The Red Pushpin

The Art of Precrastinating

2012-02-08T18:46:00.001-06:00

Some have said procrastinating is an artform, but what those people fail to understand is there is a select group among the human race who actually plan ahead to ensure their procrastination is as effective as possible. I have decided this incredible planning shall be called "Precrastinating". I thought about "pre-procrastinating", but that is just confusing, so I'm sticking with precrastinating. Try to keep up.

It takes a special kind of person to precrastinate. Anyone can keep putting things off for as long as possible so that really isn't all that impressive. Congress has been procrastinating about how to deal with our exploding national debt for decades while they convince us it is one of the most significant issues impacting the future of our nation, so should I really feel bad if I postpone doing laundry for a week or so?

Hell, Hugh Hefner has been putting off death for at least ten years and he does it is his pajamas so how hard could it be to procrastinate? My three year old daughter has discovered it is much easier to simply say we will take a bath later than it is to actually take the bath, so it seems clear that almost anyone from the very young to the very old is capable of procrastination and it doesn't even require practice to be good at it.

The real visionary actually plans ahead when it is time to procrastinate. They don't get backed into a corner and then grasp for some excuse on how to put something off but rather they prepare well in advance to have ample excuses at the ready. In effect you could say they plan to fail rather than fail to plan, and even though that seems like the exact opposite of what you would expect, it just happens to work.

If procrastination is considered an art, then precrastination is considered a science. A well-versed precrastinator will make sure everything is in play long before the big moment. If the task at hand involves painting a house, the precrastinator will check weather reports to determine if the days ahead are suitable for painting, and when they discover the forecast involves sunshine and warm weather, they will suddenly determine it is a perfect opportunity to visit uncle Ralph over in Toledo for a few days. Only a novice would dare wait until the day in question to put something off that could be put off much sooner. This requires forethought. This requires skill. This requires the energy to develop a plan which can then be put into place ahead of the task or event which is to be pushed off. Perhaps most importantly, this requires the foresight to anticipate any potential problems and have additional backup plans in place to counter them.

It surely isn't a one-dimensional problem. The skilled precrastinator sees everything on levels. They are like a grandmaster chess player who sees three, four or five moves ahead. They aren't shocked at the events that occur because they have already planned for them, and as such a true precrastinator is both a planner as well as a procrastinator... something very uncommon with the community of lazy people.

What Was Once Old... Is New Again

2012-01-19T22:21:00.000-06:00

Have you ever heard the phrase "what was once old is new again"? I'm here to tell you that that particular phrase is idiotic. Just think about it... whoever started using that phrase is trying to suggest if you wait long enough that an old item will somehow become new, and I have to tell you based upon what I know of time travel and basic laws of physics that just isn't possible.

I understand why people use this phrase, but I just disagree with the premise. For example someone might comment that teenage girls are now starting to wear leg warmers with their skirts, which as we all know was as style that was very popular in the 1980s. So, it isn't surprising when someone utters the cliche that what was once old is new again, but in reality legwarmers aren't new. The style of wearing legwarmers isn't new either, so really there is nothing new about it.

This is just a matter of people revisiting an old style, but simply revisiting something does not in any way make it new. If that were true, I'd be driving a new car every morning when I head to work. So are we to believe if you do a specific act each day it becomes old, but if you wait a few months or a few years and then do that same thing again that it is new? Hogwash.

Listen... things can only be new once. Anything after that point is old. I know this will pain many 40-something women out there who are starting to see gray hair and wrinkles when they look in the mirror, but it isn't meant to be mean. It doesn't matter if we are talking about items, people, or styles... old is old, and new is new. There is no such thing as old becoming new just as new cannot be old, so adapt and get over it.

Another thing that bothers me is this stupid word "renew". You cannot re-new something. It was once new... and now it is old. If it was new yesterday you might argue it is almost new today (which holds up a lot better if you are talking about a car as opposed to a ham sandwich), but you can't just "renew" everything and pretend it is new once again. It might be new to you, you might find a new way of looking at things, but if something existed or was done at any time in the past, it just isn't new anymore.

I renew magazine subscriptions... does that mean the magazine is entirely new? Of course not! Although that particular issue of the magazine might be new, the magazine itself, and the subscription to said magazine is not new... so is it really possible to re-new something? Not really. The term re-new is just a fancy way of selling us something again without letting us know we aren't really getting anything new.

It all comes down to the fact that we as humans have a desire to have new things. Whether they are really, truly "new", or just "new to us" doesn't seem to matter. In fact many people collect antiques that they know are old, but they don't refer to them as old things or used things because that doesn't sound as nice as the terms vintage, antique, historic, or whatever label they choose to use instead of simply saying they are old. So, we somehow are tricking ourselves into thinking these old things are actually new, and we use colorful language to make the differentiation in order to appease our own minds.

So now it all makes sense. I realize not everyone feels the same way, but I have a new way of thinking about things. Or is that an old way of thinking about things?

Why I Hate Best Buy

2012-01-05T19:09:00.003-06:00

I like technology. At one point I was a Certified Electronics Technician and a member of the Society of Broadcast Engineers. I spent a full year of my higher education studying electronics and building things like AM/FM radios, wireless transmitters, and even my own Digital Multimeter. I've built my own circuit boards from scratch including using acid to etch the circuit traces, I've built my own computers, wired numerous vehicles with audio systems, worked in the IT industry for over a decade, held the title of "Engineer" at more than one point in my career, and am the guy who friends and family members call when they need someone to wire their home theater or troubleshoot a PC problem. I'm what you might call a geek. I admit this and don't feel it is a derogatory term.

With all of that said... I hate Best Buy. In fact, of all of the techie (or dare I say geeky) people I know... none of them like Best Buy. People like me tend to treat Best Buy as nothing more than a showroom for Amazon, Newegg, or Monoprice because we know enough to prevent us from actually buying anything from Best Buy.

It isn't that Best Buy doesn't have what I want - because they often do. One of their primary problems is their prices are outrageous and even their sale prices are above what I can find the same product for elsewhere. When it comes to accessories like cables and television mounts they are often times 500% to 1000% more expensive than their online counterparts.

However prices alone aren't even the reason I hate Best Buy. I hate them because of the atmosphere they have created. I hate them because of their policies. I hate them because of their high-pressure sales tactics, continual desire to upsell everything, and sales staff that act as if they are well versed in electronics and that the customer could not possibly know more than they do. I hate that they go out of their way to manipulate customers by using shady tactics to make less expensive televisions look worse than the more expensive alternatives or how they have product displays meant to convince people that products from Monster Cable or Bose are somehow superior than anything else.

Most of all however, I just hate that Best Buy makes you feel like you need to take a shower after you visit one of their stores. Their customer service is horrid. They push extended service contracts on EVERYTHING even when it makes no sense, and their salespeople are always trying to push add-ons or accessories to items that the customer simply doesn't need.

The last time I was at Best Buy I overheard one of their salespeople brag about how he was actually an employee of Apple and not of Best Buy. Whether that is true I have no idea, but he spent the next ten minutes name dropping other Apple Employees in the area and calling himself an Engineer while customers who were looking at Apple products were ignored.

Over in the television department I had a salesman try to push me to DirecTV and bragging about their new channel lineups and how they had the NFL Sunday Ticket package before he actually knew what I had for television service or before he could be bothered to ask if I was a football fan. He then went on to talk about the new 3D televisions as he rattled off specifications as if I should be impressed. After I responded and informed him that I felt passive 3D technology was superior to the active system he was pushing (and I provided him reasons to support my viewpoint), he suddenly realized I wasn't just another ignorant consumer before he said in a passive-aggressive manner "maybe you should work here".

Yea right. That would be a great career move. Thanks, but no thanks.

I also noticed during my recent visit that a six foot HDMI cable was selling for $49.99. Over in the videogame department, a different brand of HDMI cable was selling for $59.99. I would love to hear the logic behind why they feel a HDMI cable for a videogame system is worth $10 more than an overpriced HDMI cable for a television, but frankly I didn't have the patience to ask one of the salesman for an explanation. It is a digital signal - there is no need to go crazy for name brand expensive ultra high-end cables because every comparison test I have ever seen says they aren't worth the price, yet do you think Best Buy would offer a bargain cable that might appeal to the consumer? Of course not.

The saddest part is another customer was in the process of buying one of those $50 cables and I didn't have the heart to tell them they could buy a cable that works just as well as is just as good of quality over at Monoprice for under $5. In fact you can even get your choice of color and the cable will run $3.50 (or about 93% less cost).

Then I noticed the price of their flat panel television mounts. For the larger televisions, the price ranged from $129.99 to $199.99! Are you serious.... $200 for a television mount? I bought one a few years back from Monoprice and it ran under $25... including shipping. That mount that Best Buy wants $200 for was a low profile mount - a generic version of that same style mount costs under $12 at Monoprice.

I understand brick and mortar stores need to charge a bit more. I get it. What I don't understand is why Best Buy often charges 10, 15, or 20 times as much for a nearly identical product. Obviously nobody who is "in the know" would ever buy these types of items from Best Buy, so the only thing I can assume is that they are selling cables and wall mounts and speaker wire to people who simply don't know any better. Is this a good business model? Rely upon uneducated consumers as your target market?

As I said price is not the only reason I hate Best Buy. I also hate the fact that they feel the need to "optimize" computers via their in-house Geek Squad technicians (and I use the term technician loosely here). I've actually heard of experiences where people have tried to buy laptops from Best Buy but they have been unable to because Best Buy refuses to sell one without them adding unnecessary fees to it for their optimization service.

When it comes to LCD or Plasma calibration services it is even more idiotic. Best Buy charges ignorant consumers $200 to "calibrate" their television which could be done by any owner within 10 or 15 minutes simply by searching for their specific model of television on a website like AVSForum and following the suggested settings. The worse (and shadiest) part of this is that Best Buy has been caught on several occasions showing calibrated and non-calibrated televisions side by side in an effort to convince people to spend the extra money, but it has been discovered that they show a High Definition (HD) signal on the calibrated set while they show a Standard Definition (SD) signal on the non-calibrated set. Some people have no shame.

I have also noticed that they can charge anywhere from $39.99 to $99.99 to perform basic tasks on a PC such as installing anti-virus software or applying OS patches and updates. In many cases if they install software all they do is insert the disk, click next, next, next, finish... and charge the customer $40. I fail to see how this is at all reasonable - especially when they rely upon consumers not knowing any better.

Of course if you do end up purchasing something from Best Buy, be prepared to be bombarded at the checkout as the clerk makes one final push to convince you that the service plan is a great idea. Then of course there is a rewards program that you should be a member of, there is a great deal on their on-demand video service or a discount on DirecTV that you need to be aware of. Do you need any batteries or a gift card to go along with that? Fifteen minutes later you might be able to head for the exit only to have the "Security" guard ask to see your receipt because you happen to walk a total of 20 feet from the cash register to the door and obviously that suggests you must have been trying to steal something.

When it comes to returns, things don't get any better. I was once near their service desk when a rather angry customer was trying to return a dishwasher. He had paid for one model, but after driving home and installing the dishwasher, it was discovered Best Buy had given him the wrong model. He apparently tried to resolve the issue over the phone, but since Best Buy didn't believe him he had no choice but to uninstall the dishwasher, drive all the way back to Best Buy, and then argue with a manager about how their screwup was their fault and he should be compensated.

Did I mention the guy had a two hour drive to his home? Yea... I imagine I would be slightly upset as well, yet the part of the conversation I was hearing involved the manager trying to blame the customer for not checking the model number on the box against his receipt. This is the mentality at Best Buy - when in doubt, just blame the customer.

I could go on for hours. I have at least a half dozen similar stories about Best Buy customer service, and at least a half dozen examples of how they have either gone out of their way to lose a sale, or they have not delivered on promises made during the time of sale... but rather than start adding chapter numbers to this post I'll just summarize by saying there are many good reasons why I don't buy things at Best Buy and why I do my best to convince others to avoid them as well.

The reality is I don't know many people in my circle of friends who actually buy things at Best Buy. Those that do shop there are generally not the type of people who are well informed about technology, or they are merely going there to buy gift cards for kids or grandkids. I realize my experiences are not reflective of the community as a whole, but I can't help but feel that Best Buy exists in spite of themselves.

I never hear positive news about Best Buy. I never hear people brag about how they love the store. I don't hear about how someone got an amazing deal or how they were treated so well. I also don't read good news about Best Buy, their stock price, their finances, or their prospects. This all has convinced me that if Best Buy continues doing the same things as they have been doing - they will continue to lose customers and they will continue circling the drain as they follow in the footsteps of other electronics retailers like Ultimate Electronics or Circuit City.

The funny thing is - I'm not the only person saying these types of things about Best Buy. I recently read an article on the Forbes website written by Larry Downes that makes many of the same points as I have made here. Downes has his own real-world examples of why Best Buy is a failure, but he also cites specific data about their financial condition, their declining revenue, and some of their recent missteps.

Mr. Downes actually suggests that Best Buy is actually going out of business - even if they don't know it yet. I felt it was a great read, and surely worth a few minutes of your time if you are at all interested in the subject matter.

Cliché of the Day: You Get What You Pay For

2011-12-23T16:53:00.000-06:00

Have you ever heard someone say "you get what you pay for"? I may be naive, but for the most part when I pay for something... I do actually get something in return. Thus if I paid for it, I would get it - and this phrase is essentially worthless.

I understand what people are getting at. They are suggesting that if you spend a few bucks more, you will probably get a much better product, but does that really need explaining? You mean to tell me if you spend MORE you get MORE? You are also telling me if I buy the cheapest possible version of a product I will get the cheapest possible version? Alert the media!

The whole idea of a tired cliché such as "you get what you pay for" is that it is used so often people fail to even take the time to really discern what the words actually mean. Taken at face value it is mere common sense... you may as well hear people running around yelling "gravity exists" or "rain is wet".

Of course when you start debating the merits of a cliché there is always that one guy who has to proclaim "there is an exception to every rule". I will admit there is an exception to "you get what you pay for" because in some cases you might actually get something for nothing, and therefore you actually got much more than you paid for. In other cases you might pay for something and never actually get it... as is the case if you sent a check to a Nigerian Prince who promised you untold riches for a small fee to cover the import taxes.

However for the most part, the "exception to every rule" cliché is no better than the "you get what you pay for" cliché. Frankly, there is an exception to the exception to every rule, which creates a double exception. Does that mean they cancel each other out and create a positive exception? What exactly is the opposite of exception in the first place.... is that an inception? I suppose it could be a parcel (integral part) but that isn't nearly as interesting.

So let's discuss what is a rule and what isn't. In the simplest example possible, we can look at the rule that states during a baseball game if the runner is tagged with the ball before they reach the base then they are out. Is there really an exception to that rule? Maybe some baseball expert will correct me, but I surely can't think of one. If the defensive player doesn't have the ball or doesn't make the tag obviously it won't be an out, but that isn't the question being posed here. Of course this is where someone will nitpick and suggest that if the umpire doesn't see the action properly they could make the wrong call and in that case the runner might be safe by mistake... but that is a stretch. First of all what the umpire sees is a separate issue and we are merely focusing upon what the rule says, so for the sake of discussion we must admit the rule has no exception. The rule itself is clear - the runner is out if the proper conditions are met, but there is no exception to that rule and allows the runner to be safe if some other condition is met.

Then again if there is an exception to it, is it really a rule or more of a suggestion? Is a rule a fact, or just a general guideline? It seems a rule should be clearly defined and not be open to interpretation... so then we start wondering who is doing the interpreting. Clearly we need an expert opinion and we can't just take the word of anyone walking down the street... because most people offer their opinions for free and we all know you get what you pay for.

Right?

The Silver Briefcase

2011-11-30T14:07:00.000-06:00

For some reason I've always wanted to own a briefcase. Not just any briefcase mind you, but one of those silver metal briefcases used in countless TV shows and movies. It was often seen holding piles of cash (used for ransoms, bribes, or black market arms deals), various forms of illegal drugs, or in some cases a bomb with a visual countdown timer comprised of large red digits.

This all reminds me of something I've noticed about these briefcases though. Did you ever notice when the "bad guys" passed a load of cash or drugs they always sent the case along with? I guess when you are exchanging a few hundred grand perhaps it doesn't matter that you are giving up a $400 briefcase, but what if the drug dealer had a sentimental attachment to the case? Can they just dump the cash or the drugs into a brown paper sack and send them on their way? Would they feel shortchanged if they gave up their nice shiny briefcase but in return they were given a hello kitty messenger bag? What are the rules for bag exchanges during drug deals... this is information I just can't figure out via Wikipedia.

Also, why don't drug dealers ever use cheap duffel bags? I have to tell you if I know I'm going to walk away from a deal with either a pile of cocaine or a pile of cash... I'm thinking I would rather have it in a backpack or something. Because if a cop sees a guy walking down the street with a metal briefcase he might start asking questions. On the other hand, if a cop sees someone walking around with a backpack... well that is just another guy with a backpack. He blends in - that is the entire point right?

Ok so clearly I'm never going to actually own a silver metal briefcase, because I don't wish to be confused with a drug dealer and I don't want to deal with the hassles of the TSA if I ever decide to fly somewhere. Plus, I'm more a function over form type of guy... so I'd much rather have something with a shoulder strap and something that I can easily stow a laptop in without needing to remember a random three digit combination.

You have to admit though... walking around with a silver briefcase would probably turn some heads. Maybe not because people think it is cool, but people wondering if they were sucked into a time vortex and arrived back in 1987... you know - back when people actually used briefcases.

An Open Letter To Sears

2011-11-28T12:54:00.000-06:00

Dear Sears Executive Management Team, Board of Directors, and any other employees who actually care:

I have a major problem with Sears, but I also have hopes and dreams that Sears can once again become a store in which customers actually seek it out rather than simply ending up there as a last resort. Sears has so much potential, but it seems leadership lacks the ability of tapping that potential and in fact it seems they stomp it to the ground as often as possible in order to prevent customers from thinking Sears might be a great place to spend money.

Sears is simply out of touch and yet it appears the management team doesn't even realize it. Watching this sad implosion is much like watching someone walk into a glass door and hit their head. Rather than realizing the door is closed and they can't walk right through, they just keep pounding their head against the door again and again expecting a different result.

I'm sympathetic Sears... but my sympathy is short lived to people (or businesses) which don't learn from their mistakes.

One major issue with Sears is that you are trying to be all things to all people. You sell appliances, you sell electronics, you sell home furnishings, you sell baby items, you sell clothing for the entire family, you sell lawn and garden equipment, power machinery, tools, exercise equipment, vacuum cleaners, garage door openers, pool tables, grills, tires, car batteries, jewelry, shoes, kitchen gadgets, housewares, eyeglasses, photography sessions, and much, much more.

In my local store, you just added beds which required a sizable portion of the store to be removed in order to make way for a product which most likely will not do any better than the housewares it has supplanted. How do I know this you ask? Well for starters, within 1000 yards of my local Sears store you can find no less than FIVE other stores that sell mattresses. I'm not talking about furniture stores here - I'm merely talking about stores that focus on beds and beds alone.
Don't believe me? Here is a short list of the stores I'm referring to:

Beds and Beds
Klocker's Mattress World
Beds by Design
Select Comfort Sleep Systems
Comfort King Mattress Factory

One of these stores is in the same mall as Sears, and another one is about 100 yards away just across the parking lot.

In addition to the above, there are several furniture stores close by as well. These include HOM Furniture as well as Slumberland Furniture. There are also other big box retailers that offer beds including Sam's Club, Menards, Macys, JCPenny, and Big Lots. The saddest part is that I'm listing these stores from memory which suggests there are probably a few others I'm not even aware of at the moment.

How about a little market research Sears? How about instead of trying to be all things to all people you define who your target customer is and what market you are trying to enter? How about you define who your competition really is? Are you trying to complete with Best Buy and Home Depot, or are you trying to compete with Montgomery Ward and Woolworths? Sadly... it appears you are trying to compete with them all and you failed to get the memo that a few of them no longer exist.

Find something you do well, and stick with it. Even Walmart doesn't sell everything (you will notice they don't have a stellar tool selection, and they tend to shy away from most major appliances aside from the occasional dorm sized fridge or chest freezer). The fact is, Sears still has a reputation built around brands like Craftsman and Kenmore, so why is it so hard to focus on what people actually want?

Most people don't go to Sears to buy clothing... they go to Sears to buy something else and just happened to find a pair of jeans on the way out. People also aren't looking for fine jewelry or perfume at Sears, nor do they want to buy a mattress from a store that stocks string trimmers two aisles away nor do they want to be assisted from a guy who was selling shoes ten minutes ago, and who will probably be talking to someone about a cordless drill an hour later.

The average Sears store is a relic, and sadly is probably twice the size it would need to be. Many are located in malls which are underperforming, and those that are truly standalone stores just aren't destinations any longer. What Sears should do is focus upon appliances (both large and small if you must), lawn and garden, and tools. Drop "the softer side of Sears" because it isn't working. Kick the mattresses and the shoes to the curb, remove the glass cases full of gold plated Timex watches, and let someone else take the cheesy family photos and sell bargain eyeglasses to the kids.

It is time to understand that Sears hasn't been relevant for 20 years. It is time to acknowledge your idea of what is trendy or what is hip really isn't. Nobody wants to spend a premium for something that has Ty Pennington's name on it nor do people want the Kardashian name printed on the front of their shirt. The average person who shops at Sears is not a designer nor a fan of People magazine... they don't care about the people you seem to think they care about. For every piece of Kardashian clothing you sell, someone else is shaking their heads as they turn around and head towards Macys or Kohls.

It is probably also worth noting that nobody under the age of 40 even knows who Jaclyn Smith is, so while your competition is snapping up celebrity names like Martha Stewart, Sean Comes, and Gwen Stefani, you are still trying to convince the world that trendy clothing should somehow be synonymous with a former 70s television star. If that isn't a prime example of how Sears is no longer relevant I'm not sure what is.

Finally, when you start acknowledging that you can't be the best at everything and that you can't be all things to all people, perhaps you will also acknowledge that when someone else offers a better product, it is probably a good idea to sell it rather than try to make it. Sorry, but slapping the Craftsman or Kenmore name on an otherwise inferior product is no way to build brand loyalty. In fact it has the opposite effect.

This is why so many other premium brands restrict where the brand can be used. Audi doesn't put their logo on a Volkswagen. Banana Republic doesn't stock Old Navy sweatshirts in their stores. DeWalt has distanced themselves from Black & Decker. Ralph Lauren sells his lower priced items under the Chaps brand.

Kenmore and Craftsman should be premium brands. They should not be diluted to the point where they can be tossed on grill accessories or cheap garage cabinetry made out of MDF, or cheap imported tools. Extending the brand does not necessarily improve the brand, and until you realize that you will continue to lose millions of dollars each and every quarter. Or, as is the case with your most recent quarter... you will lose HUNDREDS of millions of dollars. I won't claim to be an economist or long-term business strategist, but I somehow don't feel that business model is sustainable.

Oh and by the way... the 1980s called and asked if they could have their Sears logo back. This is the modern world, and it requires a modern look. Hire a new marketing firm and step one should be a logo redesign. Retro styling would serve it well, and a shift to "Sears and Roebuck" and or a shift straight to the "Roebuck" name with a premium twist might serve you well. Sadly, taking your company backwards 100 years would actually result in modernizing the entire concept. However please don't insult your customers by slapping up a new sign and pretending everything has changed. You need to start from the ground up. Modernize the stores, improve the customer experience, remove the high pressure sale tactics that make customers feel like they are walking the Midway at a carnival, focus on what you can do well, and maybe you will see your beloved customers return.

Sincerely,
Craig

Worth a Thousand Words

2011-09-08T21:34:00.001-05:00

A few years ago when I became a father, I received a gift of a metal picture frame that says "Dad" on the bottom. Inside the frame is a photograph of me holding my infant daughter while she sleeps. It is a nice photo, and I understand the meaning behind it, but there is some confusion at work here.

The thing is, these types of picture frames always bother me because of the whole built-in purpose. Since the frame says "Dad" I can't exactly just put a newer photo of my daughter in it without me being in the photo... because that would be odd. Also, shouldn't the photo really be a photo of my dad rather than a picture of me as a dad? Would it be weird to have a photo of me alone in it? I mean I'm the dad... so isn't that what the frame is for?

If I had a frame that said daughter, I wouldn't expect me to be in the photo, but I would expect it to be a photo of my daughter. Same is true if the frame said "Best Friend"... that wouldn't be a photo of me, but rather a photo of a best friend right? Of course if the frame said "Best Friends" then I would expect to see an image of two people... one of which could be me. If I saw a photo of just one person the context is just wrong and it wouldn't make sense unless that person happened to suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder.

So what about those frames that say "I Love You" on the bottom. I would seem rather conceited if I put a photo of myself in one of those frames wouldn't I? Even if I was in the photo with someone else it still would border on being a bit too vain. So in that case I suspect it would be best to insert a photo of a loved one that I actually did love.

It gets even more confusing when the frame has a name on it. So if I had a frame that said "Tom" on the bottom, I assume that means I would have a photo of Tom in the frame. Of course this means I would need to know a Tom, but I suppose if worse came to worse I could just print out an image of that MySpace guy.

So if a picture frame with a name on it is designed to have a photo of that person in it, it seems that any frame that says "Dad" should have a picture of Dad in it... but not necessarily me, but rather it seems to make more sense to have a photo of my dad - or I should just put in a photo of me and then give the frame to my daughter. She is only 2 1/2 years old... so I'm guessing she probably wouldn't put nearly as much thought into this as I do... so that would probably work.

On second thought... maybe the picture frame companies need to start including directions on these things to make it easier. They do of course give you stock images in the frames most of the time (see photo above), but even those are confusing because in some dad frames it just shows one guy while in others it shows a man and child. I even saw one that had two girls in it which is even more confusing, and one had a girl with a dog which suggests either they are being very liberal with the meaning of the term "dad" or they are from the deep South where that type of thing is considered normal.

I suppose I could be the only person on the planet who has ever given this subject much thought, but hey... if we allow people to just start putting random photos in random frames with no structure behind it before you know it the poles of the Earth could reverse, dogs will be sleeping with cats, and we might actually see a Republican say something positive about President Obama.

Yea I know - it will never happen.

Repairing a Samsung LCD TV With Clicking Relays (LNT4661F)

2011-08-12T00:21:00.001-05:00

This is a write-up on how to repair a Samsung TV that experiences problems powering up. The most common symptoms of this failure include the sound of clicking relays when the TV is powered up, and the red LED indicator on the front of the TV may flash on and off.

Typically after the relays click a few times, the TV will eventually come on. However in time the relays will need to click on and off more and more times before the TV will come on... and eventually the TV will likely just cycle the relays over and over and it will never come on.

If you just want the instructions on how to do this repair, skip to step 1 below. If you want my personal saga explaining why I decided to perform this repair myself... read on.

In my case, I have experienced this failure on two separate occasions. I originally bought this TV back in 2008, and sometime within the first year I began to hear the dreaded clicking relays suggesting there was a problem. About a week after this started I was watching TV one evening and all of the sudden it sounded like a firecracker went off inside of the TV. From experience I knew this meant a capacitor most likely blew up... however since the TV was still under warranty I wasn't about to crack it open to investigate.

I placed a call to Samsung and started the saga of getting the TV repaired. Long story short the process involved at least half a dozen calls, several weeks of waiting for parts and a technician, and having to take a day off of work to be around when the service tech actually showed up. Did I mention that the TV failed about a week before the Superbowl and there was no way to get it fixed before the game? Yea... perfect timing.

Eventually the technician showed up and as soon as he opened the back of the TV and removed the shield from the circuit board it was very obvious which capacitors had blown. The technician removed and replaced the power supply board with an updated version, and then closed the TV up at which time we tested it and verified it was working as good as new.

That was early 2009... and up until a few weeks ago the TV worked fine. However around two weeks ago I noticed when the TV was powered up the red LED on the front seemed to blink several times before it would power up. Then a few days after that, the dreaded clicking relays started. As the days progressed it took longer and longer for the TV to power up and it became obvious it was only days away from another total failure.

I did a bit of research and discovered I wasn't alone. In fact many users of this particular model of television (the Samsung LNT4661F 46 inch LCD HDTV) had experienced the same symptoms, and it all boiled down to bad capacitors. It seemed there were a few ways to fix it... the easiest of which is to simply replace the power supply board. However with a little bit of electronics knowledge and some replacement capacitors... it is much less expensive to simply replace the bad capacitors rather than bearing the expense of the entire circuit board.

Therefore in order to verify the issue I removed the back of the TV along with the metal shielding that covers the power supply board and with a little inspection it was very obvious which capacitors were failing. As you can see from the image below, two of the capacitors show signs of failure and are bulging. One of them was even showing a crack on the top which means it was probably days before a total failure.

Reading the specs from the side of the capacitors showed that they were 10V caps rated at 2200uF and had a max operating temperature specification of 105°C. In my case it was only these two capacitors that were failing, however others have reported that the 1000uF capacitors directly beside the 2200uF caps had also failed.

In any case, now that I knew what the source of the issue was, I decided it was time to order some replacements. However based upon markings on the board as well as information I had found online, it seems 10V capacitors are simply too small which is what contributed to the premature failure. It appears this particular circuit was designed for 12V capacitors yet Samsung decided to use 10V caps instead. It stands to reason why they wouldn't last. Therefore, in order to prevent this from happening again I opted to replace the caps with 16V capacitors, but others have used 24V or even 50V replacements... it is just a matter of what is available. A higher voltage capacitor doesn't mean it will run at a higher voltage... merely that it is capable of handling that voltage. In this case, having a little extra buffer was a good thing as the caps would be running at a voltage well under spec.

It just so happens a friend of mine was in the process ordering some parts for himself, so he just added a few of the capacitors to his order and they were on the way. In the meantime, it was time to get started removing the old capacitors and prepping the board for the replacements.

Step 1: Remove the power supply board. Ok so technically step 1 would be remove the back of the TV and then remove the shield covering the board itself... but if you can't figure that part out on your own you probably shouldn't even attempt to replace the capacitors yourself.

To remove the board, you will want to disconnect all of the various connectors that run into the board and then remove the six screws that hold the board down to the mounting plate / chassis. It isn't a bad idea to take a photo to ensure you get all of the connectors in the right places upon re-installation (or just use my photo as a guide). The capacitors being replaced are shown at the upper right hand corner of this board.

Step 2: Desolder the old capacitors. In my case, this involved CM852 and CM853. You can see from the image below what the top of the board looks like after the capacitors have been removed. I won't go into great detail here about how to actually desolder these since it is assumed if you are attempting this you have some basic knowledge on how to use a soldering iron, but it is helpful to have some desoldering braid and/or a solder sucker (desoldering pump) to remove the old solder as you heat up the leads.

And this is what the bottom of the board looks like after the capacitors have been removed. Note that there are polarity markings on both sides of the board. Try not to apply too much heat to the board as you don't want to inadvertently harm the solder traces on the board.

Step 3: Paying attention to the polarity of the capacitors (the shaded area of the board corresponds to the negative lead of the capacitor), insert the leads of the replacement capacitors through the holes in the circuit board and bend them outward to hold the capacitors tight against the board. Apply heat to each lead and solder them in place.

Step 4: Using a side cutters, trim the leads of the capacitors. Some may prefer to cut the leads prior to soldering, but I prefer to do so after they are soldered in place just in case I need to make any adjustments. After trimming, verify the solder joints are intact and are solid. The image below shows the end result from the bottom of the board.

And this is what the new capacitors look like from the top of the board. The new caps were slightly larger than the originals, but they fit just fine.

Here is another side angle showing the new capacitors in place. Several of the other original caps (the lighter blue caps in the image) may also need to be replaced if they show signs of failure, but in my case they all appear ok.

Step 5: Reinstall the power supply board back into the TV chassis. Tighten all six mounting screws, and ensure all of the various connectors are reconnected properly. Once everything looks ok, reinstall the metal shield that covers the power supply board as shown in the image below.

If there is any doubt about the location of the various connectors... simply refer to the image in step 1 above. However aside from forgetting to actually install one, it is nearly impossible to do this step incorrectly since aside from the two in the lower left corner, all of the connectors are unique.

Step 6: Reattach the back of the TV, install the stand and/or wall mount cover plate... connect the TV to a video source, plug it in, power it up and enjoy!

Step-Brothers Anyone?

The replacement capacitors cost under a buck each plus a few bucks for shipping, so the end result was a repair for around $5. I had the soldering iron, soldering braid, and solder on hand already so there was no additional cost there. Total time from start to finish (not counting the time I was awaiting parts delivery) was approximately 20 minutes.

Considering the cost for a technician to come out and replace the board could easily top $300... I think this repair is more than worth it. With a little luck the third time will be a charm so hopefully I won't need to do this again!

If you found this post helpful, or if you have any questions about the process, please leave a comment and let me know.

The Voice.... That Carries

2011-07-08T19:02:00.003-05:00

Recently I was speaking with a group of co-workers and the topic of "noisy people" came up. Anyone who has ever worked in an office environment with more than three people probably understands there is always that one person who is much louder than everyone else, and where I work (due to the number of people who share the space) we have more than a handful.

There are quite a few different types of noisy people ranging from the person who has no concept of their own volume when speaking a phone, to the type of person who feels a laugh needs to be at least 90 dB to be effective, to the type of person who likes to watch ESPN clips on their computer with the volume cranked. My personal favorite however is the person who wears headphones while listening to music and doesn't realize that when they decide to talk they are now about three times louder than they need to be. That's always a crowd pleaser especially when they decide to drop an f-bomb in a professional environment (and even worse is when you sit near them and are on a conference call with a sensitive mic).

The thing is, in this particular group of co-workers that I was speaking with, everyone pretty much mentioned the same person as being noisy, so it isn't like I'm the only one who has recognized it. Actually, rather than mince words I'll just call her loud, because in essence that is what she is. The best part is everyone knows she is loud. She has been told she is loud. People have been known to sneak up to her desk and turn up the volume on her phone in the hopes it might help to reduce her speaking volume (since in theory she would hear her own voice being fed back into the earpiece on her phone and adjust volume accordingly), but basically there isn't much that has worked.

Now I don't want to make it seem like this is a huge annoyance or that it is disturbing, because for the most part it is just one of those things you deal with in life. Some people are loud, some are quiet just as some people are friendly and some are bitter at everyone and everything around them. Whether someone is loud or not just isn't that big of a deal because it is fairly easy to tune them out if you aren't directly engaged in a conversation with them, and frankly this particular person is friendly and outgoing and the type of person who I am happy to have as a colleague, so the fact she is a tad louder than those around her is a relatively minor point.

The interesting thing about this particular woman however is that she knows and acknowledges that she is loud and that her voice is typically at a volume level in excess of what is considered normal. This is where I tend to hear the oh-so-common excuse when the conversation of loud people comes up where she openly stated she is loud because she has "one of those voices that carry so well". Really? You just magically have a voice that carries better than the voices of other human beings? I find that interesting.

There is a lot of science behind sound and I don't want to get off on a tangent here, but basically a sound wave is comprised of characteristics such as the frequency (the pitch of the sound itself), amplitude (think of that as volume), wavelength (which is inversely proportional to frequency), intensity, and pressure. Now although it is true that different frequencies of sound are detected by the human ear at various volume levels (the human ear does not have a flat spectral response), for the most part the difference between volume levels within the frequency range of human speech is not all that significant.

This is a long way of saying that person A's voice does not differ dramatically from person B's voice when looked at in terms of a sound wave. There is no physics magic that allow the sound waves of one person to travel farther than the other given the same volume level and (approximate) frequency, and for all intents and purposes a voice is a voice in terms of how far it can go. There may be differences on who can hear that voice of course, but as a whole that isn't really an issue when speaking about a group who is all listening to the same person unless they were all hard of hearing or if they all had better-than-average hearing (which I somehow doubt is the case in my example).

So when someone says they have a voice that travels so well or a voice that carries so well... they are basically just repeating something they heard once with no understanding of how silly they actually sound (no pun intended). The fact is, for all intents and purposes if someone has a voice that "carries well" it is likely due to the fact that they talk louder than everyone around them. Thus a distance X, person A with amplitude Y they will obviously be heard better than person B with amplitude Z assuming a comparable frequency and Y being greater than Z.

So yea... sometimes a loud person is just a loud person, and an excuse is just an excuse. Chances are if someone has a voice that carries better than those around them... it has less to do with physics and a whole lot more to do with them just being loud (and in some cases annoying as well).

The more you know.

Stupid People: The “I Fail To Learn My Lesson” Person

2011-06-20T18:58:00.001-05:00

A mechanic I know told me a story about a woman who came in to have her passenger side mirror replaced on her car. The thing was… it wasn’t the first time. This woman had the same mirror replaced four or five times on a car she had owned for only a couple of years because she would continually break it off while backing out of her garage.

Now I can accept someone breaking off a mirror… I even did something similar once myself while trying to squeeze around a car parked in the middle of the driveway. I might even be able to accept someone doing it twice when they failed to learn the lesson the first time or maybe were driving a different vehicle. However, if you break off the same mirror four or five times in a span of two years, how smart could you possibly be? How many times do you actually need to do something stupid before you stop and ask yourself how you can prevent from it happening again?

Since hearing this story I often have wondered what someone like that does for a living. What if she was a doctor or a dentist or worse – a politician. I’m not sure stupidity is isolated to only one area of the brain, so needless to say if this was my doctor I’d be finding myself a new doctor, and if this was my politician… I’d probably move to a new district as I would be embarrassed to be represented by an idiot.

I also see stupid people who get married and divorced time and time again. You see celebrities who have been married seven or eight times and they end up divorced over and over again. Don’t you think that after your fourth or fifth failed marriage you might stop to think – hey maybe this whole marriage thing isn’t for me because I clearly suck at it? Sure you can blame a few marriages on the other person, but when you are filing for your seventh divorce I think it is safe to say you haven’t learned your lesson and likely never will.

I fully realize we all do stupid things, but most of us learn from our mistakes and hopefully do our best to prevent making those same mistakes time and time again. However the more and more I look around me, the more and more stupid people I see. This is precisely why tax preparation companies are so popular during tax season, because if a person can’t manage to back out of their garage without breaking off their mirror time and time again, or if they can’t manage to have a successful marriage after six or seven attempts, they aren’t very likely to be able to fill out a tax return even if they only need the 1040EZ form.

You often hear people say that people are smart but they just do stupid things. I have to say I totally disagree with that. There was a Seinfeld episode where Jerry asked Elaine what percentage of people she thought were good looking and she answered twenty-five percent. Jerry then said “Twenty-five percent, you say? No way! It's like 4 to 6 percent. It's a twenty to one shot.”

I don’t know if I would go so far as to say 4 to 6 percent is the magic number, but there is no way I would claim that more than 20% of the human race is considered smart. I’m not even going so far as to say you have to hold a PhD or understand advanced level thermodynamics or quantum theory here… I’m merely talking about the amount of people who don’t do or say stupid things on a regular basis.

I hate to sound negative, but I’d estimate 80% of our population is comprised of stupid people, which probably explains the popularity of things like the Snuggie, vaccine-causing-autism conspiracy theories, Jersey Shore, and the belief that there really is such a thing as Bigfoot.

Stupid People: The “I Can’t Grasp The Concept Of Volume” Person (Volume 5)

2011-06-10T23:25:00.000-05:00

This will likely be the last in my series of “volume related” stupid people stories although I’m sure I could easily write another dozen or so if I was up to it. This last episode is one of my personal favorites and sticks in my memory like it happened yesterday. I’ve told this story to several people over the years, and for some reason even after almost 20 years since it actually occurred, I still find it rather comical.

I was working in the back room of ShopKo stocking shelves and doing whatever it is I normally did in the course of my shift when I received a page for a delivery (yes we carried pagers… needless to say this was the 90s). I called up to the register and was told a gentleman had just purchased a swing set and needed it carried out.

Now normally we would have the person drive around back and we would load the swing set there, but that required a manager to unlock the rear door and at the time none of them were in the immediate area. Rather than chase one of them down and waste the customer’s time, I decided to just grab another fellow employee and have him help me get it loaded onto two carts.

Keep in mind the largest swing sets came in boxes that were about 10 feet long, two feet wide, and 12-18 inches tall or so. I don’t remember the weight, but we generally would not even try to handle them alone. So in this case we placed a rolling flatbed under each end and proceeded to drive it to the front of the store as if it was one of those hook and ladder (fire) trucks you see with a guy on the front and the back both steering.

When we met the customer the first question out of my mouth even before bothering to haul this thing any further was to ask him what type of vehicle he drove. He immediately understood what I was getting at once he saw the size of the box, and he told me he drove a full size van, so it would not be a problem fitting it inside. Admittedly I was very relieved to hear this, so we followed him out the door and to his van.

When I saw the van I was extremely happy. Not only was this a full size van, but it was one of those extended vans with two full doors on the back to make access extremely easy. However, as soon as he opened the doors I saw a problem. The van was full of bench seats because it wasn’t really a cargo van – it was a 14 passenger van… and the seats did not fold down nor were they removable (without tools at least). The swing set was too large to fit under the seats, so our options were somewhat limited.

No problem – the customer just told us to lay it across the top of the seats and he would haul it that way. I knew it would fit so that wasn’t the issue, but I wasn’t sure the seats would appreciate having a heavy swing set laid on top of them and even worse I knew if he had to stop suddenly this could be a huge safety issue.

Long story short the guy just didn’t care. He was willing to take the risk and I knew I wasn’t liable if anything happened, so we proceeded to lift the swing set onto the seats, slide it forward and shut the rear doors. The front of the box was right between the two head rests of the front seat so at least if he had to slam on his brakes it would crush the dash and/or windshield rather than his skull, but I still thought it was a pretty stupid idea.

However, it was about that time that I turned around and noticed a woman with what appeared to be at least seven or eight kids standing there staring at us. Apparently this woman was his wife, and these were his kids. They were shopping alone which is why they weren’t around while we were loading this whole thing.

Now keep in mind this swing set rested on top of the seats so although a kid could lay on the seat or hunch over, there was no way possible to actually sit up straight in the middle of each row, and those who did sit up straight on the sides were risking head injury each time the van would turn a corner and the swing set would inevitably slide along the top of the seats (because it goes without saying the guy wasn’t interested in fastening this thing down).

As the woman opened the side doors, these kids proceeded to pile in the van one by one… each of them bending their heads in what would appear to be a very uncomfortable position in order to fit around and under the swing set.

Now if this guy was merely driving across town this might not be such an interesting story, but after seeing his contorted kids wedge themselves around the swing set I just had to ask where they were headed. The guy told me where he lived but I wasn’t aware of the town (and have long since forgot what it was called), but I do remember him saying it was about a two hour drive.

Not only was this guy going to be driving at highway speeds with a huge cardboard encased steel projectile capable of decapitation, but he was going to do so with his tribe of children wedged and squeezed around it just for good measure… for two hours.

Without so much as a shred of concern for the comfort or safety of his family, he pulled away as I stood there with mental images of a horrific traffic accident with random children impaled upon swing set parts and a rescue worker wondering who would ever be stupid enough to load a swing set on to the tops of the seats of a fully loaded passenger van.

Once again – people are stupid, and in this case I was probably an accessory to the stupidity.

Dadelions

2011-05-20T15:51:00.000-05:00

I think the flower companies decided that dandelions were a weed instead of a flower just because they can grow anywhere, they look pretty good, and they are free…just think of what that would have done to their business if they were officially called a flower.

Truth be told, if you squint just a tad when looking at a field of dandelions, can you really tell them apart from daisies? I think not. Plus they are self-propagating, require next to zero water, grow in even the worst possible conditions, and in a pinch you can even make wine out of them.

Of course society has taught us they are weeds, and my neighbors probably would be rather upset with me if I didn't spray for them or control them... so I guess I'm stuck. Life is so unfair... if you're a dandelion that is.

Stupid People: The “I Can’t Grasp The Concept Of Volume” Person (Volume 4)

2011-05-15T18:55:00.000-05:00

Here we go again – another example of someone who has no grasp on the concept of volume. A liter, gallon, square foot, acre, hectare, or quart… it might as well be all the same to these idiots. I get the distinct impression these were the people who as children spent entire afternoons trying to wedge the round peg into the square hole, and never once did it occur to them that they should try something else.

Then again, if the parents realized they have a stupid kid at such an early age, maybe they just gave up and realized anything that keeps the kid occupied for an afternoon isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

In any case this brings us to the case of the idiot who didn’t think they needed to see out of their passenger window or that there would ever be a need to use all the gears in their transmission. You see often times when I would attempt to load a boxed piece of furniture, the only way to fit it into the vehicle and still allow more than just the driver to fit in the vehicle (or in the case of a hatchback actually close the hatch) was to turn the box on its side and place it between the two front seats resting upon the center console.

Personally I didn’t recommend this for a few different reasons of which I will outline here:

First, the weight of some of the boxed furniture was actually quite heavy, and it could easily damage the console. Granted for the typical owner who suggested this, they probably didn’t care all that much about the console on their 1982 Honda Civic hatchback.

Second, if the driver ever had to see out the passenger side window, sometimes the box was tall enough that it made this nearly impossible… not exactly the safest plan in the book. Any attempt to explain this to the driver/owner was typically meant with the “I’m not going very far” retort, as if that really makes a significant difference.

Third, in the event of sudden acceleration, the weight of the furniture could shift backwards and crack or explode the rear window. That probably isn’t a huge issue with the massive power in a 1982 Honda Civic… but you never know.

Fourth, in the event the driver was forced to make an abrupt stop, the weight of the box would shift forward and either crash into the dash and console, or even worse smash into the shifter between the seats and knock the vehicle out of gear (or into a different gear altogether).

It is this fourth scenario that actually was fairly common, and I can recall a few such incidents where this was actually an issue. The first involved a customer who after loading the furniture realized he would only be able to use 1st, 3rd, and 5th gears of the transmission because 2nd, 4th, and Reverse couldn’t engage due to the placement of the box. Aside from the fact that his wrist and arm would need to contort to even make the most basic gear changes, and aside from the fact that he was missing several rather important gears, this particular customer didn’t really seem all that concerned and went along his way.

Another incident involved a woman which found she was unable to move her gear selector out of the park position when the box was completely in her vehicle. The only logical solution would be to open the hatch of her car and allow the box to protrude a foot or so out the back. Then you either leave the hatch open and take your chances, or you tie it down and take your chances. Depending upon weather, an open hatch isn’t always an option which leads us to our stupid incident.

This woman actually asked me to lift up on the box just long enough for her to shift the car into drive so she could get home. So here we have a situation where every time she would apply the brakes on the way home there was a good chance the car would shift into neutral, which would force her to push the box back towards the rear and/or attempt to pull the gear selector back into drive. This is also a situation where a fairly substantial amount of weight is resting on a gear selector which was never designed to hold a weight load at all.

I’d love to tell you how the story ends, but once she was in drive and on her way… frankly I just didn’t care. If she made it home in once piece with no damage to her vehicle that is great, but if I were a betting man I would guess there were a few choice words said at least once during her trip home. Once again, stupidity seemed to serve as its own punishment, and this woman will get what she deserves.

Stupid People: The “Birther”

2011-04-30T14:56:00.001-05:00

Now let me begin by making it clear this isn’t meant to take sides on a political issue, nor is this an analysis on President Obama. I could care less if someone loves the man and thinks they should carve a fifth face on Mr. Rushmore in honor of his greatness, or if someone thinks he is the worst President in history and not only should be impeached but have his Presidential portrait replaced by a picture of the output end a donkey.

My point about those who question President Obama’s citizenship or those who proclaim he wasn’t actually born in the United States (which are commonly referred to as “birthers”) are just stupid. I wish I could sugarcoat it and claim they were just uniformed or ignorant or otherwise confused, but after all that has been said on this subject, there really is no other way to describe these people other than stupid. It is not stupid to have strong political beliefs nor is it stupid to want to find clever ways of attacking your political opponents (rude and childish perhaps, but not stupid). It is also not stupid to ask questions until the answers have been provided time and time again.

However the issue with the birthers is that they are so convinced of this silly rumor that even now – well over two years since Obama has been sworn in as President – they are still running around trying to pretend he isn’t a legitimate President. They have ignored mountains of evidence, they have invented convoluted conspiracy theories, they have filed multiple lawsuits claiming Obama is not our legitimate President, and they have even gone so far as to fabricate a Kenyan birth certificate which was presented as evidence to show that Obama was not born in the US. Granted the Kenyan birth certificate was put together via photo editing software and was proven to be forgery about 15 minutes after it was released, but you still have birthers claiming it is the real thing.

In at least one case we even witnessed a member of the US military (U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick) who refused orders because he believed Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. Personally I feel Mr. Frederick is merely a coward and didn’t want to have to fight in a war since he is merely a reservist, but in any case he used the birther argument to the best of his ability.

So what is it about these people that makes them so ignorant of facts? We know the Hawaiian Secretary of State and two different Hawaiian Governors have verified Obama’s birth certificate. One of the two Governors (Governor Linda Lingle) was even a Republican, and she go so sick of these idiot birthers wasting state employee time that she signed a law that state government can ignore repetitive requests for Obama's birth certificate. So basically, a new law was created due to the stupidity of a very small select group of idiots, and people sometimes wonder why we have so many laws on the books.

In any case we know the Hawaiian State Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino testified that she had seen vital records that prove Obama was born in the state. We know the Hawaiian state registrar of vital statistics verified that the Health Department holds Obama's original birth certificate. We also know that Obama’s birth announcement was printed in Honolulu’s two largest newspapers at the time of his birth, and unless Obama has figured out a way to time travel back 50 years to insert fake birth announcements, it seems unlikely that there would be more than one Barack Obama born the same day.

Of course, in the mind of a birther, the birth announcements in two newspapers aren’t good enough because for all we know, Obama’s parents has the foresight to realize he could be President one day… so they could have faked them I guess. I know this doesn’t make any sense, but bear with me here – this is how the mind of a birther works.

A copy of the official Obama birth certificate was actually released back in 2008, but even then the birthers made claims about it not being real or arguing that it didn’t include an official seal etc. Time after time after time the state of Hawaii confirmed it was real, and time after time the birthers refused to accept the facts.

So it seems the birth certificate provided and verified by the state wasn’t good enough, so they decided to change the game and claimed they needed the “long form birth certificate” to verify it exists and that it is not a forgery. So this begs the question… what exactly is a long form birth certificate? Well, put simply, a long form birth certificate would be a certified copy of the very original birth certificate rather than an electronically produced document as we commonly receive today.

So now just this week Obama decided he was tired of all the distraction so he released the actual long form birth certificate. Personally I think it was a bad idea because it doesn't change anything, and now instead of birthers asking for the long form, now they are already starting to claim it is a fabrication which is why it took two years to produce. Rest assured in the mind of a birther, the release of the long form birth certificate hasn't changed a thing because they continually move the goal posts time and time again.

It goes without saying that anyone who is still questioning Obama's ability to be President is obviously on the fringe of the political spectrum, and more times than not these people are from the far right (his opponents). Most would probably also consider themselves members of the Tea Party although I’m sure there are a handful from the far left too… crazies come in all shapes and sizes and are members of all political parties.

So if these birthers are still making this an issue and still trying to argue a point which fair minded Americans have long since considered settled, it actually only serves to harm Obama’s political adversaries. It puts members of the Tea Party in a difficult position when they are forced to comment on the issue, and it creates countless opportunities to make those on the right appear petty, ignorant… and dare I say it – stupid (yes I'm looking at you Donald Trump).

Granted if we had a Republican President in office under the same circumstances, I can promise you we would have more than a few birthers from the far left demanding the same thing and making the same ignorant statements. In fact, to some degree this whole debacle resembles the issue with George W. Bush’s National Guard records. President Bush would never release all his records, accusations were tossed around, idiots forged documents, and it remained in the headlines for months. To some degree I feel that President Bush used that controversy for his political advantage just as Obama uses the birth certificate issue to his advantage.

This all goes to show that stupid people do not have any loyalty to one political party and that we have more than enough to cover the entire spectrum. Unfortunately we really didn’t have a clever name for those who continually demanded President Bush’s military records most likely due to the fact that they were never well organized, but if we had… they would have been just as stupid as the birthers.

When a person refuses to accept fact, ignores common sense, believes hundreds or even thousands of people could all be in on some vast conspiracy without a single one of them coming to the surface to blow the whistle, it seems obvious to everyone that the person in question is stupid.

Stupid might not grow on trees, but it does seem to have roots, and unfortunately those roots run pretty deep for anyone who has attended a political rally and held a sign with a picture of President Obama near the words “undocumented worker”.

Stupid People: The “I Can’t Grasp The Concept Of Volume” Person (Volume 3)

2011-04-23T23:23:00.000-05:00

Note: If you haven’t read either of the first two posts on this particular subject do yourself a favor and either go back and scan them, or just skip this one altogether.

This is yet another one of my posts about stupid people and how they lack any sense of dimension or volume. These are the same types of people who put king size waterbeds in their bedrooms and only after they have assembled and filled the entire bed do they realize they can no longer close the door of the bedroom without hitting the frame of the bed.

We all know these kinds of people – you have probably seen their homes with a pool table in a room that makes it impossible to actually shoot pool. These are the types of people who tell you that their master bathroom is “literally as big as a football field”. These are the type of people who build bookcases with dimensions that cannot fit through a standard doorway and don’t realize it until they try taking it out of the room they built it in, or the type of people who buy a brand new $58,000 Ford F350 quad-cab longbed truck only to realize when they get home that it is six inches too high to fit in the garage door, and even if it did fit it would be two feet too long to fit in the garage itself.

So this leads me to the occasion where I found myself carrying a bookcase for a young college aged woman only to reach her car and realize it would actually fit… if she didn’t already have the entire vehicle packed from top to bottom with stuff. She had garbage bags full of stuff, boxes, piles of clothes, shoes, trash, what I think was an old stereo, laundry baskets, and who knows what else. I’m not exaggerating when I say that aside from the driver’s seat area, I don’t think there was more than one or two square feet of available space in that vehicle – I think the ashtray might have even been packed with junk by the looks of it.

I’m not sure if it was my standing there with my jaw hanging near my belt buckle, or her sudden acknowledgement (or embarrassment) of the situation, but she told me to leave the bookshelf there at the car and she would “rearrange” some of her stuff to make it fit. I never did go back and check on her… but something tells me she was there for at least an hour taking stuff out and playing a life size game of Tetris in an effort to find a way for all the pieces to fit back together without leaving anything behind.

So how does someone like this drive up to a store with the goal of purchasing a large bookcase and not stop for a second to wonder how it would ever actually fit into their vehicle?

All I can say is people are stupid.

Stupid People: The “I Can’t Grasp The Concept Of Volume” Person (Volume 2)

2011-04-07T20:38:00.000-05:00

I'm pretty sure you're doing it wrong.

If you read my initial post about stupid people, and the subsequent story about people who can’t grasp the concept of volume you will understand where I’m going with this. If not this will probably make as much sense as watching the Star Wars films in reverse order. In that case I’ll do you the favor of providing a brief summary similar to what they play at the beginning of the second part of a two part television show.

The premise here is I once held a job in retail where I was responsible for carrying out and loading large items for customers. This is one of those stories which I feel displays how people are stupid (queue Law and Order gavel-esque sound effect).

One day while working I received a call to assist a customer carrying out her purchase. When I arrived near the service desk I found a woman who bought a wicker loveseat for her patio and just needed help carrying it out and loading it. She even made the point to tell me that she had a full size truth to load it in, which was quite a relief considering every other piece of wicker patio furniture I ever loaded seem to go inside of a small sedan or half way into the trunk of a Ford Escort.

However, my optimism was soon eradicated when I discovered she had a brand new snap-on tonneau cover which her husband had explicitly told her was NOT to be removed or unsnapped. It seems that the cover was stretched so tight that unsnapping it was next to impossible, and if she did unsnap it she would never be able to get it snapped again without the assistance of her husband… who would obviously be displeased.

Now aside from the fact it sounded like these two needed marriage counseling, and aside from the fact I failed to see the benefit of having a cover on the bed of a truck which essentially made the bed of the truck worthless, this meant the only way for me to load this loveseat was to either place it on top of the tonneau cover (and risk either puncturing it or leaving permanent indentations from the weight) or open the tailgate of the truck and try to slide the loveseat under the cover.

Long story short, it wouldn’t fit under so we ended up laying it on the tailgate of the truck and tying it down. So here is a woman with a full size truck hauling a wicker loveseat on her tailgate with the legs hanging off the back because she couldn’t actually use the bed of the truck for hauling anything. That has to be a solid five on the stupid scale right there.

Now this particular incident might not seem too bad until you realize you have a stupid woman and a stupid husband all wrapped up in one. There is a high probability these two stupid people will eventually breed, which just exacerbates the problem of stupid people, because although I’m not an expert on the subject, I would guess having two stupid people as parents exponentially increases the risk of a person being stupid.

Seems like some type of reverse Darwinism at work.

Stupid People: The “I Can’t Grasp The Concept Of Volume” Person (Volume 1)

2011-03-30T23:04:00.000-05:00

There are countless stupid people out there walking around unsupervised. They come in all shapes and sizes and from all parts of the globe, but one of my favorite examples of human stupidity comes from a job I had back in high school.

I worked for a retail store called ShopKo (think of Target but without the clever marketing campaign or the flashy logo, or think of Walmart without the automatic desire to take a shower when you are done mingling with the other shoppers ), and part of my duties of this job included carry-out for larger items. This typically included ready-to-assemble furniture, televisions, patio furniture, swing sets, or any other item which was probably too large or heavy for one person to carry, or too awkward for fit in a standard size shopping cart.

The basic idea was that I would go to the warehouse area of the store, load the item onto a cart and meet the customer at the checkout counter where they could pay for the item and I could help them load it. For the largest items sometimes this would take two or more employees, and in the case of a children’s swing set we generally would just have the customer pull around to the rear of the store where we would load it for them.

Sometimes when loading a bookshelf or computer desk, the customer would have a full size pickup truck, large SUV or maybe a car with a trailer so it wasn’t an issue. Nevertheless, inevitably in at least three or four times out of ten, we would arrive at the customer’s vehicle only to realize that it was highly unlikely the item would fit in their vehicle. Most of my stories involve hatchback automobiles because for some odd reason when someone drives a hatchback they think basic rules of volume and space don’t apply to them. In the mind of a hatchback owner, if you are determined enough and strong enough, you should be able to wedge a full size refrigerator, snowblower, or even a couch in the back end because after all… that is the benefit of owning a hatchback right?

I witnessed people with small hatchbacks purchasing the largest entertainment centers we had in stock which came in two boxes over six feet tall, three feet wide, and each weighing what had to be around 100lbs. Not only do they lack the interior cargo room to fit such an item in their vehicle, but it never even occurred to them that it might not fit at anytime during the purchase. They didn’t think about it when seeing the fully assembled item on display. They didn’t think about it when seeing the boxed item being wheeled up to the front door, and they surely didn’t think about it when getting to their vehicle and realizing their car isn’t as big as they remembered.

This is the part of the story where the customer would typically do one of three things. They would (A) either call a friend or relative to come pick up the furniture for them, they would (B) return the item for a refund (which meant I got to haul it all the way back into the warehouse), they would (C) suggest taking the item out of the box would allow it to fit (as if a six foot entertainment center is only four feet tall when you take it out of the box) or they would (D) try to convince me that it would fit if I just “loaded it right”.

Guess which option was the most common? If you guessed (D), go ahead and treat yourself to an Oreo.

Now keep in mind arguing with a customer is never a great idea, so in my case I most often chose to simply humor them. If they thought they could fit a few six foot boxes into a Geo Metro who am I to argue with them? So eventually they would figure out ways to flip seats down, remove boxes of junk from the hatchback area, slide the front seats all the way forward, try to convince me it could fit in the back seat (a six foot item generally does not fit across a car with an interior width of five feet), or when worse came to worse try to bribe me to give them some rope so they could tie it on their roof.

It goes without saying that most small cars are not meant to carry much weight on their roofs. Sure a few have roof racks, but aside from a few suitcases or bikes, they really aren’t intended for heavy weight loads, and because of that I would always tell the customer that I would help them get it on the roof, but I could not be held responsible for any damage to their vehicle. I also reminded them they would need to tie the items down and for those without roof racks that could mean going through the windows – which then would mean they not only could not roll the windows up all the way, but they might have to play “Dukes of Hazzard” in order to get in to the driver’s seat.

Keep in mind stupid people rarely think ahead, so telling them about possible roof damage and explaining the need to tie down their cargo served as a trigger which suddenly made them realize it might not be such a great idea.

More times than not however, I managed to get most of the item into the vehicle although the trunk or hatchback would almost never close. This is the part of the story where the customer would ask if we had any bungee cords or rope or string to tie down their trunk or hatchback, and this is the part of the story where I would explain we don’t provide rope or string, but they were more than welcome to revisit the store to purchase a package of bungee cords or some rope (clothesline rope was my personal recommendation).

From time to time someone actually had a strap or cord but had no idea how to use it or they thought fastening it to a license plate frame or wrapping it around a muffler was a good idea, and on other occasions they felt some small twine, string used for a kite, or even fishing line was strong enough. Are you starting to understand why I say people are stupid?

It is probably important to point out that once a customer leaves the parking lot, we didn’t really care what happened to their purchase, so if they dumped it out of the back end a mile down the road, or if their hatchback flew open and everything in their vehicle spewed out on the middle of a highway… I didn’t really care. I might feel a little bad about it, but for the most part I figured stupid people get what they deserve, so I tended to keep my mouth shut.

On more than a few occasions I loaded the item into the vehicle in such a manner than there was no possible way anyone other than a single driver could occupy the car, and in one case I remember a mother telling her kids to go back in the store and she would pick them up on a separate trip. I didn’t ask where she lived, but that might suck for the kids if it was an hour away.

I had to find the humor in the fact that the furniture received top billing while the kids stood on the sidelines. To make matters worse, I’m not sure the kids were old enough to be unsupervised, but apparently she felt ShopKo employees would do a great job of keeping an eye on her kids while she was dealing with her delivery. Again – people are stupid. Not only stupid, but irresponsible as well.

There are numerous other examples that I still have never been able to erase from my long-term memory, so I’ll make a point to document them for future blog posts. I almost have a duty to share such moronic behavior with others so they too can be amazed and/or incredibly disappointed at the intelligence level of the average person.

Stupid People: The “I Don’t Know How To Park Because I’m a Moron” Person

2011-03-22T18:46:00.008-05:00

There are days I’m amazed at the collective intelligence of the human race. Examples include when I see how we are able to launch spacecraft into orbit without them crashing back to Earth. Or when I see how we are able to pack what is essentially a powerful computer with limitless possibilities, wireless access to the Internet, a GPS, and a telephone into something no larger than a deck of cards. Or when I realize how medical advancements have resulted in the ability to prevent disease, replace organs and joints, prolong life, treat conditions, and address illnesses that would have meant years of suffering and/or the distinct possibility of lifelong disability or death only a few short decades ago.

Then there are days that I’m left shaking my head wondering how it is possible we have such stupidity in our world. Examples of this include the fact there are at least 50 accidents in my city during the first snowfall of the year which suggests people actually forget how to drive in less than 12 months. Or when I see those idiots from the Westboro Baptist Church preaching hatred and protesting at funerals. Or when people cannot understand how a four-way intersection works even after driving for 40 years. Or when I see people drag their toddlers along to hold a sign for some random politician or to protest an event or an issue with more concern about their cause than the child freezing in the cold or being rained on or getting surburned.

All of those examples aside, one of the most common areas where human stupidity is displayed is in a parking lot which leads us to my first blog post in a series devoted to human stupidity. Now it goes without saying that everyone is well aware of what the purpose of a parking lot is, what the general rules of parking are, and what actions are required to park a vehicle. However, you cannot possible visit a large retail store on any given day without witnessing at least one of the following:

A car parked so haphazardly that there is no way possible to occupy the space directly adjacent to it.
A large vehicle which ignores all conventional understanding and is parked at least five to ten feet away from the front border of that particular parking space which in turn leaves a large portion of the vehicle hanging out in the aisle where people are supposed to be driving.
A car driving down the opposite direction of a one-way lane totally oblivious to the fact that even if there was an open parking space, their only option to get into the space would be to back in (or ‘reverse in’ if you are British).
A full size SUV or truck parked in a space clearly marked as “Compact Car Only”.
A large vehicle with trailer that decides it is best to park perpendicular to the parking outlines thereby taking five or six spaces when they could have just as easily parked near the far end of the lot where they could pull through in line with the painted outlines and only required two spaces.
A vehicle crossing the parking lot at an angle at no less than 35 or 40mph oblivious to anyone who is actually driving down the center of the aisle as intended.
A vehicle which decides to invent their own parking space which follows no normal rules of logic to the point you start looking around for Ashton Kutcher to see if you might be witnessing the taping of an episode of “Punk’d”.

…and my personal favorite (which only applies to those of us lucky enough to deal with snow covered parking lots)

Vehicles trying to guess where the actual parking outlines are, and rather than line up in line with an object like a shopping cart corral, light pole, sign, parking island, or curb… they just randomly park anywhere. This not only reduces parking capacity of the lot by a solid 20%, but the rows of cars will often weave back and forth until they resemble the trail a snake makes as it crosses a sand dune.

In some cases this actually creates rows that are so close together, cars are actually unable to navigate down the middle of the row and instead find themselves needing to back up the entire way creating mini traffic jams that only serve to infuriate those inconvenienced by the stupidity of others.

Just a month or so ago I was at the mall at witnessed this exact event, and the lines were so screwed up that I actually saw a parked car behind a car which was already parked across from another car – essentially boxing in the center car. I was amazed at this – because although I could understand thinking it might have been a legitimate spot (even though the tail end of the third car was easily six feet behind any other car in that row), you might have thought when the person got out of their car and realized there were two cars in front of it and that they had just boxed someone in they might have had the intelligence to move to another spot, but sadly… no.

This whole parking situation bothers me on a personal level because I simply cannot understand how someone who pulls into a lot and has been parking in lots for years cannot actually park a vehicle without a visible yellow line telling them where to park. This would be like going to a movie and sitting on the floor in an aisle because there was nobody there to tell them which seat to occupy. That isn’t only stupid – that is bang your head on a hard surface kind of stupid.

Thus, being from South Dakota and dealing with snow covered lots for several months a year, I get to deal with these idiots on a regular basis. You have the moron who parked seven feet away from the car next to them thinking that was a typical spacing method, which then forces every other car in line to adapt and when the original car leaves you are left with random spaces that aren’t quite large enough for two cars, but far too large for one. These are mixed with other spaces that would only be suitable for a motorcycle or 1982 Chevy Chevette with the exterior mirrors removed, and of course you need to add the people who are unable to judge whether they are even remotely parallel to the vehicle next to them.

Now granted several of the items in my list above may be considered rude more than just stupid, but I’ve witnessed all of the above often enough to know that most people just don’t know they are being morons. Rude people might purposefully park diagonally across two lines to prevent door dings, or park in a fire lane because they think they are special, or leave their shopping cart in the empty space next to them because they just can’t take the ten seconds required to return it to the shopping cart corral, but the difference is rude people know they are being rude and they just don’t care. Stupid people don’t even realize when they are being stupid, and because they are generally surrounded by so many other stupid people, then tend to think their behavior is normal and acceptable.

Maybe it is true you can't fix stupid... but can we at least tag them like cattle to warn others?

Judging the Book by the Cover

2011-03-14T18:38:00.002-05:00

It is often said that you can’t judge a book by its cover, however I respectfully disagree. If that were true, then publishers wouldn’t spend millions of dollars each year designing and printing colorful covers, not to mention it would be impossible to have a “beautiful book” contest.

When you really think about it, it is actually very easy to judge books by their covers, because the title and author of the book is right there in print. Thus if I see a book by Nicholas Sparks, I can (with a certain amount of certainty) believe the book will be a love story that has a very high chance of probability of being turned into a major motion picture.

Likewise if I see a “Dummies” book, I can probably guess the subject matter will be simplified to the point that a person of average intellect can easily understand the context, and if I see a book with a picture of a shirtless man riding a horse bareback with a long haired beautiful woman grasping him from behind… it is almost guaranteed to be a cheesy romance novel.

All of that said, I realize the reason people say you can’t judge a book by its cover is because it is an analogy for other situations. In many cases it is said in reference to people and how someone might look a certain way but their personality may not match. Here too I find fault with the concept as in many cases it seems rather easy to judge people based upon outside appearances.

Case in point, if I see a 375lb man walking in Walmart, I can easily state that his caloric intake is way too high. If I see a teenage girl who has orange skin, I can determine she spends far too much time in a tanning salon and/or misunderstood the instructions on her bottle of self-tanner, and if I see a grown man protesting a military funeral with a sign reading “God Loves Dead Soldiers” in one hand and a sign reading “God Hates Fags” in the other hand I can unequivocally state that he is a heartless, ignorant, hate-filled fool who has misinterpreted the entire meaning of Christianity, and I can even ascertain he is from Kansas and a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

See – it really is possible to judge a book by its cover after all.

The Event

2011-02-08T22:40:00.001-06:00

I was reading an article a few days ago about how the Super Bowl has become so much of an event, that the drama and production and all-around hoopla that surrounds it has actually overshadowed the game itself. I’m not a huge sports fan myself so I thought it was just me who in years past found myself more interested in the commercials than the actual game, but it seems I’m not the only one.

In fact, the Monday morning after the big game it seemed my fellow employees were much more interested in discussing which commercial they thought was best (the kid in the Darth Vader costume starting the Volkswagen with his ‘force’ powers seemed to be a big hit) along with how they enjoyed the half-time show or how they were shocked to see Slash rise up out of the stage to join the Black Eyed Peas on a rendition of the Guns N’ Roses hit Sweet Child O’ Mine.

Through all of that, the actual discussion of the game encompassed all of about three minutes. There were some comments about how it was closer than it should have been and a few comments about specific plays etc, but the discussion about the non-game events of the Super Bowl were far more abundant which is amazing considering I sit near three or four people who are very interested in sports including one who is a referee and another who is a coach.
This all got me thinking… is it really just the Super Bowl that suffers from this overshadowing issue? I don’t think that is the case and I actually think that our society has become so obsessed with the glitz and glamour of our big (and even not-so-big) events these days that we don’t have much time to actually pay attention to the core event itself.

Case in point, I can’t tell you a single one of the teams who made the finals or semifinals in this year’s World Cup, but I can tell you that the number one subject of conversation surrounding the World Cup itself wasn’t the game, but rather the usage (and perhaps abuse) of those rather annoying vuvuzelas. This actually may have something to do with the fact that I’m an American and thus by default I don’t really care about the game of Soccer or FIFA, but I can’t say for sure.

Truth be told I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that 97.6% of the American public thinks FIFA is an Italian automobile manufacturer, because that would almost make more sense to me. I'm not even sure what FIFA stands for and the only athlete in the sport that I could cite by memory is David Beckham... but that has more to do with his frequent appearances on the cover of supermarket tabloids and his marriage to a former Spice Girl.

All of that aside, even months after the World Cup itself if someone decides to talk about the event I can almost guarantee it has something to do with events outside of the actual games whether it be the actions of a star player off the field, or how a sanctioning body for some other major sport has decided to ban vuvuzelas from the stadiums.

This phenomenon isn’t just related to sports either. Just look at any major awards show on television from the Grammys to the Oscars to the MTV Movie awards… rarely do we remember who was nominated for an award or who even won, but we will probably remember if someone had a “wardrobe malfunction” or if someone decided to walk the red carpet wearing something that resembles a neon trash bag covered in rhinestones, or if someone bungled a speech or tripped on their way to the podium. We will also hear about the events that transpire backstage and read reports of what celebrity was offended that they didn’t win or who showed up to an after-show party and what they had to drink or who they were holding hands with.

So what is it with our society that is so infatuated with the whole experience rather than simply the main event? I can’t even fathom what it would be like to listen to a President give a State of the Union speech without someone analyzing how many times he was interrupted by applause or commenting upon the response given by the opposing political party. I can’t imagine attending a local sporting event without seeing the game actually interrupted long enough to toss t-shirts into the crowd or for the cheerleaders to do a little dance, or allowing at least one AC/DC song on the PA system to set the tone for the game itself.

Of course when you look around and notice half the people at any given event are staring at their smartphones or making a trip to the concession stand or engaging in idle chit chat with those around them it starts to become obvious that the “event” is almost a distraction. Perhaps it is to the point where we can no longer be satisfied at focusing our attention on one thing. Maybe we are so used to being tied to technology or being bombarded with information and technology that actually sitting back to relax and enjoy an event simply for the event just won’t do.

That may explain why I notice a lot of people have laptops or tablets near them even while watching television or why people feel the need to have a GPS activated in their vehicle even while making their daily commute to work which they have done hundreds of times before. To some degree it might indicate progress, but I’m not so sure it isn’t actually more reflective of a downward trend that leads to a point where people lose the ability to focus on what is really important or even worse – the ability to focus on anything at all.

Much like many of us require bifocals as we age so that we can see clearly at more than one distance, perhaps we (as a society) are evolving to require more than one stimulus at any given point in order to protect our brains from atrophy. Thus, before someone else suggests the phrase I’m going to profess that I am the first to label this condition as “Witnessed Observable Requisite Multi-Stimuli” or ‘WORMS’. That should be really interesting when someone has to tell some friends that their kid was diagnosed with a bad case of WORMS.

I have no idea if the acronym WORMS is already a trademark… but if not I call dibbs, and we all know calling dibbs is as good as any legal agreement known right?

Dentists and Oreos

2011-02-04T18:17:00.001-06:00

Anyone that takes care of their teeth will soon realize a semi-annual trip to the dentist is well worth the trouble. Just like automobiles, our teeth will last longer and stay in better shape with a little preventative maintenance.

If you wait until your car is smoking and overheated before taking it in for service chances are it is going to cost you a lot more in the end. Much in the same way if you wait to go to the dentist only after you have a sore tooth or are in extreme pain, it stands to reason not only is it going to cost more and be more painful, but you very well may end up losing some of your teeth in the process.

Therefore, for the vast majority of my life I have visited the dentist twice per year whether I felt I needed it or not. There was a period in my early 20s where I skipped a few years, but I soon realized what a mistake that was after having to play catch-up for a few years which included numerous cavities being filled, as well as a root canal complete with crown. After that lesson learned, I now attend my dental appointments religiously* and haven't missed one in years.

* Perhaps "religiously" isn't an accurate descriptor since I'm unaware of any religion which only requires two visits a year, but I digress.

So what is the point of all this besides me rambling on about a random subject? Well, my point is it seems like there is a routine to all of my dentist appointments. First, I go to the dentist and they determine if we need any x-rays this time around. If so we get those taken care of right away, but if not they skip ahead and clean my teeth, check for any cavities (which I haven't had in well over a decade), hand me a few samples of toothpaste or a new toothbrush, and that's that. I schedule an appointment for six months down the road, and I head out the door feeling relieved that I somehow managed to dodge the cavity bullet one more time.

However, inevitably somewhere before or after the cleaning my dental hygienist will ask me if I have been flossing. I'm smart enough to know they can probably tell, so I don't bother to lie about it and always admit that no... I don't floss. I typically get complimented on my brushing and am always told I have nice teeth (from the perspective of a dentist or hygienist at least) but they will usually tell me that I need to floss in order to get all of the plaque from between the teeth, yadda, yadda, yadda. The lecture doesn't last long primarily because they probably give the same speech 15 times a day and know it likely won't do any good, but I listen anyway as the hygienist hands me a package of floss as if my lack of flossing was simply due to a matter of supply and demand.

This probably explains why I have six or eight packages of floss at home - because they give me a new one every six months and I can't seem to use them up as fast as they restock my supply. So typically after each dentist appointment I decide now is the time I'm going to start flossing. The next evening I bust out the floss and go between each and every tooth to the best of my ability. The day after that I floss again, but maybe with a little less vigor and taking a little less time to do a perfect job. A day after that and I'm down to speed flossing.

Soon enough - less than a week after my dental cleaning, I stop flossing altogether. I know I should, but it just seems like such a hassle. I brush my teeth so flossing just seems like it should be "extra". As the months pass, flossing isn't even considered nor do I feel any guilt about skipping it, but next thing you know I flip the page on a calendar and there I see it... the date of my next dentist appointment.

Drat. I know I've been slacking, and now I've got less than two weeks before I see the dentist again. So obviously now is the time to start flossing with the hopes I can make up for the last six months in a matter of 10-14 days. Then, the night before the big appointment I go all out. I brush my teeth for longer than I typically would ensuring I cover each and ever side of each tooth as best as I can. I floss with regular floss and then make a second pass with a floss pick to ensure I didn't miss anything. I'll even go a step further and rinse with some mouthwash to get any remaining "stuff" out of my mouth and send it down the drain.

This all got me thinking one day. Why do we always prepare for the dentist as if we are cramming for a mid-term Biology Exam? Do we really think one or two good brushings and a few days of flossing is going to make up for six months of neglect? Do we honestly think the hygienist won't notice that we haven't been doing as much as we should be to take care of our teeth?

When you really think about it, why should we try to impress our dentists and hygienists? They charge the same amount for a cleaning whether my teeth are clean or if they haven't been brushed for three years, so maybe I should make them work for it a little.

So how about instead of preparing for my cleaning as if I was heading out to a Senior Prom, I decide to get my money's worth out of them by eating a mixture of peanuts, caramel, and Oreos 15 minutes before my actual cleaning? Its sort of like driving your car through a gigantic puddle right before you take it to the car wash - it isn't going to help anything, but it surely makes the before and after a whole lot more impressive.

Is that wrong?

Vanity

2011-01-26T17:51:00.006-06:00

Have you ever noticed how people react to someone who has had plastic surgery? In casual conversation, I often hear people say how they would never do that or how they think it is foolish or how it is superficial etc. I've also often heard the comments about how people should just be happy with what God gave them, but in reality isn't this just judging others for their life choices?

The thing is, what someone else does with their body has no impact upon me or my life. If Joan Rivers wishes to have 40 different cosmetic procedures or if a guy down the street decides he wants a nose job, why should I care?

The simple truth is, most people are superficial in some way. While some may judge someone for a tummy tuck, some breast implants, or a facelift, those very same people are comfortable with dying their hair, sitting under a tanning lamp for that perfect "glow", whitening their teeth, or wearing colored contact lenses. So where do we draw the line on what is acceptable and what isn't?

Should we really just settle for what God gave us, or should we attempt to "improve" upon it? God gave me crooked teeth, but I was thankful a dentist was able to give me invisalign aligners to straighten them. God also gave me poor vision, and although I could have settled for glasses or contact lenses, I opted for LASIK surgery instead. In the past, I have also paid for teeth whitening, tanning booths, and even highlights in my hair (no metrosexual jokes required).
So is it ok for people to get laser surgery or to straighten their teeth, but not ok for get a nosejob or a brow lift? Is sitting under a tanning booth perfectly fine and getting hair extensions societally acceptable while hair plugs for a man or liposuction for a woman is somehow considered crossing the line?

Actually, taken a step further - what is the purpose of a pierced ear or a tattoo? Both are forms of body modification and both (in our culture at least) are done for primarily cosmetic reasons. Personally, it all seems a little hypocritical... not to mention completely arbitrary.

As far as I'm concerned what someone does with their body is entirely up to them. If they can afford it or if they make it a priority in their lives because they feel it will help them feel better about themselves I could care less. Obviously if they make their kids eat oatmeal three times a day to save up for a cosmetic procedure that is a different issue altogether, but for the most part I really don't understand why someone cares what another person chooses to do with his or her body.

The fact is, our society (like it or not) is focused upon beauty and physical attractiveness, so I completely understand in this modern world why some people are so determined to have cosmetic procedures. As children we were always told it is what is in the inside of a person that counts, but as Jim Carrey in the film "Liar Liar" so truthfully stated... "That's just something ugly people say".

I realize the film was a comedy, but you have to admit there is some truth in those words no matter how much we might like to think otherwise.

Solutions to the Mortgage Crisis

2011-01-13T18:20:00.004-06:00

Stop right here if you are expecting some humorous post or random observation about life because this isn't it. If you like to talk economics or discuss the current state of our economy... then by all means read on.

Obviously I don't get paid to write the occasional (and in my humble opinion sometimes witty) blog post, so I'm forced to be like most people have have a day job. In my case, I work in the financial services industry and that introduces me to a lot of information relating to the economy. Even though I work for a large company that has tentacles in practically every market sector imaginable, I actually do not have any connection with the mortgage industry.

However, for some strange reason the mortgage industry interests me, so from time to time I will find myself researching various trends, analyzing data, and scouring over the opinions of real experts, self-proclaimed experts, and people who don't have a clue about anything but yet are continually quoted in newspapers and shown on cable news networks.

With that said, a recent Associated Press article caught my eye regarding foreclosure mediation. The actual article written by Oskar Garcia can be found here (or about 110 other websites which have linked to the AP story). The article included a statement attributed to UNLV economics professor Nasser Daneshvary which read that he "recommended that banks consider short-selling homes to current homeowners, and create modifications that include reductions in principal".

I've heard these types of arguments in the past, but I find some serious flaws in this logic. Therefore, rather than rolling my eyes or attempting to speak about the issue to those around me (who would likely not share my interest in economics) I decided to simply respond to Professor Daneshvary directly. A quick search online found me the University faculty listing, and I was able to capture his email address.

The following is the email I sent (I tend to get a little verbose in such communications):

Professor Daneshvary,

I read with interest your comments in a recent Associated Press article about Nevada's Foreclosure issues. You were quoted as suggesting "that banks consider short-selling homes to current homeowners, and create modifications that include reductions in principal."

At first glace that would appear to be a feasible solution. It would allow families to stay in their homes, reduce the chance for neighborhood blight, stabilize and perhaps even improve the housing market by reducing the steady stream (flood) of foreclosures, and help prevent foreclosures from hitting borrower's credit reports.

However, I believe there are a lot of negatives to this idea as well. First, if banks begin short-selling homes to current homeowners, anyone with an underwater mortgage will soon realize it is in their best interests to miss a few payments. Due to income requirements this won't be feasible for some, but for those people who are renting out rooms or working second jobs or collecting rent from a live-in partner in order to make the mortgage payments it is a distinct possibility. Anyone who has suffered an income loss or a change in financial condition since the loan origination (whether they can afford the mortgage or not) would soon be in line to get what they perceive as "their share".

Second, if you create modifications to reduce principal, who should suffer the loss? Should the bank be forced to modify a $300,000 mortgage down to $220,000 and absorb the gap of $80,000 just to help a homeowner stay in their home? On what level would that type of action be sustainable? The losses to the banks would soon be so high from people purposefully missing payments in order to get into these types of programs that the cost to obtain a new mortgage would need to be increased in order to compensate. That in turn would drive down demand for housing and prolong the economic crisis.

I fail to see this as a moral issue for the banks or investors because when the housing market was booming and people were buying homes only to sell them at twice the price a few years later - do you recall any of these fortunate homeowners splitting the proceeds with the bank? Not likely. If modifications to principal are put in place now and the housing market recovers in a few years, that same $220,000 house could then be $325,000. Do you believe homeowners in this situation will go back to the bank and repay the portion of their original mortgage which was modified? If human history has taught us anything, the answer is a unequivocal no.

I fully realize people question why a bank would foreclose on a property and sell it at auction to recoup less than they would have if the simply modified the mortgage, but it would seem they are willing to accept some short term loss in order to prevent a much longer term wave of losses. Will there be cases of fraud where a friend or family member buys the home and re-sells it to the current homeowner at a reduced price? Yes, but fraud happens in almost ever scenario and can never be totally contained.

I won't claim to have all of the answers, and I understand greed on both the part of the banks as well as homeowners is one of the primary factors that led us down this road, but principle modifications and short sales to current homeowners would like not solve the issue, especially in those cases where a homeowner is able to make a payment but chooses not to because they fear their investment has lost value and may never return.

Like it or not, it would seem the current system of foreclosure and auction may very well be the best possible solution for both parties. One of the biggest mistakes made in this country is when our Federal Government, along with the banks and investment houses, attempted to tell everyone that owning a home is the American Dream. The reality is, some people are more well suited to renting. Unfortunately that is something we forgot during the boom years where low or no down payments were the norm or where interest only mortgages and adjustable rate mortgages seemed to be typical.

Although I tend to lean towards a free market, it would seem in this case that some regulation is most certainly needed. Elimination of 30 year mortgages in favor of 10, 15, and 20 years would be a start, as would banning interest only mortgages and zero down payment options in favor of the older established threshold of requiring 20% down. Will this prevent some people from owning a home? Certainly, but as soon as we get away from the mindset that everyone needs to own a home, the sooner we will be able to sustain a well-balanced home market and economy.

Sincerely,

Craig [redacted]

Of course I did send the email with my last name (I've redacted it here because based upon the number of pageviews my blog receives I'd rather keep some sense of anonymity), and I even included a disclaimer message telling Professor Daneshvary that I work in the financial services industry although I clarified I have no connect to the mortgage division and am speaking from my own personal viewpoint rather than that of my employer (it is always wise to be transparent about such things, especially if my employer would ever hear about it).

Now obviously I understand there are differing viewpoints on the issue and not everyone will agree with me. I also agree that a professor from the University of Nevada Las Vegas probably has more important things to do with his time than respond to a random person he has never met (and likely never will) who is not a UNLV alumni, is not a current student, is not a member of the media, and isn't even a fellow economist.

So imagine my surprise when less than 24 hours from me sending my email that I received a response. Below is the response I received from Professor Daneshvary:

Dear Mr. [redacted],

First, thank you for talking time to give me feedback and expressing your opinion. I have to say that I agree almost with all of your points, particularly the recommendations for future corrections (the last paragraph). If we would have followed the “traditional” way of doing business, we would have not been in this situation to begin with.

To start with, the quotation by the Associated Press is not a complete statement that I made. I followed the statement "that banks consider short-selling homes to current homeowners, and create modifications that include reductions in principal" with saying “in return for a share of future price appreciation.” This is one of the points that you raised.

I am an economist with a firm foundation on incentive-based behavior and opportunity costs. My comments and conclusions are based on the fact that, given current situation, what type of solutions may work better. The decline in home values has gotten to the point that individuals doing strategic defaults. Even, professionals with 300K pay check are asking me why I should keep repaying the 800K loan over my life time while the value of my home is only 400K. The traditional stigma that was associated with foreclosure and bankruptcy are not there anymore. Foreclosing a home does not have the long term credit/financial effect that it use to have for homeowners. There are homeowners who believe so many people are defaulting, resulting enough people with bad credit in the near future. Thus, obtaining a loan would not be an issue.

I am not saying these arguments/behaviors are right or moral. I am saying our system (bad policies combined with the lack of appropriate regulations) during the 2000s created a situation that needs to be taken care of before it completely destroys household asset accumulation.

Again, thank you for taking time to communicate with me.

Best regards.
Nasser Daneshvary
Professor of Economics and Beam Research Fellow
Director of Lied Institute for Real Estate Studies
College of Business
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89154
(702) [redacted] (Assistant)
(702) [redacted](Direct)
(702) [redacted](fax)

Now it goes without saying that I was somewhat shocked to get a response at all much less one as detailed and informative as what I did. As it seems, the good professor and I actually share many of the same viewpoints, although I initially thought we had opposing views due to nothing other than an incomplete statement which could arguably be considered out of context.

I sent the professor another message shortly before drafting this blog post although it was more of a thank-you rather than a message intended to garner further discussion.

So I have learned several things here. First, always accept statements attributed to people with a certain amount of reservation - especially when they aren't direct quotations. Second, never be afraid to voice your opinion on an issue even if you don't expect a response. Finally, always be polite - you never know when someone might think what you have to say is worthy of their time.

The funny thing is, I have actually sent state level (not federal level mind you) politicians from my local district a couple of emails in the past and never received so much as an acknowledgment, so maybe economists are just more polite and courteous than politicians. That really doesn't seem like much of a stretch, and I doubt it would surprise anyone.

So what is the point of all of this? Who really knows - I just found it all very interesting and exciting at the same time. What can I say... some people get excited when they can provoke a "tweet" from a celebrity or if they can capture the attention of an athlete from the sidelines whereas I get excited simply by a response from an economist from a large and well-respected University.

Nobody ever claimed I was 100% normal.

Where Do All of the Ice Scrapers Go?

2010-12-14T23:29:00.001-06:00

Around this time of each year, those of us ~~unfortunate~~ lucky enough to live in the Midwest find ourselves in need of an ice scraper. I realize such an item probably isn't commonly found in Southern California or Arizona or Florida or anywhere else that Social Security payees tend to congregate, but here in South Dakota it is a given that each and every car on the road during the months of October or November through February (and sometimes into early May) will have at least one ice scraping device readily available.

However, when the Spring thaw rolls around each year, we tend to forget about these valuable pieces of plastic as they are pushed under seats, stuffed into glove boxes, retired to trunks, or perhaps even moved into a box full of hats and gloves which is put into storage for another year.

The real question is - when winter rolls around again and we find ourselves in the need of an ice scraper, do you think we could actually find it? This leads me to believe the companies who manufacture ice scrapers do so with biodegradable plastic with no more than a seven month shelf life. Either that or snow has some type of a negative effect upon long term memory... which might actually make more sense.

I cannot even begin to guess how many ice scrapers I have purchased throughout my lifetime, but I'd be willing to bet I average at least one a year. At one point I thought I was getting ahead of the game by purchasing two when they were on clearance in the spring with the thought that surely one of them should be available for that first snowfall the following season. However, as luck would have it, when the first snowfall came I had to resort to using an old CD to scrape the snow off the windshield as I mutter some choice words under my breath and wonder what I did with my ice scrapers. Don't worry about the CD though... it was a mix CD I created myself and was already scratched bad enough that it really didn't matter.

Although come to think of it perhaps I should place a Vanilla Ice CD in my car for just such an occasion... scraping a windshield with a CD containing a song entitled "Ice Ice Baby" seems rather fitting. Then again on second thought, nothing really justifies owning a Vanilla Ice CD, so scratch that idea.

In any case, once again I find myself at Target choosing from the plethora of ice scrapers they have available. From experience I have learned what works and what merely looks like it works, and I have also found that there really hasn't been anything innovative from the ice scraping community in decades. Yes we have all seen the ice scrapers that plug into the 12V outlet and try to melt the snow and ice (they don't work) and we have seen the type with the brass blade that is supposed to work better than plastic (not really). We have also seen the scrapers that come with their own gloves (which makes sense for those days where it is warm enough you don't already have gloves on, but cold enough to still have snow on your car (never), and we have seen scrapers with brushes and extension wands and ice chippers and built-in flashlights and all types of gimmicky attachments, but at the end of the day they rarely work any better than the $1.99 plastic ice scraper sold at almost any convenience store coupled with a coat sleeve used to brush off the fluffy stuff.

Yes there will be swearing when some snow finds its way up the sleeve, and more choice words when we are back in the vehicle and realize even after all that scraping the windshield wipers are still stuck to the glass. Of course my personal favorite is when you spend ten minutes scraping windows to where they look great right up until the point you start moving forward at anything greater than seven mph and all of the snow from the hood decides it now prefers the windshield. This in turn causes you to hit the brakes and do the "ice ostrich" move where you bob your head around looking for any area of six square inches or more of clear glass through which you can (quite dangerously) navigate the city streets until the defroster kicks in!

Come to think of it, I think 80% of the reason those remote car starters are so popular in this part of the country is because people just got tired of looking for their ice scrapers. It is much easier to just hit a button 15 minutes before you want to go somewhere rather than contemplating where that little piece of plastic disappeared to. Yes even a cheap remote starter is probably in excess of $200 and yes that will probably buy decades worth of ice-scrapers, but if you add up all the hours saved by not having to search for the scraper, then maybe the return on your investment starts to pay off.

The truth is I'm pretty sure I know where all the missing ice scrapers go. The same gremlin that seems to steal just one sock out of the dryer also has an affinity for ice scrapers, and thus he steals them when we aren't looking. Rest assured somewhere out there is a huge pile of ice scrapers all tucked neatly away in socks to keep them clean, dry, and warm.

Are You a Carrot, an Egg or a Coffee Bean?

2010-12-03T18:20:00.000-06:00

I was recently sent this story about how different people react to life's challenges, and I thought it was interesting enough to warrant sharing:

A young woman went to her mother and told her about her life and how things were so hard for her. She did not know how she was going to make it and wanted to give up. She was tired of fighting and struggling. It seemed as one problem was solved, a new one arose.

Her mother took her to the kitchen. She filled three pots with water and placed each on a high fire. Soon the pots came to a boil. In the first, she placed carrots, in the second she placed eggs, and in the last she placed ground coffee beans. She let them sit and boil; without saying a word.

In about twenty minutes she turned off the burners. She fished the carrots out and placed them in a bowl. She pulled the eggs out and placed them in a bowl. Then she ladled the coffee out and placed it in a bowl.

Turning to her daughter, she asked, "Tell me what you see."

"Carrots, eggs, and coffee," she replied.

Her mother brought her closer and asked her to feel the carrots. She did and noted that they were soft. The mother then asked the daughter to take an egg and break it. After pulling off the shell, she observed the hard-boiled egg.

Finally, the mother asked the daughter to sip the coffee. The daughter smiled as she tasted its rich aroma. The daughter then asked, "What does it mean, Mother?"

Her mother explained that each of these objects had faced the same adversity: boiling water. Each reacted differently. The carrots went in strong, hard, and unrelenting. However, after being subjected to the boiling water, they softened and became weak. The egg had been fragile. Its thin outer shell had protected its liquid interior, but after sitting in the boiling water, its inside became hardened. The ground coffee beans were unique, however. After they were in the boiling water, they had changed the water.

"Which are you?" she asked her daughter. "When adversity knocks on your door, how do you respond? Are you a carrot, an egg or a coffee bean?

Think of this: Which am I? Am I the carrot that seems strong, but with pain and adversity do I wilt and become soft and lose my strength?

Am I the egg that starts with a malleable heart, but changes with the heat? Did I have a fluid spirit, but after a death, a breakup, a financial hardship or some other trial, have I become hardened and stiff? Does my shell look the same, but on the inside am I bitter and tough with a stiff spirit and hardened heart?

Or am I like the coffee bean? The bean actually changes the hot water, the very circumstance that brings the pain. When the water gets hot, it releases the fragrance and flavor. If you are like the bean, when things are at their worst, you get better and change the situation around you. When the hour is the darkest and trials are their greatest, do you elevate yourself to another level?

How do you handle adversity? Are you a carrot, an egg or a coffee bean?

May you have enough happiness to make you sweet, enough trials to make you strong, enough sorrow to keep you human, and enough hope to make you happy. That's because ... the happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the most of everything that comes their way.

I realize analogies like this are simply clever ways to make a point, although whether they have any lasting effect is left entirely up to the reader. Personally I'm not a huge proponent of self-help remedies or catchy anecdotes as I tend to believe people are typically set on their respective paths and can only change when they decide to do so rather than on the advice from another or based upon a witty analogy or bumper sticker catch phrase. Although I have no science, statistics, or empirical evidence to support my theory, I would guess real significant personal change only occurs in approximately one of around a thousand people.

I am reluctant to say people can't change, but rather deep down I'm not sure people really want to change. I think if we are honest with ourselves, most of us would likely admit we would prefer others to adapt to us rather than us changing to fulfill some societal obligation.

I suppose I could draft my own analogy using objects tossed out off of a 5,000 foot cliff above jagged, razor-sharp rocks in the middle of a remote landscape. So what is the difference between a bowling ball, a helium balloon, and a pair of hiking boots?

If you throw all three of these objects over the edge of the cliff, they all respond differently. If you throw the bowling ball, it will succumb to the oppressive force of gravity and fall until it hits the rocks at the bottom of the cliff. Most likely the bowling ball will fracture or perhaps even break into pieces, and it will never again be used for its intended purpose. If you release the balloon, it will fight against the force of gravity and sail into the sky where wind currents will determine its path, and although it will eventually return to earth it will most likely do so in a safer location and at a much more gentle rate of descent. The balloon's path is unpredictable even if we believe we know the end result. However if you throw the hiking boots, they will bounce down the face of the cliff and land at the bottom out of view. They will likely be separated from one another and most likely will never be seen again.

So what is the difference between these three objects? Well when forced to go one direction, the bowling ball simply followed a path which guaranteed a disastrous ending. On the other hand the balloon responded differently and took its own unpredictable path keeping it safe from immediate harm. The hiking boots responded much in the same way as the bowling ball, and although this might not seem like an important differentiation to most people, to the guy who just tossed his hiking boots over the side of a 5,000 foot cliff this is a rather important event, because now this idiot has to continue his hike barefoot.

So which are you... a bowling ball, a balloon, or a pair of hiking boots once worn by a moron?

The McNugget Dilemma

2010-11-27T22:02:00.000-06:00

I have to admit it… I’m a fan of McDonalds. I know the food is bad for me and I assume that each and every meal I choose to eat at McDonalds probably shortens my life by a measurable amount, and I understand that it is far from fine dining. I understand the average McDonalds menu item has more sodium and calories in it than many children from Haiti eat in a month, and I wholeheartedly admit that even though they are offered I never order a salad or anything which could in any way be misconstrued for being remotely healthy.

Although I will never even attempt to compare the taste or quality of McDonalds with more expensive eateries, when it comes to fast food McDonalds does it about as good as anyone, and thus when it comes time to decide which drive thru is going to get my business on a particular day, McDonalds probably earns that dubious distinction more than any other. Maybe it is the fries that are quite simply the best french fry of any fast food chain. Maybe it is the “limited time only” offerings of the McRib or Monopoly game pieces. Or maybe it is due to childhood nostalgia that surrounds the idea of a Happy Meal.

One thing I can promise is that my appreciation for McDonalds has nothing to do with Ronald McDonald himself. It might be due to the fact that he is nothing more than a talking clown (and everyone knows clowns are just scary), or it might have something to do with the overall creepy “pedophile-like” demeanor, but I can honestly say I have never been a fan of Ronald McDonald.

That said, ever since I was a kid I’ve always liked the McNuggets. I’ve bounced back and forth from sweet & sour sauce to barbeque sauce, and I’ve lived long enough to remember when they sold the nuggets in six piece, nine piece, or 20 piece boxes before they moved to the ten piece standard that is common today. For a while I thought the chicken selects would soon replace nuggets as my preferred choice for tiny bits of chicken deliciousness, but eventually I migrated back to the nuggets and find myself ordering them more than anything else on the menu.

So of course ordering nuggets as often as I do has led me to a conundrum which I have affectionately labeled “the McNugget dilemma”. The basic premise is, from time to time I have discovered an order of ten nuggets doesn’t always contain 10 nuggets. On rare occasion I have been shorted a nugget, but it seems most of the time if there is a counting error it is in my favor, which translates to 11 nuggets (or one time it was 12 nuggets).

Now I fully realize in some cases the McDonalds employee who is putting the nuggets into the little box might have one or two extra nuggets in a batch so they just toss them in my box as a free bonus, but I have to wonder how often this odd number of nuggets is actually due to human error.

Thus, when receiving 11 nuggets should I be happy I have received a free (and tasty) bonus McNugget, or should I be sad that the McDonalds worker who prepared my meal lacks the ability to accurately count to 10? These are the types of questions I struggle with, and I dare say I’m not the only one.

Question of the Day

2010-11-23T11:01:00.000-06:00

Have you ever noticed that the vast majority of pizza we consume is round, yet when you order a pizza it most often is delivered in a square box? Seems like a lot of wasted space if you ask me.

Yes I know Domino's has clipped corners on their box, but it isn't exactly round by any means. Papa Johns attempts to make use of this extra space by tossing in some dipping sauces and a pepper or two (which almost always end up in the trash), and occasionally you will find a pizza place that actually makes square or rectangular shaped pizza, but it is pretty rare.

I wonder how much extra space is delivered to American households in the average day. I'd say the guy who can invent a round pizza box that can be produced economically (at least as cheap as the more common square boxes) is going to be one very rich man.

Maybe they should get one of the Ikea designers to work on this... those guys are experts at efficient design and know how to pack the absolute most amount of product into the smallest possible container.

Baby Names and Professions

2010-11-03T11:19:00.000-05:00

What is it with people wanting to name their kids after professions or activities? Oh sure it all started innocent enough when someone decided to name their kid “Taylor” but spell it T-A-I-L-O-R, but next thing you know you have kids named Hunter, Priest, Lawyer, Carpenter, or Judge.

Do parents actually think naming a kid something will lead them to follow that career or be interested in that activity? If so I imagine those people who have named their daughter Candy probably wanted her to be a confectioner... or perhaps they just gave up all hope even before she was born and assumed she would be a stripper.

Parents who have named their son Hunter probably wanted to ensure he liked the outdoors, and parents who named their kid Dusty are probably just assuming he will be dirty his entire life. However, if parents really do put emphasis on names as professions, DeForest Kelley’s mother most likely really wanted him to be a logger... specifically a logger in Ireland.

Of course above all else is the former NASCAR driver with the name Dick Trickle… he must have been a huge disappointment to his parents as it seems they had their sights set on him becoming either a porn star or a spokesperson for Flomax.

That said, there is actually some science behind names. I recently was listening to a radio program where New York Times columnist David Brooks spoke about “brain sculpture”. He spoke of studies that have shown people named Dennis are disproportionately destined to become dentists and that people named Laurence are disproportionately likely to become lawyers.

According to Brooks in some sense people have a vague sense that they like the familiar – so they gravitate to words (and concepts) that are familiar to them. The mind seeks out familiarity, and this is just one way it presents itself. I suppose some might call it fate, others coincidence, but if you are taking the chance on naming your child after something you hope they can strive to become, might I suggest you name your child "Doctor", "Actor" or "President"?

Fun Size!

2010-10-12T14:48:00.001-05:00

With Halloween upon us, it got me thinking about the candy that is given out and how blatantly misleading candy companies are.

I think there should be a law against "bite size" or "snack size" candy bars. I mean...what’s the point? Instead of eating one regular size candy bar, you just end up eating 23 of the smaller ones... but I guess you can justify that by using all that energy to open those little bitty packages right?

However I draw the line on the slightly larger size which is called “fun size”. What the heck is actually fun about having to open up little candy bars when your brain is telling you that you really want the full size (real) version? That isn’t fun. That isn’t even remotely fun, and I challenge anyone to find someone out there who thinks getting only a portion of a candy bar is “fun”.

I suppose next time I fill up with gas I’ll just fill up to the ¼ tank line. That way I can claim it is “fun” gas. No need for a full tank here… I’m driving with a tank load of fun! And the next time I decide to buy shampoo I’m going to skip the big bottle and just buy about 25 of those little travel sizes. Obviously they are more fun, so that’s something to look forward to each day. Finally, the next time I fly coach I’ll ask the flight attendant if they could wedge me between two morbidly obese people just so I get the experience of having a seat which is about 60% smaller than normal... because that would make the flight between Denver and New York a whole lot more fun right?

I guess in some cases this might actually be useful to certain men who were born with less than average sized "equipment". If their girlfriends / wives / random one night stands ever complain... all they have to do is say that if fun size is good enough for The Hershey Company and Mars Inc, then it is good enough for them!

Life, after all, is all about the fun.

Wind: my original (and extremely short) story

2010-09-24T18:13:00.002-05:00

There are days when you can feel the wind even when you are indoors…days where a glance out of the window sends chills throughout your body. Looking at the green meadow outside of the kitchen window, you can see the grass moving in waves as the wind releases itself onto the cool earth.

The windowpanes rattle in their frames, reminding you that winter is coming….soon you will feel the cold air rushing in through the cracks of the 100 year old home…and the only thing you can counter it with is another log on the fire and another blanket on your lap as you pet your Labrador and listen to the static impregnated music from the radio sitting on the counter.

It is overcast outside, with small hints of sunlight dancing off of that meadow from time to time, but not nearly enough to warm your skin as you stand in the window. For some reason you feel it is enough to ensure you don’t turn on a light, and it makes the room feel cool – even if the temperature hasn’t changed in days. You slide into an old cotton sweater your mother used to wear, not so much for the extra layer of clothing, but for the memory of her standing in that very same window, with that very same sweater.

You can see bits of plastic that have become caught on the rusty barbed wire fence across the driveway – the wind whipping at them almost as if it shows signs of fury, but powerless to tear the plastic away. Years ago that fence was meant to keep cattle away from the house, yet decades later it is still keeping control of what crosses its path. Parts of that fence are falling down, but you can’t bring yourself to remove the remaining wire. It has become part of the atmosphere of this old house, and every time you look at it you are reminded of your late father.

He put that fence up in a hotter than normal July so many years ago. You remember being a small girl watching him work under the oppressive sun as the sweat poured down his brow and he wiped it with his forearm – leaving a streak of moisture on his arm to collect more dirt before he smeared it onto his forehead again. You can remember the day so vividly, almost as if it was just last week. You can recall how he would lift his hat to tousle his hair – somehow thinking if he let his damp hair breathe it would cool him down.

Memories surround this old house, which is why even after the prodding of family and friends, you have never been able to sell it. Sure you had a home in town that you could live more comfortably in, but new homes never have the emotion built into the old ones – and as the weeks since your mother’s death turned into months, you find yourself spending more and more time out here. Other than the food in the cupboards, nothing inside of the home looks to be newer than the 70s, and you now realized how possessions never meant anything to your parents. They never had much money, but it didn’t bother them since what little they did have was never of concern. They bought what they needed – perhaps that was a trait developed by living through the depression and the World Wars….however for some reason you feel that it wouldn’t have mattered.

As you walk back towards the fire, the floorboards squeak with each step, almost as if they are crying for the loss of the people who lived there for almost 60 years. The only surviving member is Mitch – the old faithful companion who only barks when he is hungry, but never when someone comes to the door. Mitch is old enough that the journey from the couch to the hearth of the fireplace is about all he can manage in an hour, but he seems so very content…the same feeling you get by being here.

You realize it will never be your house – surely the deed to the house and surrounding land is in your name, but this will forever remain your parent’s home. The thought of someone buying it has never appealed to you – however you doubt anyone would want a 100 year old house almost 20 miles from the nearest town, and 4 from the nearest neighbor. Since the rent from the land is more than enough to pay for the taxes and upkeep, you figure you will just let the house age with you.

As you sit there thinking of all of the years spent with this house, you are startled by the phone ringing from the kitchen. Even the phone is the old rotary dial with the real bell inside – enough to alert you to the call even while standing outside on the porch. Reaching for the receiver you softly answer, listening as the caller asks for your mother. It has happened a few times in the last few months, but it doesn’t get any easier to tell people she has passed on….especially considering you don’t know if they are a salesperson or a longtime friend from years gone. As you accept their condolences and hang up, you recognize that 12 seconds of conversation is the only human contact you have had in over a week – however this suddenly doesn’t seem all that disappointing.

As you pull the sweater up around your neck a little tighter, you glance once again at the grass in the meadow dancing up the hill, and you realize the wind carries more than just dust and cool air…it interacts with you and the surroundings…and it presents the memories of a family that once was.

20 Arguably Famous People Who Prefer to Wear Black

2010-09-13T22:24:00.004-05:00

Note: This list is not in any particular order and I chose not to include any mention of the film Men in Black or include to any Goth or Emo types because that would just be too easy.

20. Richard Lewis
Lewis is probably best known for his HBO comedy specials, his literally hundred or so late night TV appearances, his role on Curb Your Enthusiasm, and as the only man who beat out Billy Ray Cyrus for the longest running mullet of all time, but if you are under 25 years of age there is a chance you have no idea who this guy is. GQ Magazine put Lewis on their list of the '20th Century's Most Influential Humorists', which would have been quite an honor had it not come from a magazine that is only read by frat boys and closet metrosexuals.

19. Judge Ito
It was a tossup between Judge Ito, any of the Supreme Court Justices, or Judge Judy. Since Judge Judy is far too annoying to be included in my list, and because the Supreme Court Justices are the farthest thing from entertaining Ito it is. Frankly, nobody really knows what Ito wears under his robe, but then again nobody wants to. Although Ito bears an uncanny resemblance to Oddjob from the James Bond film Goldfinger, he will probably always be associated with the OJ Simpson trial he presided over, better known as the only time Court TV ever had more than 32 people tuned in at the same time.

18. Clint Black
The guy's last name is black and he has black hair so it probably isnt a stretch for him to always be seen with a black cowboy hat and black wrangler jeans. I am convinced had his last name been Fuchsia, there is a good chance RCA Records wouldnt have been so eager to sign him to a record deal, but opinions vary. The real dilemma here is how he could marry Lisa Hartman... a blond woman with skin so bright she makes the Olsen twins look tropical by comparison.

17. Richard Belzer

My grandfather once told me Richard Belzer was a funny guy, but then again grandpa wore diapers and claimed Amelia Earhart worked at the local Walgreens, so maybe he was just confused. Belzer does however win the award for best character name for any of the 43 versions of Law & Order with his portrayal of Detective John Munch in Law & Order: SVU. I'm guessing most people with taste have no idea who Belzer is although many probably confuse him for Mr. Spock on Star Trek.

16. Joan Jett
The question is, would Joan Jett still resort to wearing black all the time if her band was not called The Blackhearts? I think so, but then again I have noticed Jett has started bleaching her hair, so perhaps she has drifted away from her punk roots (pardon the pun) just a tad. Jett will always be known for her 1979 cover of the classic rock song I Love Rock N Roll, which made the song a mainstay on American radio stations until Britney Spears covered the song again in 2002, and publicly attributed the hit version of the song to Pat Benatar single handedly ruining a perfectly good song in multiple ways at the very same time.

15. Batman

Sure Batman isnt a real person, but he is arguably famous, so he makes the cut. You have to admit, for superhero born in the 30s, he still looks pretty damn good in a plastic suit. Then again, in some variations the suit was really medium blue or light gray but if you ask Robin it all looks the same in the dark. George Clooney went out of his way to make the character look even more gay than Adam West did while wearing tights, although the comicbook diehards out there swear there was nothing going on between Batman and Robin. Then again some people think Tom Cruise and Jake Gyllenhaal are both straight too, so obviously the world is full of ignorance.

14. Ron White

His last name is White, so wearing white would have been the logical choice, however my sources tell me that he tried it once and wound up looking like a taller version of J.D Boss Hogg. Since that point, White generally only wears black when on stage, although his fingers do remain a nice shade of nicotine. An added bonus for White is that whiskey stains are much less noticeable on black and that has served to decrease his dry-cleaning bills by 80%.

13. Wesley Snipes
Anyone who has ever watched Chapelles Show, or heard people recycling Chapelle quips for the next eight months after the airing of each episode, will easily tell you that Wesley Snipes is one of the blackest men on the planet, and I think that holds true regardless of what color of clothing the man has on at the time. Added bonus points go to Snipes with his role as a leather-clad vampire hunter in the film Blade, and again in Blade II, and once more in Blade: Trinity, and again in Blade: Another Attempt to Resurrect Wesley Snipes Career.

12. A Catholic Priest
Priests all over the nation have given new meaning to the phrase pop the collar, but my therapist suggested I stop talking about such things to strangers, so Ill keep this civil. I guess there is a hierarchy to the Roman Catholic Church with Priests wearing black, Cardinals wearing red, and the Pope wearing white... even after labor day. I'm not sure what any of it means with the exception of black supposedly meaning poverty, which I find ironic because my Priest pays me $750 a week just to keep my mouth shut.

11. Agent Smith

Pretty much any character from the Matrix films would have been applicable here, and yes Smith does wear a white shirt but his attitude is all black even if he does resemble a IBM engineer from the late 60s. The man is a regular badass capable of dodging bullets, amazing acrobatic maneuvers, incredible speed, self replication, and spawning from perceived death. Rumor has it that the real reason Smith was defeated is because Neo entered the following sequence into his source code: Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start. Thats just a rumor though and I havent been able to confirm it with the Wachowski brothers quite yet.

10. A Ninja

I would have listed a specific ninja here but I couldnt find any due to their incredible usage of stealth. I searched and searched but as far as I can tell the only man who has ever successfully captured a ninja was Chuck Norris, and Chuck isnt talking. I tried asking him what it was like to come face to face with a real ninja, but when provoked all Chuck said was it isnt wise to question the authority of 'the Norris' which quite honestly left me somewhat in fear for my safety. I mean when someone refers to themselves in the 3rd person, it is pretty clear they mean business.

9. George Clooney

George Clooney didn't always wear black, but ironically it seems to have defined his style ever since he started going gray. I guess the salt and pepper look coordinates better with black than any other color, so Clooney figured why fight it. Of course he also played Batman (number 15 on our list) and many of his other roles find him wearing a tuxedo for one reason or another, so black seems to play a prominent role with his on screen persona as well. There is also a good chance Russell Crowe will wind up giving Clooney a black eye sooner or later, which would only serve to solidify his place on this list.

8. Simon Cowell
As it turns out, Cowell used to always wear a white t-shirt, but found it increasingly difficult to bleach out the pit stains every week, so he switched to black. Being known as the only honest judge on American Idol, and having to listen to Randy Jackson say dawg 54 times each episode has taken its toll on Cowell and he seems to have developed a dandruff problem. Rather than switch to Selsun Blue, he thought it best to try a different color shirt, although it is just a matter of time before listening to horrid fame whores try to sing annoys him to the point he will pull out his own hair, thus solving the dandruff problem, and thus being able to return to his signature black shirt.

7. Al Pacino
Al is the biggest short guy on the silver screen with a voice that makes one assume he smokes at least four packs of unfiltered camels a day. He has played both good guys and bad guys but will always be associated with his role in the Godfather films as Michael Corleone and his incredible performance in Scarface as Tony 'say hello to my little friend' Montana. Pacino is regarded as one of the greatest actors of his generation, and surprisingly he is one of the only male leads in Hollywood to have never been divorced. Then again he has never been married either, but that really isnt the point.

6. Herman Munster
Herman (portrayed by the late Fred Gwynne) obviously always wore black, but considering ever episode of The Munsters was filmed in black and white I suppose he could have been wearing purple for all we know. Truth is, I wanted to go with Count Chocula here, but as we all know, the Count actually wears brown... so that just wouldnt work.

5. Lewis Black
Much to my personal disappointment Lewis is not Clints brother, however that doesnt prevent him from following the pattern of matching your wardrobe to a surname. Lewis is one of those guys that can find a complaint about everything, so the way I figure it elimination of all color from his closet enabled him to focus on the really important issues in life, like whether stereos should have volume knobs or volume buttons, or whether or not Pamela Anderson has to check her implants at the luggage counter when flying.

4. Roy Orbison
Black hair, black clothes, black glasses, and a big black mole that would make Cindy Crawford jealous - that is the essence of Roy Orbison. Elvis was quoted as saying that Orbison was "the greatest singer in the world", so if the opinion of a bourbon chugging, barbituate inhaling, leisure suit wearing, cultural icon is of any significance, clearly Orbison was quite talented. Plus, Orbison was the only celebrity who successfully wore sunglasses at night and on stage without looking like a complete tool. (Im looking at you Bono)

3. Paul Stanley, Gene Simmons, Peter Criss, and Ace Frehley
(Original band members of KISS)
The band who was built around makeup and costumes long before The Spice Girls were ever even heard of surely deserves a position on the list. What I find most amazing is how a band can recycle the same 20 songs onto more than a dozen live, compilation, greatest hits, or soundtrack albums, various box sets, and even videos and DVDs yet people continue to buy them. Even more amazing than that is the fact that the self proclaimed rockers have recorded a song written by Michael Bolton, have pimped themselves out on more products than Ron Popeil including both condoms and caskets, and have recorded a few hundred songs yet only broke into the top position once with 1998s release of Psycho Circus which had a short life at #1 on the Mainstream Rock chart. Oh yea and Gene Simmons claims to have slept with about a bazillion women, so clearly women find something attractive about a man in makeup who likes to spit blood and wear high heels.

2. Johnny Cash
No list of this nature would ever be complete without Johnny Cash. I suppose with the recent surge in popularity Cash has experienced you would expect him to be number one on the list, but then you would have to remember this list is in no particular order, and even if it was in a specific order Cash wouldnt be number one, because frankly I'm not much for jumping on bandwagons, and the truth is I dont even know what a bandwagon is. However, Cash earned the title of the 'Man in Black' on his own and was never guilty of selling out to popularity. The way I heard it Cash was so upset that they picked Joaquin Phoenix to play him in a movie that he threatened to haunt the studio, but apparently he changed his mind when Reese Witherspoon walked on to the set. After that the ghost of Cash could only be seen in Witherspoons trailer... and really who could blame him.

1. Darth Vader

What needs to be said about the great Sith Lord who spends over 23 years inside of a black suit? A cultural icon who has infiltrated our society since the original Star Wars Episode IV film in 1977, Vader continues to be considered one of the greatest villains of all time. Although most consider his black helmet and outfit to be a requirement to sustain his life after a nasty battle with Obi-Wan Kenobi where he met the business end of a lightsaber I know the real story, and the real story is he wears black because he is in a constant state of mourning for his loss of Padmé Amidala and he was once told guys in capes get all the hot chicks. As an added bonus, thanks to the great James Earl Jones, he has the best voice of any villian throughout cinematic history as well.

So there you have it. 20 arguably famous people who prefer to wear black. It was a tough selection process and I'm sure some of your favorites didnt make the list but I think we can all agree that I don't care what you think about my choices. Just be sure to always match your belt with your shoes and everything will be fine - unless you are Jack Black in which case it doesn't matter because everything you do is considered comedic gold. Jack might not always wear black, but he is always funny.

True Story.

Happy Food?

2010-05-04T14:13:00.002-05:00

Why do people feel the need to use “happy” names for food that isn’t all that great? For example the terms ‘vegetable medley’. They take three or four vegetables that nobody really likes and mix them together, and all of the sudden it is a medley?

Then you have ‘sparkling white wine’….which as we all know is just carbonated grape juice that you have to serve when your family is full of recovering alcoholics. My personal favorite however is papaya. Papaya is one of those words that people just enjoy saying, so clearly it is a happy name. I guess the name papaya is better than calling it what it really is…. “not quite as good as pineapple, and full of seeds”.

Are We Witnessing The Death Of Mainstream Media?

2010-04-28T15:26:00.004-05:00

There is a lot of chatter these days about the mainstream media and whether or not new forms of media such as blogging and random twitter updates are replacing the standard column within a magazine or newspaper. Some people say the mainstream media is antiquated and that it is slow to react to a modern world. Some suggest this “old media” has long since passed its golden era and will soon be replaced by more modern forms of media that will react within seconds and that are more nimble, directed, and informed.

I’d say those types of people are dead wrong… and I’ll explain why.

The simple truth is the existing mainstream media serves a very legitimate purpose. We can receive in-depth coverage of a variety of topics, and we often have the benefit of reading a column which has taken weeks, months, or even years of research to put together. We can read an article in a magazine which has numerous sources which provide background information, and we know that magazine has a reputation to uphold… thus they likely to print something they haven’t verified and cross-checked.

This isn’t to say these types of media are infallible or that they never find themselves needing to print a retraction or clarification, but the truth is when a person picks up a newspaper, turns the pages on a magazine, or flips the channel to a 24 hour news network, they have a certain expectation of truth. There may be a sense of bias, there may be facts or figures that are questionable, but at the end of the day it is much easier to trust a known source rather than a random unverifiable blog written by a stranger who often may not even provide his or her real name or has no training as a journalist.

The newer forms of media… often called simply “new media” don’t have this same sense of reputation. Often times we find a blogger is more concerned with getting the ‘scoop’ of a story rather than ensuring the facts are correct if for no other reason than they don’t want another blogger to beat them to the punch. The newer forms of media simply don’t have the time, resources, or energy to properly research a story, and therefore the viewer may never understand the full implications of a story or may never reach the same level of involvement on an issue.

However, research and reliability aside, a more significant difference between old and new media is simply the audience they appeal to. David Carr from The New York Times once used the phrase “Echo Chamber” to describe the audience that follows most new forms of media, and I feel that is fair description. The basic premise here is that in many cases these new forms of media are merely talking to themselves rather than reaching the masses.

People who follow new forms of media are presented with blogs and websites that appeal to their viewpoint, and as such they are surrounded by like-minded individuals with similar opinions. If a person happens to be interested in technology and follows a technology blog on a regular basis, they likely will be hearing from peers who share the same interests and who share many of the same opinions. If a person follows a political blog, it will often be because they share that viewpoint and wishes to feel part of a group who all see things the same way.

Many forms of new media could be considered a “vertical column” where one simply feeds from another. Thus if you have a website which results in a blog which results in twitter updates which feed to others who have their blogs and websites and videos uploaded to YouTube which then prompt additional comments on yet another blog and feeds into a Facebook group… you end up seeing this mass of information which is all in a straight column.

There is very little expansion and there is no legitimate desire to feed or integrate this information elsewhere. The end result is a virtual group of head nodding people who have no interest or aspirations to link together with a separate group which may have a similar, but opposing viewpoint on an issue. There is very little collaboration as these groups tend to remain isolated, and for all intents and purposes they remain that way due to the model in which they were built upon.

One reason the old media will remain is for no other reason that the fact they are able to send their message to the masses without a need for the recipient to seek them out, or to subscribe to their message, or to link up with others. Whether it be print media, a cable news network, or a radio station, these forms of media can and do reach a massive audience which is infinitely diverse. Not only do they reach individuals who agree with the message or have interest in the particular topic, but more importantly they can reach those who have no interest and those that without a doubt disagree with the content.

That is the entire benefit – not everyone has to agree and not everyone should. Media should inform, but it should not only inform a small subsection and it should not target a core demographic. Of course we know even the best media sources will never be able to appeal to everyone and there will almost always be accusations of bias, but regardless of these challenges the ‘old’ media will continue to serve a valuable purpose for the foreseeable future. Needless to say, the rumors of the death of old media have been greatly exaggerated.

So does this mean there is no room for new media source? On the contrary – forms of new media can actually strengthen the ‘old guard’ of mainstream media. Likewise old media can benefit from some of the technologies and developments which have resulted in new forms of media. Obviously it is in the best interests of the old forms of media to adapt to the ever changing world around them, but at the same time they need to retain what has made them so strong in the first place.

Blogs and websites can work alongside magazines and talk radio. Electronic versions of magazines and newspapers can supplement the print variety with the added benefit of being able to be updated throughout the day. Twitter updates or text messages can replace “breaking news alerts” on terrestrial radio. All of these various forms of media can and do work together to inform and educate the viewer/listener.

At the end of the day this all strengthens old media rather than competes with it, although at the same time many forms of new media also tend to be free media… and to some degree that model is not self-supporting in any way. There are a lot of experiments happening in the world around us, but when the dust falls rest assured the only way people will be able to obtain a high quality and steady stream of information is if they are willing to pay for it. That either means subscription fees, or the willingness to be inundated with advertisements or other minor annoyances that provide a profit stream to the original creator.

So this all begs the question – if new media eventually falls in line with old media via the desire to be profitable in order to provide a higher quality of content… does this means new media becomes one in the same as old media?

It seems one can only remain on the cutting edge and can only remain the new kid on the block for a finite amount of time. Eventually things are much less exciting when everyone else is doing it, and as such the trend is no longer a trend and instead is merely the status quo.

The Problem With Consumerism

2010-04-14T13:28:00.001-05:00

I like to think I am like most American consumers in that I prefer to get the most bang for my buck. I shop sales and when I plan to make a purchase I do my research so I know I’m getting the most value for my dollar. If the purchase is an item worth for than $50 or so I’ll sometimes even go so far as to research pricing on the Internet and comparison shop locally. Above all else I refuse to impulse buy and I take personal pride in getting a good deal.

That being said, every now and then I come across a situation which really makes it difficult to understand why some consumers essentially ‘waste’ money without looking at the alternatives. I can understand people not bothering to comparison shop when it comes time to buy new socks or batteries for their remote controls. However sometimes all a person has to do is actually take a few seconds to read the price tag and compare it to other options available in the very same store… often in the very same aisle.

Case in point – this past weekend I found myself in need of a replacement filter for my Ridgid shop vac. Since Ridgid is a Home Depot brand, I knew the best possible location to obtain a replacement filter was likely Home Depot. Since I had some other things to shop for, I decided to make a trip to the big orange store and see what I could find.

As I’m walking through the front entrance I notice as stack of flyers so I grab one and give it a quick glance to see what they have on sale. As luck would have it, they have a Ridgid shop vac on sale for the whopping price of $19.98. Now granted I don’t need another shop vac because the one I have works just fine and isn’t that old, but this got me curious.

As I walked over to the part of the store where they sell the vacuums, I notice a pile of the special sale priced vacs in the main aisle. According to the box it includes two sections of hard plastic extension wand, one seven foot flex hose, and one nozzle. It also just happens to include the same pleated filter as my current shop vac uses. Keep in mind all of this costs $19.98.

So I then walk over to the wall where they stock the accessories and filters. To buy the single filter – with no shop vac, no hoses, no nozzles or other accessories… it costs $15.97.

Yes you read that correctly – the filter costs 16 bucks and the entire shop vac with filter and accessories goes for 20. So basically Home Depot would have me believe that the shop vac itself with the accessories is worth a total of $4 while the filter is worth four times as much.

To make matters that much worse, about eight feet to the left of where I was looking at the filter, they have a display with a twin-pack of filters for the exact same price of $15.97. Knowing that you can buy two filters for the same price as you can buy one filter… why would anyone ever buy just one?

Now I suppose I could buy the whole shop vac and just use that filter with the knowledge if my existing shop vac dies on me or if I break a hose etc I will have a spare, but that is just one more thing to store in my already over-crowded garage and frankly I just don’t see the value in obtaining vast quantities of stuff that I don’t really need. My point here is that Home Depot is almost forcing people to buy things they don’t really need merely due to the pricepoint. This just suggests an older perfectly good shop vac could end up in the landfill when someone replaces it with a shiny new model just because it was cheap.

Just because something is cheap, does not mean it makes sense to buy it… but it is difficult to recognize this when we are continually bombarded with opportunities to “get a good deal”.

This same principle applies with many products and I often times find buying replacements or accessories for products is just as expensive or even more expensive than the original products themselves. One example of this is batteries for power tools. If you want to buy a two pack of 18 volt batteries for a Dewalt drill, you can expect to pay around $119. However if you wait until the drill is on sale, you can actually get a whole new drill, two batteries, a charger, and a hard case for $99! In fact Home Depot and Lowes run this sale on Black Friday almost every year, and I’ve seen it at other random times as well. This explains why I own two drills rather than one drill and extra batteries – because it is just cheaper and a better value.

So what is a person to do? Should we just continue to buy new inkjet printers each time we need a new ink cartridge rather than buying the actual cartridges just because it is about the same money? Should we continue to buy light bulbs in the multipack because they include a free LED flashlight rather than buying the same light bulbs without the flashlight? Should we do this even if we already have five of the ‘free’ flashlights and cannot possibly use any more?

As if this wasn’t all confusing enough, I found myself at Lowes a few days after my Home Depot experience. As I was walking through the store I came across some drill bit kits that were priced at $9.97. The kicker was if you buy the drill bits there is a $10 off a $50 future purchase at Lowe’s. So basically if you buy the drill bits they will cost you $9.97 plus tax (which in my area would equal a total of $10.57). You can then take those drill bits out to the car, remove the coupon, and then return to the store to buy the rest of your purchases. The net result is the drill bit set will cost you a whopping 60 cents.

Now I’m a tool guy – I like tools, I have a lot of tools, and I can almost always justify the purchase of even more tools… however I did not buy the bits even though they are a great deal. The simple truth was I have done things like this so often that I have enough bits to last me a lifetime plus ten years – so even if another set costs less than a candy bar, I just don’t have the need for them. I suppose I could have bought them and given them to a friend or family member, but I was just so amazed at the logic behind the pricing that I just couldn’t bring myself to add them to my cart.

Sometimes being a well informed consumer can give a person a headache.

I Probably Hate You...

2010-03-25T15:13:00.003-05:00

If you park in the fire lane of a retail store just to run in “real quick” – even if you leave your wife, girlfriend, husband, boyfriend, dog, cat, child, or aging grandmother in the passenger seat and you somehow think this makes it acceptable... I probably hate you. I don’t care if the engine is still running or if it is 2:45am and the parking lot is empty. I still hate you.

If you have ever used that checkbox that allows you to vote a straight party ticket rather than actually knowing enough about the candidates to vote for them individually... I probably hate you.

If you have ever played your incredibly obnoxious car stereo late at night in a residential area where people are trying to sleep (or put their kids to sleep)... I probably hate you.

If you are currently on welfare, unemployment, or any other government assistance program and are buying lottery tickets, cigarettes, or have satellite television complete with premium movie channels... I probably hate you.

If you follow the religion of your parents, their parents, and their parents just because that is what you grew up with and you have never take the time to honestly and objectively question why you believe what you do... I probably hate you.

If you believe Fox News is in fact the only “unbiased” television news network or that their motto of “fair and balanced” is based in truth... I probably hate you. In fact, if you excuse Fox News by proclaiming CNN is biased in the other direction I probably hate you more.

If you see that your lane of the road is blocked 300 yards ahead and instead of merging behind all the other cars waiting their turn you decide to speed up and try to wedge yourself in between the cars at the front of the line in order to save 30 seconds off your trip... I probably hate you. If you get mad when someone sees you trying to speed ahead of everyone else and refuses to let you cut in front of them... I probably hate you and your parents.

If you have ever protested anything while forcing your young children to protest with you – regardless of what you are protesting for or against... I probably hate you. If you have done this in inclement weather I probably hate you six times more than I hated you the first time.

If you are the guy who always thinks he has the right to fit through the intersection even if that green arrow turned red long before you got there... I probably hate you.

If you have ever chucked a cigarette butt out the window with no care whatsoever for the car behind you or the environment, or if you have ever tried to convince someone that it wasn’t littering... I probably hate you.

If you have ever forwarded some idiotic chain email without taking the 45 seconds to verify it via a Google search first... I probably hate you.

If you have ever had anything to do with advertising via little plastic signs littered all across the countryside on every major intersection and along every major road, regardless of whether you were advertising for your business, for a miracle weight loss drug, for your local church, or for a political candidate... I probably hate you.

If recycling is mandated in your community yet you refuse to recycle due to it being so inconvenient for you on a personal level... I probably hate you.

If you feel the need to dig your hand to the bottom of your bag of popcorn ensuring you produce as much noise as possible from the paper bag while grabbing a entire handful of popcorn only to attempt to jam the entire thing in your mouth over, and over, and over again while watching a movie in a public theater... I probably hate you.

If you are the parents who are always whining about how your kid doesn’t get enough playing time and then proceed to yell and complain at the umpire at every little league game you go to... I probably hate you.

If you have ever forced your kids to play sports and put their athletic ability above their education and everything else knowing full well an education will be more valuable to their future than a state trophy ever will, merely because you wish to live vicariously through them... I probably hate you.

If you ever purchased a home on an interest only mortgage, lease all of your vehicles, and carry three or more credit cards with a balance yet have the audacity to complain when you have trouble making your house payments... I probably hate you.

If you have been driving for more than six months and yet still don’t understand who should yield at an intersection, or if you have yet to grasp the concept that the first car who stopped is the first car to go regardless if they are turning or going straight... I probably hate you.

If you eat with your mouth open, or if you decide it is important to talk while eating with your mouth open, or if you can’t seem to control the amount of disgusting noise your mouth makes while eating with your mouth open... I probably hate you. Granted I will likely do whatever I can to avoid being in a room where you are eating, but I’ll still probably hate you.

If you have ever blamed your bank or mortgage company for your financial state or claimed they were predatory lenders while refusing to accept responsibility for being the moron who signed the paperwork accepting the money... I probably hate you.

If you have ever sued someone for an accident which was at least in part a result of your own stupidity or ignorance, or if you have felt that you “deserved” financial compensation for something which was nothing more than an inconvenience to you... I probably hate you.

If you over the age of 16 and send no less than 40 text messages a day from your cell phone, and feel the need to respond to text messages you receive regardless of whether you are driving in a car, eating dinner at an upscale restaurant, or sitting in a movie theater... I probably hate you.

If you have a strong desire to see who is on this week’s cover of People or US Weekly and actually hold a subscription to either or both of these magazines... I probably hate you.

If you whine about your financial situation while having the best digital cable package, a cell phone, a smoking habit, bottled water in the refrigerator, more vehicles than you do drivers in your household, or designer clothes hanging in your closet... I probably hate you.

If you have ever based hiring decisions not upon who the best, brightest, most talented, and qualified candidate was but rather based upon who is your friend, relative, related to your friend or relative, or who has the least chance of making you look stupid at your own job due to their work ethic... I probably hate you.

If you have ever purchased a $70 pair of jeans or a $90 leather jacket for an infant, or if you refuse to dress your child in anything that doesn’t say “Baby Gap” or “Ralph Lauren” on the label... I probably hate you.

If you have ever used the terms “pro-aborts”, “anti-choice”, “pro-murder”, “anti-woman” or any such phrase when debating the topic of abortion, or if you fail to understand the mutually accepted labels of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are considered acceptable by both sides, or if you have attempted to blur the issue by refusing to accept the medically acceptable term is “fetus” rather than “blob of tissue” “preborn”, “preborn baby”, “preborn human”, etc, etc... I probably hate you.

If you have ever assumed someone was “isolated” or otherwise uneducated simply due to the fact they don’t live in a large metropolitan area without grasping the concept that people do in fact know how to travel and people can be very cultured even if they choose to live in Nebraska or Idaho... I probably hate you.

If you feel one political party is always right while the other is always wrong, or if you pretend to be non-partisan while only professing the viewpoints supported by any one political party, or if you have changed your voter registration to independent just so you can pretend to be non-partisan while in reality you continue to vote for the same party time and time again just as you always have... I probably hate you.

If you are still off the belief that climate change is nothing more than a ruse developed to make the environmentalists wealthy while refusing to acknowledge that more wealth is being made by those wishing to harm the environment than will ever be made by those wishing to protect it, or if you simply don’t believe climate change is real or if you have ever uttered the phrase “the jury is still out” while discussing climate change while failing to understand, recognize, or acknowledge that EVERY major scientific agency around the globe that studies climate change does in fact agree that yes it is real and yes humans play a major role in it... I probably hate you.

If you have ever purposefully parked across two parking spaces in any parking lot because you feel your car is more important than anyone else’s and are so afraid of door dings that you feel you are worthy... I probably hate you.

If you are more than 100lbs overweight and blame your condition upon genetics, or if you are convinced the only way to lose weight is to have some type of gastric bypass surgery without acknowledging that if you would simply eat less food you would get the same result... I probably hate you. If you care for someone who is so obese they can’t leave the house (which means you are the one providing the food for them) I probably hate you too.

If you have ever discussed artwork from the likes of Jackson Pollock and professed some senseless drivel about how he grasped such deep emotion or how his extensive use of the color pallet was so unique or that his work encompasses more talent than his peers without acknowledging that the average four year old could produce the same types of paintings given adequate supplies of automotive paint and canvas... I probably hate you.

10 Things That Have Always Annoyed Me About The Back To The Future Trilogy…

2009-12-16T15:10:00.006-06:00

First let me be clear that I love the Back To The Future trilogy. I loved the first movie, I really loved the second movie, and I loved the third one too. When the first Back To The Future (BTTF) movie was released in 1985 I was 10 years old and the mixture of a stainless steel clad DeLorean, Marty playing Johnny B. Goode on the guitar and the concept of time travel was pretty much everything I could wish for in a movie, therefore it instantly became one of my favorite films and remains so to this day.

However, that being said there have always been a few things which bothered me about the movies. I realize any film that deals with time travel requires a certain suspension of disbelief, and I’m not even going to get into the debate about whether time travel is theoretically possible or into long discussions about string theory, influencing the timeline, impacting future events etc, etc – but nevertheless I think there are few points which really don’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to me… so why not put them into a top 10 list?

So – without any further explanation, here is a random list of ten things which have always annoyed me about the BTTF series of films:

1. At the end of the first BTTF film, Doc Brown arrives at the McFly house in a panic and tells Marty that something has to be done about his kids. Doc Brown puts Marty and Jennifer into the DeLorean and they proceed to fly off into the future.

But here is the problem – they are in a time machine, so what is the rush? The events that Doc Brown is concerned with don’t happen for 30 more years in the future, so why would he feel the need to rush off this very day? Since Doc Brown knows more about time travel than anyone, surely he would understand it would make more sense to plan ahead and not activate the DeLorean in the middle of the day where it could be (and is) seen.

2. In the first film, how did the Libyan terrorists that shot Doc Brown know he was at the Twin Pines Mall (or Lone Pine Mall in later scenes)?

The fact is, even if the Libyan terrorists figured out that Doc Brown had stole their plutonium, and assuming they knew his real name and real address… why would they think to look for him in the parking lot of a mall at 1:15am? It isn’t like Doc Brown left a note on his door telling them where he was, so this never really made sense. I won’t even bother asking the question how a VW minibus seems to be able to keep up with a DeLorean in the parking lot… that is a separate issue.

3. In the third and final BTTF film, the gas line of the DeLorean is punctured by an arrow which results in the DeLorean running out of fuel.

I can understand if the fuel tank itself was punctured since Marty was essentially driving through a desert at the time, but considering the fuel tank is in the rear of the car and the engine is above it, why on earth would there be a fuel line running on the exterior of the car? Doc Brown said himself that the “Mr. Fusion” reactor powered the time circuits (which eliminates the need for additional plutonium) so there was no logical reason for a spare fuel line in that area. To add to this, considering the line was above the fuel tank itself, one would think even if it was punctured there would still be ample fuel in the tank itself which could be used once the line was repaired.

4. In BTTF part III, Marty arrives back in 1985 on the railroad tracks only to have a train demolish the DeLorean meaning there is no way for him to ever return to 1885 and bring Doc Brown back to the present.

Fine – but wouldn’t the engineer of the train or any of the witnesses report the accident? Wouldn’t Marty be questioned or detained and wouldn’t the place be packed with emergency personnel within minutes? To make matters worse, when Marty returns to the scene hours later to look at the wreckage, Doc Brown suddenly arrives on a time traveling locomotive!

Ok, I can buy the fact that Doc Brown creates a new time machine. I can let slide the fact that the electronic components required to build it won’t be invented for another 80 years and that the train flies off with no concern about onlookers getting a view of a flying, disappearing train… but how on Earth did Doc Brown know precisely the exact moment to appear on the train tracks? Did he just time travel back 1200 times to find the exact moment when Marty was standing by the tracks? Seems to me it would have made more sense for him to appear minutes after Marty went back to 1985… but I suppose that wouldn’t have made for nearly as entertaining of a movie.

5. In BTTF part II, when Biff threatens to shoot Marty on the rooftop and Marty “jumps” off to land on the DeLorean, why would Doc Brown bother to rise up and give Biff a clear shot at Marty, the DeLorean, or Doc Brown himself?

They already had the date that they were going to travel back to in order to restore the timeline, so why bother dealing with Biff? What Doc Brown should have done was just float off into the distance because the second they go back in time the current time dimension/reality would no longer exist, so knocking Biff out is really of no benefit.

Then again, anyone who has ever been in a DeLorean will tell you the gull-wing doors actually open in a vertical manner, so it wouldn’t be possible for the door to swing out far enough to hit Biff in the head and knock him out… but I suppose I can let that slide for the sake of entertainment.

6. In the second film, Marty hides under what appears to be a tarp in the back seat of Biff’s car and even goes so far as to call Doc Brown on his walkie talkie without Biff ever hearing him.

Biff just got his car out of the shop where it was cleaned off all the manure. Don’t you think he might just be a tad interested to find out why there is a big tarp in his back seat? And don’t we think he might actually hear Marty (or see him in the rearview mirror) when he is talking to Doc Brown on the walkie talkie? Seems to me it would have made a lot more sense to put Marty in the trunk where the chances or being seen or heard would be exponentially less. There could have been a nice tie-in back to the scene where Marty gets locked in the trunk in the first film as well.

7. In the first film, Marty and Doc formulate a plan to use the lightning bolt as their source of power to send the DeLorean back to the future based upon the flyer that Marty has which tells them the time of the lightning strike.

Fine, so they know the minute that the clock stops, but when you are driving at 88mph down a city street (which coincidentally has zero other cars anywhere to be seen even though it is only 10:04PM) the difference of a few seconds could very well determine the probability of hitting the lightning at the exactly second required. Thus, if the lightning occurred at 10:04:55 but Marty drove through the cable at 10:04:25, he would have missed the lightning by a full 30 seconds and would have crashed into the movie theater without ever traveling back through time!

Now aside from the fact that Marty failed to start accelerating when the alarm clock went off and thus he would have most likely been late, and aside from the fact that the lightning bolt seemed to have been powerful enough to send the time machine back through time yet never caused any harm to any of the other electronics in the vehicle, and aside from the fact that there wasn’t enough stopping distance to prevent Marty from crashing through the movie theater and dying in a horrific car accident, I don’t see any way to time the arrival of the DeLorean to reach the cable at the precise moment of the lightning strike.

Instead, they should have used some form of an extension cord or long cable to connect the clock tower to the DeLorean so Marty could be driving away from the clock tower at he could hold his speed at 88mph for the entire 60 second time period. Another alternative would have been to rig up some type of a mesh such as the type used to connect a bumper car to the overhead electric service – but clearly unless they knew the exact second of the lightning strike and could time it to the exact second the hook comes into contact with the wire there would be no possible way for Marty to return to 1985.

8. The storm that results in the clock tower being hit by lightning doesn’t seem to involve any significant amount of rain (although the ground does appear to be wet) and the wind and lightning seem to be very strong but only to the point of the lightning strike on the clock tower.

Once the lightning strike hits at 10:04PM, the storm suddenly – and shockingly – ends. There is no more rain, there are no more high winds, there is no more lightning. I could buy the fact that there is no more lightning after that one strike, but surely the wind doesn’t go from 50mph to dead calm in the span of less than 10 seconds.

9. The “present day” (in 1985) Doc Brown has no memory of Marty or the events that took place in 1955.

The thing is, as soon as Marty traveled back to 1955 and met Doc Brown, the present day (or 1985 version) Doc Brown would hold those memories. Therefore, the present day Doc Brown would know that Marty would get transported back to 1955 and with a little pre-planning he could have ensured there was a spare container of plutonium stored in the glovebox or in the trunk (which in the DeLorean is actually in the front of the car, but I digress).

Once the events of 1955 occurred such as Doc meeting Marty and learning about the time machine, the lack of plutonium, the fact that Marty needs to get back to 1985, Doc Brown would hold all those memories and he would be able to build upon them. He would know his time machine was successful and therefore would likely stop working on other projects and devote himself to it. He would know Marty would be the one to travel back in time and therefore he would probably wonder why he himself didn’t do so (and perhaps led him to the discovery that the Libyans were going to attempt to kill him).

Actually, this theme of memories not traveling to the alternate timeline is quite common throughout BTTF. In the original film, Marty’s parents spent several days with Marty and surely would have developed memories of what he looked like, what his name was, the type of person he was etc, etc – yet in the present day 1985 timeline, they don’t seem at all surprised that their son, who just happens to be named Marty and plays the guitar, looks exactly like the Marty that brought them together at the Enchantment Under the Sea dance back in 1955!

Now I don’t claim to be well versed in all aspects of time travel theory, but one would assume you don’t just magically lose your memories simply because someone else travels through time, and therefore the 1985 Doc Brown would know about the 1955 events and would easily have taken steps to avoid them. Due to his insistence on minimizing impact to the timeline it seems clear to me that Doc Brown likely wouldn’t have involved Marty in any of his time travel escapades for fear of influencing future (or past) events.

10. When Marty and Jennifer travel into the future to “fix” the problem with their kids, they would no longer exist in the past and therefore could never meet themselves.

This is the part that gets a little confusing, but bear with me for a minute. The fact is, if I get into a time machine right now and travel into the future 10 years, if I was to meet someone I had known in the past (which for us is present day) – they would wonder where the hell I had been the last decade because from their perspective I would just disappear one day with no trace left behind.

Now one could argue that since I will travel back to the past again in the future (confused yet) that I would then exist in the future that I am now visiting, but the simple truth is if that were true, the future me would know that I had traveled to the future in the past, and as such there would be no reason to hide it from myself.

Yes – it really is that confusing, so feel free to read that last paragraph or two again.

My point here is that it might be possible to meet yourself if you travel into the past, but it really wouldn’t work to travel into the future, because the second you leave your existing timeline you no longer exist in the future – and as such you have already changed the future even without trying along with the fact you could never prevent your future self from knowing about the incident.

This also is a common theme throughout the film because if the timeline was altered and if Marty was never able to coerce George and Lorraine to fall in love, then Marty would never exist in the first place and as such could not travel back in time. If Marty couldn’t travel back in time then he couldn’t be the one to get hit by the car, and Lorraine would have fallen in love with George as it happened originally. Thus, Marty would never disappear or fade because his future or his fate if you will, was already determined.

So there you have it – just a few things that I have obviously spent far too much time thinking about, especially when you consider these are all trivial points about a film that deals with the concept of time travel (which I would argue is a sheer impossibility, but that is a philosophical discussion for another time.., pardon the pun).

None of this changes the fact that the BTTF movies were and still are incredibly entertaining, and none of this changes the fact that I expect to see a new Back To The Future movie made sometime I the next 15 years if for no other reason than Hollywood has been out of original ideas for quite some time. Perhaps with a little luck Michael J. Fox will still be healthy enough to make some sort of cameo appearance in a future BTTF film, but that is probably a stretch.

In any case, all things considered there are a lot more things I loved about the BTTF trilogy than things that ever annoyed me – but if I were to write them all down that list would be far too long… so this was much easier.

The Talk Radio Business Model – Above All Else, Prey Upon Fear

2009-11-06T10:02:00.007-06:00

Have you ever stopped to actually think who the core demographic of talk radio really is? Who are the people who can devote three or more hours of their day to a particular program or radio station? Who are the types of people who listen to the drivel day in and day out while nodding in agreement or repeating the clever insults and catch phrases to their friends and family? Who are the people who actually think the talk radio pundits are actually journalists as opposed to their true role as entertainers?

I’ve often wondered who these people are, and I often wonder what common trait exists among those who clearly pull 98% of their political opinions from one particular talk radio host or another. These are the people who are always convinced political party ‘A’ is right while political party ‘B’ is wrong, and I’m sure everyone has met a few of them in their lifetime.

Now I’ll admit that if I’m near a radio at lunchtime I will sometimes tune to talk radio to be entertained… but that is where it stops. I admit and recognize that talk radio exists for one true purpose, and that purpose is to entertain rather than inform. If you want to be informed you can listen to the news, if you want to be entertained (and you aren’t particular interested in sports), you have talk radio.

The scary thing is, it seems that many people are unable or unwilling to draw the distinction between entertainment and information, and for them talk radio becomes less about entertainment and more about providing them insight. The type of insight which is based upon rumor, falsehoods, distortions and flat out lies. The type of insight which makes me question the true intelligence of the common man. The type of insight which reaffirms my belief that the ignorant and the uneducated are easily influenced by those who are adept at preying upon fear.

Because when you really boil it all down, that is what it is all about… fear. You can listen to the programs themselves and hear about how a certain politician or a specific government program are going to ruin the American way of life. You can hear how they believe one political party is the source of all that is evil and how if you don’t vote for the other party your children and grandchildren will be those that suffer. Time after time after time, if you toss aside all of the fluff and excess, when you objectively look at any given subject you will find the basis is nothing other than fear. The pundits know if they can scare the listener, that listener will keep coming back for more.

Nowhere is this concept more obvious than the one time you would expect the theme of fear to be absent. I’m talking about the commercial breaks in between segments, and if you take some time to actually listen you will soon discover that the advertisers have found a niche market, and that niche involves the concept of fear. Millions upon millions of dollars in advertising are spent every year, and it is very obvious that those marketing firms know the true demographic listening to talk radio at any given point is one built upon fear – thus they cater to, and profit from, that demographic.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at the list below of some of the advertisements presented during the commercial breaks of talk radio.

• Lifelock – appealing to the fear of identity theft.

• Broadview / Brinks Home Security – appealing to the fear of burglary or home invasion.

• Identity Guard – another product that appeals to the fear of identity theft.

• Tax Masters – appeals to the fear of the IRS “stealing” money or leaving a person destitute.

• Various Gold Investing Firms – preying upon the loss of net worth in the stock market and retirement plans. Also suggests the apocalyptic scenario where paper money holds no value.

• Law Firms specializing in Asbestos – Appeals to the fear that surviving family members might not be taken care of in the case of severe disability or *gasp* death. Also appeals the desire to hold someone or something else accountable for anything bad which might happen in one’s life.

• Personal Injury Lawsuits – see above.

• Life Insurance – again this appeals to the fear that loved ones won’t be financially secure if the primary bread winner is no longer around to provide.

• Carbonite Online Backup Software – appeals to the fear that a computer will crash resulting in the loss of financial data, vital documents, or irreplaceable files, photos etc.

• Prostate Medications – appeals to the fear that health problems (namely cancer) will end a life prematurely.

• Debt Management and Debt Collections services – appeals to the fear that ‘evil’ corporations will take all of a persons earnings leaving them with nothing.

• Legal Zoom online legal documents – appeals to the fear that a person will die without a proper will or living trust being established. Also appeals to the fear the government will seize assets leaving surviving family members with nothing.

So as you can see, between disaster coverage, legal services, and various forms of self protection services all of these products have one thing in common. They all appeal to some level of fear.

Now if this were only a small percentage of the ads or if I cherry picked these ads over a period of two or three months it might not be all that indicative of a larger issue, but the fact is every single one of these advertisements were heard within 90 minutes of talk radio. Not 90 days, not 90 hours – but 90 minutes. On other days I was able to hear the same ads or slight variations of them time and time again, and during the times I listened there were very few other ads that weren’t based in some way upon fear.

In fact I can only recall one ad that seemed out of place, and that was for a Sleep Number bed. I suppose I could stretch and twist to make it sound like that ad was appealing to a concern about bad backs, but for all intents and purposes I think that just boils down to the marketing strategy of the Sleep Number people involving market saturation and less about meeting a specific demographic.

I never heard a commercial about cleaning products. I never heard a commercial about automobiles or travel services or toothpaste or coffee. I never heard an ad pertaining to beer or chewing gum or fast food, and I never heard anything in relation to gasoline, shampoo, or clothing.

Time and time again, day after day, the vast majority of ads I ever hear pertain to fear, and the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that advertisers know the target core demographic that tunes into talk radio on a daily basis is scared. They might be scared about their finances or scared about their health or scared about the government, about home security, or maybe just scared about common sense or logic – but in some way these people are scared.

So if the advertisers know it, doesn’t it make sense that the talk radio hosts know it as well? Don’t kid yourself – they know it, they count on it, and they prey upon it… that much is certain. So maybe the next time you hear someone quote something direct from the mouth of a talk radio host you should ask yourself… what are they afraid of?

Saving Money Without Adjusting Your Lifestyle

2009-08-18T15:19:00.006-05:00

In a troubled economy it seems everyone is looking for new ways to save money, but most of these ideas involve major lifestyle changes – and they don’t have to.

Let’s face it… humans are creates of habit, and once we have grown accustomed to having cable television, high speed Internet and going out to eat four or five times a week, it isn’t easy to go back to basics. However, saving money doesn’t have to be so hard – it just takes a little creative thinking.

Over the past year or so I must have read at least a few dozen different articles with suggestions on how people can save money. Whether it be such creative solutions as making coffee at home instead of ordering from Starbucks, packing lunch instead of eating out, biking to work instead of driving, or going to the library instead of the bookstore, most of these ideas have one thing in common… they force the individual to make lifestyle changes they wouldn’t normally be willing to consider if the economy (and their paychecks) were growing instead of shrinking.

Because of this, I thought it was time to list a few of my ideas on how to save money that don’t require any major lifestyle changes or dramatic sacrifices. Not only will these help people save a few bucks here or there, but for the most part these ideas are invisible and after reading them you might just find you do a few of them already even without thinking of it.
So without further drama, here are a few ideas to get you started…

Stop Being So Loyal

This might seem a bit odd if we are talking about family or friends, but in this context we are talking about products and companies. Often times people will purchase the same type of bathroom tissue or the same brand of diapers or even shop at the same stores time and time again without ever taking the time to realize they are missing out on some money saving opportunities.

For example, if you are the type to always buy Tide laundry detergent, have you ever thought about looking at the competition? Often times coupons or sales exist which could reduce your cost per load of laundry by 50% or more. Ask friends what they use and what they think – read reviews found online or within Consumers magazines, and stop being so brand loyal. You will soon find out that your habit of always buying Tide has just been costing you money and not making your clothes look any better.

I have found by purchasing when items are on sale or when I happen to have coupons for a specific brand, I can save hundreds of dollars a year. If you look at the shelf above my washing machine you will typically see no less than three or four brands of laundry detergent because I don’t care about brands… I only care about my clothes getting clean, and from experience I have found which brands work well versus which are just watered down or overpriced. If you open my bathroom closet you will most likely find two or three different brands of shampoo and a couple of different brands of soap. As long as the product does the job I see no reason to remain brand loyal.

The same is true for other commodities such as paper products, soda, clothing, shoes, or even deodorant. If you can look beyond the marketing hype you might just find that you like the taste of the generic soda just as much if not more than the name brand, and it can save you a ton of money without having to give up soda all together.

If you have the room to keep extra at home, you can save a pile of cash simply by buying items when they are on sale and keeping them until you use them. So what if you have a three month supply of toothpaste or a six month supply of toilet tissue…as long as the product won’t expire or go bad before you have a chance to use it, there is no reason to not stock up when the price is right. Granted this won’t work with many grocery items, but if you use a little common sense you will soon find your dollar can go much further.

To take this to the next level, consider shopping at stores you haven’t thought of in the past. Perhaps you drive by a dollar store on your way home from work but have never thought about stopping. Since it isn’t out of your way, take a few minutes to go inside and see what you can find. You might be surprised to learn that those paper towels and napkins work just as well as the brand you have been buying from the big retailer, but they cost 60% less.

Look for BOGO or “Free with Purchase” Discounts

So much of the time we tend to make shopping lists and we only buy something when we are running low or completely out. I tend to think of toothpaste as one of these items, and most people only buy one or two tubes at a time. However if you pay attention you will often see deals on toothpaste where they give you a free travel size with the purchase of a regular size tube, or perhaps they throw in a toothbrush for free.

If the actual cost for the tube hasn’t been inflated for this “free” bonus, and if the cost is competitive – it’s a great time to stock up. Buy four or five tubes and all of the sudden you have enough free toothbrushes for the whole family.

The same holds true with other products whether it be shampoo or cereal. If you are going to need that product anyway, and it happens to be on sale or attached to a free item – it is never a bad idea to stock up. The only warning is you MUST be sure you actually need and will use the product. There is no use buying a can of shaving cream that comes packaged with a free disposable razor if you are the type of guy who always uses an electric shaver.

Pay attention and be smart about your choices and you will save money – without ever having to cut corners.

Don’t Be Afraid To Ask For a Discount

No I’m not talking about haggling with the cashier at Wal-Mart - I’m talking about your cellphone, cable, or even garbage service bills. I was once told “you don’t deserve anything you don’t ask for” and that seems to apply in this case.

I recently received a mailer from a competing garbage service and it was at least 20-30% less expensive than the service I was using. When I went to cancel my existing service I was immediately offered a discount and one free month of service. Now in this case the new service was still less expensive so I passed on the offer, but had I not called I would have never known about their discount. In this economy, businesses cannot afford to lose customers, so it can work to your advantage.

Another example was from a few years ago when I was using a TiVo. I loved my TiVo, but when I switched from cable to DirecTV and upgraded to HD televisions with a HD DVR, my old TiVo just wasn’t as useful. When I called to cancel my service, TiVo offered me six months worth of service for free, and that was an offer I couldn’t refuse. I moved the TiVo into the bedroom where we still had a regular SD television and continued to use it. Had I not called to cancel my service I would have never received this offer. Granted I did eventually call to cancel before the six months was up, but essentially I was given six months of service for free.

By simply taking a few minutes to call your cell phone company or your landline or Internet provider, you might find that you can save quite a bit of money without having to change anything. If the company is unwilling to offer a discount, don’t be afraid to take your business elsewhere… nothing gets the attention of a company faster than threatening to move on to their direct competitor.

Share

Yes – the concept we were all taught by the time we were in kindergarten is still as useful now as it was then. In fact sharing can be one of the most efficient ways to save money and it doesn’t really require any additional work to do so.

A while back I was working on a home improvement project and needed a tile saw to cut some porcelain tile. I thought about buying one but it didn’t seem worth owning it considering I would probably only need it this one time. Renting was an option, but since the rental fee was around $40 a day I figured it would cost me at least $120-$160 to do the complete job.

However during a conversation at work I learned a co-worker had finished several tile jobs of his own and he had his own tile saw which was now sitting in the garage unused. I asked him if he would consider loaning me the saw for a few days and he was happy to do so. At the end of the job I purchased a $30 replacement blade for his saw as a thank-you and returned it. Not only did this save me a considerable amount of money, but I don’t have to store a tile saw in my garage that I might never use again.

Of course it goes both ways – so if you expect to borrow from others, you need to be able to share as well. When a friend needed some cable tools to install a few cable jacks or when a family member needed a paint sprayer to paint his house I was able to provide what they needed because I had the items on hand, and I know if the situation was reversed they are more than willing to help me out.

Tools are just one example of things which can be borrowed or loaned, but other examples might be a pickup truck for that once a year trip to the city dump or maybe you could loan that portable DVD player you have to some friends so their children have something to enjoy during a week long road trip (the parents and the children will both thank you).

Taken a step further, if you have a good relationship with a family member or neighbor you could consider buying certain items together to save money. Maybe you only need a garden tiller once a year – if you buy the tiller with a friend, neighbor, or family member you each can use it but you will reduce your cost by at least 50%. Find three or four people to each chip in for large ticket items such as garden machines, pressure sprayers, or a utility trailer and the cost goes down even further.

One note of caution however – always have a written agreement in place every time you loan out an item. If the item is damaged while on loan, the person who borrowed it should know their responsibility is to repair or replace that item no questions asked. If you are buying an item with a buddy or neighbor, ensure you agree beforehand on who will store it, who will maintain it, and what will happen if one of you decides to move to another city etc. A little pre-planning can go a long way towards eliminating problems down the road.

Even non-tangible assets can be shared. For instance maybe you have a membership to a warehouse club like Sam’s or Costco. You might consider having a friend shop with you and you could split the cost of the yearly membership. Of course you should check the terms of the membership agreement beforehand to ensure you aren’t violating their terms, but in many cases this is a quick way to not only save money on the membership, but because you are likely shopping together you can also carpool to the store and even divide up items that come in large quantities to save even more.

Reuse Instead of Recycle

Most everyone knows the benefits of recycling, but what about reusing items instead of sending them off to be recycled? Better yet, what about making shopping decisions based upon the ability to reuse some of the packaging?

Case in point – when I go to buy margarine, I have found through experience that many brands taste exactly the same, so there is no use in me going out of my way (or spending more) for one specific brand. Therefore, if the cost is relatively the same, I will often purchase a brand of margarine that comes in a container that I feel I can re-use for another purpose.

Several years ago I found one brand that came in a red bowl with a clear top – and there was no writing on the plastic whatsoever, so these bowls came in very handy for leftovers or in a pinch they could even be used for cereal bowls. If I was bringing food into work or sharing something with a friend I never had to worry about getting the container back because they were essentially disposable.

Other products come in containers that are just as useful. At one time I had a cat which forced me to buy kitty litter on a regular basis. I found the type that came in the large bucket was just as cheap as the type that came in the bag, so I always bought the type in the bucket. When the bucket was empty, I had a bucket and lid that could be used for all types of things such as washing the car, storing materials in the garage, or in my case I used several of them for mixing mortar and grout for home improvement projects. Not only was the bucket free, but when I was done I could dispose of it with no need to clean it out or worry about dried mortar sticking to a good container.

In fact, I have found several cases of where I could buy a container full of a product cheaper than I could buy an empty container, so now before I ever recycle a plastic container whether it be from margarine, paint, baby food, or even orange juice I stop to think if it could be useful for another purpose. Not everything can or should be reused ( wouldn’t reuse a jug that contained harsh chemicals or cleaners for instance), but sometimes it makes more sense to repurpose something instead of simply throwing it out.

One other example I can think of is old t-shirts. I have used old t-shirts in my garage as shop towels for years, and I have never had to buy shop towels… ever. Between old bathroom towels that get stained or torn and my old t-shirts, I always have enough shop towels to clean up a spill or dry my hands without worrying about staining the “good towels” in the house. Every now and then I run a load of shop towels through the wash and if they get really bad I just toss them out without feeling bad about the cost because for all intents and purposes they were free.

Accept What is Given to You

I’m not talking about being polite when offered gifts or always allowing your brother to pick up the tab when you go out for dinner. I’m talking about the little extras that we so often take for granted.

I’ll freely admit I eat out for lunch almost every day, and those days that I decide to hit the drive thru lane for some fast food I almost always end up with two or three extra napkins. Now I suppose I could just toss them in the trash like most people, but instead I tend to keep them in the center console of my car.

When I end up with a fairly good stockpile of extra napkins, I take them inside and use them at home. In fact if you look at the basket that holds napkins in my house you would probably find them from almost every fast food joint in town. I realize packing my lunch instead of buying fast food every day would probably save a lot more money than a few free napkins, but the point is saving some napkins or extra condiments to reuse at home doesn’t require a change in lifestyle – but it can and does save me money.

This concept can work in a number of different areas as well. If you are a frequent business traveler, maybe you can stock up on shampoo and travel soap by taking those from the hotel at then end of your trip. Many hotels use name brand shampoos and soaps these days, so why pay for something when you can get it for free? If you happen to stay at the same franchise often enough, you could even combine bottles into a larger container for home use or simply refill a bottle you already have.

If the hotel offers a complimentary bag of coffee or some tea bags – it isn’t a bad idea to grab those either. I personally don’t drink coffee but my wife does, so if I go on a trip and come home with a few servings of coffee I know she will use them, and since the cost is zero it saves money.

Tradeshows and conventions are always a good place to accept freebies as well. I will admit I’m not the type to go grab one of everything at a tradeshow because I find it a little tacky, but if there is something I know I can use I’m not afraid to take one. Several years ago I was at an airshow and I came across a booth which had some free sunglasses. I took a pair to use that day and believe it or not three years later I’m still wearing the same sunglasses on a daily basis.

I fully realize these sunglasses were probably made in China for well under a dollar, but they have served me well longer than most pairs I have paid for. You can bet if I spent $40 or $50 for a pair of sunglasses they would be lost or broken in under six months, so who can complain about something that is free?

The bottom line is it really doesn’t take much to save a little money if you look at things from a unique perspective. I’m not suggesting anyone spends their entire day trying to find new ways to save a few pennies here or there, but it is quite possible to save money even without having to change your lifestyle… and isn’t that the entire point?

Herman Miller Bucket Drawers

2009-07-23T09:53:00.005-05:00

Several years back (probably 2000 or 2001) I was looking for a desk to use for my computer. I wasn’t too picky but I wanted something simple, and due to my prior experience with “ready to assemble” furniture I knew I wanted something a tad more sturdy and something that would last more than 9 months without needing to be sent to a landfill.

I found myself in an office furniture store, and soon thereafter I discovered the mythical back room that was stacked with used desks, chairs, cubicle walls… you name it. The place had somewhat of an eerie feeling as if you could smell all of the old companies that found themselves in bankruptcy and were forced to liquidate and auction off their equipment.

There was no consistency in any of the furniture, and there was a collection including all shapes and styles. There were chairs that looked like they had been designed in the 70s and not used since. There were rigid metal desks that looked like you would need a small forklift to move them five feet, and there were random conference tables and work tables of all shapes and styles.

I remember noticing some of the furniture had various character flaws. Tables were scratched, desks were chipped or dented, cubicle walls had torn or dirty fabric, and there was even a single table that had a bow in the middle which made me think it would have been great for writing because your pencil would never be able to fall off the edge. I actually contemplated buying the table and flipping over the work surface so the weight of my computer monitor would actually make the desk flat again, but it just wasn’t quite right.

As my search continued, I found a simple desk about 60 inches wide by 32 inches deep. It had a top made out of laminate, a pair of funky “t” shaped black and chrome legs, two black plastic drawers and somewhat of a modern look. It was buried under another desk and some chairs, and it had probably been sitting in that room for years. It looked to be in good condition and even the keys to lock the drawers were there, so I proceeded to look for a price.

Much to my surprise, this particular desk was priced at a whopping $50. I spoke to a saleswoman and told her I’d take it, so we wrote up the bill of sale and she marked it as sold. She told me she would have someone clear off the items on top of it and get it ready to pick up, so I made arrangements to stop by within an hour to pick it up.

At the time I was driving a small car, so I enlisted the assistance of my older brother Scott to help me pick up the desk. Since he drove a SUV it would be a simple process of loading it into the back and taking it home, and as an added bonus he could help me move it. So we drove over to the store, met the saleswoman and as she held the door we proceeded to haul my new prize out and load it into the SUV.

It was fairly clear that Scott wasn’t overly impressed with my purchase and when he saw the plastic drawers he thought they looked like buckets. So, from that point forward – my new desk was referred to as “the bucket drawers”. It wasn’t called the desk with the bucket drawers or the desk with drawers that looked like buckets – it was always “the bucket drawers”.

In any case, I took the desk to the house I was living in at the time (which coincidentally was actually Scott’s house) and it became home to my computer. When I moved from the house to an apartment and from the apartment to a townhouse the desk came along for the ride, and whenever Scott saw it he would make a joke about the bucket drawers. When I moved across the state I left my desk in Scott’s basement for the time being but soon I found myself moving back and the bucket drawers were pulled out from retirement once again.

Eventually I bought a house and the desk moved with me. I had thought about replacing it with something new, but a part of me just liked the bucket drawers and saw no reason to spend money on something else. A few years after buying my house, Scott was giving away some of his furniture in preparation for a move. He had a nice oak desk and since he offered it to me I accepted. The bucket drawers looked to be on their way out.

I considered moving the desk into the garage and using it as a workbench, but I just left it sit in my basement for a while. As I used the new desk Scott had given me I realized it just wasn’t right. I couldn’t pull a chair under the desk because the arms would hit the pencil drawer. The desk had a wood top so I had to use a coaster if I had a cold drink, and my computer was constantly at risk of overheating due to the closed design of the cabinet.

I tried my best, but I soon realized my old desk was quite simply more up to the task than the new desk. One could even say I missed the bucket drawers, but in reality it was just missing the modern simplicity that comes with something that just works. Long story short I ended up sending the oak desk with a friend and the bucket drawers once again became my primary desk.

I’ve moved my desk from a house to an apartment to a townhouse, from one room to another, from the townhouse to my house, and at least three different times to three different rooms in my house. It has survived at least half a dozen different PCs in it’s time and four or five different laptops. It has been with me through three different jobs and it was with me as a single man, as a married man, and now as a father.

A few months ago my wife and I were out shopping, and we found a desk that we think would be an improvement. It has tons of more storage, and a design that would allow both of us to use the desk at the same time. There is room for more than one computer (since I have a personal desktop, a personal laptop, a work laptop, and plans to acquire a personal Mac in the near future), and it has more of a contemporary style that goes with our other furniture.

In the meantime, my sister had told me she actually liked my existing desk and would be willing to take it from me if I replaced it, so I actually considered that to be a good thing since I wouldn’t need to deal with selling it or trying to dispose of it. As my wife and I were standing in the furniture store considering the new desk I was literally seconds away from saying we wanted it, but at the last second I changed my mind. For some reason I thought the bucket drawers still had life in them. I’m not sure why, but I just didn’t think they were ready to be replaced yet.

So imagine my surprise when I was crawling under the desk one day to fish some cables up to a computer and I see this sticker that says “Herman Miller”. Now I’m not a huge fan of design and I couldn’t give you five names of designers in the world, but I had heard of Herman Miller, so I found this interesting. A few minutes later after some random Google searches, I soon learned the desk I had was designed by George Nelson for Herman miller probably sometime in the ‘60s or ‘70s and that this particular size with the drawers was worth between $800 and $1500 or even more depending upon condition.

So let me get this straight… I bought a used desk for $50 in the back room of a now-defunct office furniture store that turns out to be worth at least 16 times what I paid for it? Heck, if I could sell this thing for $1500 that would be a 3000% gain – I can’t think of a single investment in my entire life that has provided that rate of return.

If I were the type to carry around a Macbook Pro in a canvas carrying bag, wear t-shirts that were three sizes too small and be sporting a strip of hair below my lower lip then I'd probably think it was the greatest thing since the coffee shop inside of Barnes & Noble. However since I'm none of those things I still think it is a desk regardless of what fancy name might be attached to it or how much it is worth.

The thing is, even though I know the desk is worth considerably more than I thought, I really have no desire to sell the bucket drawers. They have served me well and they will continue to serve me well for years. The only problem is, I now find myself wanting to find an office chair to match the “retro modern” look and that isn’t exactly easy. I’ve seen those mesh style office chairs that would be a perfect match, but I couldn’t seem to find one in any of the stores I look at.

So wouldn’t you know it, after another little Google search I found the maker of the mesh office chair that I have desired to be none other than… you guessed it, Herman Miller. The name of the chair is the “Aeron” and apparently they have quite the following for those of us who sit in a chair for hours a day. Of course it goes without saying that the chairs are prohibitively expensive and the MSRP is over $1200! Of course you can find them online for about $600, but honestly… no office chair on the planet should cost $600. If the thing gave me a massage while balancing my checkbook and handing me an ice cold beer upon request it might, possibly be worth $600, but even then I’d have to think about it.

Sort of makes me wonder if I can find a used one sitting in back of an office furniture store.

Really?

2009-07-08T13:39:00.002-05:00

What is it with people who feel the need to clip their fingernails at work? Am I the only person who thinks this is disgusting?

I guess I wouldn’t expect to see someone shaving or trimming their nose hair or plucking their eyebrows or brushing their teeth at work (outside of the bathroom at least) – so why should it be any different when speaking of fingernails?

What annoys me most is that “clip” sound as they sit there and trim away. I actually dislike that sound so much that I never use a nail clippers on my own fingernails and haven’t in years. Instead I use a small scissors to trim them and actually I find it is not only quiet, but it also prevents the clippings from flying through the air where they will undoubtedly land somewhere you wouldn’t really want to find nail clippings.

This brings up another rather disturbing thought however. When I have heard and seen people trimming their nails at their desks, they don’t even bother to do so over a trash can – so I can only assume they are comfortable with their old nail clippings falling into the carpeting or flying over their cubicle wall where they might land in a co-worker’s coffee cup. Yes, that is quite the disturbing thought.

Maybe I’m the only person who is easily annoyed and maybe this shouldn’t be that big of a deal, but to me I rank this right up there with picking your nose or eating with your mouth open. Alas we have found the true downfall of mankind… the simple inability to think outside one’s own benefit radius.

Bathrooms and the Workplace

2009-04-29T10:15:00.001-05:00

What is it about people that makes them flush (pardon the pun) all common sense and respect for others down the toilet the minute they enter a bathroom at work? I’m serious here – I have a hard time believing these people act this way at home, and if they do….well let’s just say I hope they are single.

Let me be clear here – I am not talking about public restrooms at the mall or at a truck stop. I am talking about the bathrooms at my place of work… a white collar company where people are assumed to hold an above average IQ and where you might mistakenly assume people understood basic decency for their fellow man.

Now obviously I can’t speak for what women do in their bathrooms, but it cannot possibly be as repulsive as what some men do in ours. I kid you not…I have walked into many a stall to find the previous occupant was obviously too busy to flush when he left.

Really? Your day is so action packed you don’t have the three seconds it takes to hit the lever and/or push the button? Even if there are sensors do people not bother to check to be sure they actually work before leaving?

I have also seen times where there is a small pile of wadded up toilet paper sitting next to the toilet. Now granted I’m not about to inspect it to determine what is hiding within the toilet paper itself, but I have to assume it isn’t pretty. The best case scenario plays out as if someone was blowing their nose while on the toilet and couldn’t manage the physics of how to toss the paper into the toilet while seated, but the alternative is even more disgusting.

Is it really possible to “miss” depositing the toilet paper into the toilet? Ok, perhaps I could understand this if someone was three years old….but as far as I know everyone working here is at least 18 so you might think they have had enough practice to understand how the process works.

We also have the guys who are a tad too shy to use a urinal and thus they decide it is best to pee in the stall instead. Now let me state for the record that I have no problem with anyone who isn’t comfortable with taking a leak while standing next to another guy… I think there is a little bit of reluctance in us all, so using the stall is an acceptable option, but is it really that difficult to NOT piss all over the seat?

All I’m asking for is to open up the lid before starting. Heck they don’t even have to use their hands if that creeps them out….just use the foot to raise the seat before dropping the pants….it really shouldn’t be that hard. But in the real world this is obviously too much work, so before someone else can use that particular stall they need to wipe the seat down and clear all the “residue” off of it. If there is a lower point in the work day I have yet to find it, but I can promise you any amount of cleanup required is far better than not bothering and realizing your mistake after you sit down. Not a pleasant thought really.

Then we have the guy who thinks it makes sense to do his dishes in the very sink that is less than 18 inches away from a urinal…..a urinal which is currently in use by the way. Ok – I get it that you ate lasagna for lunch and you don’t want to leave your Rubbermaid container laying around all day where it will build up a special kind of funk by 5:00pm, but do you really need to wash the dishes in the bathroom sink? Might the sink in the cafeteria be a better option perhaps?

I wish I could say that is the worst of it, but frankly it isn’t even close. All men know there is a certain “code” that comes into play in the bathroom – and this code includes such rules as which urinal to use when one of them is currently occupied, the banning of small talk while in the middle of your activity, and even the prohibiting of “questionable” noise while certain bodily functions are occurring. Even with such rules in place, I can honestly say I have witnessed each and every one of them broken countless times.

Where is the self-respect from the guy who is making so much noise in his stall that you are actually embarrassed to be in the same bathroom as him for fear someone might see you walk out and mistake you for him? Where is the common sense from the moron who thinks it is ok to call his girlfriend on his cell-phone while standing in front of the urinal? Where is the pride from the guy who walks out of the stall past three or four other men only to exit the bathroom with not even so much as a quick rinse of his hands at the sink?

Then we have the guys who obviously are incapable of tossing their paper towels in the trash or the guys who have yet to figure out how to keep the water in the sink instead of all over the counter. I’m not exaggerating here….in most of the bathrooms in my workplace, you will find the counter is covered in water about 80% of the time – it is even to the point that you need to be careful to not lean up against it or you will end up with wet pants that make you look like you didn’t quite make it to the restroom in time.

At this point I’m pretty sure if you took a poll of the senior executives at major corporations across the nation you might find that one of their favorite perks isn’t the luxury box seats at the local stadium, the free membership to the country club, or the use of the company jet for personal vacations. No, I’m quite sure one of the most beloved perks is the key to the executive washroom…..because at least in theory it will be the cleanest restroom in the place with the lowest amount of ignorance let through the door.

I guess this is just one of those things that really harms my image of my fellow human being. If we are so incapable of the basic traits that separate us from the other animals on the planet we might as well just be chucking our own feces at one another while beating on our chests.

I haven’t quite seen that yet…..but at this point I’m not sure it would even shock me.

Ordering Coffee... More Difficult Than Organic Chemistry?

2009-04-27T11:12:00.007-05:00

Why in the name of all that is holy do I need to know “starbuckesse” to order a friggin’ coffee? If I want to order a coffee, I’ll order a damn coffee. I shouldn’t have to explain if I want cream, half and half, 1% milk, 2% milk, soy milk, organic milk, heavy whipping cream, or milk from a motherless goat rescued from the North side of a mountain somewhere in Chile. If I want cream then I’ll ask for cream. If you have some white liquid and it isn’t Elmer’s glue… chances are it will suffice.

I shouldn’t need to ask the person behind the counter to define what their sizes are. Don’t call it short, tall, grande or venti, because those names don’t even relate to one another. Short is short, but tall is actually smaller and shorter than grande or venti. Does that even make sense? No – it doesn’t make sense and it was a rhetorical question so if you were answering it in your head you’re not only a moron, but you missing the whole point. Just give me the option of small, medium, or large. If you tell me the large is really grande and venti is technically the equivalent of an extra large, I might pull you by the collar and dump my venti over the back of your skinny little neck.

I don’t need to call it a mocha caramel breve espresso whateverthehell with cinnamon sprinkles and I don’t need the person making it to call themselves an idiotic name like barista when in reality they are just a coffee jockey. If I do happen to actually get the right order, I shouldn’t have the person who handed it to me look as if they will be upset if I refuse to drop a dollar into their tip jar considering my entire order from start to finish took all of a whopping 50 seconds to make.

I tip at sit-down restaurants because the wait staff is actually serving me and devoting more than two minutes to my experience. I don’t tip at Burger King just because the cashier was fast and actually took the time to verify I was in fact getting onion rings instead of fries and therefore I’m not about to tip the person who poured me a coffee just because they made a little heart in the foam that I didn’t actually even ask for in the first place.

Above all else, I don’t need to read or comprehend Italian when the coffee itself comes from Columbia via a company headquartered in Seattle and employing people from Iowa, and I sure as hell don’t need to pay $6.75 for the damn thing only to find it tastes suspiciously like the opened can of Folgers that has been sitting in my cupboard for the last six months.

24 hour?

2009-04-21T15:28:00.007-05:00

Why do people use the phrase "24 hour timeframe"? Have you ever stopped to think about that exact statement and how it doesn't even make sense? A single hour is singular, so I could see saying a "one hour timeframe", but since there is more than one hour in 24 hours, shouldn't it technically be along the lines of a "24 hours timeframe"?

Of course this phenomenon isn't just with 24 hours. If you are explaining that the drive to visit your grandmother takes four hours, you would generally say "we are going to be taking a four hour car ride" instead of "we are going to be taking a four hours car ride". The second version may be technically correct, but the first one just seems to sound better.

Same holds true with other measurements of time as well. If you were going out to eat on a Saturday evening and the hostess told you there would be a wait time before you could be seated, I can promise you she would tell you that there is a "20 minute wait" instead of a "20 minutes wait", unless of course if she said "the wait time will be approximately 20 minutes", as I'm sure she wouldn't say "the wait time will be approximately 20 minute".

I equate this to the type of thing we hear and repeat without ever taking a few seconds to actually think about what we are saying. It is somewhat like when a person refers to the "Geneva Convention" when in reality what they mean to say is "Geneva Conventions". That might not have so much to do with English as it does with History however, so perhaps that isn't even the same issue.

What really boggles the mind however is how it seems to vary depending upon the specific terms used to describe the time. If you are taking about 30 seconds, you might say "there will be a 30 second delay" or "I only have 30 seconds before my alarm goes off" or "One half of a minute is 30 seconds", or even "we need a 30 second time interval between groups". You see - there is zero consistency here. Sometimes it is singular, other times it is plural and yet we automatically assume one is correct and the other incorrect depending upon context and context alone.

Sort of makes me wonder if the CBS news program shown on Sunday nights should be called "60 Minute" instead of "60 Minutes", but I suppose there is some special rule for trademarked names just like "50 Cent" should really be "50 Cents". I suppose discussing the half dollar rapper might have been more entertaining, but since when did rappers care about proper English?

In any case, I wonder if I'll ever be driving by a cafe at a late hour where I'll see a sign flickering in the window which says "Open 24 hour". Honestly it is a distinct possibility, but only because the "s" is burnt out.

Fat People and Elevators

2009-03-30T10:55:00.003-05:00

It is the modern-day version of the chicken and the egg theory, and it has bothered me for years. I first started contemplating the phenomenon during my time working in a high-rise building. Well ok – maybe the building was only seven stories, but in a city where a two story home is considered to be “tall” and where an old 202 foot tall grain elevator was actually the tallest building in the entire state prior to it’s demolition, seven stories was about as close to a high-rise as I was going to get.

In any case, I had an office on the first floor and had to interact with people located throughout the building, which required quite a few elevator rides. Due to the number of people using elevators, I found it to be faster and less of a hassle to use the stairs in many cases, and if I was going to the second, third, or fourth floors it was almost always faster to take the stairs instead of the elevator. As an added bonus I got a bit of exercise on the way, and that is rarely a bad thing.
The interesting facet of this story is that the cafeteria / break room for the entire facility was located on the second floor, so considering it was only one story up one might think a lot of people would choose the stairs instead of waiting for the lone elevator to carry them up – but if you thought that, you would be wrong.

Not only did people willingly wait several minutes for the elevator to carry them a whopping 12 feet skyward, but they would actually do the same for the return trip back down. So add up one trip each way for two breaks and a lunch and you have quite a bit of waiting. Add another trip up and down to the skywalk which connects to the parking ramp and then another trip up and down in the skywalk elevator to reach the floor where employees would park, and you have even more downtime.

A conservative estimate suggested to me that these people are spending at least ten minutes a day waiting for the elevator assuming they only use it the three times they take breaks and/or eat lunch or for the trip in and out in the morning which requires two separate elevators. For the average person that works out to be 50 minutes per week which if they were to work every week of the year would be a staggering 2,600 minutes or around 43 hours a year!

Keep in mind this estimate is assuming an average wait time of one minute per trip, and I can tell you from experience the average wait time in that particular building was well beyond a minute. Can you imagine waiting 43 hours a year just for an elevator? To make matters worse, there were employees that would travel between floors quite often for various meetings or as part of their daily jobs, so they are probably spending another 10 minutes a day staring a stainless steel door wondering when it might open.

Now compare that to those who chose to take the stairs and you will soon realize where I’m going with this. Obviously those who take the stairs are more active, but aside from that they aren’t spending 43 frigging hours a year standing there pressing a little button because they are too damn lazy to climb one flight of steps.

So, as months passed and I continued to observe the flock of people standing in front of the elevator on my way to the stairs, I started to notice a disturbing trend. In my unscientific observations, it appeared the vast majority of these people were significantly overweight. I’m not talking about 10 or 15 extra pounds here – I’m talking about 30, 50, maybe even 80 pounds over and above what is considered to be average.

So eventually this all got me thinking. Why are these people so heavy, and what is the common link? Have they always been heavy? Is it a lifestyle common to people who work that type of job? Is there something in the water? It just didn’t make sense, and that is what led me to my conundrum.

Are people fat because they ride elevators – or do people ride elevators because they are fat?

I just don’t know how to answer this one. On one hand I can see how the 5’5”, 270 pound woman is going to ride an elevator because huffing it up a flight of stairs might cause the oil coursing through her veins to coagulate and result in cardiac arrest. However, it really makes me wonder how many of her extra pounds are a direct result of lifestyle choices such as riding an elevator instead of taking the stairs.

Combine such choices with an overall lack of exercise beyond the energy required to pull the handle on the recliner after watching Sex in the City reruns, being the type of person who always finishes her plate, the constant supply of soft drinks and the extra Snickers bar or two and you’ll soon see it doesn’t take a wise man to figure out why someone like this is fat.

On the other hand, who can really say if the elevator is really part of the cause? What if someone just got heavy due to other lifestyle choices or genetics etc, and due to their weight their legs and knees simply couldn’t handle going up and down stairs. Now this person is forced to ride an elevator as a result of being heavy – and riding the elevator simply compounds the issue to result in even more weight gain.

Now I fully realize some people will suggest I’m being insensitive and that not all fat/overweight/heavy/obese people are fat/overweight/heavy/obese from simply overeating or a lack of exercise, and I’ll actually agree that is probably the case in about .0004% of the cases in America, but let’s all be realistic here. The average fatty isn’t shopping at Lane Bryant or the Big & Tall store because of genetics unless you consider the fact they were born with elbows that allowed them to shovel massive quantities of calories into their mouths throughout the day a genetic issue.

Beyond that, there really is only one reason why obese people are obese, and it comes down to how much they eat. Yes there are differences in metabolism, and yes some people are predisposed to be heavy versus others who are predisposed to be thin, but at the end of the day if the 325lb man with a abdominal panus the size of a small child would simply step away from the buffet and eat three sensible meals consisting of no more than 1500 calories per 24 hour period, there is no doubt in the world that he would lose weight. Heck the guy could probably eat 2500 calories a day and still lose weight – and that is sort of my point.

Face it – eating less is exactly why the lap-band and stomach stapling procedures work so well. They don’t change the metabolism of a person, they don’t change anything on a genetic level, they don’t even change anything in the brain – but they change how much a person can eat and they force those who undergo the procedure to eat small meals instead of cramming themselves full each and every time they put a plate in front of them. In short they simply force a person to have a little self-control.

Therefore, my little anti-obesity rant aside, this still doesn’t provide an answer to my question. I know human nature dictates that people will often take the easy way out. I fully realize that nobody looks at an extra piece of cheesecake as if it could be the difference between them actually being able to walk to their car without getting winded or having to request a handicapped parking pass, and I understand that the average person is never going to look at an elevator as “cheating” themselves out of good health. All of that being said, it no longer surprises me when I see a gaggle of fatties standing by an elevator in a two story building while everyone else takes the steps.

I’m just sayin’…

James Dyson Sucks

2009-03-17T16:39:00.010-05:00

I will never understand why people are so emotionally attached to their vacuum cleaners. In years past it was Kirby, Rainbow, Oreck, Phantom (more about them later) or Electrolux, and now it is Dyson. Another five or ten years from now there will be a new "high end" vacuum being sold to the masses, and rest assured the same people bragging about their $550 Dyson's will be bragging about whatever replaces it.

The fact is, if you filter out the biased "reviews" and the opinions of those who feel the need to justify spending $500 or more on a vacuum cleaner, you cannot find one single independent review which shows Dyson to be superior to any other vacuum out there.

Sure James Dyson makes some neat commercials, and sure his marketing campaign is only rivaled by Bose or Apple, but the simple truth is much of his marketing is based upon lies. For instance, look at his commercials about the Dyson Ball where he states there is a problem with all vacuums because they have four stationary wheels which prevent them from doing anything other than moving in a straight line. I ask you - have you EVER seen a vacuum with four wheels like the little "car" that Dyson uses as his example? Better yet, have you ever seen a vacuum cleaner with wheels attached to a solid axle that prevents the wheels from turning independently of one another?

No you haven’t - because vacuums most commonly have two wheels in the back and one beater bar in the front. They aren't difficult to steer and don't force the user to only move in a straight line like Dyson claims. Besides, if having wheels is such a bad thing, why does Dyson still make vacuums that use them (the DC07 and DC14 for example)? Only one of his models uses the "ball" design, so clearly it isn't all that innovative.

As to other lies Dyson uses, he claims other vacuums require replacement filters and belts and his online marketing team (who use anonymous opinions from "Dyson owners" on blogs and forums) will give you examples of what filters and belts will cost you over the life of a vacuum while showing how cheap a Dyson is over the long haul.

However, anyone who has ever owned a bagless vacuum with filters will tell you that most often you can simply clean the filters, give them a quick rinse in the sink and let them dry....there is no need to buy new filters every month or two like Dyson suggests. I myself own a vacuum with filters, and it is six years old and I am just now thinking about buying a new filter due to the fact I know any filter (if properly designed) will catch particals that cannot be seen by the human eye, yet my vacuum still works as well as it did the day I bought it.

As to the belts, I'll admit that is a design flaw in most vacuums, but the belt does serve a purpose. If you suck up a rug or get a lamp cord stuck, the belt will slip and save the vacuum motor from damage. Although it is nice that Dyson uses a clutch design instead of a belt, the costs for a replacement belt in most vacuums is minimal and most often belts only need to be replaced every few years for a total cost of $3 or 4.

James Dyson himself even lies when speaking about how he developed the cyclone in his vacuum cleaner. Dyson claims he worked on his vacuum for five years and went through 5,127 prototypes before finding one that worked. However simple math tells us that suggests Dyson would need to develop 2.8 prototypes every single day for the entire five year period! Clearly Mr. Dyson either does not understand the definition of a true prototype, or he quite simply isn’t very good at math.

As to longevity, if you spend more than ten minutes researching Dyson's online you will hear countless people who have had problems with them. You will also note that you can buy refurbished Dysons at dozens of different websites at any given time (just type if "refurbished Dyson" in Google and you will be presented with a number of choices).

So I ask - if Dyson vacuums are so great and so reliable, why are there thousands of refurbished Dyson's available for sale at any given moment? I never see piles of Hoovers or Kenmores or Eurekas or even Dirt Devils....but I always see Dysons. That fact alone tells me quite a bit about the quality of the product, and it appears clear that Dyson vacuum cleaners are no more reliable than many other brands.

Remember that clutch I spoke of earlier? If the Dyson clutch breaks, the repair cost will be far in excess of what someone would spend for years and years of belts, and this happens more often than Dyson would like to admit. Many Dyson owners report a “clicking” sound they soon find that their beater bar isn’t functioning which can require an entire new clutch assembly. The cost for the parts alone can run $50 or more, and that doesn’t include labor to replace it. Sort of puts those $3 belts in perspective now doesn’t it?

Of course I should note that when Dyson claims his vacuum doesn’t require replacement belts, what he really means is they don’t require belts assuming the thing never breaks. The fact is, Dyson vacuums do use belts, but they aren’t what we would typically consider “user replaceable”. There are actually two belts used for the clutch and although they might last longer than user replaceable belts on other vacuums due to the clutch design, they will eventually need to be replaced, and it likely will require a vacuum cleaner repair person to do so since the process is much more complex than a belt change on a traditional vacuum. This is yet another example of James Dyson being dishonest about his product.

The fact is, people are buying into the marketing, and the product itself is merely a gimmick. Tests have shown they don't vacuum any better than any other vacuum and tests have shown their exhaust to be fairly dirty when compared to other models, thus the "cyclonic technology" isn't all that it is cracked up to be. In fact, the exhaust on a Dyson doesn’t even meet the standards for HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air). Dyson gets around this by claiming they have a HEPA filter and although the filter itself might meet HEPA standards when tested outside of the vacuum, the vacuum itself does not.

Remember that Phantom vacuum I discussed earlier? Well as it turns out, until the year 2000 Dyson licensed their vacuum technology to Phantom, which in turn produced vacuums that were essentially identical to what Dyson has released since. So when someone tells you a Dyson is the greatest vacuum ever – ask them why they most likely never thought the same about the old Phantom (or even heard of Phantom for that matter). It all comes down to marketing.

So what about performance? You will often hear Dyson owners brag about how full their canisters are when they vacuum, but these people fail to take into account two very important points. First the cyclone design of the Dyson doesn’t “pack” the dirt into the canister. This means that it may look like a lot of debris in the canister when compared to other vacuums, but the density is much less, so in reality it can be very misleading.

Second, the automatic adjustment design of the Dyson can actually force the beater bar down into the carpeting more than other vacuum designs. This may result in excessive wear on the carpeting and thus the canister is actually being filled with carpet fiber rather than dirt. Ask a Dyson owner to show you their full canister and judge for yourself.

I know people are always quick to defend their purchases especially when they are expensive, so it is difficult to judge a product based upon user satisfaction, but if anyone is considering a Dyson I highly recommend they test one for themselves before committing to buy. If nothing else be sure the store you purchase from has a money-back guarantee so you can return it if and when you determine it to be just another vacuum at twice the price.

I've used several different Dyson's myself as I have friends and coworkers who have tried to convince me, but at the end of the day I haven't found them to be any more powerful than a Hoover or Kenmore costing 1/3rd the price.

When buying or testing any vacuum it is important to not fall for the old salesperson trick of vacuuming the same room with your old vacuum followed by the “new and superior” Dyson. This test has been used by vacuum cleaner salespeople for years and although it may look impressive to see the canister on a Dyson fill up after you have just vacuumed that same piece of carpet, this test is very misleading.

In fact, this test relies upon a few very important facts. It assumes the carpet has been in the home for several years, so the chances of ground in dirt are much higher. Second, it assumes the older vacuum hasn’t been cleaned out and that the dirt bin and/or bag is partially full as well as the beater bar being wrapped up with hair, string, or whatever else has been sucked up in the years of use (which can all contribute to reduce the effectiveness of the suction). Of course it goes without saying that a new ‘out-of-the-box’ vacuum cleaner will almost always perform well because it is brand new and hasn’t had the opportunity to have hair or carpet fibers clog the intake hoses or brushes. Third, the person performing the test will often vacuum the carpet at a 90 degree angle to the original vacuuming, because this has a greater chance of lifting dirt that was trapped between carpet fibers (which is why if you really want to do a good job of vacuuming your home, you will vacuum one direction and then turn 90 degrees and vacuum the entire room again).

If a salesperson or Dyson owner suggests this test, be sure to level the playing field by emptying the bag or canister of the “old” vacuum and cleaning the brushes and intake hoses before starting. Once the Dyson has had a chance to vacuum the area and they have shown you how much dirt and dust your “old” vacuum has missed, go over the area yet again with the old vacuum. In the vast majority of the cases you will find that old vacuum was able to pick up even more dirt and dust that the shiny new Dyson missed.

You could repeat this test going between the two vacuums several times and chances are you will continue to pull up more dirt each and every time. Unfortunately even the best vacuum cleaner on the market can’t get every single particle of dirt, and each pass of the vacuum is likely to remove just a bit more fiber from the carpet due to the beater bar ‘scrubbing’ against it, so this is not all that unique.

What is important to note is what is in each bin or bag. It is not sufficient to simply compare them visually because (as mentioned earlier) the Dyson bin might not be packed to the same density. For this reason, the contents of the bins and bags need to be emptied onto newspaper or paper towels and compared side by side as they would do in a lab. Ideally you would weigh each pile but that isn’t realistic for home testing, so just use a pencil or your fingers to pull apart the piles and determine the density and contents.

Obviously the goal of the test is to determine what is in each pile. Dust and dirt are good, but once again if you see a lot of carpet fiber in the Dyson bin this could be telling you that the beater bar is too aggressive and it is shortening the lifespan of the carpeting.

The bottom line is people need to be wise in their purchasing decisions and they can’t just fall for the salesperson gimmicks. Nobody should care if their vacuum cleaner can lift a bowling ball because we don’t use our vacuum cleaners to lift bowling balls, and nobody should care if their vacuum can suck up a quart of oatmeal that has been dropped onto the surface of the carpeting because any vacuum can suck up surface dirt. People need to be objective and nonbiased so they can make the right decision with their purchasing dollar.

If you remove the marketing hype and really compare apples to apples, I’m convinced that Dyson is to vacuum cleaners as Bose is to speakers. This probably explains why in all the years Consumer Reports has been testing vacuum cleaners, Dyson has never been at the top of the list. In fact, in the latest head to head comparison as of this writing, an $80 Hoover scored higher than any Dyson on the list with the Hoover being ranked 3rd and the Dyson being ranked 13th! (The winner was another Hoover while second place went to a Kenmore – both which cost about half of any Dyson).

To add insult to injury, the Dyson ranks lower for performance on carpet (where 95% of vacuuming is done). Had it not been for the fact Dyson scored well on bare floors they would be even farther down the list. This is probably why Consumer Reports even ran a special article talking about the Dyson hype a few years ago, and why they have never rated them as a Consumer Reports Best Buy.

A lot of Dyson supporters claim Consumer Reports is biased, but the fact is they perform independent scientific testing and compare vacuums against one another, so there is little possibility for human bias. They don’t accept advertising from any of the vacuum cleaner manufacturers and therefore there is no motive for them to be dishonest about their findings.

The simple truth is there is a sucker born every minute, and apparently they are all buying Dysons.

The Definition of Irony

2009-03-09T11:18:00.000-05:00

Have you ever been reading a book and came across the phrase “this page intentionally left blank”? What is with that? It is not only blatantly dishonest, but quite frankly a complete waste of paper as well.

If the page is supposed to be blank, then leave it blank. Don’t tell me it is supposed to be blank by printing on the page – which then means the page is no longer blank. I mean honestly, what purpose does this serve? This is the type of thing that starts black holes.

I honestly have to wonder where this practice started. I imagine in the past years ago when someone wanted to leave a page blank that is exactly what they did, but then somebody, somewhere, for some reason decided they had to call the author or the publisher or the printer and find out why their particular copy of the book was missing a page.

I guess the lack of a page number in the lower corner wasn’t enough clue that the page isn’t supposed to have anything on it, and this person had nothing better to do that complain about a missing page that really isn’t missing, but is this entire concept due to one person complaining? If not, is there really a benefit to printing “this page intentionally left blank” in the first place? Is there a huge problem with people complaining about missing pages – so much so that book publishers now have to deal with the problem by printing this text on an otherwise clean page?

How about a new phrase that actually makes sense – something like “pay no attention to this page as it has nothing to do with the remainder of the book”.

Yea… it might not have the same ring to it, but at least it is honest.

An open letter to the writers, producers, and director of CSI: Miami…

2009-03-04T18:09:00.000-06:00

To Whom It May Concern:

At first glance, CSI: Miami seems to follow the pattern of all the CSI dramas with the inappropriate usage of flashlights in bright daylight, DNA tests taking less than 10 minutes, and solving multiple crimes within a single episode. It also shares the common characteristics of being able to travel back and forth from the crime scene and the respective CSI headquarters numerous times each day without any concern for traffic, the miraculous ability to compel a suspect to confess after three minutes of questioning, and the usage of $60,000 SUVs for government transportation.

However, even with all these similarities between CSI: Miami and the other CSI franchises, the one aspect of CSI: Miami which is most frustrating is not how week after week you allow a such a horrific actor to take center stage – but rather than you think we, the viewing public, actually find this in any way gratifying.

The character Horatio Caine (played by David Caruso) needs to be tweaked so at the very least a single aspect of the character seems realistic. I don’t necessarily care which aspect earns this attention, but I do feel there should be some single facet of his character which could possibly relate to realism in some small way, and as it sits today that simply is not the case.

Everyone knows Caruso is only back on TV because his movie career faded away faster than a piece of cheesecake in front of Rosie O’Donnell, so please don’t pretend he is the saving grace to the show and/or every single episode. You are fooling no one, and 65% of your audience would rather watch Emily Procter any day of the week – even if her acting abilities are only marginally better than Caruso’s.

The fact is, Caruso has never been able to play a tough guy without looking like an imposter. He is not a tough guy, doesn’t look like a tough guy, and shouldn’t act like a tough guy – so don’t put him in tough guy situations every episode and not expect us to laugh. As a matter of fact, with skin that glows whiter than clean hotel sheets, Caruso wouldn’t last 12 minutes in Miami without obtaining a case of malignant melanoma, so please refrain from showing him in the hot Miami sun every other frame of each episode.

Next, perhaps you could show Mr. Caruso in something other than a black suit, because everyone knows black is not the preferred color when the average daily temperature hovers around 85 degrees. Of course, the scene showing Caruso removing and/or replacing his sunglasses in every episode never gets old, nor does the scene of Caruso with his hands on his hips looking in the direction of the suspect, or the victim, or another CSI team member which gets shown at least once if not twice each episode. Creativity can be left to the producers and writers and directors of one of the flavors of Law and Order – because the CSI motto seems to be “if it worked once, it will work again”.

Another thing about Caruso that needs addressing is the thin plot lines that place him in close personal contact with women half his age. C’mon guys – the man is over 50 years old. He has blazing red hair and a face that resembles a 4 day old bulldog – why on earth would a 25 year old goddess want to spend time with this guy? Sure some women might be attracted to a Hollywood actor, but it is doubtful the same would hold true for a Lieutenant with the Miami Crime Lab, which is what Caruso is supposed to be. Then again some women also believe Clay Aiken has talent – so it takes all kinds, but the point is there cannot possibly be more than five women in the greater Miami area which would find this man attractive, and three of them are under clinical observation for psychosis, so have a little respect for the actresses and don’t put them in such a position in the future.

While we are at it – do you think you could go a few weeks in a row with Caruso not shooting somebody? I mean honestly if Lt. Caine was a real cop he would have been handed his walking papers half way through the first season, but to date this guy has been involved in more shootings than the French Army, and unlike the French, he never seems to miss.

I also have to ask what is the deal with Caruso’s neck? Is this man not able to keep his head straight? Does he have some problem with his vertebrae that prevent his head from being held perpendicular to the floor or is it simply written in the script for him to look crooked in every other scene? I swear the man either has his head cocked to one side or he has his hands on his hips – those must be the only two positions Caruso learned in his half day of acting classes he took back in ’88. Perhaps someone should tell Caruso that it isn’t necessary to look like a confused puppy when you are attempting to act like a caring law enforcement officer, but somehow I think the only thing that will prevent it would be to purchase him a neck brace.

Listen - I realize it becomes rather difficult to write crime stories which can be solved in under 60 minutes week after week (or 40 minutes if you subtract commercials), but if you really want to keep the viewer entertained, at least humor us. Make us feel that you actually tried for a change rather than spewing out the same show with different suspects week after week. Either that or start a storyline which involves Calleigh Duquesne in a lesbian affair with one of the lab techs…at least that would make me feel like my Tivo is serving a purpose every week.

Respectfully yours:

Craig

The Checkout Line: Part Deux

2009-03-03T10:45:00.000-06:00

Target:

A woman in her 30’s has some socks and a couple of bags of M&Ms. The young female cashier proceeds to run them across the scanner and ring them up.

Cashier: You total is $5.30… would you like to save 10% today and open a Target account?
Woman: (Holding out cash) No thanks.

Me thinking to myself: Really? Someone rings up a total purchase of $5.30 and you think it is a good time to ask them if they want a credit card? Did the ability to save a whopping 53 cents on this purchase really sound like a strong selling point? Ok – for the family with three shopping carts full of clothes, shoes, and diapers with a grand total of $1100 I can see a Target card being a reasonable idea because they could save $110 on the purchase, but for the woman spending 5 bucks?

As the woman receives her change and takes her items the cashier turns towards me and starts ringing me up.

Cashier: The total is $44.30.

I swipe my debit card, complete the transaction and as I’m handed my bag she pleasantly says to me “Thanks – have a nice day”.

So I’m thinking….I just spent almost five times more than the woman before me yet she didn’t offer me a Target Card and never told me that I could have potentially saved $4.43 on my purchase…..should I be offended?

Arbys:

Customer: I would like a number four with curly fries.
Cashier: (Extremely monotone voice) Would you like the value meal?
Customer: Yes

Me (again thinking to myself): Ok so he just said he wanted a number four with curly fries. The number four is a value meal. The fact he said he wanted curly fries reinforces the idea that he wants a value meal, yet – for some strange reason the cashier still asks if he wants the meal?

Honestly – do people go to Arby’s and try to order by number but not with fries or a drink? If someone wants a regular roast beef sandwich, is it common for them to say “I’d like a number one, but I don’t want the fries or the drink… just the sandwich”.

I don’t think so – if they want a regular roast beef, they will order a regular roast beef. If they want a value meal, they tend to order via number – because a value meal is just that….a meal. And the term “meal” suggests it just might very well be more than just a sandwich!

One thing is for certain. If you ever find yourself questioning your faith in mankind, it is best to avoid all fast food and retail outlets as they will likely make you believe beating your head against a concrete wall is more productive.

The Checkout Line

2009-02-25T15:11:00.000-06:00

The following are all true experiences I have had at checkout lines. My memory isn’t perfect and therefore I might not recall the conversations verbatim, but for all intents and purposes everything you read here actually happened… believe it or not.

Office Depot:

A male customer in his 30s places a Palm Pilot / Pocket PC (I didn’t see the exact model at the time) on the counter and reaches for his wallet.

Cashier (male): [Examining device] Oh wow have I got a great deal for you man – you can add a 3 year warranty onto this for only like 75 bucks.

Customer: No thanks.

Cashier: Really? – I mean these things are really expensive.

Customer: Well IF it breaks, I’ll just buy a new one. I’m not interested in the warranty.

Cashier: Wow….you must have a lot more money than I do if you are willing to buy a new one every time it breaks.

Me thinking to myself: Yes genius, he is buying a $350 Pocket PC and sporting what appears to be about a $1200 watch while you are a cashier at Office Depot…..I’m pretty sure he does in fact have more money than you do.

Then again suggesting the item the customer is purchasing might actually be prone to breakage probably isn't the best way to instill confidence in the buyer.

Shopko:

Black Friday 2008. There are at least 100 customers in line waiting to checkout with a wait time of about 15 minutes to get to a register. A young male cashier who had an accent and dark skin color which suggested he immigrated from Africa in the last few years is checking out a woman in her mid to upper 40s who had an obvious problem with weight management. The woman has a cart full of various items, but one of them is a vacuum cleaner with a retail price somewhere around $100.

Cashier: I’d like to offer you a protection plan on this item. The total cost is only $19.99 and it covers the vacuum for three full years.

Woman: I’m just not sure…..what does it cover?

Cashier: (Reading verbatim from the very same product documentation the woman is holding in her own hands) The protection plan covers…

Woman: (interrupting) Can I return the protection plan if I don’t need it?

*long uncomfortable silence as the cashier tries to decide if he is on a hidden camera show*

Cashier: I’m not sure….nobody has ever asked if they could return one. Let me check.

At this point – with still over 100 people in line waiting to check out, the cashier walks away from his register and goes to find a manager at the customer service desk. After a period of about two minutes he returns.

Cashier: You have 14 days to decide if you want to keep it. If you change your mind in that period you can return it.

Woman: Ok let me think…..

At this point – both the woman and the cashier as well as the woman’s daughter (which appeared to be in the 13 year old range) stand in complete silence for no less than a full 60 seconds while staring at one another.

I was about three seconds away from blurting out “Go ahead take your time….it is a very important decision and surely the 112 people behind you have nothing better to do today than watch you consider a purchase of an extended warranty on your frigging vacuum cleaner!”, but thankfully after her extended silence she finally said she would take it.

Congratulations Mr. Cashier….you sold a $20 protection plan on a $100 vacuum to a woman with no common sense and a complete disregard for her fellow human being. It is things like this that make me want to slam my head into a brick wall in a vain effort to "dumb me down" to the level where I felt this was normal behavior.

Why do I think this sort of thing plays out at least 25 times a day in Wal-Marts all across the nation?

Zombies

2009-02-24T10:16:00.000-06:00

They are in countless movies every year. They are part of popular culture not only in the US but according to several low budget horror flicks I have seen, seem to have a strange fascination for Japan as well. Zombies are referenced in television shows, mentioned in songs, found in comic books and even episodes of Scooby Doo.

Zombies are practically everywhere…..but what is the fascination? What is the fear? I’m convinced this is nothing more than yet another story blown out of proportion by the anti-zombie crowd among us. It must be the liberal media conspiracy machine back at work just like they were when they told us the killer bees were coming or SARs was going to kill us all or when they tried to tell us some magical type of bird flu was going to wipe out the planet or that global warming was going to melt the polar ice caps.

OK well maybe not the global warming thing since that is actually a legitimate concern – but the rest of that crap is a conspiracy! It is time we stood up and took action against those who seek to persecute zombies! When you really look at this objectively, it is nothing short of profiling.

I mean honestly – do you know a single person who has ever had their brains sucked out by a zombie? Have you ever heard anyone who was walking through a cemetery at night when all of the sudden one of the graves opened up and a zombie crawled out through the fog (that just happens to look an awful lot like smoke) and started chasing them while moaning?

Exactly! It is just myths being perpetuated via some sort of Chinese telegraph experiment. I really think Zombies are getting an undeserved reputation here – they never hurt anyone but mothers live in a constant state of fear that a zombie is going to come and kidnap, hurt, or even kill their children.

Even worse than the mothers are those who choose to stereotype zombies as if they are all the same. Just look at the movie I Am Legend with Will Smith. Not only does the movie push the myth that zombies can only be active at night, but it actually tries to suggest zombies are attracted to human blood. Can you imagine the uproar if someone suggested rednecks are attracted to plastic flamingos and are only capable of showing emotion when speaking of their favorite NASCAR driver?

Stereotypes can hurt – so why are we singling out the zombies?

Then you have the Cranberries (the band, not the tasty juice squeezed by those Ocean Spray guys). They actually use one of their songs to say this: “In your head, in your head – zombie, zombie, zombie.” I mean why don’t they just come out and tell us that zombies will eat your brains if you let them…..why beat around the bush. I see through you Cranberries – I’m on to you.

I guess my point is all this hostility towards zombies is misplaced. Maybe zombies are merely misunderstood? Maybe they are much like bears and they are just as scared of us as we are of them. Maybe we just need to form some type of zombie-human coalition so we can work towards a common goal of eradicating myths and stereotypes.

Imagine how much better we would all be if zombies were treated with a little respect.

I’m just sayin…

What ever happened to Steve Guttenberg?

2009-02-23T15:24:00.001-06:00

Let’s face it, when this guy started in a movie back in the 80s and early 90s it was practically guaranteed success. He had the string of Police Academy films, Short Circuit, Three Men and a Baby, Cocoon, and he even went so far as to star in a movie with the Olsen twins. I’m telling you the man was box office gold!

Not that any of these films have stood the test of time mind you. Guttenberg will probably always be known as “the guy from those Police Academy movies” much like pretty much every one of his co-stars, but the point is at the time those movies were made there weren’t very many actors in Hollywood with better name recognition.

Then all of the sudden - *poof*. The guy disappears off the radar…sort of makes you wonder who he pissed off. I mean the guy is Jewish so one might think he was a lock in Hollywood, but something snapped. I did an IMDB search on him and see his is still working, (if you count a brief stint on Dancing with the Stars working) but obviously nowhere near his former glory. Maybe that is why he is so angry these days.

Hollywood is a fickle city, but such stories of former glory are usually associated with child stars, not leading men.

Oh how we have fallen.