I don't really understand storks. Are they for pickle delivery or for baby delivery?
It is well known and documented that storks bring expectent mommies and daddies their little bundles of joy after nine months of eager anticipation. That is the way it has been for a long time now and that is probably the way it is going to stay. I'm a little hazy on how the stork gets the order to deliver a baby, and how he knows where to deliver it, but it is best to not ask how the sausage is made, if I might make such a culinary reference.
Now, I would like to know why Storks are also associated with pickles, specifically Vlasic pickles. The stork is the mascot of the Vlasic company and his commercials have him delivering pickles. I mean, can you be any less imaginative?
Besides, what makes the stork such a good deliveryman in the first place? They don't seem to be particularly strong birds, so could a stork realistically carry a 7 to 13 pound baby, along with all the necessary documentation, the distance from wherever the stork starts out to the hospital? Plus, they don't seem to be very swift flyers. Sure, in the delivery biz, one needs reliable delivery, but the customer also needs speed. Storks just don't seem that fast. Plus, the Vlasic stork is really old. He wears old man glasses. I don't think he is up to the task of delivering babies or jars of pickles.
I'm going to have to go and think about this whole situation for a while, I guess.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Rodney Dangerfield
Rodney Dangerfield died Tuesday afternoon. Initially, I didn't have fond memories of him. As a child, I thought he was too low brow and I thought he mad some really bad movie. Caddyshack was okay, but not because of Dangerfield.
But then, as an adult, I realised that movies just weren't his strong point. He was a one-liner kind of comedian, someone who interjected a joke every so often to great effect ("I could tell that my parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and a radio."), but that just did not translate to the screen. He also played roles, like the coach in Ladybugs, where he had a soft heart. All of those emotions required the nuanced touch of an actor. Rodney Dangerfield was a comedian, and I was grading him as though he was an actor. (Comedians, by the way, should follow the Jerry Seinfeld guide to acting -- no hugging, no learning, just jokes.)
I had a reawakening a couple of years ago. Sitting at work, bored, I googled him and read his jokes and I laughed hysterically. His voice, distinctive as it was, was ingrained in my mind, which added to the humour. His jokes are pithy, cutting to the point, and, well, funny as hell. Self-deprecation has always been a reliable form of humour and some do it better than others (Conan O'Brien and David Letterman do it very well). Rodney Dangerfield was the best.
But then, as an adult, I realised that movies just weren't his strong point. He was a one-liner kind of comedian, someone who interjected a joke every so often to great effect ("I could tell that my parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and a radio."), but that just did not translate to the screen. He also played roles, like the coach in Ladybugs, where he had a soft heart. All of those emotions required the nuanced touch of an actor. Rodney Dangerfield was a comedian, and I was grading him as though he was an actor. (Comedians, by the way, should follow the Jerry Seinfeld guide to acting -- no hugging, no learning, just jokes.)
I had a reawakening a couple of years ago. Sitting at work, bored, I googled him and read his jokes and I laughed hysterically. His voice, distinctive as it was, was ingrained in my mind, which added to the humour. His jokes are pithy, cutting to the point, and, well, funny as hell. Self-deprecation has always been a reliable form of humour and some do it better than others (Conan O'Brien and David Letterman do it very well). Rodney Dangerfield was the best.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Sunday night fights, live from Crouch End
I love drunk people!
There is nothing more satisfying than the sound of a drunken brawl late at night outside of one's window. Late Sunday night, usually a quite night around these parts, I was sitting in my room listening to some music (Mozart's Exultate, jubilate, K165) and playing Solitare and I could hear the sound of yelling outside of my window. Now, my room is on the second (third, in US terms) floor so to hear someone yelling thirty feet below through a closed window while wearing headphones is pretty significant.
I go to my window, open it up, and down below two women are having a Grade A argument. I was hoping and praying for a cat fight (because, you know, they might kiss and one things leads to another...) but it almost surpassed cat fight to all out blood-thirsty brawl. But, they were drunk so that was never going to happen. The will was there, but the body is weak.
They tried, oh how they tried, to have a brawl. But, you just can't when you are boozy in the extreme. You end up throwing punches wildly in the direction of your opponent. Momentum takes over and you end up looking like a four year old swinging a baseball bat, spinning around and around. Actually, I think it looks like what a fight would look like underwater or in outerspace; not the crisp, clean movements of Muhammad Ali, rather the slow, belaboured swings of Jacques Cousteau in a wet suit.
Of course, no one curses like a drunk. Drunks can hurl abuse at one another with the grace of a freight train. Those two women, fighting over a man, did not disappoint in that sense. I would have thought that you could only refer to someone as an effing whore, slut, slag, etc. so many times before it lost all meaning, but these two breathed fresh air into every word. That takes talent... and a lot of peppermint schnapps.
All in all, it was an amusing five minutes before I retired for the evening.
There is nothing more satisfying than the sound of a drunken brawl late at night outside of one's window. Late Sunday night, usually a quite night around these parts, I was sitting in my room listening to some music (Mozart's Exultate, jubilate, K165) and playing Solitare and I could hear the sound of yelling outside of my window. Now, my room is on the second (third, in US terms) floor so to hear someone yelling thirty feet below through a closed window while wearing headphones is pretty significant.
I go to my window, open it up, and down below two women are having a Grade A argument. I was hoping and praying for a cat fight (because, you know, they might kiss and one things leads to another...) but it almost surpassed cat fight to all out blood-thirsty brawl. But, they were drunk so that was never going to happen. The will was there, but the body is weak.
They tried, oh how they tried, to have a brawl. But, you just can't when you are boozy in the extreme. You end up throwing punches wildly in the direction of your opponent. Momentum takes over and you end up looking like a four year old swinging a baseball bat, spinning around and around. Actually, I think it looks like what a fight would look like underwater or in outerspace; not the crisp, clean movements of Muhammad Ali, rather the slow, belaboured swings of Jacques Cousteau in a wet suit.
Of course, no one curses like a drunk. Drunks can hurl abuse at one another with the grace of a freight train. Those two women, fighting over a man, did not disappoint in that sense. I would have thought that you could only refer to someone as an effing whore, slut, slag, etc. so many times before it lost all meaning, but these two breathed fresh air into every word. That takes talent... and a lot of peppermint schnapps.
All in all, it was an amusing five minutes before I retired for the evening.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Best Friend-in-Chief?
Reliable polling reports are now coming in after Thursday's debate between a cool, calm, collected Senator Kerry and a seemingly disturbed President Bush. Results are encouraging. In most categories, Kerry won by a landslide.
Who won? John Kerry, 54% to 15%
More knowledgeable? John Kerry, 42% to 29%
Strongest display of character and personality? John Kerry, 40% to 33%
Better at getting his point across? John Kerry, 49% to 23%
Responded best under pressure? John Kerry, 54% to 16%
Who seemed more 'presidential'? John Kerry, 40% to 38%
And finally...
Who was more likable? George Bush, 39% to 38%
My statement that the results are encouraging is perhaps an overstatement. In most categories, the results are encouraging, but in the most important category, who is more likeable, Senator Kerry failed. Why is it so important? Because Americans seem more interested in voting for a Best Friend rather than a Commander-in-Chief.
A relentless campaign to portray Kerry as a sissy Frenchman who can't decide between brie and camembert has come under little scrutiny in the mainstream media but it has worked wonders on the voters. Apparently, only the French and John Kerry understand that there might be more than one way to skin a cat and there might be more than one way to "win" the "war" on "terror" but the damage has been done. Senator Kerry is a spineless 'girlie-man' while President Bush is a straight-talkin', shoot from the hip kinda guy.
Why vote for a knowledgeable career politician who understands international politics and that the war on terror requires a nuanced understanding of the world when you can vote for a folksy, down home, aww-shucks everyman who sees the world in uncomplicated black and white?
I think that it is that last category that is the most important for voters, so let's just hope Sen. Kerry can do something about that in the next month.
Who won? John Kerry, 54% to 15%
More knowledgeable? John Kerry, 42% to 29%
Strongest display of character and personality? John Kerry, 40% to 33%
Better at getting his point across? John Kerry, 49% to 23%
Responded best under pressure? John Kerry, 54% to 16%
Who seemed more 'presidential'? John Kerry, 40% to 38%
And finally...
Who was more likable? George Bush, 39% to 38%
My statement that the results are encouraging is perhaps an overstatement. In most categories, the results are encouraging, but in the most important category, who is more likeable, Senator Kerry failed. Why is it so important? Because Americans seem more interested in voting for a Best Friend rather than a Commander-in-Chief.
A relentless campaign to portray Kerry as a sissy Frenchman who can't decide between brie and camembert has come under little scrutiny in the mainstream media but it has worked wonders on the voters. Apparently, only the French and John Kerry understand that there might be more than one way to skin a cat and there might be more than one way to "win" the "war" on "terror" but the damage has been done. Senator Kerry is a spineless 'girlie-man' while President Bush is a straight-talkin', shoot from the hip kinda guy.
Why vote for a knowledgeable career politician who understands international politics and that the war on terror requires a nuanced understanding of the world when you can vote for a folksy, down home, aww-shucks everyman who sees the world in uncomplicated black and white?
I think that it is that last category that is the most important for voters, so let's just hope Sen. Kerry can do something about that in the next month.
NCAA vs FA scheduling
Just wrote this letter to King Kaufman, sports writer for Salon.com.
King,
Do you know anything about the way the soccer leagues in the UK are set up? Perhaps there are some lessons that the NCAA could take to heart.
Essentially, teams are divided up into leagues based on their results from the previous year. The best 20 teams are in the Premiership (for example, Manchester United, the only team that most people outside of Europe know of), followed by the 24 teams in the Championship league, followed by League One and League Two. All in all, that is 92 teams.
At the end of the season, the top three teams from a lower division are promoted to the next division and the lowest three teams are relegated to the division below. The incentive, beyond the desire to win, is the extra cash and notoriety that comes from being in a higher division. Advertising fees and broadcasting rights are more lucrative and ticket prices go up as well. The team at the top of the Premiership wins the coveted trophy.
It solves, to a degree, your beef with the current college system whereby the first games of the season are not competitive enough. It also allows the fans of a mediocre team to watch a game where they stand a "snowball's chance" of winning. Two mediocre teams can combine to provide watchable soccer, or at least soccer where the outcome is in doubt (and that is what makes any sporting event interesting). As a fan of Purdue football, watching the Boilermakers outscore their opponents 110-7 in their first two games was very uninteresting.
The explosion in the number of bowl games in the past decade just goes to show that fans, coaches and university presidents can only be satiated by a meaningless bowl victory, such as the Continental Tire Bowl. The UK system allows ten teams to say they accomplished something meaningful (three teams promoted from three leagues and one Premiership victor), and it also allows for a race at both ends of the league: teams at the top scramble for a promotion, teams at the bottom scramble to avoid relegation.
Sure, it would require reworking a conference system that has been in place for decades and decades and it would require ending the trivial rivalries (Purdue vs Ball State just because they are in the same state?) that make alumni swoon, but it just might provide for more consistently entertaining football.
King,
Do you know anything about the way the soccer leagues in the UK are set up? Perhaps there are some lessons that the NCAA could take to heart.
Essentially, teams are divided up into leagues based on their results from the previous year. The best 20 teams are in the Premiership (for example, Manchester United, the only team that most people outside of Europe know of), followed by the 24 teams in the Championship league, followed by League One and League Two. All in all, that is 92 teams.
At the end of the season, the top three teams from a lower division are promoted to the next division and the lowest three teams are relegated to the division below. The incentive, beyond the desire to win, is the extra cash and notoriety that comes from being in a higher division. Advertising fees and broadcasting rights are more lucrative and ticket prices go up as well. The team at the top of the Premiership wins the coveted trophy.
It solves, to a degree, your beef with the current college system whereby the first games of the season are not competitive enough. It also allows the fans of a mediocre team to watch a game where they stand a "snowball's chance" of winning. Two mediocre teams can combine to provide watchable soccer, or at least soccer where the outcome is in doubt (and that is what makes any sporting event interesting). As a fan of Purdue football, watching the Boilermakers outscore their opponents 110-7 in their first two games was very uninteresting.
The explosion in the number of bowl games in the past decade just goes to show that fans, coaches and university presidents can only be satiated by a meaningless bowl victory, such as the Continental Tire Bowl. The UK system allows ten teams to say they accomplished something meaningful (three teams promoted from three leagues and one Premiership victor), and it also allows for a race at both ends of the league: teams at the top scramble for a promotion, teams at the bottom scramble to avoid relegation.
Sure, it would require reworking a conference system that has been in place for decades and decades and it would require ending the trivial rivalries (Purdue vs Ball State just because they are in the same state?) that make alumni swoon, but it just might provide for more consistently entertaining football.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)