Hi honey - Remember that time you got really sick with that ridiculously rare neurological disorder and I flew home from to Vegas to be with you?
I flew home. From Vegas. You know, that place about 2,500 miles southwest of here with lots of lights that I happen to like? To be with you.
If that doesn't demonstrate my love for you, nothing will.
Happy anniversary. I love you.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
All Hail The Spork!
If you've ever had the good fortune of walking into a KFC, three things probably come to mind. First, there is a 50/50 chance that by the time you finish your meal, you will have dropped dead of a coronary (at least you'll die happy). Second, the odds are less than 50/50 that you will make it home before the Colonel's 11 secret herbs and spices give your intestines the cleansing of a lifetime. And C, you'll get to use a spork, perhaps mankind's most wondrous invention (just ahead of the Awesome Auger).
Ah, the spork. You think about it and you laugh. You say the word out loud and you laugh. But the joke is on you, my friend. I don't believe in much, but I have recently - as in today - come to the realization that the spork will one day save our planet.
First, a history lesson: The spork was patented by Mr. Samuel W. Francis of Newport, R.I. in 1874, although the word "spork" was not widely used until the early 1900's. Also of historical note is that for more than 100 years, nobody has taken the spork seriously (that is according to me).
And until 2003, I was a non-believer as well. And then I met my wife. Now sure, some of you might think I married Jenn because she is pretty, intelligent, can cook and is the only woman in the eastern time zone not to dump me. But you'd be wrong. When I met Jenn in 2003, she was living in a lovely slum in Cambridge with a couple of nice fellas. The kitchen was small, dirty and had ancient appliances. But the utensil drawer was stocked with sporks. Not only was it love at first bite (yeah, I went there), but it marked the beginning of my own personal greenification.
Which brings me to my point. Or something resembling a point. Have you noticed that it's all about conservation these days? Green this, green that. Something about carbon footprints. Not to mention our attempt to put those nice Arab folks out of business by trying to wean ourselves off their oil. But, if society is really about saving the planet, then why the hell are we manufacturing both forks and spoons? How many billions of dollars must be wasted on this redundancy? How many stainless steel and/or silver trees must die in order to feed the world's greed?
Make no mistake, the future is sporks. Consider KFC. Do you think coming up with new ways to kill their customers is cheap? Hardly. Research and development requires a multimillion dollar investment every year and because Colonel Sanders had the foresight and vision to stock his restaurants with sporks, more money could be allocated to the truly important things - like getting their gullible and increasingly obese customer base to shell out big bucks for this:
I know, genius. Now forget for a moment that the sporks at KFC aren't even sturdy enough to scoop mashed potatoes. They thought outside the box and are a better company for it. Beyond that, why haven't airlines embraced the spork? Back in the 1990s, American Airlines decided to eliminate one olive from their in-flight salads and by doing so, they saved a few hundred thousand dollars per year. Today, the airline industry collectively loses about a bajillion dollars a month. If they went the way of the spork, maybe they wouldn't have to charge passengers for the right to yawn.
How about schools? Thanks to an impressive run of sustained incompetence, every town in America is broke. Why are the schools wasting good money on silverware, especially with the slop that the cafeteria usually produces? Buy sporks and save a teacher's job.
I could go on, but I bet you wish I wouldn't. So spread the word far and wide. After nearly 140 years, the spork has arrived.
I suggest you enjoy them now before the government decides to tackle spork reform.
Ah, the spork. You think about it and you laugh. You say the word out loud and you laugh. But the joke is on you, my friend. I don't believe in much, but I have recently - as in today - come to the realization that the spork will one day save our planet.
First, a history lesson: The spork was patented by Mr. Samuel W. Francis of Newport, R.I. in 1874, although the word "spork" was not widely used until the early 1900's. Also of historical note is that for more than 100 years, nobody has taken the spork seriously (that is according to me).
And until 2003, I was a non-believer as well. And then I met my wife. Now sure, some of you might think I married Jenn because she is pretty, intelligent, can cook and is the only woman in the eastern time zone not to dump me. But you'd be wrong. When I met Jenn in 2003, she was living in a lovely slum in Cambridge with a couple of nice fellas. The kitchen was small, dirty and had ancient appliances. But the utensil drawer was stocked with sporks. Not only was it love at first bite (yeah, I went there), but it marked the beginning of my own personal greenification.
Which brings me to my point. Or something resembling a point. Have you noticed that it's all about conservation these days? Green this, green that. Something about carbon footprints. Not to mention our attempt to put those nice Arab folks out of business by trying to wean ourselves off their oil. But, if society is really about saving the planet, then why the hell are we manufacturing both forks and spoons? How many billions of dollars must be wasted on this redundancy? How many stainless steel and/or silver trees must die in order to feed the world's greed?
Make no mistake, the future is sporks. Consider KFC. Do you think coming up with new ways to kill their customers is cheap? Hardly. Research and development requires a multimillion dollar investment every year and because Colonel Sanders had the foresight and vision to stock his restaurants with sporks, more money could be allocated to the truly important things - like getting their gullible and increasingly obese customer base to shell out big bucks for this:
How about schools? Thanks to an impressive run of sustained incompetence, every town in America is broke. Why are the schools wasting good money on silverware, especially with the slop that the cafeteria usually produces? Buy sporks and save a teacher's job.
I could go on, but I bet you wish I wouldn't. So spread the word far and wide. After nearly 140 years, the spork has arrived.
I suggest you enjoy them now before the government decides to tackle spork reform.
Monday, April 19, 2010
In Defense of Hockey
There are a lot of things that mystify me in this world. For example:
1) Highway drivers who maintain a speed of 40 mph in the left lane
2) Religious extremists who believe that committing mass murder will pave the way to heaven
3) Democrats who spend money that they don't have...and then keep spending
4) Just what exactly my wife sees in me
And then there's this: why is hockey so relatively unpopular in the United States?
Hockey is by far the most exciting sport to watch from start to finish; it is faster paced than any other game; features as much hitting (probably more) than football; has more suspenseful, edge-of-your-seat moments than any other game; and is the the epitome of a team sport.
And yet it is a distant fourth among the four major sports.
Compare hockey to:
And as much as I would like to blame the media, I can't. ESPN aired hockey several nights per week for nearly 20 years and the ratings were anemic. First FOX and now NBC airs weekend Games of the Week and yet few people watch. What people do watch are the Olympics, which is hockey played at its best. The ratings for Olympic hockey, especially when the U.S. makes a deep run, are off the charts. But when the Olympics are over, there is virtually no carryover to the NHL. Of course, every 4 years I think that Ski Jumping will become our new national pastime, but not to be.
Goes without saying that the average NHL regular season game can't hold a candle to the Olympics. But the same holds true for any sport. And of the four major sports, even the hockey-shy media will acknowledge that the NHL playoffs are the best in the land. Every year, a decent number of games go into 2, 3 and even 4 overtimes...all of which are sudden death. Hell, most of regulation time is played as if it were sudden death.
So to any non hockey fan reading this, I issue this challenge. Turn on a playoff hockey game over the next 7 days and watch just one period. Just one. If that does not rope you in, then fine. You are a lost cause and clearly have no hope to contribute to humanity.
You know, the same humanity that would much rather watch cars driving in circles.
1) Highway drivers who maintain a speed of 40 mph in the left lane
2) Religious extremists who believe that committing mass murder will pave the way to heaven
3) Democrats who spend money that they don't have...and then keep spending
4) Just what exactly my wife sees in me
And then there's this: why is hockey so relatively unpopular in the United States?
Hockey is by far the most exciting sport to watch from start to finish; it is faster paced than any other game; features as much hitting (probably more) than football; has more suspenseful, edge-of-your-seat moments than any other game; and is the the epitome of a team sport.
And yet it is a distant fourth among the four major sports.
Compare hockey to:
- Football: Who doesn't love football? It has taken it's rightful place as our new national pastime (I hear Detroit may even get a team one day) but of the 60 minutes of game time, there is maybe 10 minutes of actual action. Each play lasts only a handful of seconds and after it is completed, the teams take a 30-45 second break.
- Basketball: Lots to like about basketball, but the structure of the game makes it way too easy for players to mail it in (see Wallace, Rasheed; 2010). And lets be honest, the NBA has become playground ball. 4 players stand around while the "star" either drives the lane (1 on 4) or takes a ridiculous shot from 20 feet away. More importantly, any contact is deemed a foul which severely impedes the flow of the game. On top of that, NBA officiating...well, it's really bad. And everyone knows it. With the possible exception of the guy that runs the league.
- Baseball: The best thing baseball has going for it is that it's played in warm weather. Oh, and 130 years of history. But mostly the weather.
And as much as I would like to blame the media, I can't. ESPN aired hockey several nights per week for nearly 20 years and the ratings were anemic. First FOX and now NBC airs weekend Games of the Week and yet few people watch. What people do watch are the Olympics, which is hockey played at its best. The ratings for Olympic hockey, especially when the U.S. makes a deep run, are off the charts. But when the Olympics are over, there is virtually no carryover to the NHL. Of course, every 4 years I think that Ski Jumping will become our new national pastime, but not to be.
Goes without saying that the average NHL regular season game can't hold a candle to the Olympics. But the same holds true for any sport. And of the four major sports, even the hockey-shy media will acknowledge that the NHL playoffs are the best in the land. Every year, a decent number of games go into 2, 3 and even 4 overtimes...all of which are sudden death. Hell, most of regulation time is played as if it were sudden death.
So to any non hockey fan reading this, I issue this challenge. Turn on a playoff hockey game over the next 7 days and watch just one period. Just one. If that does not rope you in, then fine. You are a lost cause and clearly have no hope to contribute to humanity.
You know, the same humanity that would much rather watch cars driving in circles.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Arrogance of Massachusetts Democrats
Within the last couple of weeks, I've been told that through my status updates on Facebook, I've insulted the voters of Massachusetts and gloated in the aftermath of the Scott Brown Senate victory. I'm too negative - that if I really want to make my point, calling people "lemmings" is not the way to do it. I should focus on communicating my point of view, rather than kicking people while they are down.
Arighty then. Here goes:
I am registered as unenrolled, but characterize myself as fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Because fiscal issues are the most important to me, I tend to vote Republican. I find the Democrats' "tax and spend" philosophy to be absurd. Now, consider these facts:
Pragmatically, I just don't get how/why Massachusetts is so blindly Democratic, especially on the state level. Whether you want to admit it or not, this state is a mess and a national political laughingstock (at least until last week).
One Speaker of the House after another resigns in shame; taxes continue to go up and numerous state agencies demonstrate their incompetence on a daily basis. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.
Only Louisiana and Illinois rival Massachusetts for the level of corruption by our politicians. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.
The will of the people through binding referendums (sales tax, tolls,death penalty, etc.) are ignored and dismissed by the state legislature. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.
This state is broken. There is nobody out there - even Democrats - who will argue otherwise. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.
And you wonder why I refer to people as lemmings.
But I get it. People vote along party lines. Democrats blindly vote from Democrats. And to be fair, Republicans do the same. But when you are in Massachusetts, voting for Republican is not a mindless activity...it is a vote for change. It is a plea for something different. Another direction.
Because after a while, when one group of people just aren't getting the job done, you usually give the other guys a chance. Except in Massachusetts.
To be sure, this has happened on the national level. And I am completely OK with it. The Republicans deserved their ass-kicking in 2008. People wanted to give the other guys a chance. Hell, even I almost voted for Obama. I didn't, but I thought long and hard about it - not because I believed in his policies - I don't - but because a new voice was needed.
Which takes us back to last week. The prevailing theory is that Martha Coakley's loss wasn't necessarily about her, but about the dissatisfaction with Obama's agenda. I am sure part of that is true. If you ask me, Obama and the Democrats screwed up - they took on too much too soon. The focus in the first year or two should have been on the economy, not advocating for a trillion dollar health care package with no discernible benefits to the average consumer. They needed to prove to the public that they could fix problems, not create them. And so far, they failed.
But let's not forget that after the primaries, Coakley had a 30 point lead over Brown. That lead was still in the double digits by Christmas. And here is where I finally get to make my point. I believe that political arrogance played a large role in Coakley's defeat. Put simply, she and her campaign team took the voters for granted. "Hey, I am a Democrat, Teddy was a democrat, Massachusetts is a blue state...therefore, I have this one in the bag."
So while Brown was out there campaigning nonstop, doing all of the right things, Coakley was in the Caribbean catching some rays. She famously scoffed at the notion of shaking hands outside of Fenway Park on New Year's Day before the Bruins game because it was too cold. Less than two weeks before the election, instead of pressing the flesh, she was in DC meeting with lobbyists. And then, when it was apparent she was in real trouble, the negative ads started. And they kept going. And then Clinton came to town. And then Obama. Where were they in November and December?
I think this arrogance was the tipping point. Voter anger with Washington had been building, but I believe it was this sense of entitlement on behalf of the Democrats that finally moved the needle. After decades and decades of being taken for granted, the voters had enough. The same towns that carried Obama in a landslide were voting for Brown by a rate of 2-to-1.
And when it was over, I was pleased that the people of this state finally grew a pair. By the time I got home on election night, the race had been decided. I was in a good mood. Finally Massachusetts allowed a different voice to be heard. Who knows, maybe there is hope after all...
And then I checked Facebook. Here is a sampling of what I saw:
"Teddy must be rolling over in his grave."
"I am ashamed of my state."
"What is wrong with you people?"
I realized that this arrogance wasn't confined just to Coakley and her team. Nope, many diehard Dems also felt slighted by the outcome. They also believed that it was divine right that Coakley would win. That the Democrats would win.
Forget about change. Disregard the fact that, in just one year, the Dems have squandered 8 years worth of goodwill. Ignore the fact that there simply is no money to pay for what Obama wants to do.
And to these people, I ask: "What will it take?" Your arrogance and sense of entitlement is indeed appalling. I am man enough to admit that the GOP deserved their beating 15 months ago. I am man enough to admit that George Bush made mistake upon mistake. I am man enough to admit that the Republicans completely lost touch with the people.
When will you do the same? Especially in Massachusetts?
I am not calling out every single Democrat. Some sensible ones have acknowledged that Coakley lost because she ran a terrible campaign and Brown ran a very good one. To these folks, of course I agree.
Of course, Republicans are just as capable of screwing up a state as Democrats. Political scandals and corruption are not confined to one party. But, the fact remains that Massachusetts is controlled by the Dems and as such, they need to bear responsibility for the mess our state is in.
Someone marginally smarter than I made a good point when he told me that all politics are local. The Republicans have failed in this state because they haven't made the commitment. Make a name for yourself on the board of selectman or the school committee...and then try and move up. Don't come out of nowhere and expect people to vote for you. This person is right. Maybe last week's election result will give the state GOP party the kick in the pants it needs to start on a grassroots level and grow from there.
But either way, I'm hoping that the voters in this state will lose their sense of entitlement and look around. Instead of simply looking for the D on the ballot, take stock of what is happening on Beacon Hill...and think about giving the other guys a chance.
Arighty then. Here goes:
I am registered as unenrolled, but characterize myself as fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Because fiscal issues are the most important to me, I tend to vote Republican. I find the Democrats' "tax and spend" philosophy to be absurd. Now, consider these facts:
- There has not been a Republican U.S. Senator from Massachusetts in 31 years.
- There has not been a Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts in 14 years. There were two from 1993-1997. Before that, the most recent one was in 1983.
- The Massachusetts legislature has been controlled by the Democrats for more than 40 years (and probably longer...I can't find the exact date online)
- While there have been Republican governors in Massachusetts recently, they all faced a legislature where Democrats held a supermajority, meaning little to no chance of advancing their agenda.
Pragmatically, I just don't get how/why Massachusetts is so blindly Democratic, especially on the state level. Whether you want to admit it or not, this state is a mess and a national political laughingstock (at least until last week).
One Speaker of the House after another resigns in shame; taxes continue to go up and numerous state agencies demonstrate their incompetence on a daily basis. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.
Only Louisiana and Illinois rival Massachusetts for the level of corruption by our politicians. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.
The will of the people through binding referendums (sales tax, tolls,death penalty, etc.) are ignored and dismissed by the state legislature. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.
This state is broken. There is nobody out there - even Democrats - who will argue otherwise. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.
And you wonder why I refer to people as lemmings.
But I get it. People vote along party lines. Democrats blindly vote from Democrats. And to be fair, Republicans do the same. But when you are in Massachusetts, voting for Republican is not a mindless activity...it is a vote for change. It is a plea for something different. Another direction.
Because after a while, when one group of people just aren't getting the job done, you usually give the other guys a chance. Except in Massachusetts.
To be sure, this has happened on the national level. And I am completely OK with it. The Republicans deserved their ass-kicking in 2008. People wanted to give the other guys a chance. Hell, even I almost voted for Obama. I didn't, but I thought long and hard about it - not because I believed in his policies - I don't - but because a new voice was needed.
Which takes us back to last week. The prevailing theory is that Martha Coakley's loss wasn't necessarily about her, but about the dissatisfaction with Obama's agenda. I am sure part of that is true. If you ask me, Obama and the Democrats screwed up - they took on too much too soon. The focus in the first year or two should have been on the economy, not advocating for a trillion dollar health care package with no discernible benefits to the average consumer. They needed to prove to the public that they could fix problems, not create them. And so far, they failed.
But let's not forget that after the primaries, Coakley had a 30 point lead over Brown. That lead was still in the double digits by Christmas. And here is where I finally get to make my point. I believe that political arrogance played a large role in Coakley's defeat. Put simply, she and her campaign team took the voters for granted. "Hey, I am a Democrat, Teddy was a democrat, Massachusetts is a blue state...therefore, I have this one in the bag."
So while Brown was out there campaigning nonstop, doing all of the right things, Coakley was in the Caribbean catching some rays. She famously scoffed at the notion of shaking hands outside of Fenway Park on New Year's Day before the Bruins game because it was too cold. Less than two weeks before the election, instead of pressing the flesh, she was in DC meeting with lobbyists. And then, when it was apparent she was in real trouble, the negative ads started. And they kept going. And then Clinton came to town. And then Obama. Where were they in November and December?
I think this arrogance was the tipping point. Voter anger with Washington had been building, but I believe it was this sense of entitlement on behalf of the Democrats that finally moved the needle. After decades and decades of being taken for granted, the voters had enough. The same towns that carried Obama in a landslide were voting for Brown by a rate of 2-to-1.
And when it was over, I was pleased that the people of this state finally grew a pair. By the time I got home on election night, the race had been decided. I was in a good mood. Finally Massachusetts allowed a different voice to be heard. Who knows, maybe there is hope after all...
And then I checked Facebook. Here is a sampling of what I saw:
"Teddy must be rolling over in his grave."
"I am ashamed of my state."
"What is wrong with you people?"
I realized that this arrogance wasn't confined just to Coakley and her team. Nope, many diehard Dems also felt slighted by the outcome. They also believed that it was divine right that Coakley would win. That the Democrats would win.
Forget about change. Disregard the fact that, in just one year, the Dems have squandered 8 years worth of goodwill. Ignore the fact that there simply is no money to pay for what Obama wants to do.
And to these people, I ask: "What will it take?" Your arrogance and sense of entitlement is indeed appalling. I am man enough to admit that the GOP deserved their beating 15 months ago. I am man enough to admit that George Bush made mistake upon mistake. I am man enough to admit that the Republicans completely lost touch with the people.
When will you do the same? Especially in Massachusetts?
I am not calling out every single Democrat. Some sensible ones have acknowledged that Coakley lost because she ran a terrible campaign and Brown ran a very good one. To these folks, of course I agree.
Of course, Republicans are just as capable of screwing up a state as Democrats. Political scandals and corruption are not confined to one party. But, the fact remains that Massachusetts is controlled by the Dems and as such, they need to bear responsibility for the mess our state is in.
Someone marginally smarter than I made a good point when he told me that all politics are local. The Republicans have failed in this state because they haven't made the commitment. Make a name for yourself on the board of selectman or the school committee...and then try and move up. Don't come out of nowhere and expect people to vote for you. This person is right. Maybe last week's election result will give the state GOP party the kick in the pants it needs to start on a grassroots level and grow from there.
But either way, I'm hoping that the voters in this state will lose their sense of entitlement and look around. Instead of simply looking for the D on the ballot, take stock of what is happening on Beacon Hill...and think about giving the other guys a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
