The food that leaves something to be desired at seqouia brewing company

        Now I am usually a champion for any local businesses, and prior to this experience I actually had a good experience at the Sequoia brewing company. I went to go see a musical with my dad and ordered their salmon blt with a side of fruit and it was delicious and the service was spot on, we never had to call the waiter over for anything. However, in the case of this experience I was mildly disappointed.
    My significant other and I decided we would eat the Sequoia brewing company since he had never been there before, and I just wanted to eat something easy on my digestive system. I had eaten prior to having lunch at the Seqouia brewing company and thought I would give  their half a sandwich and salad a try since I had not tried these items there before.  The first thing wrong was the server did not give me a choice of salads for the side salad which they are suppose to offer at least based on the menu. (if i am wrong about this readers, you can call me out on it) Also when I did get my food, I had the wrong bread  on what was called a "sandwich" was not a "sandwich" in the broadest since of the word. I got two pieces of bread with lettuce and turkey, no condiments, or tomato, or cucumber or anything else on it.  Then the final coffin on this eh experience was that the server could not leave his shift until the bill was paid for. I know that my significant other and I did come at the sort of end of lunch time and I get wanting the shift to be over but in this I felt rushed a bit.
      However, even with this negative experience I can attest to this their sweet potato fries are good, along with the condiments with it, and my significant other seemed to love their hand crafted beers.  I am sort of on the fence about this place and might give them another try at some point in the future, just to see if they can prove me wrong after this "eh" experience. I think I am just one of those people who want consistency wherever I go to eat, more so now since I am unemployed so I would like to get bang for my buck.

Groundhog days...

      Well, I know that I have not posted lately I have been working at my first retail job. I recently got let go so my schedule has suddenly become way more open. However, being unemployed is beginning to feel like Groundhog Day  the movie because I have  gone through it repeatedly and I am still trying to get it right, if that makes any sense. This is my third time being unemployed and I am still learning from the last two. I am hoping this time I will gain more skills,  and find a job/career where I can expand my skills and meet interesting people along the way.
     I am not trying to be optimistic about being unemployed but I am pretty sure it gets harder the more you go through it. Oddly enough I am in a group, where their are people their who are more jaded than me, making me wanting to act like Pollyanna in the face of adversity. This time I just feel like I am in limbo and plan to work even harder than last time to get me out limbo.
      This can be shown by the fact that I have tried networking and its harder than it seems. My first event I went to was a big one and I had no clue what I was doing but I think I made a couple decent connections.  I think this was further impacted by the fact that I am introvert and I tend to better interacting one on one rather than with a whole group of people. I then tried to go another networking event that was way smaller and more compact than the other one.  This one was worse in that there was less room to move around, I had a hard enough time talking to people in a big room, how is a smaller room with limited room to move about going to help that. I am hoping by the next networking event I will be able to gauge situations and people better. I have even checked out "How to Think like Sherlock Holmes" by Maria Konnikova with the hope that this will help me better gauge people. However, I plan to think like Sherlock Holmes but without having the superiority complex that Sherlock has throughout his show. So to all readers out there how is your networking going and do you have any tips to improve at it? Also does being unemployed feel like Groudhog's day movie to you in a way?


"What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today." (Groundhog Day quote)

The world of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy...

    Well for research for an English composition curriculum I am working on with a science fiction twist, with the main books and shows being discussed of the science fiction nature I decided to reread The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy with the hope of using the novel in a paper prompt.  But, since I have not read this book in many of years I had forgotten how Douglas Adams likes to screw with his reader through using satire throughout his books. Actually, I didn't even notice it until I started reading research about his novels.
      The thing is though I have been obsessed with using Douglas Adams in an English composition books because his books while light hearted and satirical always make the reader think be it philosophically, why things are the way they are in terms of government, big business, or rethinking science fiction as a genre in general because he takes some of those tropes and turns them on their head.  He is the lewis caroll of science fiction writers though with his nonsensical take on things. 
          I say this because I will fully admit that the events that happen in Hitchhikers specifically are all absurd or people survive due to pure coincidence and being at the right place at the right time.  I say this because Arthur dent being saved by an acquaintance to survive the earths destruction, mice ruling earth, and earth being a computer that was going to determine the question to well everything.     
        Which oddly enough is what you are doing by the end of the book, (spoiler alert) all the characters while alive their is no finality or sense of ending and they are on to their next adventure in space.  But, I think even after all my research I think that is what Douglas Adams wants to do is question everything or to realize after much thought and contemplation that we flawed humans have very little control over our own lives. I say this because us readers could end up like arthur dent just wanting to have a simple day and maybe some tea and before you know it earth is destroyed so an intergalacitc highway can be built. 
        I think Adams is also making the point in his book that little events in our lives have a big impact or are related to bigger events in the long run.  I say this because in the book if Arthur had not known Ford Perfect he might never had been alive or had the opportunity to try to be killed so many times be it through Vogons or missiles. I don't know this is just a theory, I am just curious readers as to your thoughts on Douglas Adams book The Hithchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?

But I don't want to be a crop duster...

    I have recently seen the movie "Planes" with my dad, while the plot was pretty predictable and formulaic, but it was still an entertaining movie at large. Also, the main protagonist plane was told by most of his cohorts that he could never be a plane that races and only be a crop duster.  Lately I have been feeling this way in which I have been confined into who I am and what I am supposed to be and what I am supposed be doing with my life and time. In this example, the crop duster turned it around to be the fastest race plane in the nation.
    I have seemed to reach a point in my life where I have to prove to myself, my peers, and my family that I will not be a crop duster all my life.  That I can indeed be a race plane or any other plane of interest to you and be free from this confined box.  However, to do this I am going to have do more things on my own, and be more independent in the process. But this is history repeating myself I once had an English instructor at the city college I taught told me I should not teach English at the community college level. I then proceeded to go up to my Masters in English and I still plan to and want to teach English at a community college.
    If I can prove her wrong, then this should be a piece of cake or pie.  I am one of those people I can't do something I then become bound and determined to do it and what they want me to do all with a smile on my face.  So readers I ask you have you had others put you in a box in terms of your identity and what your "supposed" to be doing with your life and if so how did you get out of this box and prove them wrong?

The journey for independence...

   Well, I have recently become unemployed from a job that I was working about three months. The thing is that I am 28 years old and I live at home like most college graduates or graduated graduate students in this recession because trying to move out on your own is expensive.  Also, while working where I was it felt like it made a dent on most of my friendships and relationships.  Furthermore, the place I was working was just not a good "fit" for me. I was actually relieved when I became unemployed because it felt like I got my life back.
    Well, apparently what I had thought was wrong, I don't know if any other people my age or going through this where your parent wants to know everything going on with your life every damm hour of the day. Today I engaged in a one sided version of 20 questions where I was grilled about the time I was spending looking for work and how it wasn't enough.  I didn't say anything in response because frankly I did not want to and I am thinking if my parents ever want me to become an independent person leaving me alone would be a good thing. The last time I was unemployed I had this same sort of micromanaging and its not like I don't want to look for work. I would like to find a job where I am happy and don't dread going everyday.  I would like to be strategic and set up the right moves so I am not put into a checkmate.
     I just wanted to do things slowly and recover from everything that happened. Also I wanted to do things differently such as being more involved in work organizations, volunteering, networking, and applying for jobs with all my free time. I just want my life back but I would like to have fun at the same time such as catching up with friends, working on my relationship with my bf, catching up on reading, listening to music and if time allows watching a movie.  I want my life back or some semblance of it but I would still like to be a self sufficient person at the same time or work towards being that self sufficient person.  I am just wondering why I can't do both or why I have to do just one.  I am wondering readers out there if you are facing these same sort of job and economic conundrums?

A comparison of Sorkin's "West Wing" and Palladino's "Gilmore Girls"

      Well all this post reveals to me is that I watch way too much television. But the interesting thing I have discovered in watching most of the first four seasons of  Aaron Sorkin's "The West Wing" and Amy Sherman Palladino's "Gilmore Girls" is that while these shows may have different themes among them, their are many commonalities when it comes to the pace of these shows. For one both of these producers have a focus on the fast walking and talking while at the same time. Furthermore, the main protagonists in the show always seem to be in a rush or having a deadline to get something done, be it packing for Yale, passing a Bill, or getting the funds to a major brand name school.
   But even with these similarities both of these shows have very different themes. For instance with "West Wing" it is a democrats fantasy and escapism from reality since the show started in 2000 and ended in 2006 and about this time George Bush junior had been elected as President. Even though I would cut it off at 2003 because Soorkin stopped producing for the television show from season 5 to 7.
        The show "The West Wing" became to represent for some democrats their version of White House life that was ran by liberal democrats who just wanted to help people, and not try to sacrifice their moral integrity in the process.  This perspective can be further shown when one of the main character Sam comments that in terms of education that "The schools should be palaces and that teachers should be treated like kings".  This even more element in military skirmishes that take place in the situation room because our fictional President Bartlett played by the charismatic Martin Sheen does not want to get involved in wars with his fellow countries and at the very least wants to try to be diplomatic and peaceful before the United States is reduced to having to fight against another country.   These would be seen as tenets of a president with seemingly liberal democratic leanings that Soorkin is notorious for portraying in all of his television shows.  This show takes a political commentary hope for viewers while giving hope to fifty percent of population for a democratic president in the future at the time.
    But with this "Gilmore Girls" their are hints of political commentary, but it seems to be more of a social/cultural commentary in my opinion. I have seen all the episodes of this show two to three times over and I would exclude season seven since Palladino had no hand in producing it.  This can be seen in the episode "Application Anxiety" in season three where Rory gets her Harvard application and she and her mom are watching a Brady Brunch singing and dance special when that morning Rory has been reading Gogol's "Dead Souls".  There is a strong contrast between the high and low culture in this show, but the great thing about these figures is that they are smart and can adapt to both of these seemingly different worlds.  This can further seen by the contrast between Rory/her mom when compared to the grandparents.
      This becomes evident in season one episode six called "Rory's Birthday parties".  We see this contrast when Lorelai's parents throw Rory a high class catered party for their friends and her classmates, and the next night she has this casual affair with her stars hallow family and friends.  But even with the differences between high and low culture through out the show I think that they can be related to one another, the best example of this I can give is through fashion when the couture designs on the runway trickle down to the budget wears that one will find at the mall, Target and Ross.
      Now even though these shows are different in terms of themes, and similar in their approach, this has me wondering if Palladino and Sorkin have ever met.  I say this because I have seen Palladino's show "Gilmore Girls" many times over and the first season of her new show "Bunheads", and I have watched Sorkin's "Sports Night", "The West Wing", "Studio 60 on the sunset strip", and some of "The Newsroom", and they seem so similar to one another.
      Also I am wondering if these two should collaborate to make a show that is so good, that any major or cable network would have no reason to reject such a proposal.  But before this occurs I would like to know if anyone can find out if they know whether Sorkin and Palladino have met in the past, I have done my research online and have not found anything.  So if anyone has any information about this be it an article or expose please, can you please post it as a comment for this blog.  So readers I have to ask do you think Soorkin and Palladino should collaborate and make a kick ass show? Why or Why not?

A comparison of "Murder She Wrote" and "Castle"

  Well, I have been watching "Murder She Wrote" off and on for the past couple months, and have become obsessed with the fictional character JB Fletcher. She is charismatic, gets along with everybody, and always seems to know how to handle situations in a fair and delicate matter.  I think her show from the 1980's to 1990's  might have been the beginning of mystery writers being the detectives in a television and to my knowledge I had not seen this before in any prior detective shows.  Also she has a Sherlock approach through using her powers of deduction to solve her crimes.  Murder she wrote's first episode is even called The Murder of Sherlock Holmes.
      The issue with her show is that there are very few pursued romances throughout the show. (spoiler) We learn from the first episode that she has lost her husband Frank, who is referenced to throughout the seasons.  She is pursued many times through visitors in other cities, and it seems to be hinted at the Dr. Hazelick seems to be into her.  But I think this is the point I think she is trying to show that an older woman can be independent and not needing to lean on a man, unless she wants to or he adds on to her own experiences.  This can even be shown through some of the women who seem to be having a hard time of things and tend get blamed for murders they did not commit over the seasons, while being tortured and ridiculed by some of the older men . But with Castle they go where the evidence leads, and while they tend to jump the gun about who the killer is also, not a majority of the people falsely accused for murder are female.
    Another difference, is that in "Castle", it's all its about is the sexual tension, and the romance, and castle through his own networking with the mayor. This show chronicles their annoyance, friendship, and then love for one another. But, with Castle he tends to act like a child in an adult mans body, and has very little understanding of women as shown through the many conversations with his daughter and mother. Also he like JB Fletcher but maybe for different reasons is too afraid to ever delve into a serious romantic relationship. Actually, that might be Castle's issue he likes falling in love, and has a harder time actually maintaining the relationship. But , this show seems to focus more on romantic relationships when compared to murder she wrote.
      But its not like this show does not care about the fictional murders that occur has shown between the team work between Esposito, Ryan, Laney, Beckett, and Castle to get the truth of the matter in a case. Castle is able to provide a different, albeit sometimes crazy, and conspiracy theory based approach to solving some murders. However, this always fun and keeps the viewers on their toes, because they never know what to expect from Castle.
     But with both of these shows their may not be much difference in victims in both shows though, as they both show how much gender, race, and class will effect who be murdered and what their motive will be. The weird thing is that for some of these murders they were over things that could not be controlled, or because the murder is question made assumptions that were not really true.  (spoiler) I can refer to season  1 episode 3 of Castle where a model gets killed by her husband because he thinks she is cheating on him with a photographer.
    These two shows, reveal how the mystery detective is viewed from an older wise women to a ruggedly handsome Rick Castle, seems to be a forward transition, but as viewers what would we rather focus on the murders or the relationships, or both.   Or I should be asking do we need both, or would one suffice?