Merry Christmas!!
Outside of all the regular Christmas hustle and bustle, one of the biggest news stories of the month (especially in the business world) has been the cyber-attacks on Sony US. Despite the realism behind these otherwise idle threats, this attack may have been the greatest thing for us. Make no mistake that it was truly an attack; then compare it to attacks on skyscrapers and government buildings. In each case, there were lessons we learned as a nation, but unlike those tragedies, the only destruction here was a stupid movie with a classless plot. Personally, I thought we were already ahead by losing "The Interview" in the first place. Its premise made me cringe when I saw it first advertised at the MTV Video Music Awards in September. Then again, I also remembered how awful "Buffalo '66" was.
More importantly, however, the takeaway in this case is protecting our cyber information. There has never been a hack job of this magnitude (that we know of) since the rise of the Internet, so our security measures have gotten really lax. Before 9/11, our airport security being woefully undermined was the worst kept secret in the world. Even "Family Guy" aptly joked about it in 2000, complete with a punchline referencing Osama bin Laden. Our online security may benefit from an overhaul of inconvenience as well, but mostly, individuals need to apply their own common sense.
I had always known that the Internet is a very impersonal means of communication. Not just impersonal in the social sense, where one read through the troll comments on CNN.com or YouTube would validate the position, but also impersonal in the sense of privacy. A couple of my first "online friends" were skilled hackers, so I felt first- and second-hand of how little privacy existed online.
My second-hand account came at the expense of a budding celebrity at the time. It was about 1999 when the WWF was nearing new heights of popularity. There was a popular wrestler named Jeff Hardy who, in real life, was a real "artist" type. He was a drawer, a musician, an motorbike obstacle course runner, and a pro wrestler to top off the list. He was a favorite among the Internet Wrestling Community. Within my circle of online friends, drawings started circulating that were attributed to Jeff Hardy. We were all wrestling fans, so the images were widely praised. But they immediately chilled me, knowing that if the story were true, then these files were not for our enjoyment. The story was that someone (at face value, it was someone within our circle of friends) allegedly hacked into his personal computer and retrieved the files. There was nothing explicitly wrong with the art, only the means of access to them. If it could happen to Jeff Hardy, I knew it could happen to anyone. In fact, I had already had my own first-hand account, so this incident merely reinforced my knowledge.
My first-hand account was a year or two earlier. Back when group emails were the popular method of social networking (before social networking sites like Twitter, MySpace, or even Friendster), I had my own friends. Like any group of college friends, we had periods of disliking each other and we had arguments and disagreements within the group. In one such instance, I was emailing back and forth with one of the girls in our group about another member of our group.
Within a few minutes, I received an email directly the guy who we were badmouthing that kindly noted he knew I was talking to her and I had "said quite enough." He and I happened to both live in Phoenix, so he was the only person in the group that I met in person. During one such visit, he shared with me the pictures of this girl in our group, which he had obtained by hacking into her computer. Therefore, when I received his passive threat, I knew he had seen what I had written.
I had two minds about it: first, he got more than what he went looking for when he found that not everybody in our group cared for him personally, and second, this is why "if you cannot say something nice, don't say anything at all" is a valuable cliché.
Honestly, I was lucky in my cyber-attack. He had not hacked my personal computer (albeit, there would be nothing incriminating on there if he had) and the things I said about him behind his back was in fact what I wanted him to know if I had the blunt audacity to tell him directly. Regardless, any violation feels violating. That characteristically sickening feeling was with me, but from it I learned that talking about people behind their backs truly lacked value and that there was no such thing as "a private email."
The latter is a lesson for us to learn now, especially in the corporate world. We have paid it lip-service for years, but I question how many people have had experiences like mine to learn the lesson personally. Any preventative steps created in the wake of this cyber-attack could be an improvement over what little we have now.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Exceleration
"When you're good, work finds you." --Bruno Lauer
I have been at my current position at work for over a year now. I have learned tremendous amounts about my job itself in that time, and, for the first job in my life, I have learned a lot about myself. The hardest part of my job search prior to this position was knowing the truth of the above words. I had always thought I was a good worker, but now getting into this position where they teach you how to maximize your skills, through encouragement and through setting you up for success, I have found my failures.
I love telling the story that I went into law to get out of finance, but then I got hired in the legal department of a finance company, so I'm still technically in finance. In reality, I did not want to leave the finance world; I wanted to leave my former-employer. I did not need to change careers; I needed to change jobs. I did not know the flaws of where I was before; I know now.
Having worked for a group of supervisors that impress success upon me is a world of difference from where I was in my last position. Although I identified the fact that we were "set up for failure" in my first months of taking the floor at my last department, I did not actualize the scope to which it occurred until I got a better basis for comparison.
Everything in my last job was centered around failure. They called it "opportunities." For every achievement reached, it had to be balanced in our assessments with another opportunity area. Everyone subscribed to this theory, and they fed it into normalcy, defining the culture of the company.
Success went up the ladder; failures went down the ladder. For almost ten years, I was in an entry-level position (just above, actually, but still I was the tenured associate for brand new employees, doing the same job, so for all intents and purposes, mine was an entry-level position). During that time, my focus shifted away from failure to other areas where I could succeed.
Enter the unbelievable world of professional wrestling and its independent circuits. Unbeknownst to me until July 2004, there was a local wrestling promotion in Phoenix. As soon as I found out, I saddled into the seat and attended every single event of their episodic series for the next five years. During that time, my fascination accelerated into obsession, and I partly transcended into the company itself.
I grew up loving pro wrestling, literally. As I matured, my love for the business did as well. Even when I was well outside the key demographics of its target market, I enjoyed its programming on levels where it fit into my life.
I never lived vicariously through the wrestlers themselves. I never wanted to step inside the ring. But I loved the storytelling, the performance art of pro wrestling. If anything, I wanted to write wrestling matches. Once I started contributing to the local wrestling promotion, I had an idea to freelance for my favorite wrestling publication, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, and I had considered sending them articles based on the local wrestlers as samples of my writing skills.
For whatever reasons, I did not take that step, but I did get my articles published on the website of the local wrestling promotion's website. Then I modified a ranking system I had developed for WrestleMania to fit that promotion. For the next many years, that system was used to rank the local wrestlers. It was virtually frivolous information, but it was unique to the business. Pro Wrestling Illustrated had its own ranking system (which still remains a mystery to me) but I figured our local promotion would look more legitimate if it had one, so I gave it one.
From there, I was given the opportunity to help write some of the angles in the local promotion, thereby achieving my wish to write the wrestling storylines. It was not even a matter of asking for it and the wish being granted. True to the Steve Martin's "be so good they cannot ignore you" quote, my ideas were often used simply because they were the best option. Not always. Once I earned more trust, I made my share of missteps, but the fact was that I did not ask to be part of the show. They asked me. Even those aforementioned rankings started appearing in the real Pro Wrestling Illustrated, thus accomplishing my goal to have my work published in PWI. The amazing part was that I never tried to do it. It just happened because I was doing a good job.
While success came naturally to me there, my professional failures came naturally to me at work. Eventually I put two-and-two together, quit my job, and moved on with my life. At the time, I thought I was good enough that work would find me. Unfortunately, it didn't. But I set out to earn another job.
The most telling conversation of my life occurred during my second of three job searches. My girlfriend at the time consoled me, "aren't you expecting too much from yourself? You are starting a new career with no experience, so it should take more time to get hired." I replied, "that is true, but I would sooner try harder than lower my own expectations."
That was a major breaking point at my last job. They reset the statistics upon which our work was gauged, and one of the measures was deeply flawed, so they lowered the levels to compensate for it. That solution never set well with me, especially for a company that paid endless lip service to its own integrity.
Nowadays, I find myself reporting to people I truly look up to. People who are fully capable of doing my job, except they're so good that their work is needed on more important issues, so they have me doing work that they could otherwise do themselves. Of course, because they actually know how to perform my job, they are able to instruct me on how to successfully accomplish that job. (Compare that to my last department where none of our supervisors knew how to do our jobs, and our learning was a matter of "trial and error," again, centered around failure.)
I have been at my current position at work for over a year now. I have learned tremendous amounts about my job itself in that time, and, for the first job in my life, I have learned a lot about myself. The hardest part of my job search prior to this position was knowing the truth of the above words. I had always thought I was a good worker, but now getting into this position where they teach you how to maximize your skills, through encouragement and through setting you up for success, I have found my failures.
I love telling the story that I went into law to get out of finance, but then I got hired in the legal department of a finance company, so I'm still technically in finance. In reality, I did not want to leave the finance world; I wanted to leave my former-employer. I did not need to change careers; I needed to change jobs. I did not know the flaws of where I was before; I know now.
Having worked for a group of supervisors that impress success upon me is a world of difference from where I was in my last position. Although I identified the fact that we were "set up for failure" in my first months of taking the floor at my last department, I did not actualize the scope to which it occurred until I got a better basis for comparison.
Everything in my last job was centered around failure. They called it "opportunities." For every achievement reached, it had to be balanced in our assessments with another opportunity area. Everyone subscribed to this theory, and they fed it into normalcy, defining the culture of the company.
Success went up the ladder; failures went down the ladder. For almost ten years, I was in an entry-level position (just above, actually, but still I was the tenured associate for brand new employees, doing the same job, so for all intents and purposes, mine was an entry-level position). During that time, my focus shifted away from failure to other areas where I could succeed.
Enter the unbelievable world of professional wrestling and its independent circuits. Unbeknownst to me until July 2004, there was a local wrestling promotion in Phoenix. As soon as I found out, I saddled into the seat and attended every single event of their episodic series for the next five years. During that time, my fascination accelerated into obsession, and I partly transcended into the company itself.
I grew up loving pro wrestling, literally. As I matured, my love for the business did as well. Even when I was well outside the key demographics of its target market, I enjoyed its programming on levels where it fit into my life.
I never lived vicariously through the wrestlers themselves. I never wanted to step inside the ring. But I loved the storytelling, the performance art of pro wrestling. If anything, I wanted to write wrestling matches. Once I started contributing to the local wrestling promotion, I had an idea to freelance for my favorite wrestling publication, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, and I had considered sending them articles based on the local wrestlers as samples of my writing skills.
For whatever reasons, I did not take that step, but I did get my articles published on the website of the local wrestling promotion's website. Then I modified a ranking system I had developed for WrestleMania to fit that promotion. For the next many years, that system was used to rank the local wrestlers. It was virtually frivolous information, but it was unique to the business. Pro Wrestling Illustrated had its own ranking system (which still remains a mystery to me) but I figured our local promotion would look more legitimate if it had one, so I gave it one.
From there, I was given the opportunity to help write some of the angles in the local promotion, thereby achieving my wish to write the wrestling storylines. It was not even a matter of asking for it and the wish being granted. True to the Steve Martin's "be so good they cannot ignore you" quote, my ideas were often used simply because they were the best option. Not always. Once I earned more trust, I made my share of missteps, but the fact was that I did not ask to be part of the show. They asked me. Even those aforementioned rankings started appearing in the real Pro Wrestling Illustrated, thus accomplishing my goal to have my work published in PWI. The amazing part was that I never tried to do it. It just happened because I was doing a good job.
While success came naturally to me there, my professional failures came naturally to me at work. Eventually I put two-and-two together, quit my job, and moved on with my life. At the time, I thought I was good enough that work would find me. Unfortunately, it didn't. But I set out to earn another job.
The most telling conversation of my life occurred during my second of three job searches. My girlfriend at the time consoled me, "aren't you expecting too much from yourself? You are starting a new career with no experience, so it should take more time to get hired." I replied, "that is true, but I would sooner try harder than lower my own expectations."
That was a major breaking point at my last job. They reset the statistics upon which our work was gauged, and one of the measures was deeply flawed, so they lowered the levels to compensate for it. That solution never set well with me, especially for a company that paid endless lip service to its own integrity.
Nowadays, I find myself reporting to people I truly look up to. People who are fully capable of doing my job, except they're so good that their work is needed on more important issues, so they have me doing work that they could otherwise do themselves. Of course, because they actually know how to perform my job, they are able to instruct me on how to successfully accomplish that job. (Compare that to my last department where none of our supervisors knew how to do our jobs, and our learning was a matter of "trial and error," again, centered around failure.)
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
My Montreal Collection
 |
| Montréal Canadiens shirt from a Target in Mentor, OH |
 |
| "Habs In My Heart," for their 2014 playoffs |
 |
| The Sweater |
 |
| A polo |
 |
| Le Club Athletique de Canadien |
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Chicago (2002)
For months, I have had an urge in the back of my mind to watch the movie "Chicago" again. It has been one of my all-time favorties for over 10 years (second only to "Hedwig & The Angry Inch" is where I have always said it rates), and I saw it in the theatres exactly 13 times (the same number of Emmy nominations the film received, which was not at all coincidental). I absolutely loved it, but a drilled down analysis on *why* I loved it so much never seemed necessary. While the necessity is still very much in doubt, a few reasons struck me on this most recent viewing.
Consider all the things that a film can be, e.g., entertaining, depressing, comical, poignant, uplifting, etc., and "Chicago" seemingly had it all. It blended worlds of fantasy with reality effortlessly. The story itself was explicitly entertaining, but the social commentary was subtly depressing while remaining very poignant and definitely relevant.
The imagery was vivid and zesty when it needed to be, not when it shouldn't be, but the times when the two were intentionally juxtaposed were marvelous without becoming cliché. The symbolism was generally minimal and (arguably) unnecessary, sans the noticeable use of white and red handkerchiefs indicative of innocence and guilt. Likewise, the sporadic appearances of the chorus line girls during the trial served its purpose masterfully.
Socially speaking, the idea that the press can create a media celebrity was certainly worth revisiting. By 2002, our society was several years removed from the "Trial of the Century" with O. J. Simpson, which brought the concept mainstream, but the fact that murder, trials, and executions draw an audience differently but equally to those drawn to entertainment event alone was perfectly accentuated in the modern adaptation.
Additionally, the mere blend of fantasy and reality that I mentioned previously was more difficult to perfect in film than I think many people appreciated (consider "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" if in doubt). Aside from the initial moment where Roxie replaces Velma Kelly on stage, all of the jumps were perfectly timed and meaningful.
Revisiting the film this week, however, also reminded me of the best part of the movie-going experience itself of this film in particular. Invariably, I could identify couples entering the theatre where it was presumed that the woman got to choose, but then the man clearly enjoyed the film more thoroughly. Without fail, the film's first line to elicit an audience uproar was Roxie Hart's "you are a disloyal husband" accusation to Amos. From then on, the chuckles generally resounded louder than the giggles.
If you have not seen the film, then I highly recommend it universally. If you have not seen it lately and enjoyed it the first time, then it is worth revisiting.
Friday, July 4, 2014
Matter of Fact
The single most complex word in the English language may be the word Matter. Scientifically, the word defines the substance of everything in the world. Sadly, that complex concept is as simple as it gets. When used as a verb, it gets less material. The real problem with the word is that nothing really matters, except that which matters, and even that only matters because it matters.
I was recently annoyed by the dismissive use of “it doesn't matter” to a point; as if there were a clear-cut reasoning behind what matters. In reality, if a subject did not matter at all, then would it even be discussed? Based on how languages evolve, there would not be a word for things that truly do not matter. Name one thing that does not have a word! The answers are few and far between (before you get stuck on that rhetorical challenge, use this one: after my father died when I was young, I realized there was no word to describe parents when one is alive and the other is deceased).
When someone discusses things that matter, there is an understood “to me” is at the end of each sentence (much like the understood “you” is the subject to verbs in imperative sentences). Many people seem to displace that fact, and they start to operate under the false impression that things that matter are universal. Conflict ensues.
Shelter, food, and clothing are considered necessities. We can universally apply matter (the verb) to them. Family matters to most people, but truthfully, the understood “to me” begins there (albeit, we can even apply an understood “to most people” to it). Everything from family to the most frivolous things begin to matter with varying degrees set internally.
The lowest common denominator to this point may be political correctness. I cannot speak to the benefits or detriments of political correctness as a whole (I believe it carries a lot of both), but objectively speaking, it has been very effective. Most of the words deemed “offensive” do not matter to me, which is to say I am not offended by their usage or abuse. Honestly, I have rarely done more than merely adapt to cultural shifts, but looking back at how quickly some terms have been erased from our lexicon is impressive.
A recent airing of an older episode of “South Park” demonstrated this seamless adjustment. The boys were using the word “R-tard” as an insult. Not the full word, the abbreviated word. At the time of the show's recording, the adjustment was probably appreciated since the alternative was considerably more offensive. I can appreciate this word because I lovingly called my cat by that (full) word when he was young, but the cleansing of the word occurred during his 14-year (and counting) lifespan. During the adjustment, I remember consciously replacing that word with the more offensive adjective "brain dead" in it place (which I have since stopped using even that phrase) and I cannot even remember if I used another noun in its place. As far as I recall, I just stopped calling my cat by that term (albeit, I would argue that my cat's name simply became synonymous with "brain dead" by then).
The popularity of that word's use to insult anything out of the ordinary has virtually evaporated nowadays. I believe it was in 2009 that both President Obama and Lindsay Lohan carelessly used the word in public statements and they were publicly raked over the coals (figuratively speaking, of course). Half a decade later, I cannot remember the last time I have heard it used so flippantly. Even I rarely use the word "braindead" anymore. For the most part, the word "stupid" is strong enough for us to express ourselves adequately.
Did the careless usage of that word matter? To most, yes. Did it really matter though? Some could reasonably say no while others could aggressively argue yes. In this specific case, the offensive use of the word mattered more than the frivolous abuse of the word (again, "to most people" applies here). When does it matter and when does it not? The answer: when it matters to you.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
It Isn't Easy Being Green
It isn't easy economical being green. *FIXED!
Since I started my new job, I have been toying with the idea of using public transportation once a week, simply because I could. The thought has been relegated, mostly in favour of sleeping in, but the idea itself has lingered in my mind as the possibility remained unexplored. Then, National Dump The Pump Day came along on Thursday, June 19, 2014. It was the ideal day to try it out!
Fortunately, my employer will provide All-Day passes to employees, so I requested them a little more than a week in advance, and I got them in hand on Tuesday. That was pretty simple.
Based on where I live and where I work, I only needed two buses to get to work: one westbound and one northbound. The westbound bus has a stop less than 1/10th of a mile from my entryway, and the northbound bus could pick me up across the street at the same intersection where I would exit the westbound bus. That is not complex.
My exit would be in front of a shopping plaza, just past which is the office building where I work, so that walk was about three times longer than the other two combined, but the grand total of walking would be less than a half mile. Not hard at all.
I dismiss Kermit's mantra that it isn't easy being green (maybe he's just doing it wrong). Except, there are a few issues preventing this route from being a regular path for me.
First, the shopping plaza has several restaurants that I could frequent during my lunch break, but all of their meals are $10 plates on average. For example, Pei Wei and Paradise Bakery are the cheapest. Conversely, my lunch schedule consists of weekly visits to Taco Bell, Subway, and either Jack In The Box, Burger King, Wendy's, or Arby's (the average expense at any of them is under $4). Then, I splurge once a week on my favorite pizza in Scottsdale, which is still cheaper than the first two options.
Secondly, the bus is scheduled to arrive at my first stop at 7:08 a.m daily. On a normal day, that is the same time my alarm is set to go off (and I can still hit snooze once without being late). My drive home can take longer, sometimes pushing 25 minutes where my quickest commute on Valley Metro is 45 minutes.
Finally, the gas prices are increasing. Fortunately, my commute is 12 miles and my car gets at least 30 miles to the gallon. All-Day passes are $4, and gas prices are currently at $3.50/gallon. But, my employer covers the cost of the passes, so in that regard, public transportation comes out ahead! At least for me personally.
Realistically, traveling to work through public transportation is not a bad option for me, but at this stage, there is no benefit except to vary my week occasionally (so I may consider this route once a month, instead of once a week).
In fact there is one plus for public transportation that I have not mentioned: I have a friend who takes the same southbound bus as I would. If I coordinate my schedule with him, then it may justify taking the bus once a month (ignoring the fact that he and I could alternatively meet in the shopping plaza next to where I work, and then I'd just give him a ride home after happy hour or such.)
Since I started my new job, I have been toying with the idea of using public transportation once a week, simply because I could. The thought has been relegated, mostly in favour of sleeping in, but the idea itself has lingered in my mind as the possibility remained unexplored. Then, National Dump The Pump Day came along on Thursday, June 19, 2014. It was the ideal day to try it out!
Fortunately, my employer will provide All-Day passes to employees, so I requested them a little more than a week in advance, and I got them in hand on Tuesday. That was pretty simple.
Based on where I live and where I work, I only needed two buses to get to work: one westbound and one northbound. The westbound bus has a stop less than 1/10th of a mile from my entryway, and the northbound bus could pick me up across the street at the same intersection where I would exit the westbound bus. That is not complex.
My exit would be in front of a shopping plaza, just past which is the office building where I work, so that walk was about three times longer than the other two combined, but the grand total of walking would be less than a half mile. Not hard at all.
I dismiss Kermit's mantra that it isn't easy being green (maybe he's just doing it wrong). Except, there are a few issues preventing this route from being a regular path for me.
First, the shopping plaza has several restaurants that I could frequent during my lunch break, but all of their meals are $10 plates on average. For example, Pei Wei and Paradise Bakery are the cheapest. Conversely, my lunch schedule consists of weekly visits to Taco Bell, Subway, and either Jack In The Box, Burger King, Wendy's, or Arby's (the average expense at any of them is under $4). Then, I splurge once a week on my favorite pizza in Scottsdale, which is still cheaper than the first two options.
Secondly, the bus is scheduled to arrive at my first stop at 7:08 a.m daily. On a normal day, that is the same time my alarm is set to go off (and I can still hit snooze once without being late). My drive home can take longer, sometimes pushing 25 minutes where my quickest commute on Valley Metro is 45 minutes.
Finally, the gas prices are increasing. Fortunately, my commute is 12 miles and my car gets at least 30 miles to the gallon. All-Day passes are $4, and gas prices are currently at $3.50/gallon. But, my employer covers the cost of the passes, so in that regard, public transportation comes out ahead! At least for me personally.
Realistically, traveling to work through public transportation is not a bad option for me, but at this stage, there is no benefit except to vary my week occasionally (so I may consider this route once a month, instead of once a week).
In fact there is one plus for public transportation that I have not mentioned: I have a friend who takes the same southbound bus as I would. If I coordinate my schedule with him, then it may justify taking the bus once a month (ignoring the fact that he and I could alternatively meet in the shopping plaza next to where I work, and then I'd just give him a ride home after happy hour or such.)
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
The Difference of -Er
I read an article from an outdated Reader's Digest this week comparing the health food industry to the fast food industry. Its conclusion was essentially that the health food industry may get what it wants, and lose all it has now. It compared the demands of time and money on shopping local, buying organic "healthy" meals to getting the fast food alternatives available now.
It noted that fast food industry has developed that much healthier menu that health food advocates have been wanting, but they have done it in a way with mass appeal (instead of targeting the vocal minority) that most of the improved changes to the menu are unnoticeable.
There was a line that focused on what I have been saying ever since I started eating healthier myself. That is, the problem is not that everyone has to eat healthy; they just need to eat healthier.
Book like Eat This, Not That have said it, and maybe it takes becoming part of it in order to know it, which I did when I topped my scale at 190 lbs. a few years ago (back when I was spending $100+ week at restaurants), but you can never eat healthy enough, although eating healthier is probably all you need.
The health junkie niche market is never going to be full satisfied. They are never going to agree. It is as improbable as the sci-fi fanatics all agreeing on one set of facts (or, rather, opinions). As loud as they can holler, they are still the minority. People have decided for themselves where the costs of time and money rate against the benefit of eating purely healthy (which, again, is subject to opinion, and unlikely to yield universally favorable results).
However, they have given rise to the validity of their cause. There are a lot of changes that could improve the fast food industry from years ago, and many of those changes are getting attention, thanks in large part to successful alternatives like Subway and Chipotle.
When I set out to lose weight in 2008, I counted calories. I decided to limit myself to 150 calories in the morning, 300 calories at lunch, another 150 calories at 3:00 p.m., 500 calories for dinner, and another 150 calories in the evening. One immediate benefit was that eating smaller meals more often was healthier than gorging at lunch and again at dinner. The other was that my selection of meals required me to budget calories, so regular soda was immediately nixed and replaced by diet sodas.
Critics say that diet soda is extremely unhealthy, even more than regular soda, but Mayo Clinic reports that "drinking a reasonable amount of diet soda (...) isn't likely to hurt you," so I will stick with the independent researcher. Add to that the reduction in pounds from the reduced calories, and the simple assessment that diet sodas are healthier than regular soda reclaims its validity. While its research on the matter has been inconclusive, I will vouch that it has been an improvement for me.
My favorite improvement, though, was how I ate at Taco Bell. It had recently introduced its Fresco menu, but it had not started advertising it under the Drive-Thru Diet slogan yet. I found that the tacos were significantly lower in calories than their counterparts, so I could eat two Fresco soft tacos for lunch with a diet soda for less calories and less money than almost anything else anywhere else.
Initially, my goal was to drop 25 pounds in five months. As it turned out, those minor improvements I made helped me lose 20 pounds so quickly that I decided to loosely count calories afterward and just work off the rest as I could. I abandoned my strict diet and just focused on making permanent changes to my lifestyle.
I had critics throughout that time, telling me that I was not doing enough (or that I was doing it wrong, which was hilarious placed against the actual results). As it turned out, eating healthier for me was very easy, and I did not even have to drop eating from fast food restaurants. Namely Taco Bell, because it was the best example. Critics assault Taco Bell for its questionable meat products. But, after my diet and ever since, I've eaten their chicken tacos, which (treatment to the chickens aside) is not in the same conversation as the meat for which Taco Bell gets its flack.
Then, Taco Bell started to actively promote its Drive-Thru Diet, featuring the Fresco menu offerings, and the media backlash was immediate -- and ironic to me, since I just had an equally successful story as its spokesmodel. That experience may have taught Taco Bell and other giants in the fast food industry about marketing, which is that the secret is to promote the healthier selections as delicious and desirable. Do not challenge the health food fanatics to prove it was not the healthiest option, but simply give regulars an option to eat healthier without it costing more time or money , and then it has the ammunition to fire back against the pundits with its improved menu options.
This past October, I had another similar experience with working out. I inaccurately assumed that I was in better health than I actually was, so when I decided to challenge myself to run, non-stop, for 20 minutes, it only took two minutes before I got in touch with reality. I was nowhere ready or able to run 20 minutes straight (without risking unnecessary injury to myself).
Therefore, I immediately scaled back my expectations and my goals. I had the benefit of the real world on my side now, and I was able to improve slowly through reasonable results. I had set my mind to running for 20 minutes, but now I was just set myself to run longer than two minutes, then three minutes, and so forth. I was able to improve through success, instead of failure. To this day, I am not sure whether I could run 20 minutes straight in the fashion that I had initially envisioned. But I improved my fitness levels by taking small steps toward real improvement.
For all but one, being the best is a goal of failure. But everyone can make small improvements, and given persistence and priority, those small improvements will make a big difference.
It noted that fast food industry has developed that much healthier menu that health food advocates have been wanting, but they have done it in a way with mass appeal (instead of targeting the vocal minority) that most of the improved changes to the menu are unnoticeable.
There was a line that focused on what I have been saying ever since I started eating healthier myself. That is, the problem is not that everyone has to eat healthy; they just need to eat healthier.
Book like Eat This, Not That have said it, and maybe it takes becoming part of it in order to know it, which I did when I topped my scale at 190 lbs. a few years ago (back when I was spending $100+ week at restaurants), but you can never eat healthy enough, although eating healthier is probably all you need.
The health junkie niche market is never going to be full satisfied. They are never going to agree. It is as improbable as the sci-fi fanatics all agreeing on one set of facts (or, rather, opinions). As loud as they can holler, they are still the minority. People have decided for themselves where the costs of time and money rate against the benefit of eating purely healthy (which, again, is subject to opinion, and unlikely to yield universally favorable results).
However, they have given rise to the validity of their cause. There are a lot of changes that could improve the fast food industry from years ago, and many of those changes are getting attention, thanks in large part to successful alternatives like Subway and Chipotle.
When I set out to lose weight in 2008, I counted calories. I decided to limit myself to 150 calories in the morning, 300 calories at lunch, another 150 calories at 3:00 p.m., 500 calories for dinner, and another 150 calories in the evening. One immediate benefit was that eating smaller meals more often was healthier than gorging at lunch and again at dinner. The other was that my selection of meals required me to budget calories, so regular soda was immediately nixed and replaced by diet sodas.
Critics say that diet soda is extremely unhealthy, even more than regular soda, but Mayo Clinic reports that "drinking a reasonable amount of diet soda (...) isn't likely to hurt you," so I will stick with the independent researcher. Add to that the reduction in pounds from the reduced calories, and the simple assessment that diet sodas are healthier than regular soda reclaims its validity. While its research on the matter has been inconclusive, I will vouch that it has been an improvement for me.
My favorite improvement, though, was how I ate at Taco Bell. It had recently introduced its Fresco menu, but it had not started advertising it under the Drive-Thru Diet slogan yet. I found that the tacos were significantly lower in calories than their counterparts, so I could eat two Fresco soft tacos for lunch with a diet soda for less calories and less money than almost anything else anywhere else.
Initially, my goal was to drop 25 pounds in five months. As it turned out, those minor improvements I made helped me lose 20 pounds so quickly that I decided to loosely count calories afterward and just work off the rest as I could. I abandoned my strict diet and just focused on making permanent changes to my lifestyle.
I had critics throughout that time, telling me that I was not doing enough (or that I was doing it wrong, which was hilarious placed against the actual results). As it turned out, eating healthier for me was very easy, and I did not even have to drop eating from fast food restaurants. Namely Taco Bell, because it was the best example. Critics assault Taco Bell for its questionable meat products. But, after my diet and ever since, I've eaten their chicken tacos, which (treatment to the chickens aside) is not in the same conversation as the meat for which Taco Bell gets its flack.
Then, Taco Bell started to actively promote its Drive-Thru Diet, featuring the Fresco menu offerings, and the media backlash was immediate -- and ironic to me, since I just had an equally successful story as its spokesmodel. That experience may have taught Taco Bell and other giants in the fast food industry about marketing, which is that the secret is to promote the healthier selections as delicious and desirable. Do not challenge the health food fanatics to prove it was not the healthiest option, but simply give regulars an option to eat healthier without it costing more time or money , and then it has the ammunition to fire back against the pundits with its improved menu options.
This past October, I had another similar experience with working out. I inaccurately assumed that I was in better health than I actually was, so when I decided to challenge myself to run, non-stop, for 20 minutes, it only took two minutes before I got in touch with reality. I was nowhere ready or able to run 20 minutes straight (without risking unnecessary injury to myself).
Therefore, I immediately scaled back my expectations and my goals. I had the benefit of the real world on my side now, and I was able to improve slowly through reasonable results. I had set my mind to running for 20 minutes, but now I was just set myself to run longer than two minutes, then three minutes, and so forth. I was able to improve through success, instead of failure. To this day, I am not sure whether I could run 20 minutes straight in the fashion that I had initially envisioned. But I improved my fitness levels by taking small steps toward real improvement.
For all but one, being the best is a goal of failure. But everyone can make small improvements, and given persistence and priority, those small improvements will make a big difference.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
#BostonWrong
Tonight, the 34th post-season series between my Montreal Canadiens and the inexplicably evil Boston Bruins started. It is the most heralded active rivalry in sports today, in large part because no two teams have played against each other as often. The game lasted almost 90 minutes before PK Subban scored a game-winning powerplay goal in Sudden Death overtime.
The beauty of PK Subban scoring an overtime goal is that he is the most hated player on Boston ice. TD Garden will raucously boo every time he gets the puck, so like any Hater Magnet, Subban seems to handle the puck a little bit longer in Boston, perhaps to goad the fans further. Honestly, he may know how to work that crowd a little too well these days.
Unfortunately, the most thoughtless comments are often the ones that get shouted out first. Not surprisingly, the racist slurs come flowing from Bruins fans every game (including excessive use of the big N), which will even flood my timeline by those calling attention to them. As one of my followers noted tonight, "there will always be racist assholes on twitter; don't go hunting for them."
Case in point, Avrey Fowler posted this tweet after the game:
Immediately, this is wrong on at least two levels but the intention is unclear. If the joke is that Bruins fans are furious and assembling an angry mob to hang Subban, then that tweet itself is clever. Except, it was directed toward Subban so it reeks of racism.
Conversely, if the intention is that Subban should kill himself, then the insinuation was that they are going to "cyber-bully" him into it, and that is a modern problem of a distinctly serious nature.
Either way, the humour was bordering on cutting edge or archaic balderdash. It was indefensible. As another follower of mine tweeted earlier this evening after PK Subban scored the first goal of the series, and Boston's fans fired its first round of N-bombs, "Bruins fans are #BostonWrong" (which made me laugh out loud, but, seriously, it too was defiantly distasteful since it mimics the courageous #BostonStrong response to their 2013 terrorist attacks and minimizes the seriousness of the lives lost and forever changed).
Shortly thereafter, and when I say "shortly," believe me, it did not take long, Avrey Fowler had a tidal wave of protests in her face. If you imagine the hatred in one's heart to belittle a stranger with dismissive use of the N-word, then multiply that hatred tenfold in the responses.
As I have said before, the bigger problem today is racial sensitivity. If the joke was that there was an angry mob in Boston with a noose, ready to hang the GWG scorer, then that joke immediately crossed a line when the game-ending goal was scored by a black man. The history in North America (thanks in most part to the US) is tainted with those conditions at a time when blacks were powerless to fend off the numbers. It is a poor reality to which North Americans must be truly empathetic. Unfortunately, ignorance is not an excuse either (albeit, the only difference between "an excuse" and "an explanation" is the listener).
Conversely, if the joke was hinting that the scorer should kill himself, e.g. Megan Meier (RIP), then the tweet is the Internet at its worst, and everyone who knows better should be working to move this current reality into our sad history as soon as possible.
Ironically, both interpretations of the tweet somewhat intersected. Cyber-bullying reared its ugly head on the perceived hater. A search of Avrey's twitter handle yielded a written barrage of protests that may have made the Westboro Baptist Church uncomfortable.
Based on what I could tell, the majority took it as a racist insinuation, which was definitely the more prevalent interpretation (and, in my opinion, the most distastefully offensive interpretation). However, the overaggressive minority blurred the lines of the second interpretation, and many of the protesters crossed those lines in an equally shameful fashion.
When I started following the events, Avrey had already tweeted almost a dozen apologies, including tweets directed to PK Subban's twitter handle, as well as the official twitter of the Montreal Canadiens organization. Unfortunately, most felt it was too little and too late. There were cyber-bullies threatening to get her fired and celebrating the thought of her as homeless, and (as I understand) others who had already started messaging Avrey's father and grandmother through Facebook.
Keep in mind, these reactions were not the following day, or even an hour later, but within a span of 10 minutes (less than 15, for sure).
It paralleled the "corrective thinking measures" taken by the NBA in response to LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling. If she had a reputation to lose, she would have been banned for life and fined $2.5-million as well.
Unfortunately, both cases missed the mark. Vengeance is not the most powerful reaction. It's just torturing a murderer to death (which bares a scary resemblance to some people's reaction to a botched execution in Oklahoma this week).
Racism is indefensible, but not unforgivable. Destroying someone does not strengthen anyone. Taking those people and turning them around to the better point of view does. Despite all the lengths other individuals took to set her back, tonight may have been a success in giving her a solid history to move forward. Stronger & wiser, and better than many of her most vocal critics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/3 update:
Today I went searching for Avrie Fowler again. Her Twitter account had been deactivated, but a quick search for her name kept the conversation alive. Few people genuinely discussing what took place, many asking if her account was suspended or voicing their opinions if such were the case, and some turning the situation into a punchline.
I found one person who asked innocently asked what was racist about a noose, so I clicked on to that post to look through the conversation. The response to her question was nowhere close to an answer. In fact, I believe the response was "Why are you defending a racist?" As if understanding the situation were a waste of time. That was where I stuck my nose in.
It turned out the person asking the question was a IRL friend of hers, sticking up for her friend and seemingly fighting a winning fight as her most recent Twitter conversation was mostly winning over someone by simply engaging her in conversation. In fact, the attacker even concluded their conversation by saying "this little chat was nice ... you seem halfway reasonable, though a little naive." I figured I could at least ask my lingering questions: if her joke supposed to be cyberbullying or the angry mob and whether it was meant for PK Subban or the GWG scorer?
We had a good conversation, noting the joke was the modern cyber-bullying interpretation (which most of my younger TL correctly assumed) and the tweet was sent because PK scored the GWG. Interestingly, she said most of the loudest voices were unable to explain why the noose itself was racist, considering women also hanged for being witches in the past era. (Because it was very racially insensitive, but not explicitly racist.)
The most amusing thing about the situation was, while people were unified in outrage, they failed to appreciate how far our society has come that our teenagers were blissfully unaware how lopsided the bias against minorities used to be. Unfortunately, she got a first hand example of how angry mobs worked.
The beauty of PK Subban scoring an overtime goal is that he is the most hated player on Boston ice. TD Garden will raucously boo every time he gets the puck, so like any Hater Magnet, Subban seems to handle the puck a little bit longer in Boston, perhaps to goad the fans further. Honestly, he may know how to work that crowd a little too well these days.
Unfortunately, the most thoughtless comments are often the ones that get shouted out first. Not surprisingly, the racist slurs come flowing from Bruins fans every game (including excessive use of the big N), which will even flood my timeline by those calling attention to them. As one of my followers noted tonight, "there will always be racist assholes on twitter; don't go hunting for them."
Case in point, Avrey Fowler posted this tweet after the game:
 |
| Subban scored the GWG in 2OT. |
Conversely, if the intention is that Subban should kill himself, then the insinuation was that they are going to "cyber-bully" him into it, and that is a modern problem of a distinctly serious nature.
Either way, the humour was bordering on cutting edge or archaic balderdash. It was indefensible. As another follower of mine tweeted earlier this evening after PK Subban scored the first goal of the series, and Boston's fans fired its first round of N-bombs, "Bruins fans are #BostonWrong" (which made me laugh out loud, but, seriously, it too was defiantly distasteful since it mimics the courageous #BostonStrong response to their 2013 terrorist attacks and minimizes the seriousness of the lives lost and forever changed).
Shortly thereafter, and when I say "shortly," believe me, it did not take long, Avrey Fowler had a tidal wave of protests in her face. If you imagine the hatred in one's heart to belittle a stranger with dismissive use of the N-word, then multiply that hatred tenfold in the responses.
As I have said before, the bigger problem today is racial sensitivity. If the joke was that there was an angry mob in Boston with a noose, ready to hang the GWG scorer, then that joke immediately crossed a line when the game-ending goal was scored by a black man. The history in North America (thanks in most part to the US) is tainted with those conditions at a time when blacks were powerless to fend off the numbers. It is a poor reality to which North Americans must be truly empathetic. Unfortunately, ignorance is not an excuse either (albeit, the only difference between "an excuse" and "an explanation" is the listener).
Conversely, if the joke was hinting that the scorer should kill himself, e.g. Megan Meier (RIP), then the tweet is the Internet at its worst, and everyone who knows better should be working to move this current reality into our sad history as soon as possible.
Ironically, both interpretations of the tweet somewhat intersected. Cyber-bullying reared its ugly head on the perceived hater. A search of Avrey's twitter handle yielded a written barrage of protests that may have made the Westboro Baptist Church uncomfortable.
Based on what I could tell, the majority took it as a racist insinuation, which was definitely the more prevalent interpretation (and, in my opinion, the most distastefully offensive interpretation). However, the overaggressive minority blurred the lines of the second interpretation, and many of the protesters crossed those lines in an equally shameful fashion.
 |
| She was smart enough to acknowledge voices of support, but not to flaunt it. |
Keep in mind, these reactions were not the following day, or even an hour later, but within a span of 10 minutes (less than 15, for sure).
It paralleled the "corrective thinking measures" taken by the NBA in response to LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling. If she had a reputation to lose, she would have been banned for life and fined $2.5-million as well.
Unfortunately, both cases missed the mark. Vengeance is not the most powerful reaction. It's just torturing a murderer to death (which bares a scary resemblance to some people's reaction to a botched execution in Oklahoma this week).
Racism is indefensible, but not unforgivable. Destroying someone does not strengthen anyone. Taking those people and turning them around to the better point of view does. Despite all the lengths other individuals took to set her back, tonight may have been a success in giving her a solid history to move forward. Stronger & wiser, and better than many of her most vocal critics.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/3 update:
Today I went searching for Avrie Fowler again. Her Twitter account had been deactivated, but a quick search for her name kept the conversation alive. Few people genuinely discussing what took place, many asking if her account was suspended or voicing their opinions if such were the case, and some turning the situation into a punchline.
I found one person who asked innocently asked what was racist about a noose, so I clicked on to that post to look through the conversation. The response to her question was nowhere close to an answer. In fact, I believe the response was "Why are you defending a racist?" As if understanding the situation were a waste of time. That was where I stuck my nose in.
It turned out the person asking the question was a IRL friend of hers, sticking up for her friend and seemingly fighting a winning fight as her most recent Twitter conversation was mostly winning over someone by simply engaging her in conversation. In fact, the attacker even concluded their conversation by saying "this little chat was nice ... you seem halfway reasonable, though a little naive." I figured I could at least ask my lingering questions: if her joke supposed to be cyberbullying or the angry mob and whether it was meant for PK Subban or the GWG scorer?
We had a good conversation, noting the joke was the modern cyber-bullying interpretation (which most of my younger TL correctly assumed) and the tweet was sent because PK scored the GWG. Interestingly, she said most of the loudest voices were unable to explain why the noose itself was racist, considering women also hanged for being witches in the past era. (Because it was very racially insensitive, but not explicitly racist.)
The most amusing thing about the situation was, while people were unified in outrage, they failed to appreciate how far our society has come that our teenagers were blissfully unaware how lopsided the bias against minorities used to be. Unfortunately, she got a first hand example of how angry mobs worked.
2014 Stanley Cup (Round 2)
The first round is in the history books now, following three first-round Game 7 series-tiebreakers. There was only one series decided before yesterday, thanks in large part to the redesigned playoff structure, so it is the one that will start later today.
Montreal Canadiens versus Boston Bruins, Habs in 6 or 7. I cannot expect any less, especially with my boys four wins away from giving my favorite birthday present: a win on my birthday! That said, everybody (by vast majority of 80% or higher) is expecting Boston Bruins to win. Conversely, Les Canadiens have been virtually invisible this season. It is such an easy team to discredit, but they probably won the trade deadline by acquiring two key players in exchange for almost nothing. I expect Mike Weaver and Thomas Vanek will have an impact in this series.
Pittsburgh Penguins versus New York Rangers, Rangers in 5 or 6. Both teams are shaken after their respective first round opponents, but Pens goalie Marc Andre Fluery will be the weakest link of both teams. My prediction is linked to the expectation that the Rangers can hammer him early and then often to frazzle him while he's still shaken. Unfortunately, the more often that happens without changing the scoreboard, the more likely it is to rebuild MAF's confidence.
Chicago Blackhawks versus Minnesota Wild, Blackhawks in 4 or 5. I had Wild pegged for a deep playoff run, which is a conference final appearance or deeper, but the first round has led me to think that they are not quite ready for that next step(s). Especially if Corey Crawford continues to be Corey Crawford like he was in the four consecutive wins from the last round. Blackhawks aren't unbeatable in a Best-of-7 series, but I doubt think Wild can be the team to prove that theory.
LA Kings versus Anaheim Ducks, Kings in 5 or 6. Unfortunately for all their detractors, LA Kings have found their groove. Although I believe the difficulty the Ducks had with the Stars was more of a reflection of how good the Stars are than how limited the Ducks are, Kings have a younger, better, more solidified team. They can be lazy, but when they get down to win, they usually do. Winning four games straight is always impressive, whether it was a clean sweep like my Habs had, a rebound reaction like we saw from Bruins and Blackhawks, or stranding on the brink of failure the whole time like these Kings.
In short, I expect Rangers/Canadiens and Kings/Blackhawks in the Conference Finals.
Montreal Canadiens versus Boston Bruins, Habs in 6 or 7. I cannot expect any less, especially with my boys four wins away from giving my favorite birthday present: a win on my birthday! That said, everybody (by vast majority of 80% or higher) is expecting Boston Bruins to win. Conversely, Les Canadiens have been virtually invisible this season. It is such an easy team to discredit, but they probably won the trade deadline by acquiring two key players in exchange for almost nothing. I expect Mike Weaver and Thomas Vanek will have an impact in this series.
Pittsburgh Penguins versus New York Rangers, Rangers in 5 or 6. Both teams are shaken after their respective first round opponents, but Pens goalie Marc Andre Fluery will be the weakest link of both teams. My prediction is linked to the expectation that the Rangers can hammer him early and then often to frazzle him while he's still shaken. Unfortunately, the more often that happens without changing the scoreboard, the more likely it is to rebuild MAF's confidence.
Chicago Blackhawks versus Minnesota Wild, Blackhawks in 4 or 5. I had Wild pegged for a deep playoff run, which is a conference final appearance or deeper, but the first round has led me to think that they are not quite ready for that next step(s). Especially if Corey Crawford continues to be Corey Crawford like he was in the four consecutive wins from the last round. Blackhawks aren't unbeatable in a Best-of-7 series, but I doubt think Wild can be the team to prove that theory.
LA Kings versus Anaheim Ducks, Kings in 5 or 6. Unfortunately for all their detractors, LA Kings have found their groove. Although I believe the difficulty the Ducks had with the Stars was more of a reflection of how good the Stars are than how limited the Ducks are, Kings have a younger, better, more solidified team. They can be lazy, but when they get down to win, they usually do. Winning four games straight is always impressive, whether it was a clean sweep like my Habs had, a rebound reaction like we saw from Bruins and Blackhawks, or stranding on the brink of failure the whole time like these Kings.
In short, I expect Rangers/Canadiens and Kings/Blackhawks in the Conference Finals.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
2014 Stanley Cup (Round 1)
The 2013-14 Season is in the history books for the National Hockey League. It was a memorable season; is the polite thing to say but it will soon blend into all the other seasons with a few standout moments both personally and professionally. Regardless, this year is the first post-season to feature the most current alignment with the introduction of Wild Cards.
Many analysts have incorrectly stated that the NHL Playoffs are split into divisional play, which is untrue per se. However, all four conferences are guaranteed to have at least one series (between its second- and third-seeded teams).
NHL EASTERN CONFERENCE
BOSTON BRUINS* vs. DETROIT RED WINGS
Assessment: For years, Detroit Red Wings have been the most difficult team to eliminate from the post-season, but I think that distinction has belonged to Boston Bruins ever since their embarrassing 2010 series loss after dropping a 3-0 lead. It would seem as though Detroit Red Wings are vulnerable to a loss, but they have been playing for their post-season livelihood for the past month, so they are in Stanley Cup mode already. That edge alone is often enough to earn my favor, but add in what Boston Bruins have done since March, and they have saw more losses than wins in April. Not to mention the President Trophy curse.
Prediction: Detroit Red Wings in 6-7 games.
TAMPA BAY LIGHTNING vs. MONTREAL CANADIENS
Assessment: If Montreal Canadiens have taught us anything this season is that they can win or lose any game. Often they came through in tight spots against better teams, and, almost as often, they fumbled when a sure win was predictable. Unfortunately, Tampa Bay Lightning will have to overcome the embarrassment of Ryan Malone, and I expect the team will be out of favor on questionable calls. Ryan Callahan will shine, but personally I doubt he will outshine Max Pacioretty. Meanwhile, Carey Price will be the toughest to beat between the creases.
Prediction: Montreal Canadiens in 6-7 games.
PITTSBURGH PENGUINS vs. COLUMBUS BLUE JACKETS
Assessment: I am more emotionally linked to the Atlantic division than the Metropolitan division, so this series means less to me than the others. Regardless, it is an interesting series between the odds-on favorite Pittsburgh Penguins and perennial underdog Columbus Blue Jackets. In case you have missed it, Columbus has a good franchise right now. They have a lot to prove, and I do not see them bowing out without making a point. This year will get them into the dance. Next year will be bigger.
Prediction: Pittsburgh Penguins in 5-6 games.
NEW YORK RANGERS vs. PHILADELPHIA FLYERS
Assessment: I have had a soft spot for New York Rangers since 1994. I was eagerly anticipating a NY/LA finals in the 2012 Stanley Cup. Unfortunately, that series did not come to pass and the team has had a lot of restructuring since then, but they are still a good team at their core. Meanwhile, Philadelphia Flyers zigged when they should have zagged by hiring Ilya Bryzgalov, and I do not think they have been a playoff-ready team since then.
Prediction: New York Rangers in 5-6 games.
NHL WESTERN CONFERENCE
COLORADO AVALANCHE vs. MINNESOTA WILD
Assessment: In his rookie year as a player, Patrick Roy won the 1986 Stanley Cup. In his rookie year as a head coach, Patrick Roy could win the 2014 Stanley Cup. Unfortunately, the odds are stacked against him to the Nth degree. Personally, I would be thrilled to see him accomplish that aforementioned feat. Realistically, I do not see it happening. However, I have felt for a while that Minnesota Wild are a dangerous team laying in wait. This year, I expect them to go the distance.
Prediction: Minnesota Wild in 6-7 games.
CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS** vs. ST. LOUIS BLUES
Assessment: It has been rare to see a team repeat as Stanley Cup champions. In 2008 and again in 2009, Detroit Red Wings faced Pittsburgh Penguins in the finals, but each team won one. In 2013, the final four teams were the most recent four Cup winners. Therefore, Chicago Blackhawks will remember the 2011 Playoffs, where they were eliminated in the first round, and they will know better than to fall into that same pitfall. That said, conjuring up the will to push through the following rounds is questionable. But I will leave that for later. St. Louis Blues have not gelled with Ryan Miller yet, and they will likely come back stronger next year.
Prediction: Chicago Blackhawks in 4-5 games.
ANAHEIM DUCKS vs. DALLAS STARS
Assessment: Dallas Stars were the last team to clinch their post-season spot. The biggest downfall of Anaheim Ducks is their age. The biggest downfall of Dallas Stars is their inexperience. In this round, I am expecting experience to prevail over youth. However, I have to admit that Dallas Stars have a winning team. If everything gels sooner than expected, then they could have that deep playoff run that I am expecting out of Minnesota.
Prediction: Anaheim Ducks in 4-5 games.
SAN JOSE SHARKS vs. LOS ANGELES KINGS
Assessment: These two teams are increasingly bitter rivals because they are so well matched. If this series does not go to Game 7, then hockey fans should feel cheated. For most of the past five years, analysts have expected big things from San Jose Sharks. While they never lived up to those expectations, their core has not changed enough to discredit them entirely. Unfortunately, I still think LA Kings are the stronger team altogether, and that edge should make the difference when it matters most.
Prediction: Los Angeles Kings in 6-7 games.
* - President's Trophy winners.
** - Defending champions.
Many analysts have incorrectly stated that the NHL Playoffs are split into divisional play, which is untrue per se. However, all four conferences are guaranteed to have at least one series (between its second- and third-seeded teams).
NHL EASTERN CONFERENCE
BOSTON BRUINS* vs. DETROIT RED WINGS
Assessment: For years, Detroit Red Wings have been the most difficult team to eliminate from the post-season, but I think that distinction has belonged to Boston Bruins ever since their embarrassing 2010 series loss after dropping a 3-0 lead. It would seem as though Detroit Red Wings are vulnerable to a loss, but they have been playing for their post-season livelihood for the past month, so they are in Stanley Cup mode already. That edge alone is often enough to earn my favor, but add in what Boston Bruins have done since March, and they have saw more losses than wins in April. Not to mention the President Trophy curse.
Prediction: Detroit Red Wings in 6-7 games.
TAMPA BAY LIGHTNING vs. MONTREAL CANADIENS
Assessment: If Montreal Canadiens have taught us anything this season is that they can win or lose any game. Often they came through in tight spots against better teams, and, almost as often, they fumbled when a sure win was predictable. Unfortunately, Tampa Bay Lightning will have to overcome the embarrassment of Ryan Malone, and I expect the team will be out of favor on questionable calls. Ryan Callahan will shine, but personally I doubt he will outshine Max Pacioretty. Meanwhile, Carey Price will be the toughest to beat between the creases.
Prediction: Montreal Canadiens in 6-7 games.
Assessment: I am more emotionally linked to the Atlantic division than the Metropolitan division, so this series means less to me than the others. Regardless, it is an interesting series between the odds-on favorite Pittsburgh Penguins and perennial underdog Columbus Blue Jackets. In case you have missed it, Columbus has a good franchise right now. They have a lot to prove, and I do not see them bowing out without making a point. This year will get them into the dance. Next year will be bigger.
Prediction: Pittsburgh Penguins in 5-6 games.
NEW YORK RANGERS vs. PHILADELPHIA FLYERS
Assessment: I have had a soft spot for New York Rangers since 1994. I was eagerly anticipating a NY/LA finals in the 2012 Stanley Cup. Unfortunately, that series did not come to pass and the team has had a lot of restructuring since then, but they are still a good team at their core. Meanwhile, Philadelphia Flyers zigged when they should have zagged by hiring Ilya Bryzgalov, and I do not think they have been a playoff-ready team since then.
Prediction: New York Rangers in 5-6 games.
NHL WESTERN CONFERENCE
COLORADO AVALANCHE vs. MINNESOTA WILD
Assessment: In his rookie year as a player, Patrick Roy won the 1986 Stanley Cup. In his rookie year as a head coach, Patrick Roy could win the 2014 Stanley Cup. Unfortunately, the odds are stacked against him to the Nth degree. Personally, I would be thrilled to see him accomplish that aforementioned feat. Realistically, I do not see it happening. However, I have felt for a while that Minnesota Wild are a dangerous team laying in wait. This year, I expect them to go the distance.
Prediction: Minnesota Wild in 6-7 games.
CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS** vs. ST. LOUIS BLUES
Assessment: It has been rare to see a team repeat as Stanley Cup champions. In 2008 and again in 2009, Detroit Red Wings faced Pittsburgh Penguins in the finals, but each team won one. In 2013, the final four teams were the most recent four Cup winners. Therefore, Chicago Blackhawks will remember the 2011 Playoffs, where they were eliminated in the first round, and they will know better than to fall into that same pitfall. That said, conjuring up the will to push through the following rounds is questionable. But I will leave that for later. St. Louis Blues have not gelled with Ryan Miller yet, and they will likely come back stronger next year.
Prediction: Chicago Blackhawks in 4-5 games.
ANAHEIM DUCKS vs. DALLAS STARS
Assessment: Dallas Stars were the last team to clinch their post-season spot. The biggest downfall of Anaheim Ducks is their age. The biggest downfall of Dallas Stars is their inexperience. In this round, I am expecting experience to prevail over youth. However, I have to admit that Dallas Stars have a winning team. If everything gels sooner than expected, then they could have that deep playoff run that I am expecting out of Minnesota.
Prediction: Anaheim Ducks in 4-5 games.
SAN JOSE SHARKS vs. LOS ANGELES KINGS
Assessment: These two teams are increasingly bitter rivals because they are so well matched. If this series does not go to Game 7, then hockey fans should feel cheated. For most of the past five years, analysts have expected big things from San Jose Sharks. While they never lived up to those expectations, their core has not changed enough to discredit them entirely. Unfortunately, I still think LA Kings are the stronger team altogether, and that edge should make the difference when it matters most.
Prediction: Los Angeles Kings in 6-7 games.
* - President's Trophy winners.
** - Defending champions.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Remembering The Ulllllltimate Warrior
This past weekend, I attended WrestleMania XXX in Nawlins. It was my second time in The Big Easy, and my first trip was 14 years prior when I took home a sweet little kitten with whom I lived for the next 14 years until his passing at the end of last year. Before he died, I had purchased a nosebleed seat for the event to provide the option of attending or cutting the small loss. When he died, I decided I should take his remains with me and spread him in the place where he was born. Ashes to ashes, end it where it began.
Unfortunately, my cat's journey drew parallels to a similar journey of a far grander scale. A round-trip pilgrimage embraced by legions of cosmic voices and powered by rocket fuel. A preordained destiny into immorality and a grandiose celebration of its fulfillment for a sendoff.
Known to to wrestling fans and '90s pop culture as the Ultimate Warrior, the man born James Helwig passed on April 8, 2014, in Scottsdale, Arizona, shortly after burying a long-standing hatchet with WWE. First, Warrior made amends with the company, becoming the first name announced to the WWE Hall of Fame, Class of 2014 (after leading promotional material for WWE 2K14 several months earlier). His induction on Saturday night was followed by a traditional introduction at WrestleMania XXX on Sunday and a brief in-ring appearance the following night. On Tuesday, Warrior died.
During his Hall of Fame induction speech and especially during his Monday night soapbox, Warrior spoke often of the legacy he created and the temporary nature of life. "Every man's heart one day beats its final beat, his lungs breath their final breath. If what that man did in his life makes the blood pulse through the body of others and makes them believe in something larger than life, his essence and spirit will be immortalized." Concluding, "I am the Ultimate Warrior, you (fans) are the Ultimate Warrior, and the spirit of the Ultimate Warrior will run forever!"
Whether he knew he would nearing his mortality or whether he was rattling off his quirky, fatalistic ramblings of old is a matter of conjecture. As he left behind a wife of 18 years and two young daughters, Warrior's death was unquestionably a tragedy, and there is no consolation to remedy their loss.
As for wrestling fans, our story of the Ultimate Warrior was a beautiful epic played out in living colour. Fans knew the Ultimate Warrior as a character (and, seemingly, as a person) was racing to the rapid beat of his own theme music. Many fans loved him for it. Some fans mocked him for it. Fans embraced him for it and laughed with him for it. Some people found themselves in all four categories, including myself.
While I cannot provide concrete evidence that the Ultimate Warrior was ever my favorite wrestler, I can honestly attest that he was definitely one of my favorites. Case in point, I attended WWE Fan Axxess this weekend, and SyFy Face-Off had a booth through which you could have your photo taken as one of your favorite wrestlers, including Hulk Hogan, Daniel Bryan, Bray Wyatt, Rey Mysterio, and others. Myself, I picked the Ultimate Warrior.
My unity to the Ultimate Warrior was etched by his passing. Not just because I was in attendance of WrestleMania weekend festivities, including his Hall of Fame Induction. Not just because the Scottsdale hotel where he collapsed is on the other side of the wall from where I work. But unwittingly honoring a man for his lifetime achievements before his own death drew stark comparisons to my own father's life. My father left his job of 10 years as hospital administrator to work his last few years before retirement as a pharmacist. His workers threw him a weeks-long retirement celebration. Two days into his new job, he died. All those who had been honoring him and thanking him for his accomplishments instantaneously started mourning him. Many voiced shock as "I cannot believe it" but it is so rare that a man who passes away before his time (my father was 50-years-old; Warrior was 54-years-old) is present as his impact is articulated by his peers and those who he influenced. Many say it's a lucky few. Some say it happens for those who accomplished his life's purpose.
In this most recent case, it leaves a legacy for the storytellers to continue, and it immortalizes a larger-than-life character who fulfilled his ultimate destiny.
Unfortunately, my cat's journey drew parallels to a similar journey of a far grander scale. A round-trip pilgrimage embraced by legions of cosmic voices and powered by rocket fuel. A preordained destiny into immorality and a grandiose celebration of its fulfillment for a sendoff.
Known to to wrestling fans and '90s pop culture as the Ultimate Warrior, the man born James Helwig passed on April 8, 2014, in Scottsdale, Arizona, shortly after burying a long-standing hatchet with WWE. First, Warrior made amends with the company, becoming the first name announced to the WWE Hall of Fame, Class of 2014 (after leading promotional material for WWE 2K14 several months earlier). His induction on Saturday night was followed by a traditional introduction at WrestleMania XXX on Sunday and a brief in-ring appearance the following night. On Tuesday, Warrior died.
During his Hall of Fame induction speech and especially during his Monday night soapbox, Warrior spoke often of the legacy he created and the temporary nature of life. "Every man's heart one day beats its final beat, his lungs breath their final breath. If what that man did in his life makes the blood pulse through the body of others and makes them believe in something larger than life, his essence and spirit will be immortalized." Concluding, "I am the Ultimate Warrior, you (fans) are the Ultimate Warrior, and the spirit of the Ultimate Warrior will run forever!"
Whether he knew he would nearing his mortality or whether he was rattling off his quirky, fatalistic ramblings of old is a matter of conjecture. As he left behind a wife of 18 years and two young daughters, Warrior's death was unquestionably a tragedy, and there is no consolation to remedy their loss.
As for wrestling fans, our story of the Ultimate Warrior was a beautiful epic played out in living colour. Fans knew the Ultimate Warrior as a character (and, seemingly, as a person) was racing to the rapid beat of his own theme music. Many fans loved him for it. Some fans mocked him for it. Fans embraced him for it and laughed with him for it. Some people found themselves in all four categories, including myself.
While I cannot provide concrete evidence that the Ultimate Warrior was ever my favorite wrestler, I can honestly attest that he was definitely one of my favorites. Case in point, I attended WWE Fan Axxess this weekend, and SyFy Face-Off had a booth through which you could have your photo taken as one of your favorite wrestlers, including Hulk Hogan, Daniel Bryan, Bray Wyatt, Rey Mysterio, and others. Myself, I picked the Ultimate Warrior.
My unity to the Ultimate Warrior was etched by his passing. Not just because I was in attendance of WrestleMania weekend festivities, including his Hall of Fame Induction. Not just because the Scottsdale hotel where he collapsed is on the other side of the wall from where I work. But unwittingly honoring a man for his lifetime achievements before his own death drew stark comparisons to my own father's life. My father left his job of 10 years as hospital administrator to work his last few years before retirement as a pharmacist. His workers threw him a weeks-long retirement celebration. Two days into his new job, he died. All those who had been honoring him and thanking him for his accomplishments instantaneously started mourning him. Many voiced shock as "I cannot believe it" but it is so rare that a man who passes away before his time (my father was 50-years-old; Warrior was 54-years-old) is present as his impact is articulated by his peers and those who he influenced. Many say it's a lucky few. Some say it happens for those who accomplished his life's purpose.
In this most recent case, it leaves a legacy for the storytellers to continue, and it immortalizes a larger-than-life character who fulfilled his ultimate destiny.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Slow & Steady Lessons
Everybody knows the fabled story of the tortoise and the hare, at least the primary lesson that "slow and steady wins the race." Not too long ago, I heard the phrase in reference to financial investing, and it took me a little while to warm up to the thought. Eventually, I wrote a blog about it and then I attempted to find images online matching the finishing moment, envisioning the drawing in the book from my childhood with the turtle tumbling over the finish line to win. Ya know, after stopping to pull the rabbit out of a hole that he had fallen in while looking back to check how far ahead he was.
That's when I realized that the entire Internet had no record of my version!
I grew up mainly knowing this obscure slant of the tale, and while I may have heard the proper version where the hare inexplicably takes a nap during the race, I never thought it was the most popular version. I always assumed that the one I knew was the one everyone was being taught. After all, the lesson was still the same.
Unless you actually analyze the moral of the story further.
Without question, the moral of the tortoise and the hare is "slow & steady wins the race." But why? If anything, the primary lesson from all versions is "never give up" or "always try your best" with a secondary lesson that "karma always wins."
I was amazed by this revelation. Mostly by the pure uniqueness of the version I had always known. I did multiple Internet searches in pursuit of this version, but each time I found absolutely nothing related to my version, but I found a few other amusing shifts in the story. The most common alternate version is that the bunny stopped to eat some carrots from a garden that he almost passed. After eating his fill of carrots, he got sleepy, which makes sense because overeating can make you sleepy. He decided to take a nap because he was so far ahead. That's where it syncs up with Aesop's fable.
Another more distant version that I found was from West Africa where the turtle tricked the rabbit by having three cousins appear to be him each time the rabbit passed a new turn, so the rabbit thought the turtle kept catching up and passing him by, only to try harder and harder to the point of exhaustion, at which point the competing turtle easily overtook him to win. (Actually, that version was especially unfair because the original turtle holed up near the finish line through the entire race, unless that rabbit was hated among the local animal kingdom, so a sub-lesson of humility was implied.)
Regardless, my version where the rabbit fell into a hole when he turned to look to see how far back the turtle was, and then pleaded with the turtle to pull him out of the hole when the turtle caught up to him. The turtle reluctantly agreed, and as he pulled the rabbit out, he tumbled across the finish line to win the race. That version was a bit serendipitous. If they were more than a tumble away from the finish line, then the well-rested bunny would have easily won (albeit, it would have been an empty victory with all the onlookers knowing that the turtle only lost because he stopped to help the rabbit).
Regardless, slow & steady won the race. Unlike the rabbit whose inability to focus made him unreliable to the point that he (A) forgot he was in a race, and stopped for food, (B) did not notice the difference between one turtle to another, or (C) hit a pitfall while watching what his opponent was doing.
That's when I realized that the entire Internet had no record of my version!
I grew up mainly knowing this obscure slant of the tale, and while I may have heard the proper version where the hare inexplicably takes a nap during the race, I never thought it was the most popular version. I always assumed that the one I knew was the one everyone was being taught. After all, the lesson was still the same.
Unless you actually analyze the moral of the story further.
Without question, the moral of the tortoise and the hare is "slow & steady wins the race." But why? If anything, the primary lesson from all versions is "never give up" or "always try your best" with a secondary lesson that "karma always wins."
I was amazed by this revelation. Mostly by the pure uniqueness of the version I had always known. I did multiple Internet searches in pursuit of this version, but each time I found absolutely nothing related to my version, but I found a few other amusing shifts in the story. The most common alternate version is that the bunny stopped to eat some carrots from a garden that he almost passed. After eating his fill of carrots, he got sleepy, which makes sense because overeating can make you sleepy. He decided to take a nap because he was so far ahead. That's where it syncs up with Aesop's fable.
Another more distant version that I found was from West Africa where the turtle tricked the rabbit by having three cousins appear to be him each time the rabbit passed a new turn, so the rabbit thought the turtle kept catching up and passing him by, only to try harder and harder to the point of exhaustion, at which point the competing turtle easily overtook him to win. (Actually, that version was especially unfair because the original turtle holed up near the finish line through the entire race, unless that rabbit was hated among the local animal kingdom, so a sub-lesson of humility was implied.)
Regardless, my version where the rabbit fell into a hole when he turned to look to see how far back the turtle was, and then pleaded with the turtle to pull him out of the hole when the turtle caught up to him. The turtle reluctantly agreed, and as he pulled the rabbit out, he tumbled across the finish line to win the race. That version was a bit serendipitous. If they were more than a tumble away from the finish line, then the well-rested bunny would have easily won (albeit, it would have been an empty victory with all the onlookers knowing that the turtle only lost because he stopped to help the rabbit).
Regardless, slow & steady won the race. Unlike the rabbit whose inability to focus made him unreliable to the point that he (A) forgot he was in a race, and stopped for food, (B) did not notice the difference between one turtle to another, or (C) hit a pitfall while watching what his opponent was doing.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Two & A Half Chances
I have a lot of "favorite" sit-coms. Both animated comedies and the live-action comedies ("action" usually takes a backseat there, you just have to roll with it). If there's a puppet interacting with actual humans, and good comedy (like ALF and/or Greg The Bunny, but clearly excluding Happily Ever After), then I am all-in! Usually, the comedy will not even need to be stellar if the premise strong enough. Case in point, I cannot remember too many moments of "genius" comedy during the entire run of Saved By The Bell, but I was an avid fan nonetheless.
Then, there is Two & A Half Men. The show itself is often a punchline (not unlike Full House of yesteryear, a show I still admittedly enjoy when I can). To one-time viewers, it's absolute trash. To its avid fans, it's fantastic. To me, it's a comedy truly worthy of applause -- and tip the hat to Charlie Sheen for saving the show.
The dust cleared so quickly from his public dissent into madness that it is forgettable today, but based on how quickly things resolved themselves, I am more than a little skeptical that the whole episode was not Charlie Sheen trying to get out of his contract with CBS.
For years, Two & A Half Men had established itself as *the* Monday night comedy (and the Monday night line-up on CBS was arguably the best of its time, although not as great as what NBC had on Thursday nights during its best years). On the show, Charlie Harper was a rich & shallow man living with his brother Alan and nephew Jake. Alan carried all the stress of split parenthood and making ends meet while Charlie just enjoyed the best of life with minimal effort.
The glue that kept the premise strong, however, was often overlooked by its fans. Deep in the first season, Alan was divorcing Judith, and his lawyer was named Laura (and portrayed by Heather Locklear, Charlie Sheen's Spin City love interest). The simple premise was that Alan had been staying with his brother until things worked out with his divorce, but Charlie Harper could not resist an extended-but-meaningless fling with Laura, after which she vindictively sought revenge by conceding to all of Judith's demands, leaving Alan broke and homeless. Consequently, Charlie could never actually evict Alan from the house, regardless how many empty threats he levied.
After six seasons, Charlie started to settle down with a wonderful woman named Chelsea. The pair got engaged, but then she called off the wedding. Regardless, Charlie had developed a lot during the relationship, and he was a new, better man for his lost love.
Unfortunately, the writers started to reverse that development. Charlie returned to his shallow ways, but the show could not find its groove. Then, the writers put Charlie in a relationship with his long-time stalker Rose (whose one-sided obsession with Charlie had been a wonderful source of humour since Season 1) when he thought she was married. The entire storyline made Charlie look like a dope, and the timing coincided perfectly with his public meltdown.
When Charlie Sheen was fired, the writers killed off Charlie Harper as a victim of Rose, who admittedly shoved him into a train during a romantic trip to Paris. At that point, the clunky writing reached new lows for a short period. Following a path of highly improbable circumstances, Alan saved the life of a suicidal billionaire named Walden Schmidt (Ashton Kutcher) to again permanently earn his keep in the house.
Not surprisingly, the strength of the show weakened when it swapped out its main lead for another one. Although it started off as no better than a spin-off from one successful to another with mostly the same cast, the writers quickly found a storyline to make Walden interesting where he posed as a poor computer programmer to woo a would-be fashion designer in the same financial straits.
The chemistry of the revised cast was strong, which gave the show new life. Albeit, the show's title no longer matched the premise. Exit Jake, who no longer fit the "half-man" billing as a young adult. Enter Jenny (Amber Tamblyn) as Charlie's estranged lesbian daughter with identical tendencies of her father. Like Alan's rent-free resident, the concept was a big stretch, but it was enough to silence the lowest-hanging fruit of criticism of the show.
While it may not be the best sit-com anymore nowadays, it has endured more changes than most shows after 10 seasons, and it is still strong. I have no doubt that the show would not have lasted as long if Charlie Sheen remained, especially if the writer's ideas when he left were an indication of how things were headed. If only Anger Management were as entertaining.
Then, there is Two & A Half Men. The show itself is often a punchline (not unlike Full House of yesteryear, a show I still admittedly enjoy when I can). To one-time viewers, it's absolute trash. To its avid fans, it's fantastic. To me, it's a comedy truly worthy of applause -- and tip the hat to Charlie Sheen for saving the show.
The dust cleared so quickly from his public dissent into madness that it is forgettable today, but based on how quickly things resolved themselves, I am more than a little skeptical that the whole episode was not Charlie Sheen trying to get out of his contract with CBS.
For years, Two & A Half Men had established itself as *the* Monday night comedy (and the Monday night line-up on CBS was arguably the best of its time, although not as great as what NBC had on Thursday nights during its best years). On the show, Charlie Harper was a rich & shallow man living with his brother Alan and nephew Jake. Alan carried all the stress of split parenthood and making ends meet while Charlie just enjoyed the best of life with minimal effort.
The glue that kept the premise strong, however, was often overlooked by its fans. Deep in the first season, Alan was divorcing Judith, and his lawyer was named Laura (and portrayed by Heather Locklear, Charlie Sheen's Spin City love interest). The simple premise was that Alan had been staying with his brother until things worked out with his divorce, but Charlie Harper could not resist an extended-but-meaningless fling with Laura, after which she vindictively sought revenge by conceding to all of Judith's demands, leaving Alan broke and homeless. Consequently, Charlie could never actually evict Alan from the house, regardless how many empty threats he levied.
After six seasons, Charlie started to settle down with a wonderful woman named Chelsea. The pair got engaged, but then she called off the wedding. Regardless, Charlie had developed a lot during the relationship, and he was a new, better man for his lost love.
Unfortunately, the writers started to reverse that development. Charlie returned to his shallow ways, but the show could not find its groove. Then, the writers put Charlie in a relationship with his long-time stalker Rose (whose one-sided obsession with Charlie had been a wonderful source of humour since Season 1) when he thought she was married. The entire storyline made Charlie look like a dope, and the timing coincided perfectly with his public meltdown.
When Charlie Sheen was fired, the writers killed off Charlie Harper as a victim of Rose, who admittedly shoved him into a train during a romantic trip to Paris. At that point, the clunky writing reached new lows for a short period. Following a path of highly improbable circumstances, Alan saved the life of a suicidal billionaire named Walden Schmidt (Ashton Kutcher) to again permanently earn his keep in the house.
Not surprisingly, the strength of the show weakened when it swapped out its main lead for another one. Although it started off as no better than a spin-off from one successful to another with mostly the same cast, the writers quickly found a storyline to make Walden interesting where he posed as a poor computer programmer to woo a would-be fashion designer in the same financial straits.
The chemistry of the revised cast was strong, which gave the show new life. Albeit, the show's title no longer matched the premise. Exit Jake, who no longer fit the "half-man" billing as a young adult. Enter Jenny (Amber Tamblyn) as Charlie's estranged lesbian daughter with identical tendencies of her father. Like Alan's rent-free resident, the concept was a big stretch, but it was enough to silence the lowest-hanging fruit of criticism of the show.
While it may not be the best sit-com anymore nowadays, it has endured more changes than most shows after 10 seasons, and it is still strong. I have no doubt that the show would not have lasted as long if Charlie Sheen remained, especially if the writer's ideas when he left were an indication of how things were headed. If only Anger Management were as entertaining.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Twitter > Facebook
When it comes to Social Networking Services ("SNS"), I prefer Twitter to Facebook considerably. There are numerous reasons why I maintain that preference, including (but not limited to) the 140-character limitation. Quite simply, limiting yourself to 140-characters is a good exercise in keeping social networking where it belongs. While both outlets have reports linking their overuse to depression, I have found those reports are more valid on Facebook. Twitter seems more casual and considerably less personal. While Facebook has endangered many people's household harmony, Twitter has endangered just as many people's livelihoods (even Steve Martin had Twitter trouble last month). But it is hard to take things too personally when everyone is invited to interact with each other.
In fact, Twitter's best asset for me is that strangers still openly interact with each other. I have never seen evidence of that on Facebook, and it seemed as though MySpace.com lost its cool factor when 90% of the profiles switched to private. The Internet provides us with the rare opportunity to meet strangers through SNS than our personal schedules would never permit. I met one of my closest Internet friends in June 1999 through ICQ when she just randomly asked me why guys are such (jerks). Since then, I have enjoyed getting an outside perspective from anywhere in the world, even as far as Korea.
That said, my primary use of Twitter is limited to cheering the Montreal Canadiens. It is very unlikely to find fellow Habs fans in Arizona, except at their now-annual games against the Coyotes. Again, my Twitter involvement is largely limited to cheer a sports team. That self-imposed limitation prevents me from spending "too much" time there.
Conversely, Facebook is a different mess altogether. Because a vast number of people retreated from Facebook in 2012 (at least per my timeline), people overusing Facebook have become far more noticeable now. I cannot help feeling that people who have 50% of the updates in my most current timeline are the Kip Drordy's of the world. I had an overbearing slew of recent updates from my favorite married couple recently, but the overwhelming majority of those updates was their getting tagged by her sister (who lives in the Eastern timezone while the rest of the family is in Arizona).
My main point from this comparison is that I joined MySpace.com on July 1, 2005, so by large, our SNS participation is less than 10 years old. Can something better evolve from here or will we return to more basic methods? Younger users seem to flock to new SNS options the fastest, from Instagram to Snapchat. At some point, I have to imagine that too much will become too much. During 2009, my favorite means of online communication was a basic message board (forum). Likewise, I have noticed many people who frequently comment on news articles know each other socially but not personally.
It will be interesting to see whether SNS remain a big part of our shared existence in another 10 years or if it was a passing fad.
In fact, Twitter's best asset for me is that strangers still openly interact with each other. I have never seen evidence of that on Facebook, and it seemed as though MySpace.com lost its cool factor when 90% of the profiles switched to private. The Internet provides us with the rare opportunity to meet strangers through SNS than our personal schedules would never permit. I met one of my closest Internet friends in June 1999 through ICQ when she just randomly asked me why guys are such (jerks). Since then, I have enjoyed getting an outside perspective from anywhere in the world, even as far as Korea.
That said, my primary use of Twitter is limited to cheering the Montreal Canadiens. It is very unlikely to find fellow Habs fans in Arizona, except at their now-annual games against the Coyotes. Again, my Twitter involvement is largely limited to cheer a sports team. That self-imposed limitation prevents me from spending "too much" time there.
Conversely, Facebook is a different mess altogether. Because a vast number of people retreated from Facebook in 2012 (at least per my timeline), people overusing Facebook have become far more noticeable now. I cannot help feeling that people who have 50% of the updates in my most current timeline are the Kip Drordy's of the world. I had an overbearing slew of recent updates from my favorite married couple recently, but the overwhelming majority of those updates was their getting tagged by her sister (who lives in the Eastern timezone while the rest of the family is in Arizona).
My main point from this comparison is that I joined MySpace.com on July 1, 2005, so by large, our SNS participation is less than 10 years old. Can something better evolve from here or will we return to more basic methods? Younger users seem to flock to new SNS options the fastest, from Instagram to Snapchat. At some point, I have to imagine that too much will become too much. During 2009, my favorite means of online communication was a basic message board (forum). Likewise, I have noticed many people who frequently comment on news articles know each other socially but not personally.
It will be interesting to see whether SNS remain a big part of our shared existence in another 10 years or if it was a passing fad.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)