Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
Parents did a great job on YOU, huh? Or are patience, acceptance, and selflessness more of a "nature" than a "nurture" thing?

They're all entirely nurture, of course. No one whose ever spent time around children has any illusions that any generous qualities or concern for others are inborn in them.

However, developing those qualities later on doesn't mean that one has to selflessly or patiently accept bad behavior from others. It is entirely mannerly - and probably a service to humanity - to refuse to accept someone else's bad behavior. Regardless of the age of the transgressor. (Actually, I just had a nice chat with someone about how the best way to enforce good behavior on the elderly, who like children sometimes think their age gives them a free pass in the behavior department, is to insistently believe that their bad behavior can only be due to total senility and incompetence: i.e.: start talking to them like children and explaining "oh, no grandpa, you can't ask that nice lady to go home with you, that's not grandma. Grandma is sitting next to you. Grandpa, do you know who grandma is today?" or in a non-sarcastic voice "aunt Ethyl, people have refered to each other as african-american or black for a very long time now, do you remember? Do you know what year it is? Whose president for you right now?" and then explaining to the offended "sorry, s/he gets confused sometimes." They tend to cut that shit out pretty fast.)

Why does everyone think that decent manners require one to be a whimp and accept the bad manners of others?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I love it. His guilt notwithstanding, are you kidding?

One of the main reasons why the trial was so huge was because a black man killed an attractive white woman. As soon as he was under suspicion, he was black.

TM

Maybe ONE of the reasons, but I don't think it was a main reason. If Joe Montana does the same thing (nationally televised Bronco chase and everything - and it would be nationally televised for Montana too), the trial would be huge as well. It would be huge b/c both are/were revered not just as football players, but as GREAT football players. And charasmatic football players to boot. Most people like(d) O.J. and Joe Cool regardless of their team preference (as opposed to someone like Pete Rose)...the possibility that either one could perform such an atrocious act seemed ludicrisp. I think people would be less shocked If Pete Rose was accused(I know I would).

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by carp
As I had implicit approval from the owners and this guy was acting like an asshole, I told him not to worry about it and go back and eat his breakfast.

I don't know exactly how you said it, but your response to the crotchety old bastard sounds like it was pretty rude, nowithstanding his status as a COB (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that he wasn't very pleasant). What does it mean to say "don't worry about it, go back to eating your breakfast" to someone who is clearly (and not unreasonably) bothered by something for which you are responsible? That's so dismissive and surely compounded the man's irritation.

Your description implies that you think your rudeness to him was justified by his rudeness to you. But do you think his rudeness to you was justified by your children's boisterous conduct in the restaurant?

I suspect that this man did not know that your kids' excited play was not merely tolerated but was actually encouraged in the restaurant. Is this place a Chuck E. Cheese or a McDonald's with a playground, or an ordinary restaurant?

I also don't think your kid would have gotten mixed messages -- couldn't you have explained to the child by saying you're not misbehaving, but that gentleman over there would appreciate having a quiet breakfast, so out of consideration for him, could you settle down, and we'll go to an actual playground after I'm done with the paper?

That would have been a really lovely lesson to teach your child -- that sometimes, you oughtn't do something that you think you're entitled to do, and that is usually OK, simply out of consideration for the crotchety old bastards of the world who really don't deserve it. Rather, if your kids were paying attention to your interaction with that man, I think you unwittingly taught them a bad lesson.

r(I'm not criticizing your kids, or you for letting them play in the restaurant, this is purely about your response to the man)p

[robustpuppy]

OK, this time it really was my computer's fault.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I love it. His guilt notwithstanding, are you kidding?

I think it sucks that he turned his back on the black community when he made it and then reached out to us when he was in trouble, but he's not the only one who found it convenient to make him as black as possible.

TM

Not really. I omitted the middle part of your post for space reasons, but that said, I can't disagree with anything you wrote. The white people weeping in the streets after the verdict were, in my opinion, as idiotic as the black people rejoicing as if justice had been served.

The basis of my comment is in line with the two comments left, particularly how he turned his back on the black community until it was convenient for him to embrace them.

I'm not sure how you feel about his guilt or innocence, but come on, a white/yellow/black/red non-famous "poor" man who killed his wife would have been convicted on that evidence, absent the racist cops, and other factors, which OJ's defense team used to his advantage, as they should have.

I may be going out on a limb here, but my guess is now that all this has passed, OJ isn't spending a lot of time in the inner city, let alone associating with joe six-pack (black, white or otherwise) on the public golf courses. So, he relied on the black community when it suited him, and went back to being "just OJ", once the storm blew over.

[i I would be interested in alternative responses especially given the fact that my child had acted similarly in the past and chastising him for his actions would give him mixed signals.

I shortened this to avoid duplicating a long post - but question (and I ask this seriously, not critically or sarcastically) - if asking your child to calm down in the restaurant would have sent mixed signals as he has acted similarly there before with the apparent approval of the manager, doesn't this send him mixed signals as to the appropriate behavior in all public restaurants? Is he old enough to understand the difference, in which case he may be old enough to understand that if his behavior is bothering another diner it may be time to quiet down (concedely not always easy based on my experience).

The thing I love is that most of the people voicing the strongest opinions about child rearing here appear not to have children of their own.

I can tell you that I was one of the people who used to say "strangle those monster kids" on airplanes and in restaurants. And I occasionally still do.

Then I had kids of my own and realized how hard it can be to corral a two or three year old, and even harder to corral multiple kids. We have left restaurants of our own accord, mid meal, when the kids were bad. We have also pleaded with them to settle down so that we could finish a meal. Yeah, I know we simply should have beaten them senseless in public, but you tend to receive just as much social approbation for disciplining a child severely as you do for letting them run around.

Basically, we muddle through, like most parents. Remarkably though, they are getting better as they get older.

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by carp
I took my two sons (5 years and 15 months) for breakfast to a very casual restaurant. We have been there many times before and have become friendly with the family that owns/runs the restaurant. One morning, after breakfast, I was reading the paper and my eldest son was running around as he and other children had done in the past. The owners are very family-oriented, know the kids names, give them treats, etc. A man dining by himself approached me and angrily told me to calm my child. .....Interestingly, as I was paying my bill, I found out that, before approaching me, he did complain to management only to be offered a table in the next room which old bastard declined. After thinking about it, it seems to me that he must have a burr under his saddle about something else than my child. I would be interested in alternative responses especially given the fact that my child had acted similarly in the past and chastising him for his actions would give him mixed signals.

He was a jerk to have been rude to you when asking your kid to settle down, and he clearly didn't understand the rules of the place. But management was wrong to tell him to move--you don't ask the annoyed customer to accommodate the annoyance, but rather the other way around. Would it have been so damaging to your kid if management or you asked him to cool it for a few minutes to pacify this guy?

p(no problem with you--management's job to handle it and they clearly refused to)j

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
I don't know exactly how you said it, but your response to the crotchety old bastard sounds like it was pretty rude, nowithstanding his status as a COB (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that he wasn't very pleasant). What does it mean to say "don't worry about it, go back to eating your breakfast" to someone who is clearly (and not unreasonably) bothered by something for which you are responsible? That's so dismissive and surely compounded the man's irritation.

Your description implies that you think your rudeness to him was justified by his rudeness to you. But do you think his rudeness to you was justified by your children's boisterous conduct in the restaurant?

I suspect that this man did not know that your kids' excited play was not merely tolerated but was actually encouraged in the restaurant. Is this place a Chuck E. Cheese or a McDonald's with a playground, or an ordinary restaurant?

I also don't think your kid would have gotten mixed messages -- couldn't you have explained to the child by saying you're not misbehaving, but that gentleman over there would appreciate having a quiet breakfast, so out of consideration for him, could you settle down, and we'll go to an actual playground after I'm done with the paper?

That would have been a really lovely lesson to teach your child -- that sometimes, you oughtn't do something that you think you're entitled to do, and that is usually OK, simply out of consideration for the crotchety old bastards of the world who really don't deserve it. Rather, if your kids were paying attention to your interaction with that man, I think you unwittingly taught them a bad lesson.

r(I'm not criticizing your kids, or you for letting them play in the restaurant, this is purely about your response to the man)p

I think the old man was wrong for refusing to move. When management told him that he had the option to move to another room, that was a hint that management would not chastise the children. He is either tone deaf to subtle suggestion or stubborn - either way, when he stayed, he assumed the risk of being annoyed.

I often find myself among loud children on weekend mornings (at breakfast, at the market, etc...). When they annoy me, I just move. Its like television - if it annoys you, turn the channel.

What I do dislike intensely is when the kids come over and fuck around with me directly and the parents smile at the child's behavior, so I feel obligated to smile back, lest I be thought an ogre. I hate giving the fake smile to the parents, but I do it nonetheless. Why chuck my principles out the window you might ask... Because its a small world, and that obnoxious parent might be an important cat who I may need to curry favor with someday.

S(Never be rude to strangers because you never know who you might need someday)D

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Why does everyone think that decent manners require one to be a whimp and accept the bad manners of others?

I don't think everyone thinks that - I know I don't - but I set the bar for my own behavior somewhat above standing, banging my table, and calling loudly for the death of "it". (Sorry, that just appalled me.)

I guess I would rephrase your question to, why does everyone think that being bothered is a grant of permission to be jerks themselves? I have been bothered far more often by drunk and/or obnoxious adults while out than by kids, and that counts many years pre-parent. If you want an entirely annoyance-free life, go buy a field in Kansas and live there.

(For rantual context - a story: out to dinner with two eldest kids a few weeks ago, at the Kirby Puckett Memorial Eatery. We are talking, eating, and laughing, much quieter than I would normally expect were I at a table with three adults. Child #2 drops his fork, picks it up. Younger man from a nearby table walks up to me to suggest that kids shouldn't be in restaurant, that he doesn't feel like he should have to watch his behavior when he goes out. I suggest that he should watch his behavior no matter what while in a public restaurant. He argues. I get up, walk him away from my table, and tell him quietly to go fuck himself. He gets manager. Manager gets the story, asks him to leave, comps my meal.

Maybe this incident, and many others like it, color my thinking. I do not allow my kids to go wild in public, whether we're in a restaurant, or at a beach, or on a plane. But, more and more, I see people getting annoyed simply because of the presence of kids - not the actions of the kids - like, the kids being there is taking away from their right to act like shits in public. Well, tough beans.

I suspect that I would get greatly annoyed at the level of disruption that you are probably describing - I'm probably arguing apples to your oranges - but a good rant never depends upon a perfectly rational foundation. )

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by infinitytrack

Then I had kids of my own and realized how hard it can be to corral a two or three year old, and even harder to corral multiple kids. We have left restaurants of our own accord, mid meal, when the kids were bad. We have also pleaded with them to settle down so that we could finish a meal. Yeah, I know we simply should have beaten them senseless in public, but you tend to receive just as much social approbation for disciplining a child severely as you do for letting them run around.

I don't think the objection is to kids per se, but rather to parents who make no effort. I don't have kids, and I don't like crying on the airplane, but I realize there's not much that can be done. I also don't like the kid behind me kicking my seat throughout the flight. But that's not behavior I should be expected to put up with. The parent should stop such conduct immediately, or at least quickly, rather than letting it go. Obviously this extends to conduct elsewhere -- if a kid tears up a tree, do something about it, don't just say "I guess he's just not a Johnny Appleseed." That's what people are objecting to.

[tmdiva]

I didn't think it was too Muzak-y; I thought the songs themselves were generally good, except for Grease (too gimmicky) and Jive Talkin' (a dance song with no verse and no bridge, just chorus).

Josh: Jive Talkin' just plain sucked. He always goes into the crowd when the song is bad and he knows he sounds bad on it. He couldn't hit the low notes and the melody jumps showed off his uncertain pitch. Blech. On To Love Somebody he sounded as good as he ever has--no discernible pitch problems, good intensity and emotion. He still looks constipated (props to whoever said that last week--you hit the nail on the head), sings through his nose, manipulated his voice with his jaw, makes stupid gestures, and is generally unattractive. I hope he goes home, but his one redeeming performance may mean he stays.

Clay: One of his bugaboos has been repetitive licks, and on To Love Somebody he fell into this trap--half dropping out at the end of almost every phrase, with leftover sotto voce vibrato. BUG. He also did the eyelid flutter thing when complimented by Simon. Grease: Yikes!!!! That had to be a woman's red leather jacket, and his hip shaking had me shrieking with laughter.

Kim: I Just Wanna Be Your Everything lacked intensity, good but not remarkable. Maybe she's just tired from singing backup for all the guys? I swear that sounds like her, and it sounded like Ruben backing Trenyce on Proud Mary last week. I liked her a lot better on Emotions. She had a rough patch on the way up to her high note, but covered it well, and her emotional reading of the song was good.

Ruben: Nights on Broadway was just okay for him (has he not learned the lesson about song choice--that the song should be so familiar that the audience can sing along?). How Can You Mend a Broken Heart was flawless. What a great arrangement! The backup vocals totally made it (way to go, Kim), and Ruben showed great dynamic range.

Performance scorecard:
Josh: 1 sucky, 1 good
Clay: 1 good, 1 sucky
Kim: 1 mediocre, 1 good
Ruben: 1 good, 1 amazing

Bottom 2 should be Josh and Clay on the merits of last night's performances, but it will be Josh and Kim because of all the 12 year olds who want to marry Clay. Kim may go home unless Fox tweaks the voting to guard against an all-male final 3. If the increased difficulty in getting through to vote for him is any indication, Ruben will be safe (I had no problem getting through to vote for Kim--I didn't try either Josh or Clay).

tm

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think the old man was wrong for refusing to move. When management told him that he had the option to move to another room, that was a hint that management would not chastise the children. He is either tone deaf to subtle suggestion or stubborn - either way, when he stayed, he assumed the risk of being annoyed.
S(Never be rude to strangers because you never know who you might need someday)D

Sebby, you quoted my post, but you missed my point. Had I been the crotchety old man, I would have moved. And I never meant to suggest that his rudeness to carp was justified.

And I'm with junkie on the point that management totally botched it -- they should never have let it get to where two customers had a confrontation. That wasn't the right way to treat the man or carp.

[evenodds]

For years, I have taken a quick weekly commuter flight. All bleary-eyed business folks at 8:15 heading to another city for a 10 am meeting.

The behavior of adults at seeing a child has been outrageous. Typically, these kids sleep the whole time, or talk quitely to their parents during the 40 minutes we spend together. But the presence of the kid is so upsetting to otherwise perfectly normal (in appearance) adults.

Makes me think their kids are all very poorly behaved, if they take after their parents.

[Sparklehorse]

Salon article link here

"After a four-month investigation, London's Metropolitan Police said Wednesday that the rocker "was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images," but had accessed a site containing such images in 1999."