Groovymarlin.com

This morning I stopped in at Starbucks on the way to work — actually, the Starbucks within Target, which is usually oh-so-very deserted and lonely at 8am. I almost never have to worry about waiting to order or get my latte…almost. Then there’s this morning. There were two people in line in front of me, but I figured no big deal, two people, no problem, right? Wrong. Person number one ordered about a dozen (okay maybe it was actually three) venti iced teas, but at least she paid for them all at once, and it didn’t take the three ladies working the machines and register very long to prepare her drinks. Then there was the person right in front of me, a person who scooted in there and barely got in line before I did. I mean, if I’d been 30 seconds earlier, even 10 seconds earlier, I would have been next in line and saved myself what turned out to be a lot of time. Whatever.

Anyway, this person proceeds to order a venti coffee frappucino, no whip; then she pays for it with – a check. A CHECK. I’ve been to a lot of Starbucks but I’ve never seen someone pay for their order with a check! Maybe this only happens at the Target locations. But wait, it gets better! After that payment is processed, she orders another drink, a grande misto with no foam and one splenda, plus a maple nut scone. And that order she pays for with cash. Hallelujah! I figure she’s done at this point, but noooo! Next she orders a grande misto, skim, with foam. And pays for that with….a credit card. So really, this one little lady was really like THREE whole people in line in front of me, with very specific orders and completely different payment methods.

So here’s where I preach instruct make a suggestion: if you are buying Starbucks for multiple people, either collect up front and have cash, or be willing and able to pay for all items out of your own pocket and sort the IOUs out later.

For the love, people. I understand the desperate need for caffeine as well as anyone, but come on, a little consideration to your fellow addicts, huh?

So I’m driving home this afternoon, and I this Jeep passes me. Sort of a dark, souped-up Wrangler, from what I could tell. Nothing remarkable about it…but the vanity plate, which said “H2s SUCK.” Hmm, that’s interesting. I was still getting over the fact that our relatively conservative DMV allowed someone to put “suck” on their vanity plate when I noticed the lettering across the Jeep’s bumper. It said:

If I wanted a Hummer I would have asked your sister!

Oookay.  So let me get this straight, Mr. Jeep Driver. You really, really, really don’t like Hummers. OK, I can see that. I’m not a big fan of them either, in fact I think the whole concept of the Hummer (vehicle, that is) is pretty silly. But I also find it really silly, and borderline obnoxious, that you advertise your disdain for one vehicle on another. For one thing…who cares? For another, it’s just weird. Showing your love for your Jeep I could understand, but showing your hate for Hummers on your Jeep? I don’t get it. In fact, it seems to me you’re just driving around hoping to piss off someone in a Hummer. And seriously, dude…if that’s your whole point you really need to get a more productive hobby.

In totally non-weird news, Veronica had her nine-month checkup with the pediatrician today. No vaccinations, but they did draw blood for an anemia test (standard test at her age apparently). Her daddy took her, and reports that she’s in the 75th percentile for weight at around 20 pounds, but her 29″ height puts her somewhere in the 90s for length, and her head circumference is similarly impressive. She’s doing really well, and needs to see the pediatrician again in June, when she turns 1. She’ll be having some blood work before that because she also returns to the cardiologist in June. At that time they’re going to run a Holter monitor and other tests, then decide whether to completely take her off her heart medicine or switch her to something else.

The thought of having her on no medication at all simultaneously thrills and terrifies me…but that’s a post for another night.

We saw 300 today. I thought it was awesome! Very violent and gory, but the imagery was fantastic and it was a pretty entertaining film for something based on ancient Greek history. Figuring out how much of it was accurate vs. how much was graphic novel-inspired fantasy is pretty fascinating too.

Of course in order to go to an actual theater to see a movie, we had to leave baby with a babysitter, for only the second time in her almost nine months on the planet (I think leaving her here with Grandma doesn’t really count). So we dropped her off at my friend Karen’s house today. She cried when we handed her off, which broke my heart. She never cries when we leave her at daycare, but I suppose she’s used to it. Anyway, she did really well. Apparently she stopped crying a few minutes after we left and enjoyed herself the rest of the afternoon. When we went back to Karen’s house after the movie, she had enjoyed a bottle and was asleep on Karen’s big, soft recliner, wrapped in her afghan.

I gotta look into this babysitting thing more often!

*Updated with picture of our girl sleeping at Karen’s house. Too cute!

OK I have been way too busy to think about blogging lately. My father was visiting last weekend, I just started a new job on Monday, I’ve got freelance work this week…I’m swamped all over the place. I will update more completely this weekend.

Random observation: I have the TV on in the background and this mid-season replacement starting Jeff Goldblum (“Raines”) just started. Jeff looks like he’s had a facelift or something. Actually, he looks pretty darn good to me, but maybe I’m just tired. Also, this episode was directed by Frank Darabont. Frank Darabont who directed “The Green Mile” and one of my very favorite movies of all time, “The Shawshank Redemption.” What’s Frank doing, slumming in TV? And, oh my God, was that Tracey Walter I just saw? IMDB doesn’t say so, but I’d swear that was him.

Well based on the strength of the cast and crew alone, I almost wish I’d paid attention to this “Raines” show. I’ll catch the rerun this weekend. And speaking of TV, I did watch most of “The Riches” the other night. Eddie Izzard is amazing, as always — but that’s a post for another time.

I can’t believe it’s time for yet another rant, but dammit if people don’t just keep pissing me off. Today the object of my ire is Expedia, the travel site. My husband and I offered to fly my mother-in-law in for a weekend this spring, so I wanted to go online and check for flights. The first site I tried to load was Expedia – and instead of seeing it I got warned to enable cookies.

Ooookay.

Usually I have Firefox prompt me about whether or not to accept cookies. What can I say? I’m paranoid. So anyway, I went into my Firefox settings and made sure that expedia’s URL was entered as an exception to “always allow” cookies. Then I reloaded the page…and got the warning again.

Seems that Expedia feels I should change my security settings completely, and accept all cookies no matter what, before they’ll let me use their site. I’m not kidding – their “advice” says to change your security zone. (Check out the offending page right here.) Then I noticed something else…the instructions given are for IE, and a link is labeled “click here for help with older versions of IE as well as other browsers (e.g. Netscape and Macintosh).” I clicked on that link and perused the list of browser instructions…IE 3, 4, 5, 6; Netscape Navigator; AOL…what’s missing from this list? That’s right, the only browser that makes any sense, Firefox! It’s like in Expedia’s Wacky World, there is no Firefox, it just doesn’t exist!

Kind of how in Groovymarlin’s Real World, Expedia no longer exists. Thanks anyway, tools. I’ll use Orbitz instead.

(Hint to web developers and companies with a web presence — if you want me to accept your cookies, tell me I need to accept them and let me accept them on a by-site basis. Do not ever presume to tell me to completely change my browser settings just for you, or I’ll tell you to go to hell.)