It looks like bad weather moving in, so I’ll post this as quickly as I can. The picture I posted in the last post got me thinking about gas prices and driving in general.

• First to play last week: Shannon of Shannon’s Moments of Introspection. Congratulations!
  (According to the rules, “First to Play” requires you to be the first to include the link to the specific entry in which you answered the questions, not just the general link to your blog.)

Here are this week’s “Saturday Six” questions. Either answer the questions in a comment here, or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but either way, leave a link to your journal so that everyone else can visit! To be counted as “first to play,” you must be the first player to either answer the questions in a comment or to provide a complete link to the specific entry in your journal in which you answer the questions. A link to your journal in general cannot count. Enjoy!

1. When is the last time you actually filled your car’s car tank completely?

2. What’s the most you’ve paid for a gallon of gas so far?

3. Has the high gas prices affected how much you travel at all?

4. Take the quiz: What does the road trip of your life say about you?

5. Which single statement was the most accurate about you?

6. If your best friend called you up and wanted to take a week-long road trip, would you be able to afford it?

If you have a Reader’s Choice question you’d like to see asked (and answered), send me an email! I’d love to be able to include it in a future edition of the Saturday Six.

I worked with a reporter years ago who used to break up that word into multiple syllables for dramatic effect. It would come out something like this:

Un. Be. LEEEEEEVE-able.

I thought of her when I went to get gas this afternoon. I only put $15.00 worth in my car, but the unfortunate person who had last used the pump must have decided to be bold and fill up the tank:

Gas at this station is still under the $4.00 mark, but not by much.  This is the highest amount I’ve ever seen in a gas pump.  And I’d be thrilled if it was the highest I ever see.

I hope they can afford groceries this month.

I was blog-jogging and came across a writer who said that he was looking forward to visiting some friends for a guy weekend.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, if all of the guys have the same kinds of interests.

At churches I have attended, there have been mentions of retreats for men that promise similar “guy weekends.”  Among the promised attractions were fishing, golfing, football, and camping.

I don’t fish, I don’t golf, I don’t play football and roughing it isn’t that appealing unless I’m spending time with people who have a lot in common with me, which means people who don’t fish, golf or play football.

I also don’t hunt, I don’t care for cigars, and I couldn’t care less about car engines and big monster trucks.

Several years ago, I met a friend from high school for lunch.  He wanted to eat at Hooter’s.  I had never been, and had never particularly wanted to go.  But I went.  His eyes nearly popped out of his head, and he grinned from ear to ear as the waitress — and I’ll admit she was hot — flirted with him and nearly sat in his lap.  Watching this spectacle, I thought to myself how sleazy the whole thing felt, because I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if I had run into this same waitress out on the town at some club, she’d have never given me the time of day.

I’ve been to a strip club once. This, also, was not my idea.  And this little experience also left me feeling a little dirty.  Not because the view wasn’t impressive, but because it felt very exploitative.

Some say men are supposed to be action heroes, and they’re wired to fight the epic battles to rescue the damsels in distress.  Some say men cannot afford to have a softer, emotional side. Some say men are supposed to be rough and tough and never show vulnerability.

That, to me, sounds somewhat inhuman.

Is there something wrong with me?

As promised, Ten On… returns this week after taking a week off. And I begin with an item I would have thought everyone would love…until I read about the controversy.

1. FIDO FLAP: There’s a cute little puppy on a police poster card designed to educate the public about a new non-emergency number that is available. Said puppy is sitting on a police officer’s cap and next to a yellow telephone. If you like puppies, you’d love the ad (even if you wonder what the puppy has to do with anything). But there is controversy brewing. Muslims apparently consider dogs to be unclean animals, and some say they are offended by the ad. (A hatred of dogs would preclude me from ever becoming Muslim.) Actually, offended doesn’t quite do it: some say they are actually outraged. Seriously. It’s a puppy. Sitting on a hat. By the way, if you’re still wondering why the puppy was used, the article goes on to explain that it is a police dog-to-be that has become something of a local celebrity in the area. That, at least, explains a little about why they’d use the puppy at all.

2. THE OTHER DIRECTION: Like me, Mrs. L is tired of hearing people calling for the drinking age to be lowered to 18. If you’re of that age, you’ll be horrified to learn what she’d recommend. If you’re a bit older and wiser, you’ll likely agree with what she has to say.

3. THEY’RE SERIOUS ABOUT THE DOG THING: I found this mention from February of a 70-year-old man being sentenced to four months in prison and 30 lashes for walking his dog in public in Iran. It goes back to item #1 and Muslims considering dogs to be ritually unclean. Morality laws forbid a dog owner from walking a dog in public. Here’s what I don’t understand: if dogs are so reprehensible, why does the law stop at walking a dog in public? Why can you own one at all? Even if you only ever keep it indoors and walk it in a fully-enclosed backyard so your neighbors don’t see it, why would they allow you to own one, anyway?

4. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE: Finally, a politician who puts his mouth where his own personal commitment is! Texas State Rep. Warren Chisum is pushing a bill that would require a two-year wait for divorce for couples who refuse to sek marriage counseling. It’s nice to see a law designed to rescue the institution from the mediocre track record all of those man-woman couplings have created through history. It’s even nicer to see that the person pushing such a bill isn’t accused of signaling for sex in an airport restroom or being a client of a high-priced madam. Chisum, in fact, is just a few months away from celebrating his 51st wedding anniversary. Maybe…just maybe…he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to staying together.

5. AS EXPECTED…: Since tomorrow is July 4th, a major day for fireworks; and since I work in television, I would be remiss if I didn’t show you a watermelon being blown up by fireworks to demonstrate how dangerous these little fire sticks are. From two angles, yet. Enjoy. (And please do not try this at home.)

6. GONE TO THE DOGS: I return to an earlier topic, but this time at Baptists’ expense. Ever hear the one about the Baptist dog?

7. JUST SO YOU KNOW: Why, yes, it did offend me that the previous link did not contain proper capitalization at the start of each sentence. The joke was surely not written by e.e. cummings, or even E.E. Cummings, so there was no reason for such laziness in transcribing it for the web. While I choose to be offended — and only long enough to finish typing this item — I do not choose to allow myself to become full-on outraged. But maybe that’s just me. In any case, I’m over it now.

8. WHAT’S ON ‘EM?: Here’s a figure that seems too outrageous to even be accurate: 12,000 laptop computers are lost each week in the nation’s airports. Twelve thousand per week!! And only about 30% of those who lose their laptops ever recover them. It begs a question: what is on these missing desktops, particularly those being transported by businessmen? Are there more security risks out there than we realize? It certainly seems like a danger for our private information, but then again, since many such losses are never even reported, I guess we’ll never know for sure.

9. NOT ADDING UP: Dave Moulton recently asked some questions about bicycle helmets and safety at his terrific Bike Blog. Ninety-six percent of those who responded feel that helmets offer at least some protection in an accident; of that number, 18% say they think helmets actually save lives. Yet of the same group of people who voted, 86% say helmets should be a personal choice and not mandated by law. Being “free to choose” is one thing, but if you’ve ever walked into a hospital’s intensive care unit to find a family member lying in a near coma after falling from a bike and suffering massive head trauma, you might wonder why there’s such a disconnect between the belief that helmets do good things and that they shouldn’t be required wear. Not that I’d wish such an experience on anyone. But as someone who has seen what a lack of helmet can accomplish, I can’t understand why people wouldn’t want the protection.

10. BYE BYE, BOZO: Children of all ages are mourning the death of actor Larry Harmon, who died at age 83.  Name doesn’t ring a bell? His character will:  Harmon played Bozo the Clown for 52 years.  His wife says he was the love of her life and that he was the perfect one to play the clown:  “He was the most optimistic man I ever met. He always saw a bright side; he always had something good to say about everybody.”  What I somehow missed was a 2004 controversy that resulted in the Clown Hall of Fame (I am not making this up!) took down a plaque honoring the actor.  Read here to find out why.  R.I.P., Larry, and thanks for entertaining the clown in all of us.

That’s my 10. Do you have 10 of your own?

This almost sounds like a joke straight from Jay Leno or David Letterman. Sadly, it isn’t.

Two of the latest lawmakers to co-sponsor one of those ridiculous “Defense of Marriage”-type laws that define marriage as a union between man and woman have themselves demonstrated a somewhat unconventional standard within their own commitment.

First, there’s Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, the man arrested a little more than a year ago in a Minneapolis airport terminal on charges of lewd conduct. Craig entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct after allegedly attempting to signal a male in the next stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity. He has since attempted to withdraw the plea, but has so far been unsuccessful. He never even told his wife about the arrest, according to reports, until the story was made public.

The second lawmaker with the odd background is Louisiana Sen. David Vitter. In July of last year, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned by the woman dubbed “The DC Madam.” In a statement, he apologized for what he called a “a very serious sin” in his past for which he had apologized to God and to his wife.

I realize that there are a lot of people out there who still believe that marriage needs to be “protected” via the male-female definition. Until a few recent court rulings making way for same-sex marriage in a few areas, this country’s long history of the male-female definition by practice still managed to rack up a divorce rate somewhere around 50% or higher (depending on whom you ask). You’d have to believe, if you think same-sex marriage would destroy the institution, that these men and women who are so committed to fighting for the right to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with will somehow forget every ounce of commitment they displayed once the ring is on their finger.

But for those of you who still are so convinced of such a preposterous notion, does it at least seem odd to you that the institution of marriage needs the help of people who have been accused of either being unfaithful or taking the first steps toward infidelity?

Sure, I know what they say about forgiveness and redemption, and it’s great that these two politicians have seen the error of their ways and are surely committing themselves, through acts like these, to be good boys for the rest of their lives.

But if you are really interested in protecting the institution of marriage from all its various threats, and if you really want everyone to believe that you aren’t just being homophobic or blindly toeing a party line just so you can ignore really important issues like the economy or Iraq, you might wonder why there’s no proposal to punish adulterers; it seems to me that marriage needs a shot in the arm to protect the institution from them first.

Jeff found a list of the 25 worst TV Sitcoms as compiled by TV Crunch.

As you might guess from that piece of information, I’m asking you to list your picks for the seven worst TV Sitcoms. You don’t to choose any from that particular list…consider it an idea starter…but if you agree with any of those selections, feel free to use them.

• First to play last week: Linda of Huffington Post and elsewhere. Congratulations!

THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
Name your picks for the seven worst TV Sitcoms.

Either answer the question in a comment or answer it in your journal and include the link in a comment. (To be considered “first to play,” a link must be to the specific entry in which you answered the question.) You may include this link in the URL space when leaving your comment, or in the comment itself. As long as it’s there in one spot or the other.

My Answers:
1. Family Matters - Urkel is enough to get this at the top of the list.
2. The Nanny - That voice earns this one #2.
3. Mama’s Family - The Carol Burnett sketch was great…a whole show wasn’t
4. Designing Women - The only thing funny was the big hair and shoulder pads
5. Hangin’ with Mr. Cooper - Silliness run amok.
6. Three’s Company - The only good thing about this show was John Ritter.
7. Big Bang Theory - Seriously…why is this a hit?!?

I need to get some housework done. I’ve needed to get housework done all day, but I’ve managed to do anything but, including battling a credit card company’s stupid stubbornness.

But the need to straighten up relates, in part, to this week’s set of questions.

• First to play last week: Diana of Diana’s Little Corner in the Nutmeg State. Congratulations!
  (According to the rules, “First to Play” requires you to be the first to include the link to the specific entry in which you answered the questions, not just the general link to your blog.)

Here are this week’s “Saturday Six” questions. Either answer the questions in a comment here, or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but either way, leave a link to your journal so that everyone else can visit! To be counted as “first to play,” you must be the first player to either answer the questions in a comment or to provide a complete link to the specific entry in your journal in which you answer the questions. A link to your journal in general cannot count. Enjoy!

1. How many clocks in your home or office are set ahead of the actual time so that you can stay on schedule?

2. Which space is neater: your office or “work” space or your living room?

3. Which room of your home is in need of the most cleaning?

4. Take the quiz: What does your workspace say about you?

5. If your co-workers saw your home after seeing your office/cubicle/workspace, would they be surprised?

6. How many family members do you have on display for your co-workers to see?

If you have a Reader’s Choice question you’d like to see asked (and answered), send me an email! I’d love to be able to include it in a future edition of the Saturday Six.

I keep getting someone else’s mail. It is actually a neighbor of mine, according to the address. But it’s not mine, so I’d just as soon not have it making surprise appearances in my mailbox.

This neighbor, named John, seemed nice enough when I handed him past months’ credit card bills and politely suggested that he call the credit card company, Capital One, to get the address corrected. But on the other hand, I don’t know for sure that the person who claimed to be John actually was; I just asked for John, and when he came to the door, I handed him the bill. This has happened twice before.

Prior to that, before taking a close look at the address and realizing the simple mistake they’d made, I just used my trusty “Return to Sender/No Such Addressee” stamp and dropped the bill back in the mailbox. That didn’t seem to work.

The mistake I mentioned, incidentally, is extraordinarily easy to fix. They just don’t seem interested in doing anything about it. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that my address is 523 Charleston Avenue. And let’s suppose that John’s address is 522 Charleston Avenue. The mail coming to John is addressed this way:

522 Charleston Avenue
#523

That second number, unfortunately, is what the letter carrier is using for delivery purposes. But it seems such a simple fix: just make both numbers 522 and all is well. John gets his bill, Capital One gets their message through, and I don’t have to be bothered with this little exercise in credit card commerce.

I called Capital One this afternoon and asked them to look up the account. Surprisingly, I was able to give them the account number without opening the envelope because it was clearly visible right below the address through the envelope’s address window!

I explained before I gave them the number that this was not my account, but that I needed to advise them of an address correction. I read the number, and they immediately asked me for the last four digits of my social security number. (Way to pay attention, operator!) I repeated that it was not my account, and that I therefore had no idea what the social security number might be. I then read the address that they surely had in front of them — which they were hesitant to confirm or deny at first.

I pointed out the fact that the two different numbers were causing the post office to put John’s mail in my box.

The operator said she understood the mistake, but said there’s nothing she could do about it. The conversation then went something like this:

ME: So you’re telling me that after I’ve told you that I’m getting one of your customer’s credit card statements in error, you’re just going to keep sending me his bill with his account information?

HER: Well, could you walk the letter over to [John]?

ME: I’ve been doing that. But that’s not solving the problem. I don’t want to have to keep dealing with this month after month.

HER: Well, if you could ask him to call us, we can change it if he calls us.

ME: I have asked him to do that. He either hasn’t gotten around to it, or you guys haven’t gotten around to fixing it.

HER: Well, sir, the problem is that I don’t know who you are. I can’t confirm that you’re [John].

ME: Right. I told you that to start with. I’m not him. This is not my account. I’m someone else. If I were going to lie about who I was, I’d be claiming to be John, not a neighbor.

HER: Well, we can’t confirm that.

ME: You mean you can’t confirm that I’m someone else?

HER: Yes. Um, I mean no. That you’re not him.

Rocket scientist.

I was waiting, because I just knew this next line was coming. Sure enough…

HER: If you would just ask him to call us again…

ME: I’ll ask the person I give the bill to, for the third time, to call you. There’s just one problem with that: I can’t confirm that the person I’m giving the mail to is actually John.

HER: (Pause) You don’t know him?

ME: No! Do you know all of your neighbors?!? The only thing I know about him is you guys seem to think he lives were I do. When I walk it over to the other address, I don’t ask the guy for his ID. He says he’s John, but I don’t know if he is or not. I just want to stop getting his mail.

HER: Well, there’s really nothing else we can do.

I asked to speak to a supervisor, who told me she wanted to put me on hold long enough to research procedure in such matters. After about thirty seconds on hold, we got cut off.

So I’m left with, “there’s really nothing else we can do.”

Sure there is, Capital One: You call John. You tell him that there is a question about the address on his statement. You then advise him that you are placing a block on his credit card until he calls the number listed on the back of the card itself — so that there’s no question that he’s calling a valid, real Capital One number — to confirm his address. You then advise him that if they do not hear from him in five business days, the account will be closed, thereby changing the interest rate to the default rate, which will probably cost him a hell of a lot more money. (That’s the incentive for him to get this fixed, even if they have no real intention of doing that.)

That way, he calls them, he gives them the information rather than them having to ask him, they get the right address, he gets his statements hereafter, and I don’t get bothered.

Problem solving doesnt have to be that hard.

That’s essentially the question posed by The New York Times’ TV Decoder blog, in pointing out that ABC’s new reality series, Wipeout, just became the highest-rated new show of the summer.

The premise of the show, according to the blog, is that families compete for cash and prizes by making their way through a mud-filled obstacle course.

There are those who genuinely think such programs mean society’s destruction who blame the media for that. “If they’d stop showing such awful programs,” these people might say, “things would be a lot better.”

“What things?” I ask.

Will the absence of reality shows make people turn off the television and actually have a conversation with each other? Will their sudden disappearance make folks read a book instead?

Or will they just pick up the remote and find something else?

Wipeout doesn’t sound like the kind of show I’d be remotely interested in. Neither does that CBS show Swingtown that the family groups are having such a hissy-fit about. And the funny thing is, when either of those two shows are on — I couldn’t venture a guess what either show’s regular time slot is — I manage to find something else to watch, anyway.

It’s as simple as picking up that little remote control that’s sitting right there next to you. You know, that little thing you grab every time a commercial break comes on. If you don’t like what’s on, that same little remote works while the show itself is on, too. It doesn’t deactivate itself after the commercial break ends.

Give it a shot.

MSNBC’s Green Machine, a hybrid vehicle equipped with editing and live technology, suffered a hiccup on the air while covering midwest flooding the other day:

Bet it wouldn’t have happened on a Mac!

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

—George Carlin

George Carlin was one of a kind. And that’s the saddest part of his sudden death on Sunday of heart failure.

When I was little, I remember seeing Carlin on HBO specials. I was too young to remember the Al Sleet (hippie dippie weatherman) routines from the Carson and Sullivan shows. And by the time he had made his way to HBO, his shows were of an unapologetically adult fashion. So I’d only get to catch a clip of him before Mom would make Dad change the channel.

But once I heard a full routine, I laughed all the way through it. My favorite routine — and picking a single favorite took a lot of time — was the bit about a safety lecture on the plane; it was an attack on the ridiculous and the misuse of language all rolled up into one. And it contained a line I borrowed here not all that long ago:

“The next sentence is just full of things that piss me off.”

Here’s a clip from that one:

I’ve stolen the part about near misses several times, and I’m always amazed at how many people have to stop and think about it. (Refer to the opening quote!)

In the coverage reporting his death, I’ve seen many words used to describe him: acerbic, witty, irreverent, frenzied, social commentator, philosopher, and icon.

But it was Jack Burns, his former comedy partner from the early days who said it best:  “He was a genius and I’ll miss him dearly.”

So will a lot of us.

You’ve heard Pringle’s Potato Chips’ advertising slogan, “Once you pop, you can’t, you can’t, you can’t stop.” There are several foods like this for me: once I have a taste, I just can’t stop until it’s all gone, or until I go through a phase of having entirely too much of it too often.

I’m sure I’m not the only one when it comes to certain foods.

So I encourage all of you to answer the question, then push yourselves away from the table, or out of that far-too-comfortable easy chair, and exercise for a little while today!

• First to play last week: Otowi of Otowi. Congratulations!

THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
Name seven foods that are tasty enough to wreck your diet.

Either answer the question in a comment or answer it in your journal and include the link in a comment. (To be considered “first to play,” a link must be to the specific entry in which you answered the question.) You may include this link in the URL space when leaving your comment, or in the comment itself. As long as it’s there in one spot or the other.

My Answers:
1. Doritos
2. Blue Bunny Bunny Tracks Ice Cream
3. Cheetos
4. Tortilla Chips with Guacamole
5. Cheese Fries (particularly Outback’s)*
6. Hardee’s Monster Burger*
7. Carrot Cake

*I’ve actually had to eliminate #5 and #6 completely from my diet, because they’re so addictive. I haven’t had either in more than a year and a half, and I don’t miss them as much as I thought I would. Now if I could just eliminate #1 and #2….

The past few days here in Charleston, we’ve had some pretty powerful storms move through.  They’re nothing like what the midwest is dealing with, and the worst of them, so far, has been a spectacular lightning show.

There’s that old phrase about “raining cats and dogs,” and there were a few moments where the rain was pounding down so hard that it might qualify for such a description.  But only for a few moments.

Adam, who recently stopped by to play one of the weekend memes, survived a storm recently powerful enough to make whales fly.  No really:  see for yourself.