Last night we watched The Pelican Brief starring Denzel Washington and Julia Roberts. I'd already seen it several times, but we purchased the DVD at Wal-Mart last Christmas for $3 and had not yet watched "our" copy. It's kind of a bizarre DVD - no menus, no special features. You just put the disc in and it starts playing. And halfway through you have to turn it over to the other side - weird. Anyways, good movie.
I realized that I've fallen behind on John Grisham novels, though. I started reading them in high school and read six of his first seven books. I still haven't read his first book, A Time To Kill (probably because it doesn't start with The), and I haven't read any of his books that have come out in the last 10 years. For someone that is always looking for something to read but never finding it, this is a bit odd. I don't have an explanation. I guess I was looking to branch out or I knew if I started one I'd just read it straight through.
I've heard some critics say he's not a good writer. I don't know. I probably don't read enough to know the difference. He's a fairly easy read - I could never figure out what Tom Clancy was talking about in his books, although Patriot Games was fairly readable. The only Grisham book I didn't like that much was The Chamber.
I've only seen four of the movie adaptations (the word adaptation might be a bit of a stretch, however - he sold the rights to The Pelican Brief before he wrote the book) and both The Client and The Pelican Brief are outstanding. I didn't like The Firm or The Rainmaker that much. But both of those might have been a case of watching the movie too soon after reading the book.
So the next time I'm at the library I guess I'll have to pick one of his titles up.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Most Crazy Thing I've Heard Today
My favorite activist organization - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - is up to their old tricks once again. I thought the most crazy request I'd ever heard from PETA was when they wanted the Green Bay Packers to change their nickname in order to protect animal rights. But now they have penned a letter to the cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc., asking them to consider replacing cow's milk used in the production of ice cream with human breast milk. They got the idea from some wackmobile in Switzerland who was doing it in his restaurant. They want to lessen the suffering of dairy cows, so their solution is to pay women to give them breast milk. As April Zesbaugh of 850 KOA said, "What about the suffering of women?"
I can't imagine Ben & Jerry's ever doing this - that's a huge risk to take with your product - but if they did, think of all the new creative names they could come up with: Mammary Swirl. Mom's Crunch. Baby Food. . .
I can't imagine Ben & Jerry's ever doing this - that's a huge risk to take with your product - but if they did, think of all the new creative names they could come up with: Mammary Swirl. Mom's Crunch. Baby Food. . .
The Least Crazy Thing I've Heard Today
Clay Aiken is gay. After years of speculation, he finally owned up to it in this week's People magazine. The headline - "Yes, I'm Gay". I wonder what other scoops People has in store for us:
Ruben Studdard - "I'm Really Big"
Paula Abdul - "Sometimes I Drink"
Taylor Hicks - "I am Prematurely Gray".
I wonder if someone at People had to write the gay Clay story up last week, or if they've had it in a filing cabinet ready to go for the last five years.
The clincher for me personally on this matter was when he had the in-vitro baby with the woman old enough to be his mom.
Ruben Studdard - "I'm Really Big"
Paula Abdul - "Sometimes I Drink"
Taylor Hicks - "I am Prematurely Gray".
I wonder if someone at People had to write the gay Clay story up last week, or if they've had it in a filing cabinet ready to go for the last five years.
The clincher for me personally on this matter was when he had the in-vitro baby with the woman old enough to be his mom.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Have Your Accounting Cake and Eat it Too
I will now attempt a post that is not about sports or politics.
Two years ago today I interviewed with two public accounting firms in the Denver area. I bought a plane ticket and flew to Colorado to seek employment after failing to get hired anywhere in North Carolina. The first interview was the one that originally led me to try my luck in Colorado - one of the owners and another guy that I corresponded with were LDS. So it seemed like a good connection. But I didn't end up working for them. Although I did see the owner of that firm in the temple a year later - he asked me to do a family file name for him - but I'm not sure if he remembered me at all.
I went to the second interview later that afternoon and talked to both owners for about an hour and a half. It really didn't go that much different than any other interview I'd ever had - but I remember being impressed by the owners. They were so unpretentious - which is not a common thing when seeking a job in public accounting. I thought I would enjoy working for the firm. They called a few days later and offered me a job.
When I was in the early stages of job-seeking, I had lots of opportunities to talk to professionals. Usually one of the first questions they would ask was, "Audit or tax?" I think that my answers varied - but what I was really thinking can be summed up by the teenaged kid who gave Geena Davis a ride to the Suds Bucket in the movie A League of Their Own - "Can't we do both?"
Almost all firms make you choose one path or the other. They always claim you can switch later, but who knows how easy that is in reality. However, I do both audit and tax at my job, as do all my co-workers. I can't imagine having it any other way. The variety is great because sometimes you get tired of auditing and vice versa. I'm so glad I wound up not being forced to pick one. Otherwise I probably would have already dropped out of public accounting.
If you told the recruiters you weren't sure which one you wanted to pick, they always brought up that the main difference was that tax accountants worked out of the office while auditors spent most of their time at client locations. So, if you liked having your "own space" you should probably choose tax. Which is kind of stupid advice. I figured I should probably choose tax since I'm an introvert and kind of a homebody.
But that would have been a mistake. If I had to be in my office eight hours a day, five days a week, every week. . . I probably would have dropped out of public accounting, unless I had already jumped out the window to my untimely death first. I love having my own office - but after three or four weeks solid in the office, it gets really old. But then it's time to go on an audit, which is a great change of scenery. And then after a couple of weeks on the road, it's great to go back to your own office for a few days. Again, I'm glad it's not one or the other.
Travel is pretty limited. Almost all of our clients are located between Colorado Springs and Fort Collins, with a few more in the mountains. I go on exactly one overnight trip per year, to Avon, which is all of two nights in February. Sometimes I think it would be fun to get out and see more of the country. But then I think of what a hassle air travel is.
I found the right situation for me and succeeded - which was no surprise to me - I knew I was smart enough to do the work. I just didn't have the chops to get a job at a Big Four firm. Which is fine with me - it's just kind of a rite of passage for accountants to start out at Deloitte or one of those. I'm fine with skipping that rite. If I had wound up at a pretentious firm where the partners wear blue shirts with white collars I probably would have already dropped out of public accounting, if not fired for punching one of those Big 4 snobs. Lucky for me I'm not much of a butt-kisser.
Two years ago today I interviewed with two public accounting firms in the Denver area. I bought a plane ticket and flew to Colorado to seek employment after failing to get hired anywhere in North Carolina. The first interview was the one that originally led me to try my luck in Colorado - one of the owners and another guy that I corresponded with were LDS. So it seemed like a good connection. But I didn't end up working for them. Although I did see the owner of that firm in the temple a year later - he asked me to do a family file name for him - but I'm not sure if he remembered me at all.
I went to the second interview later that afternoon and talked to both owners for about an hour and a half. It really didn't go that much different than any other interview I'd ever had - but I remember being impressed by the owners. They were so unpretentious - which is not a common thing when seeking a job in public accounting. I thought I would enjoy working for the firm. They called a few days later and offered me a job.
When I was in the early stages of job-seeking, I had lots of opportunities to talk to professionals. Usually one of the first questions they would ask was, "Audit or tax?" I think that my answers varied - but what I was really thinking can be summed up by the teenaged kid who gave Geena Davis a ride to the Suds Bucket in the movie A League of Their Own - "Can't we do both?"
Almost all firms make you choose one path or the other. They always claim you can switch later, but who knows how easy that is in reality. However, I do both audit and tax at my job, as do all my co-workers. I can't imagine having it any other way. The variety is great because sometimes you get tired of auditing and vice versa. I'm so glad I wound up not being forced to pick one. Otherwise I probably would have already dropped out of public accounting.
If you told the recruiters you weren't sure which one you wanted to pick, they always brought up that the main difference was that tax accountants worked out of the office while auditors spent most of their time at client locations. So, if you liked having your "own space" you should probably choose tax. Which is kind of stupid advice. I figured I should probably choose tax since I'm an introvert and kind of a homebody.
But that would have been a mistake. If I had to be in my office eight hours a day, five days a week, every week. . . I probably would have dropped out of public accounting, unless I had already jumped out the window to my untimely death first. I love having my own office - but after three or four weeks solid in the office, it gets really old. But then it's time to go on an audit, which is a great change of scenery. And then after a couple of weeks on the road, it's great to go back to your own office for a few days. Again, I'm glad it's not one or the other.
Travel is pretty limited. Almost all of our clients are located between Colorado Springs and Fort Collins, with a few more in the mountains. I go on exactly one overnight trip per year, to Avon, which is all of two nights in February. Sometimes I think it would be fun to get out and see more of the country. But then I think of what a hassle air travel is.
I found the right situation for me and succeeded - which was no surprise to me - I knew I was smart enough to do the work. I just didn't have the chops to get a job at a Big Four firm. Which is fine with me - it's just kind of a rite of passage for accountants to start out at Deloitte or one of those. I'm fine with skipping that rite. If I had wound up at a pretentious firm where the partners wear blue shirts with white collars I probably would have already dropped out of public accounting, if not fired for punching one of those Big 4 snobs. Lucky for me I'm not much of a butt-kisser.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Sucktember
So there's my attempt at coining a new term. A failed attempt, I guess, because I just googled "Sucktember" and there were 120 results. So it's not knew. But maybe I'll hurry and print it up on some T-shirts. Do you think they'll sell? Or do you think the Colorado Rockies Baseball Club will attempt to copyright "Sucktember" for their exclusive use?
Has anything been more painful to follow than the National League West this season? The Arizona Diamondbacks jumped out to a fast start and then said, "Hey, guys, you know what? We changed our minds - is anyone else interested in winning this thing?" The Rockies had several opportunities to jump all over that and take control. And several times it appeared they were ready to do just that - they'd go on a nice little streak, and just when the time was right - they'd crap out and do something like get swept by the Washington Nationals.
The Rockies finally surrendered with a nice seven-game losing streak earlier this month. The D-backs were swept by the Dodgers and handed the division over at that point. Whatever. I don't really watch baseball anymore. I saw half of the All-Star Game this year and maybe I'll watch some of the playoffs (although listening to Tim McCarver and Joe Buck is a huge deterrent). I didn't even listen to the Rockies on 850 KOA much this year because there was no point. I thought I would get to Coors Field for at least one game this summer but I never made it.
I don't know what the point of this post even is. I guess just to say, "Yep, these are the Rockies I know. Nothing says Colorado baseball like 76-86."
Has anything been more painful to follow than the National League West this season? The Arizona Diamondbacks jumped out to a fast start and then said, "Hey, guys, you know what? We changed our minds - is anyone else interested in winning this thing?" The Rockies had several opportunities to jump all over that and take control. And several times it appeared they were ready to do just that - they'd go on a nice little streak, and just when the time was right - they'd crap out and do something like get swept by the Washington Nationals.
The Rockies finally surrendered with a nice seven-game losing streak earlier this month. The D-backs were swept by the Dodgers and handed the division over at that point. Whatever. I don't really watch baseball anymore. I saw half of the All-Star Game this year and maybe I'll watch some of the playoffs (although listening to Tim McCarver and Joe Buck is a huge deterrent). I didn't even listen to the Rockies on 850 KOA much this year because there was no point. I thought I would get to Coors Field for at least one game this summer but I never made it.
I don't know what the point of this post even is. I guess just to say, "Yep, these are the Rockies I know. Nothing says Colorado baseball like 76-86."
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Broncos: Two-and-Oh!
Let's talk about that Broncos-Chargers game on Sunday. Wow! Where does that rank for all-time best Broncos games? For regular season games, I'd say easily top ten, maybe top five. I don't know. I've never sat down and made the list. Probably like everyone else, I thought they were sunk when Jay Cutler was intercepted at the goal line and the Chargers immediately turned around and scored a touchdown to take a 38-31 lead, completing their comeback from 18 points down. But no - the Broncos come right back down the field. Cutler turns the ball over once again deep in Chargers' territory, but thanks to the small miracle of an inadvertant whistle, the Broncos retain possession. They score a touchdown on fourth-and-goal from the two, and then Mike Shanahan holds up two fingers. I thought it was the right call all the way - win or lose, and one only a coach with Shanahan's job security can make. And so Cutler throws another dart to Eddie Royal. Broncos win.
Going in, I thought this was a huge game for the Broncos. If they had ANY ideas about winning the AFC West, they NEEDED to beat the Chargers in Denver. If they failed, they were probably no better than a wildcard contender. But now they have a two-game lead on the Chargers and suddenly, the AFC West appears to be theirs to lose.
I'm a pretty heavy consumer of Denver sports media, especially as it pertains to the Broncos. And people have been dumping on the Broncos since training camp opened up. The consensus was that they would be no better than 8-8 this year and it was pretty much the bleakest outlook of the past quarter-century. I'm usually an optimist when it comes to the Broncos, but I didn't know what to think with all the negativity swirling around me.
I went to the Broncos-Cowboys preseason game after a week of listening to the sports yakkers debate all week about whether the Cowboys would be 13-3 and go to the Super Bowl, or go 14-2 and go to the Super Bowl. They talked about how big and mean Dallas was and how Denver wasn't anywhere in their league. And then the Broncos came out and worked over the Cowboys for a half as Jay Cutler looked really good and Tony Romo-Simpson didn't do anything. Granted, it was the preseason, but still. . . maybe these Broncos weren't going to be so bad. And then they went out and did the same to the mighty Packers of Green Bay the following week.
Everytime I went through the Broncos schedule, I kept coming up with 11-5. No worse than 10-6. I was going to post all my predictions, but I didn't. Because I felt like I was probably looking at it through orange-colored spectacles. So I kept quiet and took the wait-and-see approach. I expected a tough game in Oakland - alas, the Broncos blew them to pieces. And now, they're 2-0. Suddenly 11-5 seems very possible. The schedule isn't too tough - Miami, Atlanta, Kansas City twice, Oakland again, Cleveland. . . I'm just saying.
I realize the Broncos also started 2-0 last year and then fell apart. So we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves just yet. But there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic. The Broncos offense won't be their downfall. They haven't been this loaded receiver-wise for awhile - Marshall, Royal, Scheffler, Graham, Stokley. The offensive line seems okay despite what the doomsayers might have led you to believe. They're scoring touchdowns consistenly, not settling for field goals. I guess we'll see what the defense does as the season goes along. It's probably not a championship-caliber group, but if the offense continues to averge 40 points per game that won't matter.
Going in, I thought this was a huge game for the Broncos. If they had ANY ideas about winning the AFC West, they NEEDED to beat the Chargers in Denver. If they failed, they were probably no better than a wildcard contender. But now they have a two-game lead on the Chargers and suddenly, the AFC West appears to be theirs to lose.
I'm a pretty heavy consumer of Denver sports media, especially as it pertains to the Broncos. And people have been dumping on the Broncos since training camp opened up. The consensus was that they would be no better than 8-8 this year and it was pretty much the bleakest outlook of the past quarter-century. I'm usually an optimist when it comes to the Broncos, but I didn't know what to think with all the negativity swirling around me.
I went to the Broncos-Cowboys preseason game after a week of listening to the sports yakkers debate all week about whether the Cowboys would be 13-3 and go to the Super Bowl, or go 14-2 and go to the Super Bowl. They talked about how big and mean Dallas was and how Denver wasn't anywhere in their league. And then the Broncos came out and worked over the Cowboys for a half as Jay Cutler looked really good and Tony Romo-Simpson didn't do anything. Granted, it was the preseason, but still. . . maybe these Broncos weren't going to be so bad. And then they went out and did the same to the mighty Packers of Green Bay the following week.
Everytime I went through the Broncos schedule, I kept coming up with 11-5. No worse than 10-6. I was going to post all my predictions, but I didn't. Because I felt like I was probably looking at it through orange-colored spectacles. So I kept quiet and took the wait-and-see approach. I expected a tough game in Oakland - alas, the Broncos blew them to pieces. And now, they're 2-0. Suddenly 11-5 seems very possible. The schedule isn't too tough - Miami, Atlanta, Kansas City twice, Oakland again, Cleveland. . . I'm just saying.
I realize the Broncos also started 2-0 last year and then fell apart. So we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves just yet. But there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic. The Broncos offense won't be their downfall. They haven't been this loaded receiver-wise for awhile - Marshall, Royal, Scheffler, Graham, Stokley. The offensive line seems okay despite what the doomsayers might have led you to believe. They're scoring touchdowns consistenly, not settling for field goals. I guess we'll see what the defense does as the season goes along. It's probably not a championship-caliber group, but if the offense continues to averge 40 points per game that won't matter.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
A Real American Problem
I've been real political lately, which isn't like me, so I apologize. But I have to share a brilliant quote from today's Denver Post, from Toni Panetta, the political director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado. The context is that Ms. Panetta is complaining that John McCain has opposed funding for programs that would provide birth control to low-income women:
Panetta challenged McCain to look into the eyes of a mother "who struggles to balance the checkbook and make a mortgage payment while choosing between whether to fill a gas tank to take her kids to school or to fill her monthly birth control prescription."
?????????????????????????
Panetta challenged McCain to look into the eyes of a mother "who struggles to balance the checkbook and make a mortgage payment while choosing between whether to fill a gas tank to take her kids to school or to fill her monthly birth control prescription."
?????????????????????????
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Veepstakes (I Hate That Word)
When I heard that John McCain selected Alaska Gov Sarah Palin as his running mate, my first thought was - "Who?" My second thought was - "Wow, a politician who's easy on the eyes!" I'm not sure what my third thought was, but I think it was something along the lines of what Tom Hanks said in A League of Their Own after he knocked down Stillwell with a baseball mitt - "We're gonna win!"
I thought it was interesting that Obama has been talking about how he is going to offer a change from the same old Washington politics - and so he picks fusty old Joe Biden, who has been in the Senate for 35 years. And McCain, after criticizing Obama's lack of experience, goes out and picks Sarah Palin, who the average American had never heard of before last Friday.
I was voting for McCain all along, but my vote was based mostly on the fact that he's not Obama or Hillary and also because he did a fine job hosting Saturday Night Live about 5 years ago. And of course, you can't go wrong with the POW thing. But picking Sarah Palin - that gave his whole campaign a jolt of energy. Something that wouldn't have happened if he had picked Joe Lieberman or Mitt Romney (unless you're Mormon) or a reanimated Jimmy Carter zombie.
What a biography she has - born in Idaho, raised in Alaska, won a state basketball championship, Miss Alaska runner-up, graduate of the University of Idaho (The Vandals), worked as a sports anchor, husband is one-quarter eskimo, was mayor of Wasilla (pop. < 10,000) just six years ago, kicked corrupt political butt in Alaska, has something like an 80 percent approval rating as governor, mother of five, had a baby at age 44 while in office, the baby has Down Syndrome. Fascinating stuff.
All other things being equal, I'm always going to vote for the POW from Arizona and the Lady Governor from Alaska over the Harvard guy and his crusty old East Coast running mate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)