My borrowed iPod Nano stopped working the first week of December, so I've had a lot of time (running) alone with my thoughts. This blog post has been composed and decomposed several different ways over the last 40 miles or so.
I suppose the first thing for me to admit, given the hyperbole of the title of this post, is the technical failings of my endeavor. More than a few of the miles I recorded were walking, and even when I run the pace is by most objective standards pathetic. I only claim to be a runner because I am persistent at it and have managed to wear out a few pair of actual running shoes exclusively through their intended use. I am no great athlete, I don't even love running that much.
The subtitle I wrote for this blog on a few of my jogs was: How selfish is that? How selfish does one have to be to spend that much time on himself, not running for charity, apparently doing it for self-aggrandizement? When I set out to do this last year, I wrote in my first facebook post about the venture that sharing my miles was a way to drum up a little accountability and keep track of miles. I know there are apps and gadgets that do that for you... this is what I had. Whether it was a good system or not, it worked. And I really am glad if I encouraged a few people, or maybe just reassured them that I was alive and not vegetating, but publicity was not my goal.
I ran in two countries (US and Germany), and in eight states (NY, CA, GA, TX, AZ, PA, MN, MD), night and day, hot, cold, wet, dry... the worst miles were consistently on treadmills. I have to guess that about 40-50 miles were run on treadmills, most often in hotel fitness centers. I loved seeing bald eagles soaring over me running in Hamilton, running in Riverside Park on the Upper West Side, Buffalo Bayou in Houston, through the streets of Frankfurt and Salinas, and on the foothill roads near Tucson. My longest day's run was the Boilermaker (9.3 miles) and my shortest was 1.2 miles through freezing rain this fall.
Until my birthday in late June, I logged miles based on my iPod Nano (6th gen.) pedometer. My lovely wife gave me a FitBit Blaze, and since then I have used GPS to track my mileage. What I learned is that the 4.1 loop on which I recorded many of my first 500 miles was really 4.2 miles. In every case, I rounded the miles my devices recorded down, so it is likely that I outran the 1000 miles by a few. On my last run of the challenge, today, I ran 4.3 miles passing 1000 miles by .1.
What did I learn, or why did I do it? Mostly it was a testimony to my belief in incrementalism, that small frequent steps can yield big results where drastic steps tend to result in failure. My clothes fit a little better, I feel pretty healthy, and if I had devoted any attention at all to my diet I probably could have run 1200 miles and enjoyed them more. I enjoy being outdoors, and I feel more connected to a place I am visiting when I run through its streets. Running is a personal experience and it is worth it for so many intangible reasons.
I have a few days before 2017 begins to figure out what, if anything, I want to do next year. Honestly, at 53 years old, just being able to do the same thing again would be pretty good. There is not much about this challenge that I regret, and I certainly encourage anyone who wants to take it on. For now, I am just going to give my legs a little rest as I reflect on the year that was and form expectations for the year to come.
Monday, December 26, 2016
Friday, April 1, 2016
Red & Blue Lenses and the Illusion of Depth
My favorite feature (ever) was a pull-out poster of King Kong atop the Empire State Building, swatting at airplanes and looking more menacing than terrifying. What made this poster special was that it came with paper goggles with one red and one blue lens so the wearer could enjoy the image in 3D. Planes more narrowly escaping the behemoth fingers or the massive primate fangs, it was just a little more exciting when seen through those glasses.
But, it was a fairly cheap trick. The poster was black and white with strategically out-of-register red and blue line work that tricked your brain into a false sense of depth. This was 2D ink on paper -- nothing more than an optical illusion fooling your stereo vision by making your right or left eye blind to either the red or blue printed on the paper.
That poster and goggles probably landed in the strata of a landfill somewhere between California or New York decades ago. But the experience of the 3D illusion has stayed with me and metastasized into a very sad analogy.
Too many of us can only see the world through red and blue goggles. This is apparent in social media when people trumpet their political leanings, sharing posts, articles and memes vilifying people, candidates (who are often people too) or ideas that don't fall within their favored end of the political spectrum. The polarization everyone is decrying in the media has been created by everyone aware of the problem. The Pogo comic quote has never been more appropriate: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." (Walt Kelly, Pogo, 1971)
If you think Obama ruined this country or that Trump could make it great again, you're as delusional as everyone who though Bernie would save us or that Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever to run for president. Those are all false narratives, campaign fluff and fodder. Propagating them does not make you smarter or more sophisticated than a person propagating the opposite belief or opinion, it makes you the same.
It must be disheartening to attend a Bernie town-hall meeting and see someone wearing an NRA cap, or a Trump rally and rub elbows with an occupier. Tolerance is as much an illusion as my 3D poster if we won't allow ourselves to see actual depth, or accept anyone who one might agrees with less than 100% of our own beliefs. We accept the notion that states are somehow red or blue, and all the people in them are as well - believing that Texas is chock full of gun toting loons and Vermont shuts down for communist parades every May Day. (Spoiler: Texas has commies, and Vermont has militia fringe groups.)
Oh, but the rhetoric of the pundits! Those crazy, stupid things they say, and how frightening it is when a person trying to become President of the United States says anything like (insert quote here), because that is absolutely outrageous, and "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."
How about a new slogan: If you're outraged all the time, STOP "paying attention" and get some perspective. The only good thing about being outraged all the time is that nature has a way of taking you out early and ending the misery caused by you being outraged all the time. Which is to say, it's not healthy to have that sort of stress and it will shorten your life.
Here is a little perspective: most of the people who run for President don't become President. This is true of both parties and strictly inevitable for people in third parties or independents. One person wins, the rest are actually no closer to becoming President than you or me once the election is over. Sure, they're more famous than you for a while, but only a political geek could name more than a couple failed candidacies from more than one or two elections ago.
Then, anyone who becomes President has to deal with some very unfortunate realities. There's congress, the constitution, the electoral process, gravity, weather, karma, the Hand of God, etc. -- no magic wand is handed to the President upon completing the oath of office. The only thing that happens when a President decides to run outside of the boundaries of the branches of power or laws of physics, is failure. The scale and spectacle of their failure depends on how long or far they manage to go before anyone notices, or catches them. The position is equal parts spotlight and microscope, with very little room for creative thought or movement. I suspect that is, in part, because of the huge contingent of crazies waiting to react to anything you do or say.
Very little of what candidates promise comes to pass. So little, in fact, as to make the abject terror struck into the hearts of everyone who opposed the election of that person as laughable as the unrealized dreams of their supporters.
Just a couple quick examples, closing Guantanamo Prison was a huge plank in Obama's platform, never happened. Keystone pipeline was every republican's willow switch with which they beat control of the house and senate away from the democrats … still hasn't happened. Were these things worth all that teeth gnashing?
When you see (insert campaign) signs in your neighbor's yard and assume they must be holding black mass in their basement, conducting human sacrifices and laughing at the misery of orphaned kittens... you're an idiot. When that guy with the (whatever) bumper sticker cuts you off and you think, "that's just like one of those (ideologue I disagree with)... right!?!"… you're the rube.
There is nothing wrong with holding fast and deeply to beliefs and values and expressing them, nor is there any harm in disagreeing strongly with the beliefs expressed by other people. Harm comes by defining yourself and other people by their position on your most precious argument. If you allow yourself to think that you're somehow more evolved, educated or enlightened than the person who disagrees with you, you're not just an idiot, you're an ass. And you're probably wrong.
That extremely clever meme you posted that makes the other side out to be murderers, nazi's, Marxists, fascists...etc., actually make you look like an intolerant jackass incapable of seeing nuance. What's worse, you're contributing to the problem of polarization. When you see this stuff, the response you need to have is to just STOP - don't "like" it, comment on it or share it! If your friend is true, they'll get over the snub. If they're a lunatic, you're better off dealing with their cold shoulder than more of their polarizing nonsense. You can agree with them, just try not to be an enabler.
Refusing to see the limitations and nuance in your own arguments is like wearing those paper goggles, with red and blue lenses. When you refuse to see the merit and virtue in other people's arguments, you're failing both yourself and your neighbor. Stop dreaming of a blue or red world where everyone sees things your way - it's never going to happen, and it would be a horrible place if it did!
Finally, if this rant has gone on so far that I lost you, maybe the last point is just for me: there is nothing here about agreeing with everyone or absolute tolerance. This is only about respect and freedom. We must bear the responsibility of respectful disagreement, to exercise our freedom to hold our own beliefs. Each of us has a duty to rise above political rhetoric. It may not make America great, but it will improve your life and the lives of folks around you.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Big checks drawing on an empty accounts
I hope I come across as a fairly transparent guy. In that spirit, you need to know this rant is about gun control laws. More specifically, the political posturing that is the true reason for many laws.
In the wake of Sandy Hook the predictable rush to cure an incurable society ill was engaged. 20 precious children and six adults were senselessly killed - it's human nature to try to make some sense of it. The phrase "that they might not have died in vain" has been repeated from pulpits and platforms across the country. "If we can just pass the right gun legislation, maybe we can spare another parent or sibling this grief and devastation."
And, while it is also in my nature to be cynical (particularly about politicians), I accept most of these pleas as sincere and well intended. It would be inhuman to just shrug off events like Sandy Hook and Aurora Colorado as the cost of freedom. Please remember as this rant turns against your beloved gun control laws, I understand why people feel so compelled and passionate about them.
But, they're idiotic. I know it stings, but please don't accuse me of dancing on the graves of the victims of gun violence. The laws being discussed now, the same laws that get tearful endorsements from grieving parents and savvy politicians every time a mass shooting occurs will NOT prevent the next tragedy from happening or even reduce the frequency or number of victims. I am not expecting proof that such laws could do that as a criteria for writing or passing them, but the startling lack of evidence that they will do anything ought to spur more people on to questioning all of it.
This is, and ought to be, a great debate in our country. And like all great debates, you have viable ideas and logic on every side of the issue. However, this one in particular, is fueled by emotion and most often devoid of common sense or proper perspective. The most obvious thing is how the deaths of 26 people so easily over shadow the deaths of 30,000 other people in the US each year.
Before you think I am making the case for the gun-control lobby, think about what I am saying: this debate gets no attention in the media because the one or two people shot every week in towns all around America is not national news and may not even make the front page in many local papers. More importantly, when a person gets shot as a result of some criminal activity or by an unstable person they are (or were) in a relationship, we all tend to blame the person holding the gun... not the gun, or they guy who sold the gun to the shooter.
I know, gun lobbyists will always blame everyone who has anything to do with the firearms industry, but they also know that the public (and most juries) will probably be looking to remove the homicidal person from society and respect the fact that this person is/was a problem, not the weapon they chose to use.
So, here is the cynical part... think about Rahm Emmanuel's quote "never let a crisis go to waste" - this is precisely the guiding philosophy of politicians and lobbyists. Rahm obviously believed in it, but he is not unique and I don't think he invented the idea. Kids being shot in a school is a crisis, and there are people literally waiting for just such a crisis to exploit. And the aim of such exploitation is always the proliferation of laws against gun sales and ownership.
Aside from resenting the manipulation being attempted against you, you ought to resist these attempts on a purely logical and rational basis. First, and most obvious, would the law proposed have actually prevented the crisis being exploited had it been in place? In every case I can think of, the answer is NO. The math on this is simple: people with homicidal intentions are undeterred by the lesser crimes of violating gun registration or proper background checks, 10 round magazines and improper transportation and discharge. Law abiding people will follow the law, and criminals won't. Murder is already illegal... no new law is going to prevent murders from taking place, we all know that.
What politicians are doing when they propose and pass these laws is draw up a big novelty check. Just like the ones they give people at fundraising events - this big gesture or symbol intended to show the world that they've done something. The difference is, unlike the novelty check at a fundraiser, there is no real check behind it, no bank account actually funding research or relief. These laws are nothing other than novelty checks created for camera time and campaign season. "Representative Suchnsuch voted for the most comprehensive gun law in history to protect your children from another Sandy Hook.... his opponent voted against it and clearly wants your children murdered at their schools."
It ought to irritate the hell out of you. Because the laws and politicians behind them don't do anything. Any law that can't be enforced is useless, and any law that merely infringes on the free movement of responsible and law abiding people without impeding people with criminal intentions is just an attack on your freedom. Ben Franklin said it best: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Folks, that is the whole issue in eight words. There are people willing to exploit your grief, fear, and heartbreak by offering you security for just a tiny nibble off of a freedom that you never really exercise anyhow. If you don't own guns or don't plan to, why should you care if they make it harder or even impossible for people to get guns? The answer is that they only make it harder for law abiding people to get guns. It does nothing to stop the psychopath or low-life from getting guns. In fact, studies show the implementation of gun laws have consistently coincided with an increase in gun violence. Just research Washington DC's history with it, or take a look at Chicago right now.
The hidden consequences of such laws are either the choice not to enforce them, or the true breach of liberties that occur when they are enforced.
If you think gun laws are all about second amendment rights, you are very wrong. It is ironic how many people champing at the bit for background checks are the first to object to any notion of the government snooping on your medical records, or maintaining files on your activities and associations. Doesn't that sound like a fourth amendment challenge? By the way, a "criminal background checks" would not have stopped Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or Nidal Hassan. And the low-life who robs your nearby convenience store probably won't go through legal channels to get his gun.
Or maybe we should just keep better tabs on what people say... you know, threats or hate speech. We shouldn't allow people who have racist opinions or paranoid delusions to get guns, so let's track all of that. No first amendment concerns there? Maybe you think only gun-toting crazies will be scrutinized by the government, you wouldn't be the first to make that mistake.
My heart goes out to people who've suffered a loss at the hands of a gun wielding murderer. It's a scary thought, and I sincerely pray that no one in my family or any of my friends ever has to experience that. But if the cost of ensuring that never happens is a forfeiture of my privacy, my right to say what I want or associate with whomever I want, and it decreases the likelihood that a civilian willing to protect my life (with a gun) will be able to, it's not worth it. What's more, like most laws that get passed, new gun control legislation is unlikely to achieve any of the purposes stated by its proponents and far more likely to do the opposite.
In the wake of Sandy Hook the predictable rush to cure an incurable society ill was engaged. 20 precious children and six adults were senselessly killed - it's human nature to try to make some sense of it. The phrase "that they might not have died in vain" has been repeated from pulpits and platforms across the country. "If we can just pass the right gun legislation, maybe we can spare another parent or sibling this grief and devastation."
And, while it is also in my nature to be cynical (particularly about politicians), I accept most of these pleas as sincere and well intended. It would be inhuman to just shrug off events like Sandy Hook and Aurora Colorado as the cost of freedom. Please remember as this rant turns against your beloved gun control laws, I understand why people feel so compelled and passionate about them.
But, they're idiotic. I know it stings, but please don't accuse me of dancing on the graves of the victims of gun violence. The laws being discussed now, the same laws that get tearful endorsements from grieving parents and savvy politicians every time a mass shooting occurs will NOT prevent the next tragedy from happening or even reduce the frequency or number of victims. I am not expecting proof that such laws could do that as a criteria for writing or passing them, but the startling lack of evidence that they will do anything ought to spur more people on to questioning all of it.
This is, and ought to be, a great debate in our country. And like all great debates, you have viable ideas and logic on every side of the issue. However, this one in particular, is fueled by emotion and most often devoid of common sense or proper perspective. The most obvious thing is how the deaths of 26 people so easily over shadow the deaths of 30,000 other people in the US each year.
Before you think I am making the case for the gun-control lobby, think about what I am saying: this debate gets no attention in the media because the one or two people shot every week in towns all around America is not national news and may not even make the front page in many local papers. More importantly, when a person gets shot as a result of some criminal activity or by an unstable person they are (or were) in a relationship, we all tend to blame the person holding the gun... not the gun, or they guy who sold the gun to the shooter.
I know, gun lobbyists will always blame everyone who has anything to do with the firearms industry, but they also know that the public (and most juries) will probably be looking to remove the homicidal person from society and respect the fact that this person is/was a problem, not the weapon they chose to use.
So, here is the cynical part... think about Rahm Emmanuel's quote "never let a crisis go to waste" - this is precisely the guiding philosophy of politicians and lobbyists. Rahm obviously believed in it, but he is not unique and I don't think he invented the idea. Kids being shot in a school is a crisis, and there are people literally waiting for just such a crisis to exploit. And the aim of such exploitation is always the proliferation of laws against gun sales and ownership.
Aside from resenting the manipulation being attempted against you, you ought to resist these attempts on a purely logical and rational basis. First, and most obvious, would the law proposed have actually prevented the crisis being exploited had it been in place? In every case I can think of, the answer is NO. The math on this is simple: people with homicidal intentions are undeterred by the lesser crimes of violating gun registration or proper background checks, 10 round magazines and improper transportation and discharge. Law abiding people will follow the law, and criminals won't. Murder is already illegal... no new law is going to prevent murders from taking place, we all know that.
What politicians are doing when they propose and pass these laws is draw up a big novelty check. Just like the ones they give people at fundraising events - this big gesture or symbol intended to show the world that they've done something. The difference is, unlike the novelty check at a fundraiser, there is no real check behind it, no bank account actually funding research or relief. These laws are nothing other than novelty checks created for camera time and campaign season. "Representative Suchnsuch voted for the most comprehensive gun law in history to protect your children from another Sandy Hook.... his opponent voted against it and clearly wants your children murdered at their schools."
It ought to irritate the hell out of you. Because the laws and politicians behind them don't do anything. Any law that can't be enforced is useless, and any law that merely infringes on the free movement of responsible and law abiding people without impeding people with criminal intentions is just an attack on your freedom. Ben Franklin said it best: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Folks, that is the whole issue in eight words. There are people willing to exploit your grief, fear, and heartbreak by offering you security for just a tiny nibble off of a freedom that you never really exercise anyhow. If you don't own guns or don't plan to, why should you care if they make it harder or even impossible for people to get guns? The answer is that they only make it harder for law abiding people to get guns. It does nothing to stop the psychopath or low-life from getting guns. In fact, studies show the implementation of gun laws have consistently coincided with an increase in gun violence. Just research Washington DC's history with it, or take a look at Chicago right now.
The hidden consequences of such laws are either the choice not to enforce them, or the true breach of liberties that occur when they are enforced.
If you think gun laws are all about second amendment rights, you are very wrong. It is ironic how many people champing at the bit for background checks are the first to object to any notion of the government snooping on your medical records, or maintaining files on your activities and associations. Doesn't that sound like a fourth amendment challenge? By the way, a "criminal background checks" would not have stopped Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or Nidal Hassan. And the low-life who robs your nearby convenience store probably won't go through legal channels to get his gun.
Or maybe we should just keep better tabs on what people say... you know, threats or hate speech. We shouldn't allow people who have racist opinions or paranoid delusions to get guns, so let's track all of that. No first amendment concerns there? Maybe you think only gun-toting crazies will be scrutinized by the government, you wouldn't be the first to make that mistake.
My heart goes out to people who've suffered a loss at the hands of a gun wielding murderer. It's a scary thought, and I sincerely pray that no one in my family or any of my friends ever has to experience that. But if the cost of ensuring that never happens is a forfeiture of my privacy, my right to say what I want or associate with whomever I want, and it decreases the likelihood that a civilian willing to protect my life (with a gun) will be able to, it's not worth it. What's more, like most laws that get passed, new gun control legislation is unlikely to achieve any of the purposes stated by its proponents and far more likely to do the opposite.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Too shy for 55? Get a bike!
I am blessed to live in Central NY, at least with respect to road traffic. I don't deal with much. I have a 23 mile commute to work that includes just one traffic light and about 75% of the time that one light is green going my way.
It's rural. Not a lot of traffic and while you have to go through the a few small towns with 30 mph speed limits, 55 on the back roads is conservative, comfortable, and safe. Not saying I stick with 55, but no reasonable person would argue that 55 is too fast under normal conditions.
And that's the thrust of this rant. I am not talking about snowy, iced, or wet roads - dry, daylight, optimal conditions... I'd say 55 is (realistically, tepid) more than reasonable. 30 through town, fair enough, every once in a while there is a person or a pet crossing the road, you can't enjoy small town life with people rocketing through the middle of town at highway speeds.
Lately, however, I have endured a rash of drivers for whom the posted limits, under optimal conditions, are apparently too aggressive. I get variability, if one is trying to stick the speed limits, over and under by up to 5 mph, now and again... but this is sticking to 5 and more often 10 mph under the posted limits. Signs are everywhere, these are numbers, so I can't attribute it to a language barrier. So, allow me to break down the potential concern or rationale for such behavior and relate it directly to a solution.
1) FAST IS SCARY. I've seen this, with teenage kids learning to drive, you start them out in an empty parking lot rarely exceeding 20 mph, the idea of careening down the road with other drivers at 55 is scary if you've never done it. Perhaps these "experienced" drivers managed to never overcome this fear. SOLUTION: get a bike. Even if you're Mark Cavendish (google him, if you're not a cycling fan) 50 mph is about top speed. A bike is, by it's very nature, "your speed."
2) SLOW SAVES GAS. Well, that theory breaks down completely at certain point, if driving slow really saved gas, highway mileage would be lower than city mileage... but that's all technicalities. Cars use gas, bikes don't. SOLUTION: ride a bike. It's the preferred mode of transportation for obsessive greenies, like Ed Begley Jr., while you might put a little more CO2 in the air personally, you eliminate CO and you save a ton of money. Bikes are cheaper than cars.
3) "I JUST WANT TO BE SAFE" - yeah... well, safe and slow are not inextricable. More collisions occur in parking lots than anywhere else. The road authorities generally err on the side of caution with those posted limits, you're more cautious than them? Delusional is more like it. If you're that obsessed with safety, why are you surrounding yourself with a couple tons of metal glass and flammable liquids. SOLUTION: ride a bike! They're light and have never exploded, and while you certainly could get up to a speed that makes injury possible, fatalities are a tiny fraction of what they are for cars.
4) I AM BUSY (with things other than driving) SO I DIAL IT BACK. First, you shouldn't be driving anything. I am not even sure I want you on a bike - HOWEVER, SOLUTION: Ride a bike! I think you'll find it's lack of vanity mirrors, cupholders, radios, navigation screens and child seating conducive to focusing on the road.
5) WHAT'S YOUR HURRY? Far be it from me to set your pace... feel free to set mine though! It's a ridiculous rationale, we're talking about driving the speed limit, not setting land-speed records. I enjoy the scenery too, but I'd pull over if my need to soak in the vista was obstructing another driver's progress. SOLUTION: Ride a bike! You not only get to see more, you literally get to "smell the roses" - clearly, you were meant to bike.
I don't know what's left. Maybe you lost a leg (your right leg) - so you can't put the appropriate pressure on the right pedal... but I used to ride bikes with a fellow with that exact limitation and he routinely outpaced me on the bike. So, most medical and physiological barriers can be overcome. Bikes are also low-impact exercise, there are even three wheel varieties, so this solution works in favor of longevity even if taken up later in life.
If you're a slow driver, I don't hate you. I just know I'd like you better on a bike. And I promise to give you 3' or half the lane and never (ever) honk like some d-bags I've encountered on my rides. I still think 55 mph is a Nixon era relic, but I am not trashing people who at least attempt to drive the limit - if that's not good enough for you, and you don't have the steel (brass... whatever) to exceed the posted limits... then I guess I am trashing you. Pull over when you have a line of cars behind you... for pete's sake! Or, better still, get on a bike and go as slow as you need to go.
It's rural. Not a lot of traffic and while you have to go through the a few small towns with 30 mph speed limits, 55 on the back roads is conservative, comfortable, and safe. Not saying I stick with 55, but no reasonable person would argue that 55 is too fast under normal conditions.
And that's the thrust of this rant. I am not talking about snowy, iced, or wet roads - dry, daylight, optimal conditions... I'd say 55 is (realistically, tepid) more than reasonable. 30 through town, fair enough, every once in a while there is a person or a pet crossing the road, you can't enjoy small town life with people rocketing through the middle of town at highway speeds.
Lately, however, I have endured a rash of drivers for whom the posted limits, under optimal conditions, are apparently too aggressive. I get variability, if one is trying to stick the speed limits, over and under by up to 5 mph, now and again... but this is sticking to 5 and more often 10 mph under the posted limits. Signs are everywhere, these are numbers, so I can't attribute it to a language barrier. So, allow me to break down the potential concern or rationale for such behavior and relate it directly to a solution.
1) FAST IS SCARY. I've seen this, with teenage kids learning to drive, you start them out in an empty parking lot rarely exceeding 20 mph, the idea of careening down the road with other drivers at 55 is scary if you've never done it. Perhaps these "experienced" drivers managed to never overcome this fear. SOLUTION: get a bike. Even if you're Mark Cavendish (google him, if you're not a cycling fan) 50 mph is about top speed. A bike is, by it's very nature, "your speed."
2) SLOW SAVES GAS. Well, that theory breaks down completely at certain point, if driving slow really saved gas, highway mileage would be lower than city mileage... but that's all technicalities. Cars use gas, bikes don't. SOLUTION: ride a bike. It's the preferred mode of transportation for obsessive greenies, like Ed Begley Jr., while you might put a little more CO2 in the air personally, you eliminate CO and you save a ton of money. Bikes are cheaper than cars.
3) "I JUST WANT TO BE SAFE" - yeah... well, safe and slow are not inextricable. More collisions occur in parking lots than anywhere else. The road authorities generally err on the side of caution with those posted limits, you're more cautious than them? Delusional is more like it. If you're that obsessed with safety, why are you surrounding yourself with a couple tons of metal glass and flammable liquids. SOLUTION: ride a bike! They're light and have never exploded, and while you certainly could get up to a speed that makes injury possible, fatalities are a tiny fraction of what they are for cars.
4) I AM BUSY (with things other than driving) SO I DIAL IT BACK. First, you shouldn't be driving anything. I am not even sure I want you on a bike - HOWEVER, SOLUTION: Ride a bike! I think you'll find it's lack of vanity mirrors, cupholders, radios, navigation screens and child seating conducive to focusing on the road.
5) WHAT'S YOUR HURRY? Far be it from me to set your pace... feel free to set mine though! It's a ridiculous rationale, we're talking about driving the speed limit, not setting land-speed records. I enjoy the scenery too, but I'd pull over if my need to soak in the vista was obstructing another driver's progress. SOLUTION: Ride a bike! You not only get to see more, you literally get to "smell the roses" - clearly, you were meant to bike.
I don't know what's left. Maybe you lost a leg (your right leg) - so you can't put the appropriate pressure on the right pedal... but I used to ride bikes with a fellow with that exact limitation and he routinely outpaced me on the bike. So, most medical and physiological barriers can be overcome. Bikes are also low-impact exercise, there are even three wheel varieties, so this solution works in favor of longevity even if taken up later in life.
If you're a slow driver, I don't hate you. I just know I'd like you better on a bike. And I promise to give you 3' or half the lane and never (ever) honk like some d-bags I've encountered on my rides. I still think 55 mph is a Nixon era relic, but I am not trashing people who at least attempt to drive the limit - if that's not good enough for you, and you don't have the steel (brass... whatever) to exceed the posted limits... then I guess I am trashing you. Pull over when you have a line of cars behind you... for pete's sake! Or, better still, get on a bike and go as slow as you need to go.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Even on NPR?
It's probably too much to expect perfection from a group of broadcast journalist who have to be subsidized by the government. I choke on the admission that I've become a "listener" of NPR, perhaps in an effort to relate to my colleagues a little more (most are devout NPR listeners, if not financial supporters), it's not the fashion for conservatives like me.
Now that I have listened to NPR a fair amount, I honestly do expect more of them than their cable and network counterparts. The utter stupidity of what you get on most cable news is intolerable... sadly, most people choose to tolerate the network that matches their political leanings (let's be honest, FOX for conservatives and basically the rest of the alphabet soup for liberals... ).
Without regard for your state of mind (red or blue) -- you should tolerate use of the non-word "irregrardless" in a report or diatribe. That would be "regardless" of your leanings, adding an extra syllable to a word, presumably to make yourself sound smarter, makes no sense.
It goes on the stack of words that, once uttered, reveal a fissure in one's credibility. Even, as was the case this week on NPR, one is reporting on the plight of working poor people in Latin America. When I hear that word, I consider that the speaker is lacking regard for my ears, thus it runs through the Thesaurus in my head as "ear-regardless."
Now that I have listened to NPR a fair amount, I honestly do expect more of them than their cable and network counterparts. The utter stupidity of what you get on most cable news is intolerable... sadly, most people choose to tolerate the network that matches their political leanings (let's be honest, FOX for conservatives and basically the rest of the alphabet soup for liberals... ).
Without regard for your state of mind (red or blue) -- you should tolerate use of the non-word "irregrardless" in a report or diatribe. That would be "regardless" of your leanings, adding an extra syllable to a word, presumably to make yourself sound smarter, makes no sense.
It goes on the stack of words that, once uttered, reveal a fissure in one's credibility. Even, as was the case this week on NPR, one is reporting on the plight of working poor people in Latin America. When I hear that word, I consider that the speaker is lacking regard for my ears, thus it runs through the Thesaurus in my head as "ear-regardless."
Monday, March 2, 2009
Goood Day.
Paul Harvey passed away at the age of 90 after 58 years on the radio.
There are somethings that make me seem old to my classmates co-workers... but I'll just embrace that today. I am 45 and as recently as two weeks ago I can recall driving in my car listening to a Paul Harvey News and Commentary on the radio. Not XM... AM.
He sounded older, it had been a couple years since I had heard him. The voice was a bit more gravely and strained, but unmistakably Paul Harvey.
I can recall moments from early childhood in California when my dad would listen to a radio (transistor... with knobs and an antennae) and hearing that Paul Harvey optimism and energy. I was with my 13 year old daughter a few months ago and happened to catch a Paul Harvey "Rest of the Story" on my way back from western Pennsylvania and I made her listen. We learned something -- I think the story was about Reggie Jackson and his upbringing. I watched Reggie play for the Oakland A's when I was a kid... and I recall listening to Paul Harvey on an San Francisco AM station back then as well.
Perhaps my daughter will have similar memories of me, as I do of my father listening to Paul Harvey. Maybe Paul will just be someone her dad used to listen to... but all this, to me, is an indication of Paul Harvey's place in American culture. I've seen Simpson's episodes reference Paul Harvey... and we've all heard him at some point, if only bits and pieces of sound in the background at a construction site, a garage or a diner where the radio plays all day long (on AM... not XM). He's been on radios coast to coast since Truman was in the white house.
I felt a genuine sense of loss when Johnny Cash died, and Ray Charles. Both icons with feature length struggles and triumphs. But there does not seem to be a low spot in Harvey's history. Maybe his star never shined as brightly as those musical legends, but he provided unparalleled continuity. I've heard his voice age over the course of 45 years, but I've never heard it waiver.
Perhaps what I sense is something really unusual... that he was a role model. While we all heard him, almost daily for 58 years, he had a much quieter message that we'd all do well to hear now.
I'll miss Paul Harvey for the rest of my life.
There are somethings that make me seem old to my classmates co-workers... but I'll just embrace that today. I am 45 and as recently as two weeks ago I can recall driving in my car listening to a Paul Harvey News and Commentary on the radio. Not XM... AM.
He sounded older, it had been a couple years since I had heard him. The voice was a bit more gravely and strained, but unmistakably Paul Harvey.
I can recall moments from early childhood in California when my dad would listen to a radio (transistor... with knobs and an antennae) and hearing that Paul Harvey optimism and energy. I was with my 13 year old daughter a few months ago and happened to catch a Paul Harvey "Rest of the Story" on my way back from western Pennsylvania and I made her listen. We learned something -- I think the story was about Reggie Jackson and his upbringing. I watched Reggie play for the Oakland A's when I was a kid... and I recall listening to Paul Harvey on an San Francisco AM station back then as well.
Perhaps my daughter will have similar memories of me, as I do of my father listening to Paul Harvey. Maybe Paul will just be someone her dad used to listen to... but all this, to me, is an indication of Paul Harvey's place in American culture. I've seen Simpson's episodes reference Paul Harvey... and we've all heard him at some point, if only bits and pieces of sound in the background at a construction site, a garage or a diner where the radio plays all day long (on AM... not XM). He's been on radios coast to coast since Truman was in the white house.
I felt a genuine sense of loss when Johnny Cash died, and Ray Charles. Both icons with feature length struggles and triumphs. But there does not seem to be a low spot in Harvey's history. Maybe his star never shined as brightly as those musical legends, but he provided unparalleled continuity. I've heard his voice age over the course of 45 years, but I've never heard it waiver.
Perhaps what I sense is something really unusual... that he was a role model. While we all heard him, almost daily for 58 years, he had a much quieter message that we'd all do well to hear now.
I'll miss Paul Harvey for the rest of my life.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Let's give "literally" a rest. Literally.
I have a running joke with my kids, they make a joke or sarcastic comment and I interpret it in the most literal fashion to either compound or confound their joke. I then refer to myself as "Captain Literal," the construct of a lame superhero with the catch phrase, "I'm not really a Captain."
Irony, sarcasm and facetiousness being my favorite style of humor, this occasionally works for a chuckle or two. The underlying purpose is to actually apply the term "literal" correctly, and point out the absurdity of many of our comments by parsing the actual meaning of the words when they are far from their intent.
While it's a cliché to quote Webster's to make an argument, here it seems most appropriate. Literally — (according to Webster's dictionary) 1. According to the strict meaning of the words; not figuratively; as a man and his wife cannot be literally one flesh. 2. with close adherence to the words; word by word; to quote a writer literally
There is more, but I think the first two entries make their point. My ire is inflamed by the distracting use of "literally" as a point of emphasis that is apparently ignorant of any appropriate meaning. There is a DRTV spot for a draft stopper (goes at the bottom of your doors) that talks about how drafty doors "literally" cause your money to run out though the cracks. And they have a very literal bit of animation that shows dollar bills being sucked under a door... I guess this happens, people leave their money on the floor and then the draft "literally" sucks their money out into the streets. A similar ad for a local window company makes the same claim, that if you don't have their insulated windows, you're "literally" throwing money out the window.
First of all, if you're throwing money out your windows or putting it in front of doors to be sucked out, please send me your address so I can go about collecting your cash so I can literally put it in my pocket.
I've heard the same stupidity seep into broadcast news. A report on the radio mentioned a "literal mountain of paperwork" some local court had to sift through to assemble a case. Really? A mountain? I guess "mountain" is subjective, to an ant it's a mountain and to a human it's a mole hill. I guess to intellectual ants, it's a mountain.
I guess "figuratively" goes without saying. To simply say, "you're throwing money away" or "we have a mountain of paperwork" assumes the audience has an I.Q. sufficient to recognize that there is no one putting cash in the trash and that they won't be skiing inside the office any time soon. However, does it take many more I.Q. points to recognize the inappropriate use of the word "literally?"
The irony in this joke is that people use this word to sound intellectual, all the while ignoring or being completely ignorant of the true meaning of the crutch-word. And by "crutch" I was being figurative.
I suspect more than a few of us will feel convicted. I often find myself using or over-using a word or phrase with annoying frequency. I don't put myself above this problem, but "literally" has more than outlived its welcome. If you find your self about to add "literally" to an expository comment, take a deep breath (literally), then bite your tongue (figuratively).
Irony, sarcasm and facetiousness being my favorite style of humor, this occasionally works for a chuckle or two. The underlying purpose is to actually apply the term "literal" correctly, and point out the absurdity of many of our comments by parsing the actual meaning of the words when they are far from their intent.
While it's a cliché to quote Webster's to make an argument, here it seems most appropriate. Literally — (according to Webster's dictionary) 1. According to the strict meaning of the words; not figuratively; as a man and his wife cannot be literally one flesh. 2. with close adherence to the words; word by word; to quote a writer literally
There is more, but I think the first two entries make their point. My ire is inflamed by the distracting use of "literally" as a point of emphasis that is apparently ignorant of any appropriate meaning. There is a DRTV spot for a draft stopper (goes at the bottom of your doors) that talks about how drafty doors "literally" cause your money to run out though the cracks. And they have a very literal bit of animation that shows dollar bills being sucked under a door... I guess this happens, people leave their money on the floor and then the draft "literally" sucks their money out into the streets. A similar ad for a local window company makes the same claim, that if you don't have their insulated windows, you're "literally" throwing money out the window.
First of all, if you're throwing money out your windows or putting it in front of doors to be sucked out, please send me your address so I can go about collecting your cash so I can literally put it in my pocket.
I've heard the same stupidity seep into broadcast news. A report on the radio mentioned a "literal mountain of paperwork" some local court had to sift through to assemble a case. Really? A mountain? I guess "mountain" is subjective, to an ant it's a mountain and to a human it's a mole hill. I guess to intellectual ants, it's a mountain.
I guess "figuratively" goes without saying. To simply say, "you're throwing money away" or "we have a mountain of paperwork" assumes the audience has an I.Q. sufficient to recognize that there is no one putting cash in the trash and that they won't be skiing inside the office any time soon. However, does it take many more I.Q. points to recognize the inappropriate use of the word "literally?"
The irony in this joke is that people use this word to sound intellectual, all the while ignoring or being completely ignorant of the true meaning of the crutch-word. And by "crutch" I was being figurative.
I suspect more than a few of us will feel convicted. I often find myself using or over-using a word or phrase with annoying frequency. I don't put myself above this problem, but "literally" has more than outlived its welcome. If you find your self about to add "literally" to an expository comment, take a deep breath (literally), then bite your tongue (figuratively).
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
2009 Marketing Perspective
I've spent a lot of time this fall talking to people about marketing. Mostly to small businesses, but to people at agencies and various media (advertising) venues.
One thing that seems consistent, and it has me formulating a resolution for myself this new year, is that people all approach their problems from their own perspective. My resolution is to try to neutralize that in my own approach.
What I mean by one's own perspective, and how it manifests itself, is that to a soldier every solution tends to be a military one and to an evangelist every solution tends to be a spiritual one. In marketing this tendency leaves businesses, particularly small and medium businesses, vulnerable to both the isolation of their vertical industry and the manipulation of the various advertising sales people they encounter.
To be sure, small business owners are pecked to death by sales people. To the newspaper ad sales people, every marketing problem is solved with a newspaper ads (preferrably a contract for regular newspaper ads), the Advo sales person will solve all advertising problems with cooperative mailers, the local radio and tv with their respective media.
What happens, beyond the need to plan and decide when and where to spend those precious marketing dollers, is that these various advertising sales people offer up their creative resources as a part of the package. Now, in addition to a fractured media plan, you have fractured messaging and a complete lack of graphic standards. Each element is judged independently of the other advertising and generally given a pass if the logo and phone number are correct.
For my cohorts in Mercy's masters program this is immediately flagged as a non-integrated approach and a huge loss of opportunity (and likely money). The problem with assuming a single perspective or multiple perspecitves taken seperately is that there is no synergy. The sum of the parts is at best going to equal the investment, but rarely every exceed it. The newspaper ad sales people are not concerned with coordinating the message of your ads with other media... they'd prefer you spend more on newspaper and less on everything else. Every ad sales person has that perspective (that's what they're paid for).
Since it's the end of the year, you should take a breather. While you're at it, take a couple steps back. Don't look at your marketing from the perspective of your business, and certainly don't look at it from the perspective of the people who sold you the time, space, location... etc. Try to approach your business as a customer or prospective customer. Try to put some new eyes in your own head and re-introduce yourself to your business and brand. Realize the full-effect of the advertising, not merely the amount of it.
The main caveat to all that I've said, and this is a challenge I make to myself in 2009, is that for a marketer all problems have marketing solutions... God, grant me some perspective.
One thing that seems consistent, and it has me formulating a resolution for myself this new year, is that people all approach their problems from their own perspective. My resolution is to try to neutralize that in my own approach.
What I mean by one's own perspective, and how it manifests itself, is that to a soldier every solution tends to be a military one and to an evangelist every solution tends to be a spiritual one. In marketing this tendency leaves businesses, particularly small and medium businesses, vulnerable to both the isolation of their vertical industry and the manipulation of the various advertising sales people they encounter.
To be sure, small business owners are pecked to death by sales people. To the newspaper ad sales people, every marketing problem is solved with a newspaper ads (preferrably a contract for regular newspaper ads), the Advo sales person will solve all advertising problems with cooperative mailers, the local radio and tv with their respective media.
What happens, beyond the need to plan and decide when and where to spend those precious marketing dollers, is that these various advertising sales people offer up their creative resources as a part of the package. Now, in addition to a fractured media plan, you have fractured messaging and a complete lack of graphic standards. Each element is judged independently of the other advertising and generally given a pass if the logo and phone number are correct.
For my cohorts in Mercy's masters program this is immediately flagged as a non-integrated approach and a huge loss of opportunity (and likely money). The problem with assuming a single perspective or multiple perspecitves taken seperately is that there is no synergy. The sum of the parts is at best going to equal the investment, but rarely every exceed it. The newspaper ad sales people are not concerned with coordinating the message of your ads with other media... they'd prefer you spend more on newspaper and less on everything else. Every ad sales person has that perspective (that's what they're paid for).
Since it's the end of the year, you should take a breather. While you're at it, take a couple steps back. Don't look at your marketing from the perspective of your business, and certainly don't look at it from the perspective of the people who sold you the time, space, location... etc. Try to approach your business as a customer or prospective customer. Try to put some new eyes in your own head and re-introduce yourself to your business and brand. Realize the full-effect of the advertising, not merely the amount of it.
The main caveat to all that I've said, and this is a challenge I make to myself in 2009, is that for a marketer all problems have marketing solutions... God, grant me some perspective.
Monday, October 13, 2008
TLA's gone FUBAR
I cringe every time I hear someone in power, or seeking political power, pronounce the word "NUCLEAR" - "new-cue-lar" -- not that it sounds any more annoying than "ex-scape" as the pronunciation for "ESCAPE" or the possibly the most commonly mispronounced month of "FEBRUARY" (so many of us have dropped the first "R"). But, perhaps because so much is riding on the handling of all things nuclear, one hopes that people handling those things have a grasp of the fundamentals. To make an analogy, would you trust anyone who told you they were a "lib-arian"?? (Perhaps they just started last "Febuary!")
But what's got me started today is the "TLA" — and even as what I've poked into this blog rings through your mind in your own voice (or what you imagine mine to be) you might be thinking:
TLA- Three letter....
Abbreviation? Acronym?
Just another observation, but I am hearing people use the word "acronym" in place of "abbreviation" - when the two are entirely different things!
When you refer to standard operating proceedure as "SOP" — (ess - oh - pea) - you've used a three letter ABBREVIATION.
On the other hand, when you refer to a police officer as a "COP" -- you've used a three letter ACRONYM. Cop is supposedly short for "constable on patrol," although I think I may have been told that by a law enforcement officer (often referred to as LEO's ... another acronym) who simply preferred that to being called a "pig" — the latter being neither an acronym or abbreviation, but simply insulting.
What's really funny about people referring to three-letter-abbreviations as three-letter-acronyms is that they're just as likely to be more or less than three letters as an actual acronym.
I guess fair is fair, if we're going to play with what the "A" in TLA means, we might as well mess with the T and the L. Can't PS3 be the TLA for the Sony video game system?
I guess we're all comfortable referring to the highways by their TNA's, but that sounds pretty suspect. I am not sure I want to have a conversation with my kids about TNA's until well after they should have already received their drivers' licenses... if ever.
This raises a lot of issues. Or is this TMI?
But what's got me started today is the "TLA" — and even as what I've poked into this blog rings through your mind in your own voice (or what you imagine mine to be) you might be thinking:
TLA- Three letter....
Abbreviation? Acronym?
Just another observation, but I am hearing people use the word "acronym" in place of "abbreviation" - when the two are entirely different things!
When you refer to standard operating proceedure as "SOP" — (ess - oh - pea) - you've used a three letter ABBREVIATION.
On the other hand, when you refer to a police officer as a "COP" -- you've used a three letter ACRONYM. Cop is supposedly short for "constable on patrol," although I think I may have been told that by a law enforcement officer (often referred to as LEO's ... another acronym) who simply preferred that to being called a "pig" — the latter being neither an acronym or abbreviation, but simply insulting.
What's really funny about people referring to three-letter-abbreviations as three-letter-acronyms is that they're just as likely to be more or less than three letters as an actual acronym.
I guess fair is fair, if we're going to play with what the "A" in TLA means, we might as well mess with the T and the L. Can't PS3 be the TLA for the Sony video game system?
I guess we're all comfortable referring to the highways by their TNA's, but that sounds pretty suspect. I am not sure I want to have a conversation with my kids about TNA's until well after they should have already received their drivers' licenses... if ever.
This raises a lot of issues. Or is this TMI?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Tatoos: proof that some of us just don't listen.
There are two things that, should you be listening at all, suggest that a tattoo is not a great investment in yourself.
Now, in keeping with my policy this is NOT an opinion or judgment. I have a lot of inked friends that I care for very much and no amount of tattooing would change the way I feel about them.
No, this is not about the efficacy of tattoos, only the apparent logic, reason or flight from them. I was reading earlier today that 25-30% of adults under the age of 30 have tattoos. This doesn't surprize me at all, if you spend time at the waterpark near my house (dorneyparkdotcom) you'd guess a much higher percentage.
The first is Professor Mc Monkey McBeane -- a character from one of the deepest wells of wisdom the average child is likely to encounter: Dr. Suess.
Dr. Suess was a genius (again, observation, not opinion) and among the many didactic works he graced us with "The Star-bellied Sneetches" delivers a profound message, the truth contained seems to ring louder by the day.
In this story we have two classes of Sneetches (on the beaches) those with and those without stars on their bellies. The non-starred Sneetches suffered from horrible discrimination that all came to an end when Professor Mc Bean brought his wonderful Star-On machine... for a small fee the one rejected starless Sneetch could acquire his or her mark and cast off their oppression.
What happens is a history repeating itself as I compose this entry: once the starless Sneetches have stars, the cachet is lost and Professor McBean offers to REMOVE stars from the previously superior star-bellied Sneetches, for just a few bucks. And thus begins the cycle until all the Sneetch cash is in the pocket of Prof. McBean.
Have you heard the ads for tattoo removal? Are they running them during LA Ink, or Miami Ink? I think the article I read mentioned the "cover-up" is a big issue for wedding shops and that there is a $30 make-up kit expressly for this purpose. What really brings this to mind is that "Wrecking Balm" has become a major advertiser on one of my favorite radio stations. It just seems like there is a pretty good business in tattoo obliteration.
While the love of Mom is probably worthy of that sort of posterity, it sure seems like a lot of people have other loves that faded much more quickly than their tattoo proclaiming it.
Now, I've probably exposed myself as an old fart with this rant, but I'll seal that deal with this second observation: Popeye aside, what old dude with a tattoo has encouraged you?
Among those friends I mention with tattoos are many my senior to whom I ascribe considerable wisdom. Now, I don't go about surveying my friends about their tattoos, but as many times as it comes up with my older friends there is an expression of regret or minor disdain. The body they put the tattoo on has changed, and the tattoo has changed with it. I've seen illegible designs, but mostly just blurry ones that probably looked very crisp a few decades ago.
It's interesting to me that people get tattoos as a permanent memento (great movie by the way, tattoos played an integral part in the plot) and yet the medium is far from permanent. To be certain, you can go to your grave with the tattoo, but like the proverbial river, it won't be the same tattoo.
Something I shared with some friends in my motorcycle club -- if you're going to do this, be a big spender and find a friend who attended a reputable art school, or is generally so picky they annoy the heck out of you. It's also possible that the best tattoo artist in your town is one of the worst in the country, for pete's sake, shop around.
But, my best observation, listen to your Doctor (Suess) and to grandpa and his friends.
Now, in keeping with my policy this is NOT an opinion or judgment. I have a lot of inked friends that I care for very much and no amount of tattooing would change the way I feel about them.
No, this is not about the efficacy of tattoos, only the apparent logic, reason or flight from them. I was reading earlier today that 25-30% of adults under the age of 30 have tattoos. This doesn't surprize me at all, if you spend time at the waterpark near my house (dorneyparkdotcom) you'd guess a much higher percentage.
The first is Professor Mc Monkey McBeane -- a character from one of the deepest wells of wisdom the average child is likely to encounter: Dr. Suess.
Dr. Suess was a genius (again, observation, not opinion) and among the many didactic works he graced us with "The Star-bellied Sneetches" delivers a profound message, the truth contained seems to ring louder by the day.
In this story we have two classes of Sneetches (on the beaches) those with and those without stars on their bellies. The non-starred Sneetches suffered from horrible discrimination that all came to an end when Professor Mc Bean brought his wonderful Star-On machine... for a small fee the one rejected starless Sneetch could acquire his or her mark and cast off their oppression.
What happens is a history repeating itself as I compose this entry: once the starless Sneetches have stars, the cachet is lost and Professor McBean offers to REMOVE stars from the previously superior star-bellied Sneetches, for just a few bucks. And thus begins the cycle until all the Sneetch cash is in the pocket of Prof. McBean.
Have you heard the ads for tattoo removal? Are they running them during LA Ink, or Miami Ink? I think the article I read mentioned the "cover-up" is a big issue for wedding shops and that there is a $30 make-up kit expressly for this purpose. What really brings this to mind is that "Wrecking Balm" has become a major advertiser on one of my favorite radio stations. It just seems like there is a pretty good business in tattoo obliteration.
While the love of Mom is probably worthy of that sort of posterity, it sure seems like a lot of people have other loves that faded much more quickly than their tattoo proclaiming it.
Now, I've probably exposed myself as an old fart with this rant, but I'll seal that deal with this second observation: Popeye aside, what old dude with a tattoo has encouraged you?
Among those friends I mention with tattoos are many my senior to whom I ascribe considerable wisdom. Now, I don't go about surveying my friends about their tattoos, but as many times as it comes up with my older friends there is an expression of regret or minor disdain. The body they put the tattoo on has changed, and the tattoo has changed with it. I've seen illegible designs, but mostly just blurry ones that probably looked very crisp a few decades ago.
It's interesting to me that people get tattoos as a permanent memento (great movie by the way, tattoos played an integral part in the plot) and yet the medium is far from permanent. To be certain, you can go to your grave with the tattoo, but like the proverbial river, it won't be the same tattoo.
Something I shared with some friends in my motorcycle club -- if you're going to do this, be a big spender and find a friend who attended a reputable art school, or is generally so picky they annoy the heck out of you. It's also possible that the best tattoo artist in your town is one of the worst in the country, for pete's sake, shop around.
But, my best observation, listen to your Doctor (Suess) and to grandpa and his friends.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Don't get me started....
New to the blogospere, I don't see any reason to elaborate on the presidential race or the financial crisis. No doubt countless gazzillabytes of data in cyberspace are already occupied with those topics. It could be their only useful purpose is to crowd out the data once occupied by discussions about Brittany Spears or various American Idol contestants.
I also read recently, in the course of my studies, that the most popular topic for bloggers is themselves. I am certain this is a natural phenomena, but if I am going to be boring anyway, I'd rather not bore people with myself. In fact, I think I'll try to avoid boring you, unfortunate reader, with my opinions.
Boredom through a few observations:
General Motors - who's stock closed today at $9.45 has managed to perform worse than the market - while we're all fretting the implosion of mortgage banks, GM had a stock price of around $30 just one year ago. The recent market "collapse" is around 7%... GM's had a real collapse of about 66%
Just an observation... but they seem to do a lot of ads that feature cars they don't make and sell cars to people who can't buy them. The Volt is supposed to come out in 2010... I suppose if you're convinced by the idea of a plug and drive car built in America (though it remains to be seen how much of it is really made here) you've decided to put off your next car purchase until you can get one. So, in effect, the advertising for the Volt works against sales in the short term. I wonder how dealers feel about that right now?
The other GM ad I was referring to has a very nice gentlemen talking to a bunch of kids about hydrogen cars. "see kids, the exhaust is water!" — Once again, I am sure it's very gratifying to the shareholders of GM that marketing dollars are being spent selling cars that don't exist to people not old enough to drive.
If GM is still in business by the time those kids get their licenses and if the hydrogen infrastructure and propulsion technology becomes practical, I am sure GM will be in great shape. Isn't the word "if" the starting point for every financial crisis we face right now?
THEN & THAN — I am seeing this a lot, which is odd because I am (as evidenced by my own writing) no scholar of the English language. People every where have either fallen into this typographical error or have simply lost track of the difference between those two words.
What I see most is the use of THEN where THAN seems to be intended. Than as a conjunction or preposition - "Better this THAN that." expressing a preference for the former over the latter. Whereas if we say "Better this THEN that." then is the next in order of time. Than is a comparative.
Hey, I don't make up the rules, I probably don't follow them all that well, but this one seems to have been laid waste in writing for the web and e-mail.
Cast his lot. Last thing... promise. I was listening to Fox or MSNBC this afternoon and a reporter or anchor (some sort of talking head) mangled a statement about a US Senator "Casting his lot" with the most recent mortgage bailout bill.
It seems obvious that what was meant is the Senator was casting his ballot in favor of the bill, or that the Senator has put at risk something of his reputation or political capital to help it pass. But the idea of casting lots has nothing to do with either of them. The expression is ancient, it even appears in the bible (remember, the Roman guards cast lots for Jesus' clothes) but it has nothing to do with legislative process or the actions of a representative.
Perhaps we should not listen so closely. But to the extent that we're hearing, some precision and fidelity to one's intent and meaning is not too much to ask.
Cheers,
Seventex
I also read recently, in the course of my studies, that the most popular topic for bloggers is themselves. I am certain this is a natural phenomena, but if I am going to be boring anyway, I'd rather not bore people with myself. In fact, I think I'll try to avoid boring you, unfortunate reader, with my opinions.
Boredom through a few observations:
General Motors - who's stock closed today at $9.45 has managed to perform worse than the market - while we're all fretting the implosion of mortgage banks, GM had a stock price of around $30 just one year ago. The recent market "collapse" is around 7%... GM's had a real collapse of about 66%
Just an observation... but they seem to do a lot of ads that feature cars they don't make and sell cars to people who can't buy them. The Volt is supposed to come out in 2010... I suppose if you're convinced by the idea of a plug and drive car built in America (though it remains to be seen how much of it is really made here) you've decided to put off your next car purchase until you can get one. So, in effect, the advertising for the Volt works against sales in the short term. I wonder how dealers feel about that right now?
The other GM ad I was referring to has a very nice gentlemen talking to a bunch of kids about hydrogen cars. "see kids, the exhaust is water!" — Once again, I am sure it's very gratifying to the shareholders of GM that marketing dollars are being spent selling cars that don't exist to people not old enough to drive.
If GM is still in business by the time those kids get their licenses and if the hydrogen infrastructure and propulsion technology becomes practical, I am sure GM will be in great shape. Isn't the word "if" the starting point for every financial crisis we face right now?
THEN & THAN — I am seeing this a lot, which is odd because I am (as evidenced by my own writing) no scholar of the English language. People every where have either fallen into this typographical error or have simply lost track of the difference between those two words.
What I see most is the use of THEN where THAN seems to be intended. Than as a conjunction or preposition - "Better this THAN that." expressing a preference for the former over the latter. Whereas if we say "Better this THEN that." then is the next in order of time. Than is a comparative.
Hey, I don't make up the rules, I probably don't follow them all that well, but this one seems to have been laid waste in writing for the web and e-mail.
Cast his lot. Last thing... promise. I was listening to Fox or MSNBC this afternoon and a reporter or anchor (some sort of talking head) mangled a statement about a US Senator "Casting his lot" with the most recent mortgage bailout bill.
It seems obvious that what was meant is the Senator was casting his ballot in favor of the bill, or that the Senator has put at risk something of his reputation or political capital to help it pass. But the idea of casting lots has nothing to do with either of them. The expression is ancient, it even appears in the bible (remember, the Roman guards cast lots for Jesus' clothes) but it has nothing to do with legislative process or the actions of a representative.
Perhaps we should not listen so closely. But to the extent that we're hearing, some precision and fidelity to one's intent and meaning is not too much to ask.
Cheers,
Seventex
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)