were with me at the last movie (or maybe it was the 6th one) know that my mind was completely blank as to what came next (they found all the horcruxes? what?). So ANYWAYS, this last movie was at least tied for me with the 3rd (and still the best) installment. I love Ralph Fiennes, he's vulnerable AND terrifying in his snakey self. Also, maybe I cried a bit. Don't judge.

First, before I talk about this movie, let me say that I do not recommend it. To anyone. Let's talk about why.

But first, some background. This is about a young "beauty queen" moved to Salt Lake in the late 70s. It's unclear why- she wasn't going to school, and she's not a Mormon, and to hear her tell it, all she did was hang out and party. Wholesomely, of course. So she tells this story of how one day she's driving around town in her white corvette and pulls up at a light next to a red corvette driven by what she describes as the most attractive man ever seen. In the whole world. Of course we then see a photo of Kirk, the object of her desire, as he looked at the time, and he is nothing as she described him- kind of this large geeky marshmallow of a man. They went on a few dates. Then, according to her, he just disappeared one day without a trace, and without a word to her. He had been kidnapped by those Mormons!

She moved to California to work and earn money to hire a private investigator to track him down. According to her she was waiting tables and working three jobs. We find out later she was working as an escort (though she claims she was...innocent...until she and Kirk finally consummated their love) and posing for some (and when I say some, I mean A LOT) of unsavory publications.

Anyways, long story short, she finds out through the investigator that he's in England, "forced" on a mission by those Mormons! She takes her "friend" Ken, some pilot she hired, and a hired bodyguard with her to England to track Kirk down and save him.

They find him, and here there are two distinct stories. According to Kirk, he was chloroformed, stuffed in a trunk, kidnapped, taken to a cottage in Devonshire, chained to a bed, and raped repeatedly by Joyce (the beauty queen). I should add here that the pilot she hired corroborates the chloroform story to an extent- when he saw that she had brought chains, handcuffs, and a bottle of chloroform to England with her, and when he was told that these things were all to help them rescue Kirk, the pilot luckily came to his senses, decided he didn't want to be involved, and went home to LA.

According to Joyce, he came willingly and acted as if he had been brainwashed, and she took him to the cottage to nurse him back to health with her love, which "nursing" she says was consensual. She claims that he made up the kidnapping story because he was terrified of what those Mormons would do to him if they found out he had had relations with her (because Mormons are scary like that).

So. That's the meat of the story. It is really a fascinating story, mainly because this Joyce is truly living in a different world of her own creation (she was arrested in the late 80s for stalking him- hanging around his office. She says his "fat Mormon wife" told the police it was stalking because she was jealous)- she still claims that she is completely in love with Kirk, and will be until she dies. She's never had another relationship since that time (according to her). I think she's also agoraphobic so he never leaves her house, and rarely has for years.

Most of the movie is an interview with her- these are the highlights- she cries and rages and just goes on and on about the injustice of it all. She's charming in her delusions, but watching her is also quite sad. She's had a difficult life, most of the difficulties being of her own making, but that makes her no less worthy of pity at the least, and empathy at most.

Herein lies my first problem with the movie. I'm not a filmmaker, but it seems to me that making a documentary, a serious documentary that looks closely at one person/their life/their actions requires a large bit of empathy on the part of the director. It didn't seem like this director, Errol Morris, had any at all for Joyce McKinney. Yes, she displays a lot of attention-seeking behaviors, but she is also kind of a tragic figure. If nothing else, the empty second half of her life, spent mostly alone in a farmhouse in rural North Carolina, should evoke our pity. Morris doesn't seem to have pity, let alone respect for his subject. He pulls together her interview in a way that magnifies the crazy, turning this into a comedy more than anything else.

When in reality it's a sordid story of (probably) unrequited and unreasonably long-lasting "love", kidnapping, rape and, well, that's enough, isn't it? A comment that I read about this made the point that if the genders in this story were reversed, no one would be laughing. But as it is, the idea of a woman raping a man seems laughable and impossible to most people. Guess what? It's neither. It's possible, and it's as deadly serious as any kind of sexual abuse.

Ok. On to problem two. Sorry this has gotten kind of heavy- if you've read this far, you deserve a medal. Leave a comment and I'll think about making you something awesome just for being a trooper. Anyways, my second problem. Wrapped up within the story about Joyce McKinney and her eternal love Kirk is a mini-anti-Mormon movie. The Mormon "expert" they interview is someone who is clearly antagonistic towards the church, and some of the things they talk about are just ridiculous in their untruth. The things that ARE true are treated in such a way that they seem absolutely ludicrous, which would happen if you talked about any religion's doctrine in that way. In the end, if I had known about that aspect of the movie, I would not have gone- I would rather not pay money to support something that tears down not just individuals, but entire belief systems.

So, to summarize, "Tabloid" treats a very interesting subject, but does it with so much disrespect all around that it's created in me a new desire to be more diligent in self-educating myself when selecting what I watch.

One last note about this- Joyce has been showing up at screenings of "Tabloid" all over the country to heckle and rage at the screen and generally cause a ruckus (it seems she's not too happy with the way she was depicted either). I kept expecting her to jump up near the end and yell "I'm Joyce McKinney!!!!!" as she has a few times, but I was disappointed.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Last night my cable went out. Not all the way- there's still a sort of picture, but it's covered with static and moves up and down constantly. And the sound is crazy.

ALSO since it was installed there has been an "HD technology" fee on my bill. I don't have anything HD. At all. For a TV, I have a giant boulder-like remnant of the days when television sets were three dimensional. It does not have HD picture. Anyways, you know me, and it took me a while to call them to actually remedy the billing issue. The person I spoke to recognized that that charge is bogus and shouldn't be there and offered to credit it to my account for the past three months. I've had Comcast for four months now. So what about the charge from the first month? "I'm sorry ma'am, it's just our policy not to go back further than that, and plus, you could have told us about it earlier." True, BUT.

I will explain to you why this ticked me off so much. First, don't tell me it's "just policy". Explain to me please the reason for this policy. Tell me your computer system locks out refunds past three months. Anything, give me a good reason. The claim that "it's just policy" is just a way for you to sound official when you really have no idea why things are the way they are. Second, it REALLY chapped my hide (or cooked my grits) that he would place the blame on me. REALLY, it's my fault that you've been over-charging me for four months? It's my fault that, even though I told the woman I spoke to when first setting up the account that I DID NOT WANT HD service, because I don't have anything that can show HD picture, the man who came to install the box etc... installed the *wrong* box, which caused me to be charged the wrong fee?

Yes, I waited a while to call and rectify the issue because I AM BUSY. But it is not my fault that there is a breakdown of communication within your organization, nor that your personnel are somehow simultaneously incompetent AND patronizing.

UGH. I wish there was something I could type (or, like, a font size or something) that could adequately express the depth of my frustration.

Anyways, his solution for the billing issue was that I have the wrong box, so I need to take it to the office and exchange it. Which thing I cannot do ASAP because someone is coming tomorrow night to hopefully solve the reception issues. (at least, I can't take it because then I would have to hook up a new box and if the issue persisted what if it was because of something I did? I want the technician to take a look at it and see it exactly as it was when it went out, and as it has been since then.)

Now that THAT'S over with...

Wednesday, July 14, 2010


I haven't posted about movies in a long time and Andrea blogged a rant today about chick flicks and it got me all fired up, so I guess I'm in the mood now.

First up is a real gem- a French movie called "Barbe Bleue" or, in English, "Blue Beard". It's based on a classic fairy tale by Charles Perrault (ever heard of...oh, Cinderella? That's because of him), a 17th century writer and collector of folk stories. If you've read a lot of the Grimm Brothers o Hans Christian Andersen, you know that some fairy tales can get a little out of control, and Blue Beard is no different (seriously- what in the world is this about?). So anyways, in this movie (one of a large number of versions), two young girls in the 50s are narrating. The younger sister forcefully reads the older the story because the younger is fascinated by it. The elder is terrified. The story itself is about two sisters whose father dies, for which happening they are kicked out of their convent/school. Back home, they talk about their neighbor, old Blubeard, who has been married several times, though his wives have all mysteriously disappeared. The younger is obsessed with his wealth and the idea of escaping to his world of wealth and luxury, and accepts his proposal of marriage. Long story short, he leaves one day, giving her all the keys to the palace, telling her to visit every room and explore the whole property, but not to use the small golden key. So what does she do? Of course she figures out which door it opens and goes inside. There, she finds the bodies of his dead wives (though some versions of the story have them alive still, but tortured and imprisoned and nearly dead). She freaks out, leaves the room, and relocks the door. HOWEVER, instead of staying away for months as he promised, he comes back the next day. Of course she is still out of her mind, he notices, and $#!% happens.

So. Morbid, right? Aside from the one terrifying scene, the dead wives, the film is pretty sedate. It's very interesting because while the little gil narrators are spectacular little actresses (it feels so natural!), the acting in the fairy tale is rather wooden, almost emotionless. I've read a number of reviews that really criticize this, but I think it's a deliberate statement by the director, not the sad result of a woeful lack of talent as some have implied. It leaves them as generic representatives of men and women, their relationships a rather bitter commentary on the sometimes bitter, sometimes sweet relationship between the two. It also preserves the feeling that this is a story we're watching, not a reality or any kind of direct representation of it.

That being said, it is wonderfully watchable and definitely worth the time. It's on watch anytime on Netflix right now if you've got some free time (and, of course, a subscription)

THE LAST AIRBENDER: Well, if you're free for a matinee and really don't care how you spend your time, go see it. Otherwise, avoid like the plague. The performances here are painfully wooden, and not on purpose like the previous film. Just painful, especially remembering Mr. Shyamalan's former talent. Sorry M. Night, you've been replaced and overwhelmed for me by the giant of J.J. Abrams.

Well, all that I really have to say about this movie is "Oh HEEEEEEY Bradley Cooper!!!". The plot and writing were completely absurd. That doesn't, however, negate the fact that this is a good movie to escape the heat on a weekend afternoon. Worth a matinee (maybe not in D.C. though, where matinees are NINE DOLLARS). Lots of explosions, one really entertaining bad guy (hey Raul!), and some really silly portrayals of military types.

I think I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year" is the second best Bollywood movie I've ever seen (after "Lagaan", which is no longer available on DVD or Netflix or anywhere really). It's kind of "The Office" meets India without the sarcasm or the great writing. Harpreet Singh reports a client at his first ever job for requesting a bribe, is told by his boss "that's how we roll", and decides to start his own competing company while still at his job and using their resources (but keeping a strict accounting of everything he uses so he can repay it someday). His boss is horrible to him, more and more coworkers join him, then the whole situation blows up and his boss forces him out of business. Heartwarming self-examination and happy resolution ensues. It's a good, simple, solid movie. AND it's under three hours! (My main complaint about the Indian film industry is that it cannot, for the life of it, produce a movie that is less than three hours long- this one actually is, but only by about twenty minutes). Anyways, if your in the mood for something a little different, give it a try. This one's also on watch anytime on Netflix right now.

I feel like four is a good place to stop for tonight. K bye!!!

Recent events

I'm continually making note in my phone of crazy things that happen each day that I can put on here, and I inevitably forget and the humor passes. Here are a few that I can remember:

1. On Monday I waited for an incredibly long time for the train because of an "incident" two stops away, and when it finally came, I got on, sat down, and saw...a woman wearing a halloween candy sack shaped like a pumpkin/cat (yes, both at the same time). It was sitting upright, well really she was holding it up with her left hand, which was also holding a tall plastic mug. She started yelling at everyone who had just gotten on the train, ranting on and on about how she couldn't get any sleep, no one would let her get 8 hours of sleep, especially not since she got out of prison. This continued (I'm sure)after I got off the train.

2. Right when I was getting in the checkout line at Tarzhaaaaay the other day, "Cry Me a River" came on. I have so many wonderful and ridiculous memories about that song. It made me so happy, that I didn't even care waiting for ten minutes while the woman in front of me rang up and entire cart-load of items and then couldn't find her credit card. I even felt sorry for her.I've totally been there. Hope she found it.

3. One of my roomates is writing a paper about Washington scandals and started asking all of us which we thought were the worst and why/why they were so interesting to us. Her friend cited the Watergate debacle, and as for why it so gripped her? "It's just, like, really fascinating to me, like, the level of technology they used. Like, we still use wire-tapping today in the government" (and then she went on about how advanced wire-tapping was back then and how crazy it was that they were using it) What? Pretty sure telephone tapping was not the main issue there. It was burglary, manipulation, and Nixon's recordings of people without their consent. Not by tapping into phone lines, but just using a tape recorder. Wire-tapping has been around almost as long as telephones themselves. And that's all I'm going to say. I really do like her.

All for now.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010


The Washington Center is the organization that is running my internship program. It is a DOT/government funded program, but TWC handles all of the logistics. So they are in charge of our paychecks. I submitted everything for direct deposit weeks ago, but all the interns had to pick up their first check in person. At the TWC office. Which is oh so very far from the closest metro station. At least it's a nice neighborhood. So at the orientation, one of the program advisors told all of us that they would be able to stay open a little late for a couple of days so interns could come pick up their checks. He also said that for the interns living in the TWC residential facility (where I'm living), somone wuld be able to drop off their checks with the concierge. Awesome.

So here we are yesterday on check day. I work every day all the hours the TWC office is open, so I'm counting on being able to get the check at my bldg or go late one day to the office. I hadn't heard anything about that though, so I emailed both my advisor and the advisor who had made the above statements to ask about it. They both reply and so "Nope, sorry, you have to come between 9:00 and 5:30. NO LATER. WE WILL NOT BE HERE. And we can't take them to the building you stay at. All of this is for SECURITY REASONS!!!" Me: "But you said...!" Them: "WE LIED!!!". Ok, that's fine, I worked over on Monday, and I took a short lunch today (which, remember, in the story is really Tuesday, not Wednesday like today really is), so I'm fine to leave a little early. I figure I'll leave at 5, metro up to Dupont, and walk over, figuring I would make it right on time. Wrong. I got to Dupont right at 5:25, and then still had a walk of about 6-7 blocks, which for some reason took forever. I did pass the founding church of Scientology on the way though, so now I know where it is when I make my visit. So I got to the door (dripping sweat, I'm sure, because I was attempting to book it, but the air was so thick and disgusting that I could barely manage a brisk walk), but the door was closed, and there was another girl just standing in front of it looking forlorn, so I assumed I was too late, they were closed. BUT THEN! The door opened, and she walked in, so I rushed to grab the door before it closed. Inside the very nice newly redone foyer (so this is what all the undergrads' $10,000 for a summer term is going to!) (seriously, $10,000!), I stood and waited for someone to come. Finally, someone did, and I told her I was there to pick up my check. "Ok, but if you come again, remember we close at 5:30, I'm only here now because we have an event tonight." Smarmy lady. Seriously. Do you not see my sweaty face? Is it not clear that I was doing all I could to make it by 5:30? AND, for all their talk about security, when I started pulling out my wallet and asked "Do you need to see ID?", she replied "Oh, I probably should have been asking for ID from all the other people who came to pick up their checks. How about this, just to check that you're you, what's your first name? Hahahahahaha just kidding" In that moment I wanted to just smack her smug little face. I'm so mean. So I got my check, had a nice leisurely walk back to the station, and went home. End of frustration? NO. The TWC had one final jab for m this morning when I got to work and received this email from my advisor:

"Hi All –
I will be at DOT today for office hours from 11-noon in room E63-124. If you have not already picked up your pay check I can bring it to you. But you MUST respond to this email and let me know that you want me to sign it out and bring it to you. I will only be there from 11-noon so please make sure you come during that time.

You have GOT. TO BE KIDDING ME. After all the back and forth I had with her about how hard it was going to be to get my check, she waits until the last minute to announce that this was an option? All my frustration. FOR NOTHING.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

I made this new background with this program that I lurrrrve ( but it only allows you to create images in one size, so I had to enlarge it so that it would fit in my background, but the resolution is quite low, so now it's all blurry and I don't know what to doooo.

I feel like I should post more so that I can give my tags homes. So there's not just one post linked to each one. But that's probably the wrong reason to post. I don't really have anything interesting to say.

Yesterday was one of the coldest days of my life.
I wrote one paper yesterday, one today, and I'll have another one going tomorrow.
Just that, and there's really nothing missing to say, but...

little buddy what you want, some violent...

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Why do I have two blogs?! WHY?!?!?!

Thursday, April 2, 2009

What I'm about to complain about well probably seem trivial to you. But I don't care. I. Am. Livid. Tonight I got home after waliking around in the rain and after putting on some clean warm clothes, I thought, "now I'll watch a movie and whiten my teeth and it will be awesome." Exactly those words. To myself. In my head. So I go, pull out my whitening trays, and go to look for the rest of my tooth whitening system that I got from my dentist that cost several hundred dollars. Where was it? NO WHERE TO BE FOUND. Not after I pulled everything out of the fridge (where it had been stored). And every other cabinet (even if I had found it in one of them it would have been useless to me. Because it needs to be refrigerated. Obviously). And this means that the last person who cleaned out the fridge threw it away. Now, a tooth whitening system is not that important. I am the first and firmest person to admit that. But the cost IS important. Do I have that much money to throw down on a replacement? NO. OF COURSE I DON'T. The other, and the main reason this upsets me so much is that it is indicative of a blatant disrespect for anything that does not belong to YOU. If it isn't yours, don't touch it. That was simple. Wasn't it? If you have to touch it, put it back exactly where you found. Or in the general vicinity. Or at least on the same floor, I'm not really that picky. Don't leave other people's things laying around on the floor. SHOW RESPECT. I could not be more angry right now. I basically just lost control in front of Melanie about this because she was sitting downstairs while I was looking and witnessed my anger.

Oh hey [un-named roomate], sorry I took your insulin out of the fridge and stepped on it on accident because it was sitting on the floor. Because that's where I left it. Because it's not mine, so what do I really care what happens to it? So you're out now. Oh what, that was all you had? Oh sorry, you shouldn't have left it sitting in the fridge for so long.