Are you horny, baby?

My husband and I have a long-running disagreement (approaching 10 years, now) over the fact that women are just as sexual as men. He says they're not.

He points out that pornography is much more popular among men. I counter that, in our culture, a "right of passage" is having your uncle or father or older brother give you your first porn mag at age 12. Do we do that with girls? Heck no. Women are forced to keep things to themselves more than men due to centuries of double standards, social pressures and persecution. Never forget that even now there are places in the world where women are maimed and murdered for committing adultery or losing their virginity. That threat kind of puts a damper on sexual expression.

I also contend that women have better imaginations, and better memories. Men like to have a picture right in front of them. Women can recall perfectly what Matt Damon looks like.

Continuing the ongoing argument, I sent my husband a little tidbit I came across on Wikipedia today:

Malleus Maleficarum

The Malleus Maleficarum (Latin for "The Hammer of Witches", or "Hexenhammer" in German) is a famous treatise on witches, written in 1486 by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, two Inquisitors of the Catholic Church, and was first published in Germany in 1487. The main purpose of the Malleus was to systematically refute arguments claiming that witchcraft does not exist, refute those who expressed skepticism about its reality, to prove that witches were more often women than men, and to educate magistrates on the procedures that could find them out and convict them.

The bit of the article I found particularly interesting was this: The Devil’s power is greatest where human sexuality is concerned, for it was believed that women were more sexual than men. Loose women had sex with the Devil, thus paving their way to become witches. To quote the Malleus “all witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable.”

"Insatiable," eh?

A history lesson

Anyone remember the 1960 presidential election? Well, unless you're in your 60s or older, you probably don't, because you weren't even old enough to vote for John F. Kennedy or his opponent Richard Nixon.

One interesting thing about that election was that, up until then, there had NEVER been a Catholic president of the United States. So what, right? Well, that was a HUGE deal, back then.

Here's a little context. Anti-Irish/Anti-Catholic racism was a powerful force in Victorian Britain and 19th-century United States. The Irish were stereotyped as violent, impoverished, and prone to substance abuse, and they were accused of monopolizing certain (usually low-paying) job markets. It was common for Irish people to be discriminated against in social situations, and intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants was uncommon. "No Irish need apply" (NINA) signs were familiar to the Irish.

And they continued to be discriminated against in various professions into the 20th century. While the Irish dominated such occupations as domestic service, building, and factory work, they were not present in large numbers in the professions, finance, and other "white collar" businesses.

Kennedy was only the second Catholic to become a major-party presidential candidate (the first was a few decades earlier, in the 1920s). During his campaign, Kennedy said that under the Republicans, America was falling behind, both militarily and economically, and that as President he would "get America moving again." Nixon responded that Kennedy was too young and inexperienced to be trusted with the Presidency.

Does all of this sound kind of familiar?

A key factor which hurt Kennedy during his presidential campaign was widespread prejudice -- against his religion. Some Protestants believed that, if he were elected president, Kennedy would take orders from the Pope in Rome. It was widely believed that Kennedy lost some heavily Protestant states because of his Catholicism. Kennedy was the last candidate to win the presidency without carrying Ohio and was the only non-incumbent in the 20th century to do so.

In West Virginia, Kennedy visited a coal mine and talked to mine workers to win their support. Most people in that conservative, mostly Protestant state were deeply suspicious of Kennedy's Roman Catholicism. His popularity in West Virginia cemented his credentials as a candidate with broad appeal.

To address fears that his Roman Catholicism would impact his decision-making, he told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me." Kennedy also brought up the point of whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class citizenship just because they were Roman Catholic.

Still sounding familiar?

Yesterday, I found out that someone I know (who is, yes, white) is "afraid that, if Obama becomes president, he'll be assassinated and that will start a race war." Which makes me wonder whether they remember the religious war sparked by the JFK assassination. This country's been a regular Northern Ireland ever since, right?

Personally, I eagerly await the day this country elects its first black president. Because then another minority group will have what author Bob Considine called, in his 1961 book It's the Irish, "full membership":

At exactly 12:51 p.m. on January 20, 1961, America's Catholic Irish reached the end of a long and difficult journey. When John Fitzgerald Kennedy took the oath of office as the 35th President of the United Sates, and delivered an address hailed as an eloquent classic, they finally pulled abreast of the Protestant English majority that had run the nation since its founding.

Over the previous half-century, Catholic Irishmen had won prestige and prominence in every field of honorable endeavor. But, ... they had not been able to elect one of their number President. That one final achievement eluded them; the White House still was off-limits to Catholics.

Kennedy changed all that -- and he changed it despite a continuing though dwindling mass of anti-Catholic prejudice. With his election, the Catholic Irish -- despised, derided, denied even the most menial jobs a century and a quarter before -- at long last reached the ultimate political and social pinnacle.

In the balloting of 1960, American did more than elect John Fitzgerald Kennedy President; it also elected the Catholic Irish to full membership.


Sources: Wikipedia.org and "It's the Irish" by Bob Considine (out of print). Photo from Harper's Weekly, December 1876

Crap service competition: AT&T vs. Blockbuster

At this point, I'm not sure which is worse, AT&T or Blockbuster. Let's examine:

AT&T

I used to have Bellsouth for local and long-distance phone service. Then AT&T bought Bellsouth. Things were alright for awhile, until I decided to sign up for AT&T's bundle plan for local, long-distance and Internet.

When I called AT&T, I was told I'd have to lose some of my calling features, things like call waiting, 3-way calling, and voice mail. A little fact they left out of their promotional material. But I never used those features, anyway, so, no problem.

Then I was told I'd have to pay for a special modem (another fact left out of the promotional material), which they would send to me, but hooking up our service would be easy. Just plug in the modem and follow the instructions. No technicians needed to visit. Yay.

We received the modem, and my husband went to hook it up. We needed a password which we didn't have. The modem came with some discs, which we figured out we were supposed to use to access said password and activate our online service. But the discs only worked for Windows.

We run Linux.

After spending a considerable amount of time on the phone with AT&T customer service, the bottom line was that we could not connect to the Internet using AT&T. You'd think that the AT&T rep might have said, "You must have Windows in order to connect," when I signed up. But, no.

AT&T told us to box everything back up, and they would send us a return label. Meanwhile, we had to scramble to reconnect our previous internet service, which can be used with Linux, and which required I stay home half a day and wait for a technician to come out to our house. We got the return label, we sent the modem back to AT&T. All done, right?

Wrong. After that, I got a bill from AT&T which included a charge for the modem we were never able to use, and charges for internet service, even though we were never able to connect. I spent a half-hour on the phone, being shuffled between various AT&T departments, and explaining my circumstances to no fewer than 4 different people, before the connection charges were dropped.

The modem charge of $75, however, would only be dropped when the modem was received by AT&T.

That was in September.

Come October, I get another bill from AT&T for the $75 unused modem.

"If you have any questions," said the bill, "you may call 1-888..." So, I call, I work my way through the automated system, wait on hold for several minutes, and finally get a human being. I explain that I just got a bill charging me for a modem I never used. And he says, "I'll need to transfer you to customer service." Really? Well, then who are you? "Billing." Right. So, why can't you answer a question about my bill? "I don't have the information about your modem, I'll need to transfer you." OK.

So, I'm put on hold, again. I wait several minutes, then I get to explain my story to the next person. She says, "I'll need to transfer you to the DSL department. They handle that."

I was put on hold a third time. When the DSL department picked up, the connection was crap and I could only hear every other syllable. I was able to confirm my home phone number with him, and I told him I could barely hear so could he please call me back for a better connection. He agreed.

A few minutes later, I received his call, and I explained my story again. He said, "I'm sorry, you'll need to talk to someone in billing about that."

I shit you not. That's what he said.

"No. No way. I talked to billing, that's who I called to begin with. They transferred me to customer service, and customer service transferred me to you, and now you're telling me I've got to go back to billing? You've got to be kidding me!"

He reassured me that he would find someone who could answer my questions. I was transferred to a "Ms. Fitzpatrick," who said, yes, AT&T did indeed receive the returned modem, and she would credit my account the $75 right now.

Which begs the question, why didn't they credit my account before I called?

BLOCKBUSTER

The same day I called AT&T, I had to deal with Blockbuster. I'd noticed a charge of $7.92 from Blockbuster on my bank statement. I called the store and asked what the charge was for. "Max and Ruby." Oh, yeah, I'd rented that for the kids a month or two ago, but we have piles of DVDs, so maybe it got lost and we forgot to take it back.

"Was it returned?" I asked. Yes, it was. In fact, I hadn't kept the movie very long, maybe 2 weeks tops. "Then what's the charge for?" Late fees. "But I thought Blockbuster didn't charge late fees like that any more."

At that point, I was told that "Blockbuster hadn't really decided what it was going to do about late fees," and that my city is a test market for reinstating the fees.

Then he told me that I'd received some automated phone calls telling me to return the movie. Wow. Charging late fees AND hiring psychics now? I don't remember receiving any automated phone calls, and even if I had, I probably wouldn't have paid attention because I used to receive automated reminders all the time, back when Blockbuster WASN'T charging late fees.

At that point, I was mad. I hung up and went to Blockbuster.com. From there, I clicked "Contact Us" and got an online form. The form had a drop-down menu for selecting a subject, and I chose "Store Feedback" and "Extended Viewing Fees." I gave my name, email, etc, and explained what happened. Then I explained that Blockbuster has lost me as a customer.

What kind of reply, if any, did I expect? I figured they would say something like, "Blockbuster is examining its current fee structure and we are very sorry to hear that you are disappointed with our level of service. We will take your comments into consideration when determining our nationwide late-fee policies and hope that you will return again to Blockbuster."

What I did receive, later that day, was this reply from "Paula":

I have carefully reviewed your billing information and I have not seen any $8.00 charge for movie rental. The only billing I saw was on last January 9, 2005 which has the billing amount of $16.00 for Total access subscription. I would suggest that you contact your bank and check if there is overdue fee of $8.00 from Blockbuster.

If in future you would like to reinactivate your account, you may write down your current e-mail address and password.

Always here to help,
Paula
Blockbuster Customer Care

Yeah, real helpful, Paula. First, I already know for a fact that I was charged an overdue fee by Blockbuster, not for a movie I kept over a month but for a movie I kept about a week and a half, I talked to the store, and now you're trying to tell me it didn't happen? Second, how the hell would my BANK know it's an overdue fee and not just a rental fee or purchase? And third, what the hell is "reinactivate"?

I emailed Paula and said:

I don't know what account you're looking at, but I was charged exactly $7.92 by Blockbuster for a movie I rented -- a "Max and Ruby" kids dvd -- and did not return by a particular date. I called the store in question (here I provided the store's address and phone number) and I talked to someone, I think he said his name was "----." He told me I was charged for keeping the rental for one week past the due date, and when I said I thought that Blockbuster got rid of overdue charges, he said that (my city) was a "test market" for re-instating the fees again.

I received another reply, but this time from "Eliza."

Thank you for contacting Blockbuster Customer Care!

I sincerely apologize for the confusion regarding the charges on your Subscription plan.

Using your email address I was not able to see any charges on this account not even for any non returned DVDs. It would be helpful if you can give us the email addres associated with this account or the account number itself. So that we are able to pull up the right account and give you an efficient answer.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. It was a pleasure serving you today.

You have a great weekend! Thank you for choosing Blockbuster as your #1 entertainment provider.

Sincerely,
Eliza
BLOCKBUSTER Customer Care

At this point, I'm thinking we've gone waaaay beyond the point where an "efficient answer" is even possible.

The whole point here is that I DO NOT nor will I ever again choose Blockbuster as my "entertainment provider." What prescription meds are these people on? I have no idea what email address is associated with my account, if not this one. And I don't have a "subscription plan" nor do I have any other email address that would be connected to Blockbuster.

I wrote back to Eliza today:

I do NOT choose Blockbuster as my entertainment provider, and I never complained about charges on my subscription program. I was complaining about charges to my movie rental account at a Blockbuster store location.

I submitted my complaint through Blockbuster.com, assuming this was how to contact the Blockbuster company which controls the Blockbuster stores. If I am incorrect, could I please have the correct contact info for the Blockbuster company? Thank you.

And I got this reply from "Vian":

I understand that you would like to know why you have been billed. I reviewed your account and I see that there was no $8.00 charge. I believe you have rented it in a store in (my city). It would be best if you could drop by at the store so we could assist you better. Please let me know If there is anything I can help you with. It is my pleasure serving you today.

Always happy to help,

Vian
Blockbuster Customer Care

Are these people even reading my messages?

To Vian, I reply:

No, I do NOT want to know why I've been billed. I KNOW why I was billed, I already called and talked to the store. They told me that they are now charging late fees again. SO WHAT I'M TELLING BLOCKBUSTER is that, as a result, they have LOST ME AS A CUSTOMER. That's all I've been trying to say all along. I don't need any explanations, credits, or confirmations. I'm submitting a complaint. THE END. It is not necessary to contact me again.

And then I received an email inviting me to take the "Blockbuster online support survey," which only had a few questions about the speed of their response, the courtesy and professionalism of the response, and whether I felt that customer support actually understood my inquiry. So, they've GOT to know, already, that their customer support system is ass or else why would they ask?

"Much like the print media and retail stores refusing to change, Blockbuster has been a victim on an online company finding new and inventive ways of bringing a product to a customer. And due to its size and outdated corporate culture, there really is no salvation for Blockbuster at this point. Try as it might, the future of Blockbuster is bleak, at best."

"Blockbuster reported a loss of $44.7 million, or 23 cents a share, in the second quarter, ended June 30, compared to a $34.2 million loss in the same period last year. But same-store revenue rose 9%, and the company reaffirmed that it expects a profit for the year." (09-2008)

Well, yeah, if they spring a bunch of new late fees on people, and raise rental fees, they'll definitely show a profit. For a little while. Until all of those folks remember that's why they were sick of Blockbuster, before, and go somewhere else.