Gingerbread Pirate

Time Warner's HD service.

2010-01-07T18:04:00.000-08:00

From time to time, I've had some problems with my HD service from Time Warner Cable. It was quirky. It would lose video and audio sync. I've always managed to work around it, though. Tonight, though, I was very disappointed by Time Warner's service. Check out the HD video below.

Now, before you ask, I didn't contact Time Warner's technical support. I simply don't have the patience to talk to corporate technical support. I'm a technical person. I have more computers and network gizmos in my house than any healthy man should. I simply can't take a technical support person asking me to go through some checklist that verifies there's power to the cable box.

I put on the game. It was choppy (see above). I changed to another HD channel. It was a little choppy, but far less so. I changed to a standard definition channel, and it was fine. I changed back to the game, with the same result; choppy. I changed back to another HD channel with the same result; choppy, but not as bad.

I turned the box off, and back on. Same result.

I unplugged the cable box from its power cord, gave it plenty of time for its capacitors to exhaust themselves, and the internal hard drive to spin down, and then reconnected the power. SAME RESULT.

I don't know what the problem is, but it's frustrating. And on a night where the BCS championship is on, it's unacceptable. I wrote Time Warner a friendlygram, letting them know that I wasn't happy, but I know there's nothing they can do about it (tonight). We'll see where it goes.

When I'm paying for HD service, I expect HD service. If I'm not getting it, it seems like there's a breach of commitment from the provider; not out of malice, mind you, but out of omission.

I'll let you know if my HD service improves. In the mean time, I'm paying $150/month for internet access, TV service that I could get for free over the air, and enough taxes to make me wonder why my NC state taxes "needed" to go up nearly 3% this year (combination of sales tax and income tax).

NFL predictions: Orton will rock, Romo... not so much.

2009-10-18T06:03:00.000-07:00

I have been quietly making a prediction to my friends about a handful of quarterbacks around the league this year. The more I see, the more I am convinced my predictions will come true, and I want to voice them a little more publicly.

At the end of the season, Kyle Orton will look like a super-star, and Tony Romo, while quarterback for America's Team will no longer be hailed as the Second Coming in Dallas, behind Troy Aikmen, but will be prepared to be relegated to the annuls of Cowboys history along with Drew Brees; a good quarterback, but not "it" for Dallas.

Let's start with Kyle Orton. The trade for Kyle Orton seemed an odd one at the time. Josh McDaniels, former offensive coordinator for the New England Patriots, became the head coach of the Denver Broncos at the beginning of the season. When Jay Cutler, quarterback of the Broncos, heard that McDaniels was considering trading him, he was allegedly hurt and furious. The Broncos knew they had a huge resource in Cutler, and cashed in with the Bears on that resource. I still haven't decided how much of all the trade was show, and how much was legitimate drama, but the facts remain; the Broncos received a Kings' ransom for Cutler, to include Kyle Orton. I DO firmly believe that McDaniels did not think he could effectively coach and mold Cutler, who had been reasonably vocal about how wonderful he already was. McDaniels has made big names for Quarterbacks like Brady and Matt Cassell. Admittedly, Cassell hasn't done all that much with his career, but any coach would take a 10-6 season from a backup QB, after having the starter taken out in the first game. McDaniels was looking for a solid quarterback to work with and move into his system. Kyle Orton fit the bill, AND McDaniels was able to get him at a significant discount over other big-name quarterbacks. Today, at 5-0, McDaniels in his first year of head coaching, is showing the league that the system works, and that a well-coached quarterback can be every bit as effective as a talented quarterback. I think the Broncos are going to have a great season, win the AFC West, and probably win their first playoff game. I'm not crowning McDaniels the next Vince Lombardi. I'm not announcing Kyle Orton as the next Joe Montana. I'm saying that at the end of this year, we're going to be asking ourselves IF Kyle Orton is the next Joe Montana, and I'll be answering "No, McDaniels is on his way to being the next Joe Gibbs; bright coaching future ahead of him, regardless of the quarterback."

Which brings me to my second prediction. Tony Romo will never be successful in Dallas, and at the end of this season, fans will begin to see that. Tony Romo is currently hailed as the next big thing in Dallas, after Troy Aikman. As a simple point of fact, Troy Aikman has 3 Super Bowl Championship rings, and Tony Romo has won as many NFL playoff games as I have. Interestingly, Troy Aikman himself feeds into this farcical legend. As the NFL analyst on most Dallas Cowboy games for FOX, he consistently slurps Romo as his crowned successor that always puts the Cowboys in a position to win. He is remarkably athletic, but athletics don't substitute for solid quarterback skills when it comes to long-term skill-position careers; athletics fade with age, but talent may remain. I predict that by the end of the season, Dallas fans will be questioning Tony Romo, but will REALLY be looking at Wade Phillips' coaching as the culprit. Once Phillips is gone at the end of the season, Romo will continue to produce solid results, without playoff payoffs, which simply aren't enough for the fans in Dallas. Romo will eventually be replaced and move on to a new team, which is the only place he will actually have any real hope of winning a Championship.

A Nobel Peace Prize? For what?!?

2009-10-09T16:46:00.000-07:00

Today, President Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

I don't mean to take away from the President's plans, initiatives, or policies.

BUT... Never has a Nobel Peace Prize been awarded for doing so little...

There is no doubt that the President ran a masterful campaign, focusing on hope and change. These ideas have global implications, and resound with the best parts of humanity. However, to date, it is still just talk. The President has accomplished VERY LITTLE in his 9 months in office, much like most new Presidents during their first year in office.

On the peace front, specifically, let's look at all the promises that are still unfulfilled; we're still in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay is still open. Outside of campaign promises, Iran has flaunted the fact that they a.) are building a nuclear refinery, and b.) have been doing it for years in secret, the President is considering increasing troops deployed to Afghanistan, and Navy SEALs were deployed to hunt and kill pirates off the coast of Somalia. Truly, this President has demonstrated a commitment to diplomacy.

I'm not saying that the President won't be deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize; certainly the previous Bush administration has set the stage for a dramatic change of international policy which could lead to a Nobel Peace Prize, and certainly President Obama has spectacular visions and goals for peace and diplomacy during his administration, but let's face it, most of his campaign "visions" will end up being like most campaign promises - unfulfilled. Let's not forget we are still IN an economic hole, and healthcare is clearly right at the top of the President's agenda.

The President did, however, appear to recognize that while his "to do" list was long, his "done" list was nearly absent; accepting the award as a "call to action," and not a "mission accomplished." I applaud him for being fair with himself, and the World.

So congratulations to the President, but shame on the Norwegian Nobel Committee. If former President Clinton, who put tremendous effort into the Middle East Peace process, focusing on Israel and Palestinians (and to a large extent, Egypt), in conjunction with peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans and Somalia, don't earn him a Nobel Peace Prize, I don't see how a President that hasn't DONE ANYTHING yet can be awarded one.

The Old Woman Shakes Her Cane.

2009-09-19T10:04:00.001-07:00

I was in Pittsburgh this week, and while I was driving around the downtown area, I saw something I thought I would only see in a movie.

I was rolling through an intersection. I had to slow down, as there was an old woman in the crosswalk in front of me. She shuffled along, hunched over, in a white shawl. She was not graceful, but my coworker and I (he's in his 50s) both agreed that if years on this earth equated to wisdom, she must have carried frankincense to some baby's birth long ago. Adult republicans seeing her would have lamented that the Boy Scouts of America were clearly snoozing on the job, which never would have happened on THEIR watch in the 1950s. She slowly crossed the great expanse that was the crosswalk. As she left my lane and moved into the oncoming lane, a car pulled up and stopped for her.

Evidently, the driver pulled up too fast, too close, or both. She stopped, mid-shuf, and raised her eyes to the driver. She then raised her cane, precariously trusting her centuries-old legs to maintain their balance for the duration of her admonition. She shook her cane with grandmotherly fury at the driver.

We didn't have time to see how long she berated the driver, as we rolled passed, happy to have avoided personally experiencing her wrath. My coworker and I could only laugh. It was picturesque. It was surreal. It was as if we were watching a movie. It only could have been MORE classic, if she had hit the car with her cane.

A tip jar at a self-serve coffee place?!?!

2009-08-28T06:09:00.001-07:00

As I was passing through Laguardia Airport, my eye was caught by a self-serve coffee kiosk. I thought, "Really? Free coffee at an airport? If I were Starbucks, I would be pissed..." As I looked closer, it wasn't just self-serve, it was a Dunkin' Donuts kiosk that was self-serve with a cashier beside it.

I do love my Dunkin' Donuts coffee, I hadn't had any breakfast, and DDs are hard to come by in Charlotte, so I decided to stop and smell the coffee. I grabbed a styrofoam cup, poured myself some jo, added some cream and sugar (which I will only do at a Dunkin' Donuts; otherwise, it's black coffee for me), and proceeded to check out the selection of donuts. They had my regular favorites, namely blueberry cake and glazed chocolate cake, so I indulged in one of each.

As I got to the cashier, she told me how much I owed, and as she was handing me my change, I was astonished to see a tip jar, staring me in the face, like some kind of pleading "Will work to feed my baby, cause I just got laid off, and I haven't had a drink in minutes" cauldron. I thought to myself, "Seriously? A tip jar? But you didn't DO anything..."

For the record, I got my cup. I poured my coffee. I added the cream and sugar. I struggled with the donut cabinet door, while trying to hold the donut bag, clinging to the little plastic tissue thingy in my other hand, magically balancing my coffee like some kind of Cirque du Soliel performer, AND managing my luggage. Indeed, it is YOU who should be tipping ME for your front-row seat to my performance!

And then it hit me... maybe the tip jar WAS for me. Maybe they added funds to the jar for me to take upon successful completion of the Java Obstacle Course, brought to you by the good people of Dunkin' Donuts.

My timid hand approached the tip jar to claim my reward, but was met with a questioning and almost reproachful look from the cashier. I somehow, from this silent but stern communication, deduced that the tip jar was NOT for me, and I had indeed assumed correctly at first that the money was for the employee, seated on her lofty perch, who had done nothing to assist me in my journey except to confirm my suspicions that I would be overcharged for my donuts and coffee.

Maybe next time, I'll walk straight up to the cashier, order what I want, and see where the conversation goes from there... if I end up with my coffee and donuts THEN, I am more likely to provide a tip.

"didn't mean to slight?" Are you serious?

2009-07-25T06:10:00.000-07:00

I haven't been tracking the Gates-Cambridge Police issue too closely, recently, but I haven't been completely out of the loop. I saw yesterday on CNN.com that President Obama "didn't mean to slight" when he said that the police acted stupidly.

Thus far, I have generally been impressed with President Obama's public interactions. He's polished, personable, and generally reassuring, which are skills that President H.W. Bush was perhaps missing.

I cannot, however, figure out how a man as publicly well-appointed as President Obama can stand at the lectern, and on one day say that the police acted stupidly, and on the next say he didn't mean to slight them. The facts of the of the event are irrelevant to the statement.

"I think you are not professional, and do your job poorly, but I hope you don't take any offense."

Beyond that, the offending statement uses harsher language than the President will use with human rights violating nations! You don't hear the President saying that North Korea "acted stupidly" by continuing missile tests, or that Iran "acted stupidly" by claiming there are no homosexuals in Iran. The President, however , feels compelled to pick out a law officer and fellow American to put down in public.

I'm not, strictly speaking, down on the President. President Obama, however, needs to recognize that he is no longer "just" a member of the legislative branch, but is the leader of the free world, the long-awaited, compassionate Ambassador, and that his words resound internationally far beyond the White House lectern from where they are uttered.

It's the swine flu, not the plague.

2009-04-27T18:16:00.000-07:00

I have seen and heard about the "outbreak of the deadly swine flu", and would like to help people understand some basic facts about the flu.

a.) Your best protection is basic prevention. - Wash your hands regularly. Be aware of those around you that may be coughing, or otherwise expressing symptoms, which include coughing, sore throat, lethargy, nausea and vomiting, runny nose, etc. Note that the symptoms are consistent with the body's reaction to most illnesses, including the common cold and severe allergies. Correlation does not equal causation, and vomiting does not equal the swine flu. For those of you who constantly use hand sanitizer, you have likely managed to diminish your body's immune system by depriving it of consistent exposure to bacteria and illnesses, and thus, may have increased your chances of the illness, should you come in contact with it. Nice work.

b.) If you're healthy, and you live in the United States, it is not deadly. It's not that the flu can't kill you; it's that the flu won't kill you. As I write this, 20 out of 149 cases have been confirmed. Today, that's roughly 13% (tomorrow, 20/149 is still 13%, but the numbers will likely be different tomorrow), but that is likely to explode far lower tomorrow as yahoos with runny noses from every state run to be treated with what they believe is assuredly their beginning-of-the-end.

Good luck, and Godspeed.

The Relationship Between Hotel Quality and Cost.

2009-04-12T19:04:00.000-07:00

I used to be a Starwood Hotels guy, but then I realized something about hotels.

Justin's law of hotel value: Once a set of fundamental requirements of a hotel room are met, there is a nonlinear relationship between a hotel's room rate and the total cost of the hotel stay.

Huh? Stay with me, here.

Basically, if you have a room at a cheap hotel, you'll have a cheap stay, but if you have a more expensive room at a nice hotel, you'll have a FAR more expensive stay, compared to an identical stay at the cheap hotel.

Huh?

Here it is: Once you have the basic essentials of a hotel, like a bed, TV, private bathroom, etc., you've got a baseline price for a hotel room in a given market. If you can find a hotel room at the basic cost "threshold" for a given market, you'll find that it includes more amenities that you might WANT for free. The more expensive a hotel room gets, the more you have to PAY for amenities that are otherwise free at hotels closer to the basic cost threshold.

Take, for example, any given Quality Inn. It's a relatively inexpensive hotel room, in the grand scheme of things. You're not expecting a flat screen in every room, or a lavish pool necessarily. You'll expect the basics of a hotel; bed, bath, TV. Now, Quality Inn will generally include a free breakfast, frequently a hot breakfast, free wi-fi, free small business center, free use of fax, etc. Nothing extravagant, but note the common term, "free." So your total hotel stay will be in line with the room rate times the number of nights.

Now, take for example, any given Marriott. It's not extravagant, but it's a "nice" hotel. You're going to pay significantly more for a Marriott room in a given market over a Quality Inn. What do you expect? A nice bed, a nice bathroom, and a nice TV. The Marriott, though, will include, breakfast for a fee, usually a hot breakfast, wi-fi for a fee, business center for a fee, use of fax for a fee... see where I'm going with this? Why is the hotel 20%-50% more than what I call a "threshold" hotel, but the SAME services are free at the "threshold" hotel and cost money at the "premium" hotel? While the hotel should cost 20%-50% more, based on the room rate, it doesn't. It will cost far more for the same stay, because you'll pay the additional 20%-50% for the room rate, PLUS the additional $20-$50/night for the same amenities. Hence the nonlinearity. And it only gets worse as the hotels get nicer.

This is what Justin's law of hotel value is all about. As the hotel rooms cost more, the total cost of the stay diverges as the price of the hotel room increases. "Cheap" hotels remain cheap with the cost of the room, but expensive hotels become more and more expensive as the cost of the room increases.

So today, I'm a Choice Hotels guy. I have been for a handful of years now. The Choice Hotels program provides great benefits at a wide variety of hotels. More importantly, though, the cost of the rooms is generally around the "threshold" price, keeping the total cost of the stay reasonable.

Here's my recommendation, then. If you want a nice room, book the nicest room in the cheapest hotel that HAS the amenities that you want, and they're more likely to be free and/or cheap, than if you book the cheapest room in the nicer hotel that has the amenities. If you want a pool, clearly you have to go where the pool is, but book the CHEAPEST place with a pool, and then get the nicest room you can, for a treat. The folks behind the counter will see you're the big fish in the little pond, and take care of you accordingly. If you're the smallest fish in the biggest pond, you're more likely to get the "how nice that you decided to play at the $2 table at Ceasar's Palace" look.

Campaign statistics.

2008-10-03T14:31:00.000-07:00

I received a campaign flyer from Barack Obama.

It contained a statement that Obama would reduce the taxes of middle-class Americans by $1000.

I would like to see the specific plan that will provide health care for all Americans, but will reduce middle-class taxes by $1000.

If anyone has any specifics on this plan, I would like to see it. Thanks.

Is bailing Fannie and Freddie out a good idea?

2008-09-07T18:27:00.001-07:00

I'm a fiscal conservative. I like small government. I like low taxes. I like relying on myself for the things I need. For that matter, I like to be able to make my own decisions on what I need and don't need. I don't like bailouts.

All that being said, there is a time when the Government has an obligation to intervene in the affairs of the commercial world. The Fed attempted to fix the problems brought on by the market crash in the 20s, and failed (albeit, they just didn't try hard enough, but I digress). The Government stepped in an produced jobs and welfare programs to drive the economy from the bottom up. The same Fed had Chernobyl-type problems with inflation in the late 70s, which, depending on how one defines "victory," the Fed was victorious over.

What good would the collapse of Fannie and Freddie do? The liquidity required to fund mortgages would go away. The credit necessary to buy houses would nearly vanish. All this would further exacerbate the problems of the housing market, as there would be no buyers for defaulted homes and homes that were "forced" onto the market (imagine a job change or a responsible buyer trying to pro-actively buy into a smaller, more affordable home). When credit tightens, people can't buy cars,

In the case of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the fact is that the collapse of these lending giants would not benefit any market. Other banks already don't have the free capital to buy the companies. Hell, the Government decided it couldn't even afford to buy the companies, so they simply nationalized them. The simple fact is that the investors that provided the capital to support the loans, are also the capital owners that drive our economy through investments elsewhere. Furthermore, investors that are petrified to loan money to homebuyers will only cripple our real estate market. These investors will take their lumps; Lord knows that once the Government begins RUNNING Fannie and Freddie, those financially tethered to the company will not see any kinds of returns that they might hope to see were they run by competent, profit-driven executives.

The real key is getting the Government to declare "victory" early and getting out of the business of running companies. This is not the kind of situation that "more oversight" is going to help. We don't need additional bureaucrats looking into the lending process forever. Economic models might help predict the behavior of these kinds of collapses in the future, but there's no gaurantee, and if these models are put solely in the hands of bureaucrats, the process by which the legislation and regulation of the lending markets are controlled will be bastardized and perverted by the politics of the institution from which it derives its authority. Presidents will have more authority to impress the short-term economy to provide constituents with desired results, and this will come at the cost of further mortgaging our future. Inevitably, another collapse will come, and instead of blaming greedy executives and faceless corporations, we will find ourselves, once again, disappointed with the Authority to which we yielded our independence.

What is necessary in this situation, is for the Feds to get involved, make sure everyone involved takes their lumps (stockholders, execs, and borrowers), and then get out, leaving everyone with the lasting knowledge that if you're not careful, you will take your lumps again. Lenders shouldn't have been making these loans. Many of them will go bankrupt, and their stockholders will pay. Borrowers shouldn't have been so anxious to sign up for loans which, with their own honest personal assessments, they could not realistically repay. Some of them have gotten in over their head, and several of them will likely default, and they should. Investors should have been more shrewd with their money, looking for legitimate long-term investments (which real-estate has traditionally been) and performing due dilligence on their beneficiaries. Some of the bonds they purchased should default, and likely will. Allowing each group, in turn, to pay appropriately, for their own greed, while maintaining the stability and provided liquidity which Fannie and Freddie provide for the housing market is a good first step toward healing the real estate market, both short and long term.

It doesn't have to be just a Government handout. By propping up the market in the short term until liquidity and stability can be naturally achieved within the open market, it can (and should) be an investment in the American economy.

Rush Limbaugh's ego is ridiculous.

2008-05-03T13:28:00.000-07:00

This week, I had the pleasure hearing a portion of the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show. I have been exposed to Rush since I was reasonably young, as the father of my best friend growing up was a devout fan. I suspect he still is.

I hear snippets of the show every now and then, but I have yet to hear anything particularly enlightening come out of his mouth.

I'll give you two examples.

On 24 Feb, Richard Branson had a 747 flown from London to Amsterdam with one engine powered by coconut/fuel mixture. It was a demonstration of biofuel viability in commercial airliners. For the complete story, check here. Rush, authoring "Why We Can't Accept the Premise of the Liberal Global Warming Hoax," decided to provide his listeners with some thoughts on the use of coconut biofuels in commercial jetliners.

..."do you realize how ridiculous this is? Do you know what happens to coconut oil? At room temperature, it will solidify. I know, because I've got gazillion packets of it with popcorn that I use in my theatre. Coconut oil will solidify! You cannot put it in a jet fuel tank, especially at high altitude. It will freeze."

Thank you, Dr. Science. I'm sure the engineers at Boeing would like to know what will and will not work with their engines. I'm sure they would also appreciate it if you bound your thoughts in "reality." Yes, coconut oil you use with the popcorn in your theatre is solid at room temperature. (You have no idea how hard I am trying to avoid the obvious weight observation here...) Coconut oil is liquid above 76 degrees F. Last time I checked, however, jet engines don't run at 76 degrees F. They run someplace significantly higher, I suspect, depending on the design and type. Interestingly, even at "freezing" temperatures, nearing 550 mph at 35,000 feet, coconut oil could be maintained as a liquid.

As a point of interest, I specialized in rotating machinery, specifically jet engines, in college. Maybe that's just bragging, but it seemed pertinent.

It's not so much that Rush is wrong. It's that he claims to be an authority on anything and everything. "I now know what George Washington felt like." Somehow I think the struggles George Washington faced during the Revolutionary War, were significantly different, if not significantly more life-threatening, than the trials Rush faces on a daily basis. Although, perception being reality, Rush DID say that "the Revolutionary War was nothing," during his comparison of his conservative campaign relative to Washington in Valley Forge.

From conservative politics down to idea of burning coconut-kerosene fuel mixtures in jet airplanes, Rush claims to have definitive answers. Not opinions. Answers.

It's frustrating to me how conservatives allow this kind of arrogance define such a significant portion of the republican base.

Sex, drugs, and guns.

2008-05-03T13:23:00.000-07:00

If you've read my blog for long, you'll not be surprised at my concerns regarding primary education within the U.S.

However, something that I think is well on the path to helping young people grow up is sexual education. Educating children (not too young, and no, I don't know what "too young" is) on the risks of having sex, and how to protect themselves, and the context in which sex is universally appropriate is an honorable endeavor. I think it makes tremendous sense for this to be taught in school where general information and context can be delivered uniformly to students. However, and I think most parents would agree (I will be the first to point out that I am NOT a parent,) sex education might be a part of primary education, but should be partnered with the individual context, morality, and communication of the parents. Schools probably shouldn't be involved in the "pre-marital vs. post-marital vs. extramarital," discussion, but can provide fact-based discussions of threats, risks, concerns, and protection about sexual relations.

The same thing goes for drug education. Warning children of the threat the drugs pose to our society as a whole, but also to individuals that partake in the drug culture is an appropriate venture for schools to take part in. However, like sex, it is up to parents to couple discussions and communications with the lessons in school to provide context on the individual morality associated with the values of the core family. Some values see drugs as a moral issue, others see them as a social issue. Providing that context probably shouldn't be done globally by the school, but by the parents, and reinforced by global, fact-based lessons, by the school.

So... how is it that guns don't fall into this category? It seems to me the topic fits snugly into the drugs and sex contexts. Schools could provide fact-based information on the threats, risks, and benefits of guns. Parents, however, can provide the core value context and morality of guns, gun control, and gun value to the children through open communications, much the same way this can (and probably should) be done with sex and drugs.

I believe that gun education at a young age is a start to helping folks at the most risk for abusing firearms, the same way we use education to promote (not abolish) safe sex and drug avoidance.

I would speculate that guns are a bigger threat in inner cities and suburbs, where children are not exposed to positive gun experiences and lessons at a young age (even if you normalize the data for population disparities). Truly, I would suspect that most inner city children are exposed to guns through either a negative source (someone "bad" that has guns locally, someone friendly being killed by guns) or through video games which glorify the use of guns as killing/vindication tools. However, in more rural areas, children are exposed to guns at a much younger age, and with positive connotations. Guns are to be respected. Guns are tools, not weapons. Guns are not to be mishandled.

I learned how to shoot a rifle (BB gun) when I was 3. I have a strong respect for what guns can do, and how they should be handled/treated. To this day, I do not shoot often. I own a small handful of guns, but they are on my grandfather's farm several hundreds of miles away. I have no desire to own a gun in my house, not because I'm "anti-gun," or because I don't like guns, but because I view them as a liability in my home. Why should I have a gun in my home? If someone were to break in, there's nothing in my house (aside from my wife) that I would be willing to kill for. And I have learned that if you're going to point a gun at something, you better be willing to shoot it, and if that something is a person, you better shoot to kill. That's not a responsibility I want in my home. I don't even like having the responsibility of taking out the trash! So I choose not to have a gun. I'm guessing that rationale does not go through the head of the street thug in downtown Detroit.

However, I believe the vast majority of "anti-gun" lobbyists/activists, have never been to a gun education course. They have never fired a rifle and handgun. They do not know what it means to "respect" a gun. They know what it means to avoid guns.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. It's not about making guns go away. It's about making sure that only responsible, trained, educated people have guns in appropriate situations.

Food Lion-Chinese Connection

2008-04-27T09:39:00.001-07:00

Several weeks ago I was driving from Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC. I was driving leisurely down Rt. 29, when I decided I wanted some food. I had been feeling kind of nauseated the last couple days, so I decided to get something bland. What I REALLY wanted was some plain white rice; warm, bland, and tasty with a little salt and pepper. Knowing that Chinese food permeates every culture in the world (I believe you can find Chinese food in some of the more 3rd world countries in Africa), I figured even in the desolate Bible-belt north of Danville, VA, I would eventually come upon a Chinese restaurant.

Well, I did. I went inside, and ordered one large order of plain, white rice. $2.35 and a pitstop later, I was I getting back into my car. I noticed directly across the street, in the middle of nowhere, there was a Food Lion. I thought to myself, "Trusty Food Lion, serving the desolate and destitute of the Southeast."

It was at that point that I realized I couldn't recall the last time I had seen a Food Lion without a Chinese restaurant in the same or adjacent shopping center. As I continued my drive, I decided to look for Food Lions, and as I found them, look for a Chinese restaurant nearby. Sure enough, I found several Food Lions as I drove through the hinterlands of Virginia's Piedmont, and in most cases, there was a Chinese restaurant in the same shopping center. If not in the same shopping center, then right across the street in another shopping center.

When I got home, I decided to do a little research, which you can find HERE. I went to several different geographic areas within Virginia and North Carolina, and Googled Food Lions and Harris Teeters. I then Googled to find the nearest Chinese restaurant to each. I used Google-maps to find the distance between the two. I tried to pick areas of varying population density, to check different socio-economic microcosms within the grocery store markets.

What I found was that the average distance between a Food Lion and a Chinese restaurant was 801 ft., while the average distance between a Harris Teeter is 6846 ft; over 8 times further than for Food Lion.

What's up with that?

At first I thought, "Well, Harris Teeter and Food Lion target slightly different markets." I assumed that Food Lion was targeting a rural poorer demographic than Harris Teeter. After a little more empirical thought, however, I don't see how that's relavant. First, Harris Teeter, targeting a richer demographic would put it in more populated areas. However, even the Harris Teeter in Martinsville, VA (which, aside from the race track, is no bustling metropolis) is almost 2 miles from the nearest Chinese restaurant. Conversely, the Food Lion in Fair Lakes (,which has since been converted to a Bloom - Food Lion's "Cadillac" of stores, Fair Lakes being a solid upper-middle class area) is only 141 feet from the nearest Chinese restaurant. So clearly I don't know who the target demographic is for each chain.

Then I thought, "Well, maybe the Chinese restaurants target the same demographics as the Food Lions." By that logic, however, there should be Food Lions in Africa, per my previous statement. I know, I know... that logic is just stupid. But seriously, if you look, you will find the density of Chinese restaurants to Food Lions much higher in any region where Food Lion is active. Each Chinese restaurant cannot service as many patrons as the Food Lion can. The same is true for Harris Teeter, too, actually, but the geographic proximity of the Harris Teeter to the nearest Chinese restaurant is clearly much higher for Harris Teeters.
In all honesty, it might be interesting to see the square footage of the establishment vs. the square mileage of the service area for each establishment for Harris Teeter, Food Lion, and "Chinese restaurants."

I can only think of one more thing; Chinese restaurants, by virtue of their Asian heritage, find it good luck to be located near the "Food Lion," Lions being mythical protective icons in Chinese culture, and having clearly even MORE protective influence with their "Food" influence. How could a Chinese restaurant proprietor NOT put his establishment in the protection of the "Food Lion?"

Car Rental Fees

2008-04-19T17:37:00.000-07:00

I rented a car this weekend because my wife's family was in town. We needed something that could carry 6 of us, and we only have two Corollas, so we rented a minivan.

I rent cars a lot when I travel (although not always). I have noticed there are a lot of fees, but today, since I was personally responsible for the cost, I looked, I mean REALLY looked at the fees. This is what my receipt looked like.

Base Rate $120.00

$4.28/day fee $8.56

11.11% fee $13.44

FTP SR$0.50DY $1.00

Taxable subtotal $143.00

Tax 8.000% $11.44

*8% Surcharge $10.68

Total $165.12

So, my base rate was $120.00, but the cost to me was $165.12. That's $45.12 in fees, or 38% of the base fee! What the hell is a 11.11% fee? It's like a phone company stacking on hidden fees until you don't even know what you're paying for!!!

Couldn't the $4.28/day fee be factored into my base rate?

If this is "standard" on every rental, shouldn't the rentals simply BE 11.11% higher?

What the hell is an FTP charge? It's only $0.50/day, but it's not clear at all what the $1.00 is for.

And why isn't the 8% tax rate ($11.44.) the same as the 8% surcharge ($10.68)?!?!? It seems like 8% is 8%, so shouldn't they be the same?

I won't boycott Avis on this, simply because they do treat me well, and I think $160 for two days with a nice minivan (Chrysler Town and Country) isn't a terrible deal. It's just that it seems misleading to quote one price as the base price, and then add so many fees that the base price isn't even recognizable.

In the future, I may just ask to borrow a friend's car, though.

Outer Banks Brewing Station

2008-03-29T14:29:00.000-07:00

A little background. Our "idea" for the wedding was to get a couple large beach houses for ourselves and our friends, right on the beach. The large beach houses gave us an opportunity to see our friends as much as possible during the few days they would be there. We could see folks for breakfast in the morning and before we crashed at night. My parents ended up getting a beach house adjacent to our houses, so the wedding actually occupied three consecutive beachfront houses, which was pretty nice. Folks had the opportunity to go from house to house, seeing old friends and family, and meeting the rest of the invitees. The rest of the friends and family stayed at a hotel a short ways up the road (Ramada Plaza), which generally got good reviews, and they were welcome to come visit the beach houses whenever. With roughly 45 people occupying the beach houses, a visitor was sure to encounter SOMEONE if they were to come down for a visit!

So, we had our rehearsal dinner at the Outer Banks Brewing Station (http://www.obbrewing.com/). It's a reasonable-sized venue at milepost 8.5, right on 150. It wasn't REALLY a rehearsal dinner, as we didn't have a rehearsal. It was really an opportunity for friends and family coming into town to get together and chat, hang out, have a nice meal, and enjoy some brews before our big day. It also allowed wedding-goers to discuss where they were staying, and make daytime plans for the day of the wedding (wedding wasn't until 5 pm).

Anyway, the Brewing Station proved to be a great place to have the rehearsal dinner. First, the folks at the Brewing Station were some of the friendliest and easiest to work with people I've ever dealt with. Karen (our email POC), was friendly and hospitable, answering all our questions (and there were plenty) , and working with us on the seating layout, cuisine, open bar options, and pricing. Eric was the "head janitor," and made sure our evening went smoothly. He was friendly and engaging, and our evening DID go smoothly. Mark was our bartender, and like any good bartender, he kept the drinks flowing with a smile. And finally Scott is their brewmeister... and I'll get to him in a minute.

From a logistics perspective, it was reasonably centrally located to everyone's accommodations. Also, the meal was buffet-style, so people that couldn't make it into town until later were able to arrive at their convenience. The Brewing Station provided us with exclusive access to their loft area (upstairs dining area), which gave us our own area to be loud and jocular, without having to worry about disturbing other restaurant guests. The upstairs area also has its own bar, and for a fee, can be staffed, which was nice.

The consensus on the food was that it was great. We started the evening with an hors d'oeuvre segment, so everyone could arrive and get themselves a drink. We had several children (~10ish), and while some of them were trying MY patience, the wait staff was super-accommodating, and didn't miss a beat. The dinner was a buffet, and there was plenty to go around. It was served on time, and they just kept the trays coming. The dessert was dynomite, also.

And the cost really wasn't all that bad. For ~45 people, 3 hours of open bar (beer, wine, and liquor), the hors d'oeuvres, full meal, dessert, taxes, tips, and friendly wait staff, our final cost was $2300. I thought that was a pretty reasonable (~$50/person).

As an added bonus, being a homebrewer (check out my crappy web page at www.gingerbreadpirate.com), I wanted to know if my $2300 evening came with a complementary tour of the attached brewery. It did! Eric (head janitor) told me to come back the next day around 1 to meet with the brewmeister, Scott.

Well, the brewery tour was awesome. Scott took nearly 2 hours to discuss each process with my brother and I. Not only was it fascinating, but I learned so much about the brewing process during the tour. I really appreciated him taking so much time out of his day to talk to us.

I would absolutely recommend the Brewing Station to anyone headed to the OBX for a wedding... or just a place to eat. Great environment, nice people, tasty food and great beer.

Hitched.

2008-03-19T12:12:00.000-07:00

So.... I'm married now.

"Til death do us part."

So, now that I'm married, I'm going to post a couple follow up blogs on the vendors I used at the Outer Banks. If you know anyone considering getting married on the Outer Banks, please let them know these blogs posts exist (once I get them up), so they hopefully learn from our successes and mistakes.

That being said, however... It's amazing how much time, effort, and money is spent on a wedding. Everything is expensive. Doesn't matter what the cost of a "normal" item is... add the term "wedding" to the front of the item, and it becomes ridiculously expensive.

Flowers = $250
Wedding flowers = $1000

Dress = $180
Wedding dress = $500

I call this the "Cinderella Scenario." The situation where the bride-to-be is sitting there, looking at the catalog, or trying on a dress, and "Oh, that looks beautiful. And you deserve it because it is YOUR day." What generally goes unsaid, but is understood, is, "...regardless what it costs." Any person in the room CAN be the culprit of this costly phrase; the sales agent, the mother of the bride, the maid of honor. Our society believes the wedding day should be the most special day of the Bride's life. Our society also promotes hyperconsumerism. Truly a costly combination!

We decided to get married on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. There were a large host of reasons we decided on the Outer Banks, and cost was one of them. We thought we would be having an inexpensive wedding, but not so! Everything ended up being more expensive than we projected. Part of the expense was the aforementioned "wedding" phenomena. Another part of that expense was the "this is only going to happen once in my Life (hopefully), so let's have what we want." However, combatting these dollar-eating, bride-exploiting frivolous costs, was my soon-to-be wife (now "just," "wife") managing what it SHOULD cost, against what it DOES cost, and what we WANT against what makes sense. So, to be honest, I think our wedding was a deal, considering what we ended up with, and considering the practices of bridal exploitation inthe "Cinderella scenario."

So weddings are expensive.

BUT, I realized while I was in the process of getting married that there is a reason for at least SOME of the additional cost of the wedding.

When I buy flowers, it's for an event. I'm buying them to tell my wife I Love her. I'm buying them for an anniversary. I'm buying them for a nice dinner with friends.

When I buy WEDDING flowers, I'm buying them for my wedding. For my one and only (hopefully) wedding. I am paying the extra money to make sure that it all goes smoothly. The extra cost COULD be justified because I'm paying for the best florists in the field to provide their normal service in a "no worry" fashion. I don't want to hear about any problems. I don't want to be involved in any "mitigating" decisions, and I SURE AS SHIT don't want to show up and not have the right flowers. I am paying extra money for the florist to know what's right, how to manage the risks of the floral industry (whatever they may be), and to make sure that it goes well.

Anyway, check out my blogs. My wedding event was generally great. Good time with friends and family, and an opportunity to hang out and enjoy ourselves... oh... and get hitched.

Greatest highlight... Seriously?

2008-02-26T15:40:00.000-08:00

I'm excited to see that ESPN has put together a "greatest highlight" bracket, to compete highlights across the sports world to determine "the greatest highlight" of all time.

I'm a huge football fan. I wrote a 2+ part blog about Terrell Owens "situation" in Philadelphia prior to his departure. I have successfully debated the NFL being a superior sport to NCAA football on multiple occasions. I love watching football, and would estimate I saw more than 100 football games this season alone, between college and pro, including the playoffs and bowl games. I love football so much, I don't even have the NFL Sunday ticket. Who needs to pay for the Sunday ticket when you don't care what teams your watching? I get at least 7 games a week during the heat of the season, which may or may not include the Redskins (usually not, as I live in Charlotte).

So, I'm excited there are so many football plays as options for the greatest highlight ever.

- The immacculate reception - Franco Harris' reception, which may or may not have touched the ground, during the 1972 AFC Divisional Playoffs against the Oakland Raiders, that was returned for a touchdown, beginning the Steelers Dynasty.
- Hail Flutie - Doug Flutie, quarterback for #10 ranked Boston College, completes a pass to wide receiver Gerard Phelen, in a last second hail mary to beat #8 ranked, reigning national champions, University of Miami (FL).
- WAC comes to play - Boise State uses the hook-and-ladder to tie against Oklahoma University in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl (BCS), but WINS on a statue of liberty play on a 2-pt conversion to WIN (not tie) in overtime.
- "The Play" - Cal-Stanford ends with an over-anxious trombone player eating his mouthpiece after an unlikely kickoff return, involving 4 players and 5 laterals, puts Cal ahead of Stanford (and then QB John Elway) in the final seconds of the game.

Truly a great set of highlights!

But is it a done deal that one of "my" highlights will win? No. Hank Aaron's record-breaking hit. Christian Laetnner hits a last second shot to win Kentucky.

In the "Final Four," three of the four highlights are football highlights:

- Hail Flutie
- Immaculate reception
- WAC comes to play.

What is this insolent fourth highlight!?!? How dare it not pay hommage to the gridiron!?!?!

It's the game-winning goal of the 1980 U.S. Men's Olympic Hockey Team against the USSR in the quarterfinals.

So, I'm a football fan. See above for a detailed brag-fest of my football-love. I recognize, however, that the 1980 Men's Hockey team defeating the Russians (Soviets) in the Olympics is one of the greatest highlights of all time.

But I further recognize that it's more than just a highlight. It was a quintessential Cinderella story, as the soviets hadn't been beaten in 12 years, even stomping the American NHL all-stars in 1979. The Americans went on to beat Finland in the finals to take the gold medal.

But further still, I recognize that the victory over the Soviets was a symbolic victory of Democracy over Communism. In a time where the Soviets were attempting to take over Afghanistan, and the concept of the domino effect still reigned as the model by which U.S. foreign policy operated, the American Hockey team was able to provide hope to a country that was economically struggling and could use a morale boost.

I love football, but I recognize that the U.S. Hockey team defeating the Soviets in the Olympics is hands down the greatest sports highlight of all time, and if any of the other highlight wins the "Greatest Highlight" award, I WILL boycott ESPN, like the U.S. boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow.

At least... until football season...

Why can't the Congress get SOMETHING right? - A sports review.

2008-02-14T14:44:00.000-08:00

Roger Clemens spent yesterday on the Hill, talking to Congress, specifically the Senate, about his alleged steroid use. This discussion has been spawned by the Mitchell report, which reported the depth of steroid use within professional baseball, discoverable by an independent investigative team lead by former Senator George Mitchell. Former Senator Mitchell was commissioned by Bud Selig to perform the investigation. A reasonably comprehensive timeline of events prior to 2007 is available here:

http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/2006/08/baseballs-steroid-era-timeline.html

So that's how your tax dollars were spent on our elected officials yesterday.

BUT WAIT! That's not the ONLY involvement Congress had yesterday in professional sports! Baseball just isn't enough!

Senator Arlen Specter R-PA met with NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, on the so-called "Spygate" scandal.

A note on Spygate:
In the first game of the 2007 NFL season, the New England Patriots, under coach Bill Belichick, used a video recorder to record/capture opponents', New York Jets, under coach Eric Mangini, defensive signals. Coach Mangini reported this action to the NFL, as there had been a strongly-worded memo sent around the league stating that cheating would not be tolerated in the league during the season. The NFL looked into the allegations, and found that it was true that the Patriots had recorded the signals. Coach Belichick defended himself, saying that he thought the recordings were legal, that he had been involved in video recordings in the past, back to his first year with the Patriots in 2000. The NFL confiscated the tapes as evidence in the case, found them to corroborate the Jets' allegations and Coach Belichick's assertions, and took action against Belichick and the Patriots. Specifically,

- $500,000 fine for Coach Belichick - the maximum allowed under the rules of the NFL
- $250,000 fine for the Patriots
- A 1st-round draft choice (the Patriots DID make the playoffs)

The NFL considered the case closed, and destroyed the evidence tapes.

Now, Senator Specter believes that the tapes had been destroyed prematurely, and wanted to talk to Commissioner Goodell about the destruction of the tapes.

But why Senator Specter? I thought the NFL dealt with the issue?

Well, there IS that issue of the Patriots beating the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl 39. And Senator Specter, allegedly, is an Eagles fan. Surely a United States Senator wouldn't use his power and influence to influence history written 3 years ago, would he?

I just seems to me that our Congressmen and women, should put national and international issues and priorities first. I cannot speak for the voters of Pennsylvania, but I know I didn't elect MY public servants to spend time investigating sports' flaws, when issues like bin Laden, Democracy in Iraq, and violence in Darfur plague our international landscape, and immigration, public health care, and primary education are issues domestically. Evidently, the use of steroids in professional baseball, or the NFL's decision to destroy that are entirely congruent with testimony provided by both accuser and offender rank as important to our elected officials as the violent revolution in Chad.

Or maybe these current events are easy, free, and relevant vehicles for our elected officials to get sound bites aired by the media in an election year...

Movie Critics Suck

2008-02-06T17:36:00.000-08:00

Movie critics suck.

It seems like every time a new movie is coming out that I want to see, a movie critic pans it. Then I go see it, and I invariably like it.

Why does this happen? It's either:

a.) The low expectations set by the movie critics causes the movie to otherwise exceed my then set low expecatations.

or,

b.) I know my tastes, and have a well-developed sense of what I like in a movie,

or,

c.) Movie critics suck something awful.

I don't think it's a.), though, because I have seen plenty of movies for which I have never read a critic's review, but still enjoyed it.

I think b.) is true, but it doesn't account for critics NOT liking the movies that I generally like.

Which leads us to c.).

Movie critics suck. They, in no way, provide any insight as to whether or not I should go see a movie. They perhaps have some insight into whether a movie will win some kind of award, but that's only because it is buttplugs like them that determine who will win said awards, anyway. It seems to me that movie critics should be required to be IN the demographic for which a movie is targeted to be allowed to provide a review. What the hell does a man (or woman) in his (or her, respectively) mid-50s or early 60s know about what's funny to a guy in his mid-20s (actually... this week I decidedly crossed into my late-20s)?

Let me give a couple examples from our critic friends at rottentomatoes.com:

South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut - "80 minutes of this boring animated comedy/musical feels so long that it will seriously test any moviegoer's patience!" - I know I had a hard time sitting through it... 3 times in the theatre and roughly 10 times on DVD.

Super Troopers - "A more-miss-than-hit affair, Super Troopers will most likely appeal to those looking for something silly." - Truly profound. And here I thought they were trying to make something to compete with "The English Patient." My bad.

Clerks - "Amateurishly acted, clumsily edited and slapped together out of what looks like surveillance camera footage, the thing bumps along not so much on talent as on audacity." - It's no George Lucas film, that's true. You got all your facts right, but your conclusion was all wrong. I give you an A for effort, but I hope you die in a horrible car accident for your ignorance.

Transformers - "Believable characters are hard to come by in this action-packed film." - You had a hard time coming up with believable characters in a movie about self-aware robots from outer space? I think you missed the point.

Movie critics... ... another worthless product of the media.