Profile

Cover photo
Michael Godesky
Works at Dollar Bank
Attended University of Pittsburgh
Lives in Pittsburgh, PA
81 followers|40,596 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
Saw Batman: The Killing Joke. So... that was pretty weird. Look, obviously any adaptation of The Killing Joke was bound to be controversial. I know a lot of people hated the original comic for its treatment of Barbara Gordon. I don't personally feel that way, but I can understand why some people do. So when I heard that they were adding a prologue to the movie that would expand Batgirl's role in the story, it seemed like a decent way of extending an olive branch toward those who found the comic to be insensitive. That was before I knew that the prologue would feature a sex scene between Batman and Batgirl. Which... just why?

First of all, Batgirl is usually depicted as being significantly younger than Batman. So this is just creepy and weird. And I know that this movie is a one-off that's set within its own continuity. So maybe there isn't as much of an age difference between them in this version, and maybe Batman and Batgirl have a different type of relationship. And I know that Bruce an Barbara had a relationship at some point in Batman Beyond too. But even so, it's weird and makes me feel uncomfortable. I don't like it!

More to the point though, I can't imagine what would possibly make anyone at Warner Brothers think that this was a good idea. People already hate the comic for its treatment of a prominent female character. So the film makers thought they'd win those people over by invoking the Women in Refrigerators trope even harder? Are they just trolling us now?

The sad thing is that it was actually a pretty nice scene between Batman and Batgirl right up until that moment when they suddenly start making out for no reason. It was like they decided, "Boy, we really want to earn that R rating. Where can we throw in some random sex?"

That said, there were some things I liked. All the best parts from the comic are still pretty much there. Hamill and Conroy do a superb job as usual. I like the added narration from Barbara. I think that reframing the story to make it from her perspective is actually a pretty great idea. And I liked the epilogue scene showing her becoming Oracle, which lets viewers know that even though she went through this horrible incident, she managed to come out the other side okay.

Ultimately, if you hated the comic, this movie isn't going to do much to change your mind. And if you loved the comic, well that stuff is still pretty much all here, just with a really weird prologue attached.
1
Add a comment...

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
I listened to Hamilton over the 4th of July weekend. I'm not sure it lives up to the hype. I mean, it's definitely very good, but it's not Les Miserables. I find the heroic portrait of Alexander Hamilton that it paints to be rather questionable as well. Though I take this musical as being less about teaching history and more about our continuing to rewrite the mythology of America's founding fathers in new ways to suit each successive generation.

I don't want to sound like one of those people who are constantly complaining about lazy, self-centered millennials. I kind of hate that sort of mentality. But at the risk of being that guy, I have been thinking recently about how our society in recent years seems to be much more heavily invested in the importance of the individual over that of the community. Even by the standards of the U.S., which has always had very individualistic ideals. And Hamilton seems to fit very well into that mindset.

Hamilton glosses over much of the titular character's actual political philosophy. Which, if they had included more of that, audiences may well have walked away with a much less favorable impression of the man. As it is however, the musical focuses much more upon Hamilton's personal ambitions. Which is interesting when you're dealing with the American Revolution, a time in which a few dozen men were making decisions with repercussions that would be felt around the world for centuries to come. So while Washington is focused on building a solid foundation for something that will outlive him, while Jefferson is focused on making sure that America lives up to its ideals, while Lafayette is trying to bring democracy to his own homeland of France, we see Hamilton focused primarily upon securing his own personal legacy. While Aaron Burr, arguably the story's main villain, is a man who refuses to take a clear stance on anything and is introduced by telling Hamilton to talk less. Even the choice of protagonist itself is telling. Alexander Hamilton is America's first Secretary of the Treasury. He was responsible for creating a national bank. His face is on the $10 bill. Is there any man who more strongly embodies American money and wealth--the thing we tend to most associate with personal power and success?

None of which is necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. I think it's fine to have stories about personal ambition. But it does make me a little sad that we live in an era of American history where Jefferson is now often vilified while Hamilton is glorified.
1
Add a comment...

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
Saw X-Men: Apocalypse last night. Just like in Days of Future Past, Quicksilver has an amazing super-speed action scene that is one of the highlights of the film. It's so great that I'm willing to forgive it for being guilty of one of my pet peeves about the way that comic book speedsters are portrayed. But hey, we don't have the internet to not complain about trivial things. So let's talk about my pet peeve.

I get that when a movie wants to show someone moving super fast, they show everyone else as frozen because they're just moving that slowly relative to the speedster. That makes sense, as long as the speedster is continuing to move at super-speed the entire time. But why is everyone still frozen whenever they stop to just look around the room? You're either moving super fast or you're not. Once you stop, you're stopped, and everything else should resume moving as normal. And if it's just that that moment was supposed to represent him stopping for only a fraction of a second, how does his brain have time to process whatever it is that he's looking at?

In the case of the Flash, they can at least explain stuff like that away with the Speed Force. I mean, it's a BS comic book explanation, but at least they have rules that exist within the context of the narrative. But that just shouldn't work for other super fast characters who don't use the Speed Force like Quicksilver or Superman.
1
Michael Godesky's profile photoJeff Johnston's profile photoWayne Wyant's profile photo
4 comments
 
Please note Tend To. Poor Firestar clearly missed that memo. 
Add a comment...

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
Wow. Just finished playing King's Quest Chapter 3, and it's definitely the best episode yet. Addresses everything that was so wrong with King's Quest II while lovingly paying tribute to everything that made the original series so endearing. Some funny and very clever twists on classic fairy tale tropes in a story that does a great job of allowing the player to empathize with the villain. Love the reuse of the "Girl in the Tower" music from King's Quest VI too. My hat's off to you, Odd Gentlemen. I wish we had more games like this.
1
Add a comment...

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
I've been going back and reading the Civil War comics on Marvel Unlimited. At the time this event was happening, I remember being on Team Cap. Partly because I just like Captain America better as a character. But also because they were clearly doing a bit of commentary on the Patriot Act, which I agree was terrible. In retrospect though, I feel like there is a decent point at the core of the superhuman registration side. If the Marvel Universe were real, I would probably be on Team Iron Man. I don't want a bunch of masked lunatics running around destroying the city any time they feel like! But then they go so far out of their way to make Iron Man look like a total jerk that you almost have no choice but to side with Cap. And I suspect this will be just as true in the movie as well, if not more so, given that it has Captain America's name right in the title. But really, both sides in this story are just dumb.

On the anti-registration side, the only argument that they really make for why they're fighting against it is that they don't want their enemies to discover their secret identities. But it's not like they're the only people in America doing jobs that may make them dangerous enemies who might endanger them and their loved ones. What about police officers, lawyers, judges, etc.? We still don't let those people just do whatever they want. This is a point that's even brought up a couple of times in the comic itself, and no one ever really answers it. Somehow, that point just gets ignored, and everyone simply accepts that the threat to superheroes is fundamentally different from all those other professions... for some reason. They don't even necessarily need to make the superheroes' secret identities public information, so long as they're known to someone. The government does employ secret agents after all. And yes, sometimes the identities of those agents are leaked or compromised. But that's a chance you take whenever you have a secret identity. It's not as though these heroes have a perfect track record of security working on their own. Some bad guy is discovering their secret identities practically every couple of months.

Then you have the pro-registration side. Which again, I think there is a worthwhile point at the core of their argument. There are a lot of professions where people working in those fields are required to obtain proper training and licensing, and it's not at all controversial. Why wouldn't we require at least as much from the guys who are going around punching people through buildings as we do from your dentist? And such licensing is also good for the professional in question, because if they are ever called into question, they have documentation showing their qualifications. It really doesn't even need to go beyond that either. Sure, Iceman has super powers. But if he's just working as an accountant, there's no reason to force him to register. It's not even an issue unless he starts going around freezing people. Just don't freeze people, and it won't even be a problem! But they don't stop there, do they? They've got to add on all sorts of other, unrelated crazy stuff like drafting everyone with powers into SHIELD, creating killer Thor clones, working with super villains, and building their own Guantanamo Bay for superheroes in the Negative Zone where they hold people without trial indefinitely. There's no reason for any of this! It's only there so that Captain America doesn't look like a crazy person for starting an armed insurrection in response to what would otherwise be a completely reasonable policy.

And look, I generally don't like the idea of the government controlling every aspect of people's lives, so I don't appreciate Tony Stark being so dumb that I'm forced to make this case for him. But if I have to choose, I don't know... can I be on Team Black Panther? Because he's pretty much the only sensible person in this whole story.
2
Add a comment...

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
There's really just a lot wrong with the arguments against Snyder's DCEU films, but the one recurring theme that I think bothers me the most in the Batman v Superman criticisms that I'm seeing is that they basically boil down to, "This movie makes me think about things that are uncomfortable to think about." And that's not really something that should be considered a bad thing. In my opinion, it's what makes these films so much better than most other superhero movies.

This goes back to Man of Steel, when people were complaining about the destruction caused by Superman's battle with Zod. I'm not sure what they were expecting would happen when two Kryptonians throw down. But it's not that the film wasn't true to the source material, which features heroes tearing apart city buildings all the time. The main difference is that Snyder just didn't shy away from showing us the consequences of what happens when two superpowered beings tear a city apart. It wasn't even really much more destruction than we were used to seeing in other action blockbusters. But because it was Superman, suddenly people took notice and labelled it as "destruction porn." Suddenly, we were having a national discussion about how much the film industry is glorifying massive destruction. It took Superman to make that happen. That cultural impact is one of the reasons why Man of Steel was such a great movie, but a lot people don't seem to get that that was pretty much the point.

It affected people so much, many commented on how the ending to Age of Ultron almost felt like a direct shot at Man of Steel. Because the Avengers were all like, "We're going to make sure we save everyone from all this destruction because we're the good guys." Which, don't get me wrong, I appreciate that they made an effort to show the heroes protecting people from the battle. But to me, it just felt kind of shallow. Whenever they were like, "We got everyone out!" I just wanted to say, "No. No, you didn't." I don't care how fast or how strong you are. You're not evacuating a whole city, that's floating in the air mind you, within a matter of minutes. Guess what, Cap? You missed some people.

And this is pretty typical for action movies. They throw in some token line about why no innocent people are really getting hurt, so now the audience can sit back and feel good about watching our heroes wreck the hell out of everything in sight. And maybe this isn't a good thing. Because this is the sort of mentality that makes people think that we can throw around massive destructive power like dropping bombs on people, and it will be okay, because we're only targeting the bad guys. And the truth is, whenever you're dealing with destruction on that scale, there's going to be collateral damage. No matter how justified your cause may be (Superman was fighting to save the whole planet after all) or how hard you try to minimize the damage, people are still going to get hurt.

And this is the point in Man of Steel, which Snyder even said in an interview somewhere. I don't recall the exact quote, so I'll just paraphrase. But he basically said that if you want the superhero spectacle, you have to be willing to accept the consequences that come with that. And that's great. Because frankly, the fact that Man of Steel makes us feel ambivalent about two superpowers brutally pounding on each other while the city is being destroyed is a good thing. The fact that Batman v Superman makes us question whether anyone, even the most well-meaning men, should have this sort of power is a good thing. It's a little sad that the loudest criticism seems to be, "Why can't I just sit back and enjoy this film about men who violently beat people? You know! Fun!"
1
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
81 people
bitoyo yo's profile photo
Melanie Johnston's profile photo
Ben Lehman's profile photo
Victor Wyatt's profile photo
shady amin's profile photo
Jason Putorti's profile photo
Seth Robbins's profile photo
Brett Byers's profile photo
Night Dream's profile photo

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
I've been watching Turn: Washington's Spies. And I'll admit. A lot of the fun of this show comes from watching to see what depraved thing Simcoe is going to do next. He's such an over the top villain, I assumed that he was merely a fictional character that the writers created to provide a suitable enemy for the show's hero, Abraham Woodhull. Or at most, that he was a character loosely inspired by historical figures, much like Colonel Tavington in The Patriot. But I was curious about how much of the history the show got right, so I did a little reading about the real Culper Ring. And as it turns out, there really was a British officer named John Graves Simcoe, and he really did command the Queen's Rangers. Unfortunately, that's about where the similarities end.

While Simcoe does appear to have been something of a nemesis for Woodhull, he was hardly the blood thirsty sociopath depicted in the show. He did engage in a number of surprise attacks on rebel forces, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that he did anything that would have been considered outside the accepted rules of war for that time. He was pretty much just doing his job. And it's probably worth remembering here that Washington himself is perhaps best known for a surprise attack on Trenton, a victory for which he is usually regarded as a brilliant tactician.

Not only that, but Simcoe apparently went on to become something of a Canadian hero. And quite a progressive one for the time at that. He was the first lieutenant governor of Upper Canada. He founded what is now Toronto. He had a hand in establishing much of Canadian law, and he was an outspoken abolitionist.

And the thing is, I don't know why writers of stories like Turn or The Patriot feel the need to make the British so outlandishly evil. It's really not necessary. Even without any embellishment, the American Revolution is still one of the greatest underdog stories in the history of the world. And frankly, the real Simcoe sounds like he would have made for a much more interesting antagonist. I don't know about anyone else, but my personal opinion is that the best villains aren't the ones who wear black hats and twirls their mustaches while cackling maniacally. Rather, they're the ones that make you stop and go, "Wait, he actually kind of has a point."

It's one thing for us Americans to mythologize our own founding fathers. But maligning the reputation of other countries' heroes just because they were on the other side just seems messed up. I'm actually a little surprised that I haven't heard more protests about this, like there were over the portrayal of the British in The Patriot. But I guess the Canadians were just being too polite to bring it up.
2
Keith Arner's profile photoMichael Godesky's profile photo
4 comments
 
Well, I was mostly joking around because I figured Ramsay doesn't set a particularly high bar when it comes to sympathetic villains. I actually quite enjoy both shows, but to each their own. If we're comparing the two for reals though, I probably would still say that the Governor has just a bit more depth as a character.

With Ramsay, sure he's got the angst about his father, but at the end of the day, he's really just a sadist who enjoys torturing people because it makes him feel powerful.

Of course the Governor is a despicable sociopath too, but I think the show did a decent job of showing that he can at least pretend to be a reasonable person when he wants to be. Especially compared to in the comic books. We see that he's deeply committed to keeping Woodbury going.

And then there's Penny, who I think adds a layer to dimension to the character. You can imagine that the Governor's story starts out a lot like Rick's. He's a father trying to protect his child. Except that he failed where Rick succeeded. Only instead of accepting it and coming to terms with Penny's death, he kept her zombified corpse chained up in his home so that he could continue living in denial. That also provides us with a reason for why he's so hell-bent on going after Rick's group after Michonne breaks in and kills Penny.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like I can relate a little better to someone who's been pushed over the edge by a cruel world as opposed to someone who just likes hurting and controlling people because that's what his family does.

Ultimately, I think I like the Governor more for the role he plays in the narrative than for his depth as a character. One of the themes that The Walking Dead seems to explore which I really enjoy is the idea that violence changes you. So Rick encounters the Governor, and he's basically already this stereotype of a post-apocalyptic warlord when we meet him. And so Rick is forced to become more violent in response. And as a result of that encounter, he becomes even more aggressive and paranoid. And in the last season or two, we see Rick really becoming unhinged and starting to become more like the Governor himself. I was listening to an interview with Robert Kirkman where he was talking about how in the last season's finale, they wanted to deal with the fact that if someone just started watching the show this season, Rick would seem like a complete lunatic. So that's something I'm hoping we'll see more of in Season 7.
Add a comment...

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
So I started reading Green Lantern/Green Arrow.  You hear a lot about this book for how it was one of comics' early attempts to deal with social issues, with Green Arrow being the liberal social justice crusader and Green Lantern being the conservative lawman. And I thought, "That sounds great!" What people fail to tell you is that this is also one of the craziest God damn books ever written. My favorite highlights so far include:

* Green Arrow immediately comparing Green Lantern to the Nazis in multiple issues. This guy was pioneering Godwin's Law before we even knew what to call it. It should be called Green Arrow's Law.
* Green Lantern saying to Green Arrow, "Chum, it's tough... but you've got to swallow it--she just doesn't dig you." I have nothing else to say about that panel. It's just funny all by itself.
* Green Arrow victim blaming a recently mind-controlled Black Canary by saying, "Sure, that's part of it... but there had to be a part of you that responded to his insanity." And for some reason, instead of slapping him in the face, everyone sort of just goes along with this as though Green Arrow had just revealed a profound truth.
* Green Arrow, who I will remind you is a rich, white man, dresses himself up like a native American so that he can inspire other native Americans by lecturing them about how they have to stop being doormats and fight for their rights. Which is racist on just so many levels.
* Green Arrow dresses himself all in yellow so that he can fight Green Lantern. Which means he used that idea 30 years before All-Star Batman and Robin. Which is possibly the craziest version ever depicted of DC's craziest superhero written by comics' craziest writer. I feel it's important to reflect upon this for a moment and worry about where this is heading.
* Green Lantern uses his power ring to dress Green Arrow in his crime fighting costume. For pretty much no reason.
3
Add a comment...

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
Watching Friday the 13th. This week's old movie pick was kind of an obvious one. Between this and Halloween, I'm noticing a certain trend in the slasher horror films of the late '70s and early '80s--lots and lots of screen time devoted to teenagers doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF INTEREST. Seriously, did we really need to spend so much time on things like wildly overreacting to the presence of a snake or playing sexy Monopoly? I'm trying to think if there's anything positive I can say about this movie. Um... it makes me appreciate how great Romero's films were even more? Oh, and it features an early Kevin Bacon appearance, which should add a bit more depth to my pool of Kevin Bacon jokes.
1
Add a comment...

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
Watching Soylent Green. Haven't watched one of these classic movies in a while, and with Earth Day coming up, this seemed like an appropriate choice. This is a movie I've put off watching for a long time simply because I wasn't sure how well it would hold up given that I was spoiled on the ending twist a long, long time ago. And it's true, I probably didn't enjoy it as much as I would have if I didn't know the twist going in. I spent a lot of time waiting for Thorn to figure out what I already knew. Even with that though, it's still not a bad watch. The world that the movie creates is compelling, even if it is very much a product of the '70s, which can seem kind of hokey at times. But this is the sort of slow burn apocalypse that I kind of like--where things are a mess all around, but people still have to more or less go about their business. And Heston is always fun to watch in that theatrical old school kind of way that we really don't see as much of these days.
1
Add a comment...

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
Having now taken a moment to compose myself after this week's episode of Arrow, a few thoughts. And of course, some spoilers ahead in case anyone is actually still watching this show. The moment in question at the end where we finally learn who is in the grave they've been showing in flash-forwards all season wasn't entirely surprising, given that the person's identity has been rumored for a while now. But until it was shown on screen, I was holding out hope that it was just rumors and that the show's creators had enough sense not to actually go through with it. It's a choice that I find disturbing not only because of what that character means to comic book fans, but even moreso because of how it falls in line with a rather disturbing trend I'm noticing of how the wives and girlfriends of TV protagonists have been utterly mistreated in recent years.

I know that there have been quite a few moments in entertainment recently that have sent the internet into an uproar over the treatment of female characters. And I generally try to avoid from joining those discussions. Not because I don't think it's important, but just because there are so many people talking about it, many of whom are far more well-informed on the issue than I am. That said, I feel like I have to comment at this point on how many female characters receive a lot of hate from the fans. And I mean full-on HATE. It's actually getting to be pretty disturbing. Specifically, I'm thinking of Skyler from Breaking Bad, Lori from The Walking Dead, and now Laurel from Arrow.

And is there really any reason for the sheer amount of hate that these women get? Sure, Skyler started out seeming like a bit of a drag. But how would you feel if your spouse became a drug dealer behind your back and kept it a secret from you? And I thought she became a much more interesting character as the series progressed. Lori was never a great character, sure. But you need at least a few normal people in the bunch to balance out the craziness of characters like Rick and Shane.

And you know what? I kind of get why these characters aren't well-received by fans. Because the show sets us up to root for the protagonist. Even in a show like Breaking Bad where what the protagonist is doing isn't very nice, we still want to see him do it. That's what we've signed on for. And then their worried girlfriend comes along and keeps trying to get them to stop and generally making things difficult, thus pitting both the protagonist and us as viewers against them. But are we taking that natural inclination to side with our heroes too far when we start hating on their girlfriends for being downers? And should we be concerned about how often these characters are women? I haven't followed Orange is the New Black fandom much, but I would be interested in knowing if Jason Biggs' character has received any sort of similar backlash, given that his character on that show is basically a male version of this.

Now when The Walking Dead killed off Lori, I didn't think much of it. That was, after all, how she died in the comics, long before people started reacting to the character on the TV show. But with this week's Arrow, we now have a girlfriend (or ex-girlfriend in this case) who has actually been executed for her lack of popularity. And while I agree that the show has largely mishandled Laurel's character, there was frankly nothing wrong with her that couldn't have been corrected with a well-written story arc, had the show's creators actually invested some effort in it. She even got to kick a little ass from time to time when the writers stopped shoving their Felicity fan service on us and remembered that Black Canary is actually supposed to be a huge part of Green Arrow's adventures. The whole idea of a Green Arrow show where practically everyone in Star City except Black Canary is on his team is absolutely bonkers.

And the way they did it is particularly cruel too. She's dead! Oh wait, no! She's pulled through! She's going to be okay! Then suddenly, NOPE! Dead again! sigh... Arrow, you have failed this series.

Well, at least The Flash and Legends of Tomorrow are still pretty good.
3
Add a comment...

Michael Godesky

Shared publicly  - 
 
There have been a number of incidents in recent years that I think, regardless of your opinion on said cases, clearly demonstrate that there is a disconnect between the police and the community in many cities. And if a superhero comic is going to engage in social commentary, this seems like a particularly ripe subject for such commentary, given the genre's emphasis on crime fighting. We recently saw Superman standing up to protect protesters from Metropolis police attempting to incite a riot in Action Comics #42, and it was pretty great.

Reading Batman Volume 8: "Superheavy," I wondered if they were setting up for something similar in Gotham. On one page, Jim Gordon, as a new Batman who works within the system, is talking about the Narrows. And he says, "And here you are, an extension of the very system that's failed them so many times, but a system you've believed in and fought for your whole life... here you are, coming along, telling them to believe in you. You're going to have to prove yourself to them, Batman. You're going to have to rebuild all that lost trust." That idea of rebuilding lost trust in a system that's failed the community seems very relevant to this discussion, and it would be an interesting idea to see them explore in the context of Batman's world. Of course, it's a little weird that their solution is a super-cop in power armor. I'm not sure that even more force on the part of the police is exactly the answer people were looking for. But then, the comic doesn't delve too deeply into this in any case, which is slightly disappointing. I mean, the volume ends on a cliffhanger, so maybe it's something that will come back up again in the next few issues. But then, Snyder doesn't have too many issues left before Rebirth. So I guess we'll see what happens.

On a similar note, there's also a fantastic one-off story in this volume from Batman #44. This is really one of the best issues I've seen yet from Snyder, who's already just had an amazing run of great stories on Batman since the New 52 began. It features a Batman from early in his career investigating the death of a boy from a poor part of the city. In the end, he says it's a simple case. But along the way, he comes to understand all of the other factors that led this kid into desperation, all of the people, including Bruce Wayne himself, who were at least partly to blame, and ultimately realizing that he has to pay more attention to the everyday concerns of the same people he had been scaring away. Just really great, powerful stuff.

As for people complaining about Gordon as Batman, I really don't see why it's that big a deal. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Bruce Wayne would be coming back. This isn't even really the same as when they replaced him with Jean Paul Valley or Dick Grayson, where it was more of a mystery. This is really just taking a few issues to explore a different part of Batman's world. It looks at an interesting question of what would Batman be like if he worked within the system rather than on the outside? And it actually works amazingly well.
1
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
81 people
bitoyo yo's profile photo
Melanie Johnston's profile photo
Ben Lehman's profile photo
Victor Wyatt's profile photo
shady amin's profile photo
Jason Putorti's profile photo
Seth Robbins's profile photo
Brett Byers's profile photo
Night Dream's profile photo
Education
  • University of Pittsburgh
    Business & Psychology, 2001 - 2005
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Work
Occupation
Customer Service Assistant
Employment
  • Dollar Bank
    Customer Service Assistant, 2012 - present
  • University of Pittsburgh
    Internet Procurement System Support, 2004 - 2005
  • Financial Dimensions, Inc.
    Recordings Specialist, 2006 - 2012
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Pittsburgh, PA
Links
Other profiles