I recently was gone on a Pioneer Trek for four days. It was kind of nice to be shut off from the world for a brief period of time. No newspapers, no internet, no cell phones, no podcasts, no TV, no radio.
I was a bit curious if anything big had happened newswise. Well, I guess not! Because pretty much what everything was talking about when we returned was the whole story with Cambridge, Massachusetts police sgt. James Crowley (the Lion) and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (the Witch).
If you haven't heard what happened, I ask if you have been living on a space satellite. I don't know if I've read a full news account of this story, but as far as I know, the Witch broke into his own house. Some lady called the cops. The Lion shows up and tells the Witch that he's gonna need to see some ID. The Witch has some contentious words for the Lion. The Lion arrests the Witch.
If you can believe this, the Lion and the Witch are of different races. Here. In America. In 2009! Who woulda thunk it! What has the world come to!
And anytime people of different races have a disagreement, there is only one possible explanation. One, or the other, or both, is racist. There is just simply no other conceivable reason that two people of different races would not see eye to eye. Even the lady who called the cops is a racist. Which she probably is. I mean, whenever I see white people breaking into houses, I just let it go.
That brings us to the Obama. As if he wasn't busy enough seizing private companies or nationalizing health care, he felt the need to get involved in local law enforcement by saying that the police had "acted stupidly." But I guess he felt obligated since he is a black man who went to Harvard. I'm sure that if Mitt Romney were president, he totally would have the back of any BYU professor who was arrested by a Latino cop in Provo.
Which, shockingly, didn't go over really well. Could it be that the Obama, he of the golden tongue, spoke out of turn?
So the Obama decides to smooth things over by having the Lion and the Witch down to D.C. for a tour of his pad and a few brews. And so, the "Beer Summit" was born. I'm not sure what the point of this activity was or why everyone was so excited about it. I mean, in the Denver Post, on the day of the summit, they had a full-color front page spread detailing the exact brand of beer that each man was going to drink at the White House. That seemed to be a little much.
Anyways, I'm not sure if I accomplished anything in my retelling of the classic tale of The Lion, the Witch, and the Obama. But it felt good to get it out. And it feels good knowing that should I have any trouble with local police that perhaps the Obama would talk some junk on my behalf and then fly me out to socialize with the officer who accosted me.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Tales from Cherry Creek
Sometimes I can't think of anything to blog about. The solution? Pick up the newspaper and read about some of the insanity going on in the world.
In the July 19 edition of The Denver Post, columnist Penny Parker tells a tale of restaurant dress codes in richie Cherry Creek. Scott Coors, a member of the Coors brewing family, was headed to dine at some place called Houston's (never heard of it) with his "partner", Dr. Dave Hurt. At first I was unsure if Parker meant his business parter or. . . well, you know.
Anyways, they were not allowed a table by the restaurant hostess because the Dr. was wearing a sleeveless button down shirt. They asked for the manager, who was apparently some sort of pal of theirs (again, Parker didn't say what kind of pal), who backed his hostess and kicked the dynamic duo out of the restaurant.
So Coors apparently texted his pal PP at the Post to vent his anger about his partner being humiliated by Houston's. (I'm surprised it took the restaurant to humiliate him - I would have thought stepping out of the house would have done it.) He also thought it was gender discrimination because women could get in wearing no sleeves. And so they're not ever going back to Houston's and blah blah blah.
I applaud the restaurant for not allowing the Dr. in wearing a sleeveless button down shirt. Heck, if I was managing a Sizzler's I would not have given him a table. Tank tops are one thing, but sleeveless button down? That's just creepy. He was lucky they didn't call the police.
I don't think it was gender discrimination. It's socially acceptable for women to have bare arms, just as it is acceptable for them to wear skirts. It's not so for men, unless you're on an island somewhere. But it might very well have been weirdo discrimination.
And as far as what kind of partners these two were - I think the sleeveless button down shirt answers that question.
In the July 19 edition of The Denver Post, columnist Penny Parker tells a tale of restaurant dress codes in richie Cherry Creek. Scott Coors, a member of the Coors brewing family, was headed to dine at some place called Houston's (never heard of it) with his "partner", Dr. Dave Hurt. At first I was unsure if Parker meant his business parter or. . . well, you know.
Anyways, they were not allowed a table by the restaurant hostess because the Dr. was wearing a sleeveless button down shirt. They asked for the manager, who was apparently some sort of pal of theirs (again, Parker didn't say what kind of pal), who backed his hostess and kicked the dynamic duo out of the restaurant.
So Coors apparently texted his pal PP at the Post to vent his anger about his partner being humiliated by Houston's. (I'm surprised it took the restaurant to humiliate him - I would have thought stepping out of the house would have done it.) He also thought it was gender discrimination because women could get in wearing no sleeves. And so they're not ever going back to Houston's and blah blah blah.
I applaud the restaurant for not allowing the Dr. in wearing a sleeveless button down shirt. Heck, if I was managing a Sizzler's I would not have given him a table. Tank tops are one thing, but sleeveless button down? That's just creepy. He was lucky they didn't call the police.
I don't think it was gender discrimination. It's socially acceptable for women to have bare arms, just as it is acceptable for them to wear skirts. It's not so for men, unless you're on an island somewhere. But it might very well have been weirdo discrimination.
And as far as what kind of partners these two were - I think the sleeveless button down shirt answers that question.
Friday, July 17, 2009
BIG LOTS! of dvds
Big Lots! has a sale this week of various TV show box sets for $6. Normally, I don't really go to Big Lots! but we couldn't resist checking this out. Our haul:
The Dukes of Hazzard, season 2
The Dukes of Hazzard, season 4
The Dukes of Hazzard, season 5 (the infamous Coy and Vance season)
The Dukes of Hazzard, season 6
The O.C., season 2
NFL Films, Inside the Vault, volumes 1-3
There were some others there at the time - Dallas, and season 1 of Night Court, but we passed on those. So we acquired many Big Nights! of Big Entertainment! for under $40. I imagine the original retail price of those sets was probably $200 total. Not bad.
The Dukes of Hazzard, season 2
The Dukes of Hazzard, season 4
The Dukes of Hazzard, season 5 (the infamous Coy and Vance season)
The Dukes of Hazzard, season 6
The O.C., season 2
NFL Films, Inside the Vault, volumes 1-3
There were some others there at the time - Dallas, and season 1 of Night Court, but we passed on those. So we acquired many Big Nights! of Big Entertainment! for under $40. I imagine the original retail price of those sets was probably $200 total. Not bad.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Green State Tax Evaluation
We have a client that files a tax return in 38 states. I was curious while preparing this 900+ page monster - which states require the wasting of the most paper in order to file a return? So when I finally got around to organizing the return for our files, I decided to actually count the number of pages per state.
This client has multiple shareholders, so the result might be slightly different if it were a company with fewer shareholders - since some states have you put all the shareholder information on one page and others have a separate page for each shareholder. And I don't believe that the amount of business activity in the state affects the size of the return too much - some of the biggest wasters were states in which there was little to no activity.
With those qualifiers in place, here are the results:
LEAST GREEN STATES
1. California (52 pages)
2. Massachusetts (38)
3. Indiana (35)
3. Kentucky (35)
5. Illinois (34)
MOST GREEN STATES
1. Georgia (6)
1. Texas (6)
3. Montana (7)
4. Maine (9)
4. New Mexico (9)
4. Tennessee (9)
This client has multiple shareholders, so the result might be slightly different if it were a company with fewer shareholders - since some states have you put all the shareholder information on one page and others have a separate page for each shareholder. And I don't believe that the amount of business activity in the state affects the size of the return too much - some of the biggest wasters were states in which there was little to no activity.
With those qualifiers in place, here are the results:
LEAST GREEN STATES
1. California (52 pages)
2. Massachusetts (38)
3. Indiana (35)
3. Kentucky (35)
5. Illinois (34)
MOST GREEN STATES
1. Georgia (6)
1. Texas (6)
3. Montana (7)
4. Maine (9)
4. New Mexico (9)
4. Tennessee (9)
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Why the Colorado Rockies are Lame
I was frustrated with the Rockies earlier this year. I seriously wanted them to just move the team somewhere else and then burn Coors Field to the ground and pretend the whole major league baseball in Denver thing never happened.
Then they finally set fire to something - Clint Hurdle's managerial job. And the Rockies went on their June tear, winning 21 of 25 games at one point - and presto, they are now back in the running for the playoffs. Only they are still 9 games behind the Dodgers in the NL West, so it is unlikely that they will win the division. So they are competing with a slew of other teams for the NL wildcard. Everyone seems to agree that the Rockies don't have enough to earn playing time in October as presently constituted.
This past week the Toronto Blue Jays said their ace pitcher, Roy Halladay, was available for trade. If you're not familiar with the guy, he is a six-time All-Star who won the 2003 Cy Young Award. His record is 74-30 over the past five years. And. . . he's a Colorado native. He pitched for Arvada West High School.
So, I, like many other like-minded fans, immediately thought this would be perfect for the Rockies. An ace pitcher comes home to help the local team make a run back to the World Series. It's sort of the baseball version of the Chauncey Billups story. Maybe Roy Halladay would even decide to wear #7 for his first start and John Elway would come to throw out the first pitch.
So will the Rockies do it? Nope. No one is even talking about them doing it. Except for local talk radio pundits who mostly talk about how stupid the Rockies are for not doing it. It's similar to the "will they sign Matt Holliday?" debate - you already know that they won't do anything, so what is the debate? So Halladay (almost the same name, but different guy) will end up with the Phillies or Angels or on any contending team that doesn't wear purple pinstripes.
It's not like the Rockies don't have players to trade. They've been crapping their pants for two years trying to figure out what to do with two third basemen - the incumbent Garrett Atkins and the prospect Ian Stewart. Now, they've apparently decided that since Atkins is struggling at the plate this year he is therefore only good to be traded for a relief pitcher. I say keep Atkins, and trade Stewart as part of a deal to get Halladay.
Of course, just Stewart wouldn't be enough. But I suppose the Rockies could throw in an outfielder since they have four guys to play two outfield spots - Carlos Gonzalez, Dexter Fowler, Ryan Spilborghs, and Seth Smith. And then let the Blue Jays pick a couple of pitchers from the farm system - because chances are whatever pitching prospects the Rockies have will not grow up to have stellar careers in Denver anyways.
But the Rockies won't do it. They won't even think about doing it. It goes against their mission statement, which is to consistently win 75 games per year.
Maybe we should go back to that burning Coors Field to the ground idea. . .
Then they finally set fire to something - Clint Hurdle's managerial job. And the Rockies went on their June tear, winning 21 of 25 games at one point - and presto, they are now back in the running for the playoffs. Only they are still 9 games behind the Dodgers in the NL West, so it is unlikely that they will win the division. So they are competing with a slew of other teams for the NL wildcard. Everyone seems to agree that the Rockies don't have enough to earn playing time in October as presently constituted.
This past week the Toronto Blue Jays said their ace pitcher, Roy Halladay, was available for trade. If you're not familiar with the guy, he is a six-time All-Star who won the 2003 Cy Young Award. His record is 74-30 over the past five years. And. . . he's a Colorado native. He pitched for Arvada West High School.
So, I, like many other like-minded fans, immediately thought this would be perfect for the Rockies. An ace pitcher comes home to help the local team make a run back to the World Series. It's sort of the baseball version of the Chauncey Billups story. Maybe Roy Halladay would even decide to wear #7 for his first start and John Elway would come to throw out the first pitch.
So will the Rockies do it? Nope. No one is even talking about them doing it. Except for local talk radio pundits who mostly talk about how stupid the Rockies are for not doing it. It's similar to the "will they sign Matt Holliday?" debate - you already know that they won't do anything, so what is the debate? So Halladay (almost the same name, but different guy) will end up with the Phillies or Angels or on any contending team that doesn't wear purple pinstripes.
It's not like the Rockies don't have players to trade. They've been crapping their pants for two years trying to figure out what to do with two third basemen - the incumbent Garrett Atkins and the prospect Ian Stewart. Now, they've apparently decided that since Atkins is struggling at the plate this year he is therefore only good to be traded for a relief pitcher. I say keep Atkins, and trade Stewart as part of a deal to get Halladay.
Of course, just Stewart wouldn't be enough. But I suppose the Rockies could throw in an outfielder since they have four guys to play two outfield spots - Carlos Gonzalez, Dexter Fowler, Ryan Spilborghs, and Seth Smith. And then let the Blue Jays pick a couple of pitchers from the farm system - because chances are whatever pitching prospects the Rockies have will not grow up to have stellar careers in Denver anyways.
But the Rockies won't do it. They won't even think about doing it. It goes against their mission statement, which is to consistently win 75 games per year.
Maybe we should go back to that burning Coors Field to the ground idea. . .
The object of the Rockies' desire. . . not
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Methinks
Methinks Brandon Marshall would have a better chance of getting his desired contract extension from the Denver Broncos if he could go a full calendar year without getting in trouble with the law and/or shredding his arm in a TV set.
The Broncos need Marshall in order to be successful, yet why make a commitment to someone that you can't trust to be on the field?
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
What Gives? or The Times, They are a Changin'
As a kid, I played little league. I also went to birthday parties. And later on, I did graduate from high school.
My kids go to birthday parties. And they play little league or other kid sports. And we have just passed graduation season. I've noticed that things don't seem to be the same.
It seems that a typical birthday party nowadays requires that the host(ess) provide some sort of gift bag filled with goodies comparable in quality to what you might find at an Oriental Trading Co. clearance sale. Hey, we do it too whenever we throw a b-day party for the kiddies. . . I'm just saying that I never remember getting or giving any parting gift when I was jamming on the birthday party circuit back in the 1980's. I'm just wondering who invented this tradition and how it became birthday law.
My kids aren't quite as sporty as I am - my son played soccer when he was four and HATED it. It was soccer, so I can't totally blame him. My daughter is currently playing t-ball. One thing I've noticed in both cases is the overabundance of snacks. There is a snack after every practice and every game. The parents of team members take turns bringing the snacks week after week.
I played five years of little league and can never remember having a team-organized snack. Not after practice, not after games. I don't even remember being provided with water. It was a long time ago, so maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems like if you required sustenance after the game, your parents were stopping at the Loaf and Jug on the way home.
I can remember one time - one of the moms told us that if we won our game, she would buy us all a pop. At the time, this seemed incredibly generous - wow, a pop! However, in the context of 2009, it seems rather stingy - "I'll give you a snack, alright - but only if you win your &*^%$ baseball game!"
I guess we were just tougher in those days. If we got hungry at practice, we ate gravel or a piece of our shirt. And then at the games, we would just eat the other team.
I suppose the snack concept was invented around the same time as the concept of a "soccer mom". I'm not sure if this might be one of those chicken-or-the-egg dilemmas.
Lastly, what is the deal with graduation parties? A couple of weeks ago one of my co-workers spent the entire weekend going around to about a half-dozen celebrations. I'm quite certain that these didn't exist when I graduated high school. I didn't have one - other than maybe some relatives having some grub over at the house. And I'm not even sure I had that much. And none of my friends had a party. At least, not that I was invited to. I don't even think I knew graduation parties existed at the time. But it seems pretty commonplace now to open up the house to everyone you've ever known.
No one ever threw a party for me! And I've been the good guy!!!!
My kids go to birthday parties. And they play little league or other kid sports. And we have just passed graduation season. I've noticed that things don't seem to be the same.
It seems that a typical birthday party nowadays requires that the host(ess) provide some sort of gift bag filled with goodies comparable in quality to what you might find at an Oriental Trading Co. clearance sale. Hey, we do it too whenever we throw a b-day party for the kiddies. . . I'm just saying that I never remember getting or giving any parting gift when I was jamming on the birthday party circuit back in the 1980's. I'm just wondering who invented this tradition and how it became birthday law.
My kids aren't quite as sporty as I am - my son played soccer when he was four and HATED it. It was soccer, so I can't totally blame him. My daughter is currently playing t-ball. One thing I've noticed in both cases is the overabundance of snacks. There is a snack after every practice and every game. The parents of team members take turns bringing the snacks week after week.
I played five years of little league and can never remember having a team-organized snack. Not after practice, not after games. I don't even remember being provided with water. It was a long time ago, so maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems like if you required sustenance after the game, your parents were stopping at the Loaf and Jug on the way home.
I can remember one time - one of the moms told us that if we won our game, she would buy us all a pop. At the time, this seemed incredibly generous - wow, a pop! However, in the context of 2009, it seems rather stingy - "I'll give you a snack, alright - but only if you win your &*^%$ baseball game!"
I guess we were just tougher in those days. If we got hungry at practice, we ate gravel or a piece of our shirt. And then at the games, we would just eat the other team.
I suppose the snack concept was invented around the same time as the concept of a "soccer mom". I'm not sure if this might be one of those chicken-or-the-egg dilemmas.
Lastly, what is the deal with graduation parties? A couple of weeks ago one of my co-workers spent the entire weekend going around to about a half-dozen celebrations. I'm quite certain that these didn't exist when I graduated high school. I didn't have one - other than maybe some relatives having some grub over at the house. And I'm not even sure I had that much. And none of my friends had a party. At least, not that I was invited to. I don't even think I knew graduation parties existed at the time. But it seems pretty commonplace now to open up the house to everyone you've ever known.
No one ever threw a party for me! And I've been the good guy!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)