tiesto

Tiesto bitches!

DJ Tiesto

Not Tiesto, but this guy rawks! Plus it's a great pic.

MeToday081201

I Voted

Hello, all,

It's been awhile since I've actually typed out an entry. Today, November 4th, 2008, will be viewed in the annals of History as a turning point in American politcs. One one side we have the potential for a Black President. On the other, the potential for a female Vice President. And that fact has been hammered many times, so it's not like I'm making some incredible revelation.

But I also look at today as one of the most important elections in a very long time. As usual, many people will say they do not like either candidate. I'm one of those people. However, many of those same people will pick one of the two major candidates. Many will just vote for the party they always vote for. Some will switch parties. And a select few will vote for someone else other than a Democrat or Republican.

In my eyes, Barack Obama is a Socialist. Plan and simple. If you like Socialism, then feel free to vote for him. Socialism is that warm security blanket that people like when they look at the surface. Socialism is a strong word. It connotes images of Karl Marx, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. And it should. While some of these men were better described as Marxist, Facist, or Communist, they all shared the basic idea of Socialism. To remind you of what Socialism is, I turn to Wikipedia:

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved."

Socialism is not a euphemism for national health care, higher taxes for the "rich," green energy, big government, etc. It's government control of its citizen's lives. And that is currently the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party. It has been for decades. While they sugar-coat it so that Americans will accept it a little at a time, the reality is the Party is really striving towards a more Socialist (not Democratic) society. As a sidenote, remember that we are not a true Democracy. We are a Representative Republic/Democracy (depending on who's defining it). There's big money in it too for those "evil corporations" that people perceive as being ran by Republicans. Those corporations just want to make money, and they back whomever they feel gives them the best chance of making the money. No matter how loose or tight the regulations.

So, if I don't want Socialism, then I need to vote for John McCain? Not necessarily. While McCain isn't the stereotypical Republican most of the time, he is a member of that party. And the Republicans haven't been themselves for a long time either. As a party, they look more like Democrats everyday. But the Republicans are heading towards what can be called Corporatism. An excerpt from Wikipedia describing the common usage of the term rather than the classic definition in relation to fascism:

"Contemporary popular (as opposed to social science) usage of the term is more pejorative, emphasizing the role of business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public. The power of business to affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public. In this respect, corporatism may be characterized as an extreme form of regulatory capture, and is also termed corporatocracy, a form of plutocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex."

So then who do you vote for? Vote your conscience. Just realize that the two major parties are trying their hardest to move our country into one direction or the other. And you need to be cool with that. Neither extreme is good for us as a country or society. Both exact too heavy a toll. Government based on the extremes of these philosophies always fail. And fail badly.

So who did I vote for? Me. Yes, seriously. I wrote in my name. Unfortunately, I didn't think of a Vice President, so the Senate will have to do that. And that means it'll be Palin as Joe Liberman would probably cast his vote for her. I'll do a better job in four years when I'm sure I'll be compelled to do the same thing. However, maybe I'll actually make an effort to get other people to vote for me too.

OK, so now many of you have just rolled your eyes and groaned. Or something to that effect. I even got told, "a vote for you is a vote for Obama. You took away a vote from McCain." Not really. If I had a gun put to my head and had to choose. I would choose McCain, and only because he's not as radical within his own party as Obama. So, yes, my vote would have gone to McCain.

However, I really couldn't see myself supporting either candidate. And to vote for any of the other candidates seemed to be the same as voting for myself. My tongue-in-cheek slogans are "I promise nothing" and "I can't be any worse than the other guys."

Of course I have a better chance of winning the lottery than winning the election so I'm not worried about having to come up with position papers and policies for the American People to review. Nor am I worried about reporters hiding in the bushes to dig up dirt about me. But my write-in vote demonstrates my overall frustration with the Administrations and Congress over the past couple decades. That's both sides of the aisle, folks. And this current Administration and Congress really pushed me over the edge. Though I did vote for Ron Paul in the Illinois Primary as he most closely matched my views.

As far as the remainder of my ballot, that's really no one's business. To paraphrase what Sarah Palin said today, "I reserve my right to privacy and won't reveal the rest of my votes."

What's next? Well, I get to go to work and watch the results come in. I also get to watch a Spurs game. In addition to that, I'll be listening to staff and guests all debating why their guy is better. Or listening to them bemoan that their guy isn't winning. And probably ad nauseam coverage of Obama's victory party in Grant Park in Chicago.

After that? I'm going to try to get the official results on paper to see my one vote for me. Maybe even frame it. And then work on my campaign for 2016 or 2020. If you've not voted yet, join my in a "protest" and vote for yourself, or me. Just remember that for Vice President, you must choose someone that is not a resident of the same state as you if you plan on voting for yourself. It's kind of in the Constitution, yo. If you did vote for me, send me an e-mail - marz888@gmail.com, or a twitter note - http://www.twitter.com/marz8.

I guess that's it. Just don't come complaining to me if the country continues to go to shit if your guy gets in.

MeToday081015

BirthdayToday080908

MeToday080904

5000 Tweets

Twitter. Yeah, I'm talking about it again today. Welcome to my 5000th tweet. I've been on Twitter for just over a year from what I can remember. Unfortunately I can't access my first tweet anymore. No one can right now. Twitter has limited access to everyone's archives to their last 200 tweets (found this out just before I started typing this). However, I'm sure my first tweet was very profound like, "hello world" or "is this thing on" or "whuddup, yo?" Actually it was probably something very ordinary.

Anyway, 5000 tweets. My mother asked me if I was tweeting every hour or something when I told her that today was my blog post of 5000. LOL! I actually didn't really start using Twitter on a regular basis until I got my iPhone last November. Before that I really didn't know what to use it for. None of my friends or people I knew seemed interested in it. The bane of being a geek, and early adopter. I finally got two friends to use it, Maggie and Don. Maggie really hasn't done much with it, but Don has become part of the Twitter community. He's dmynsynal there. There have been a couple others that I know that have found me, but no one else from my close circle of friends. And this is surprising as I have several geeky friends that should be on this. (While re-reading this, I found another friend who just started using this a few days ago).

So what do I use it for? Sometimes to spout a 140 character diatribe about the world. Other times to ask those that follow me, and anyone reading the public timeline, a question. I've also used it to describe the minutiae of my life to the chagrin of some of my Facebook friends. And I'll use it to announce blog posts and Viddler videos. Most times I use it to communicate to my internet friends.

My most recent 8 tweets were. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. To which Don replied "thats cheating bitch." I haven't posted since as it was my countdown to 5000. Needless to say I didn't reply via Twitter, but via text message. That old school way to communicate via a cell phone. So I've been somewhat uncharacteristically quiet on Twitter this weekend. Working at night and not sitting in front of my computer all day also helps keep my activity down.

It's a milestone of sorts though to get to 5000. Many people who sign up check it out for a couple weeks, make a couple posts, then stop. Why? Just like anything, you get as much from something as you put into it. I've put over a year into it, and really haven't seen any growth until that past month or so. I'm starting to get followers out of the blue. Many times people look at others' profiles to see whom they follow or communicate with. Then they follow those people. That's how I got my last rash of new followers.

Gary Vaynerchuk, the host of Wine Library recently posted, "people like @marz8 who have the wristband on their Twitter pic are in for a big surprise :) just saying...ok gone for the day! 12:20 PM August 25, 2008 from web." From that post alone, I got about 15 new followers. Here's the cool thing. He follows me too. He just happened to see a post of mine just before that and saw my profile picture. It has 3 WLTV wristbands. Now I haven't seen my big surprise yet, but I'm sure he has something up his sleeve.

But this is how you increase your followers. Start following them. Use the search feature to find friends that just might be on it. Enter keywords of your interests. I follow many internet personalities that talk about using Twitter. I also follow news organizations that have started using it. The NY Times, FOX News, CNN, MySA.com, the BBC, ESPN, and Chicago Tribune all have Twitter accounts. Politicians candidates also have gotten into the mix too. John Culberson, and Ron Paul are two that I follow. So, it's not just the geeks of the world, the mainstream has recognized it. By a happy bit of coincidence last night, my parents just happened to have CNN on at the same time I had glanced at one of the monitors at work where a reporter was talking about Twitter. And USA Today recently had an article about it.

The best thing about Twitter is the mass communication that it allows. There's no way I could as easily send out a mass text message. You can post something like, "who's out tonight?" or "I'm at XYZ who wants to meet up?" Mass e-mail on my computer is about as easy as Twitter since I have a couple distribution lists set up. But it's more difficult to do that while on the go.

The main thing to realize is the immediacy of it. Just because someone follows you or you follow someone, doesn't mean the tweet will be seen. You have to do a reply or direct message to help insure that. However if you have your account set up to receive text messages from people you follow (you can be selective so your phone doesn't blow up every second), you'll see every tweet just like you would if you were at your computer using one of the "clients" that allows you to use the service like IM.

So have I bored you to tears yet, or am I preaching to the choir so far? Either way, Twitter is very likely the next social networking hit. If that's something you gravitate to, then check it out if you haven't already and follow me. Here is my account marz8. I guarantee I'll probably bore you, make you laugh, or shake your head from following me.

On to 10,000.

l8r,

Marz

The Death of the Newspaper?

Since the Internet first started gaining popularity, experts have been saying that the beloved/hated newspaper would be out of business in "x" number of years. Usually it's been a low number, like under 10. "They" all said that people wouldn't need a newspaper since they could get instant news on the internet. Well before it showed up in print. Those of you older than I can probably remember the same thing being said when TV and Radio came on the scene with news. The newspaper still survived.

But the internet is a different beast. It's more than a visual replacement for the newspaper. With products like the Sony E-Reader and Amazon's Kindle you can download your favorite newsfeeds overnight and read them in the morning. Like reading the paper. And, guess what? Many of those are the online version of a newspaper. Normally a large paper like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. I doubt that the Lufkin Daily News (Lufkin, TX) is available on the Kindle. However, they do have a website.

So why is it that so many people are ready to pronounce newspapers dead? Well, for one thing, circulation nation-wide has dropped dramatically. And the Internet is the prime suspect. And I agree. There are many people out there that get their news from the Internet. They get it from TV and Radio too. Newspapers have been relegated to a 3rd or 4th source of news for most. I'm one who gets a lot of my news from the internet.

I'm what can be called an "early adopter" when it comes to technology. While I may not buy the latest and greatest gadget out there, I tend to keep up on them. I peruse the Internet for the next big thing and learn about it. I've joined the social networking revolution. Even though I'm an early adopter, I did join it kind of late. However, I now join things that most people have never heard of, like Twitter. And if you look to the right on this blog, there is a section that has some of my recent "Tweets."

To say I live on the 'Net in my spare time can be an understatement sometimes. One of the few things I haven't tackled yet is DOING a podcast rather than listening/watching them. Maybe I'll put a list of them on the right hand side too. And I've been this way pretty much since I first logged on in 1995. Much of my news comes from there.

I recently ask my Twitter followers to reply to a simple question. "Do you read the newspaper? Why or why not?" I have relatively small number of followers - 189. And I got responses from 9 of those people. Below are the responses - I left out who they are as I didn't ask permission to use their Twitter/real names:

"does the red eye count. If so i read it daily."

"I read it at the office because somebody leaves it in the break room, won't subscribe at home goes from curb direct to recycling bin"

"up until recently I took the newspaper solely for the grocery coupons"

"absolutetly. Have the Boston Globe delivered 7 days a week. Usually pre-pay by the year"

"you mean like the ACTUAL paper? Not anymore. I stopped reading print in January. Stopped all my subscriptions"

"i browse the Wall Street Journal, esp the Saturday one at home. I usually get my news online though"

"nope, blogs filter to me the stuff I'm interested in."

"yes, but not every day. There is so much to catch up on! (I do read the sports section first)!!"

"no I don't. I'm too tired from Reading all day long at work. I get my news from news radio."

As you can see, I got a variety of answers. 6 of the 9 said they did at least look at a newspaper. The other three solely rely on other means for news. If you notice, though, almost all of them didn't give a reason why. Granted, they only have 140 characters to formulate their answer. My answer pretty much follows and is definitely more than 140 characters.

A very long time ago, I also worked at a newspaper. The Austin American-Statesman as a matter of fact. I worked for them for 6 years. I also had a brief stint one summer at the San Antonio Express-News. And during that time I preached that people should subscribe to their local newspaper.

Much of that also came from the fact that I grew up in a newspaper family. And not the "sexy" reporter side of things, but the boring circulation side. However, when I left Austin, I stopped subscribing. I mean, the Houston Chronicle was a good paper and all, but I didn't want to shell out the money. I had gotten my Statesman subscription for free as an employee.

I also found that I didn't seem to have the same amount of time in the mornings. But guess what? At almost every lunch that I had when I was out in the field, I would buy a newspaper. Even the Lufkin one if that was where I was at. It gave me something to read. On the weekends, I didn't bother most of the time, but sometimes I'd get the Sunday paper.

This lack of a newspaper subscription continued in the next two cities I lived in. Some of it was financial. I didn't seem to be able to justify the money on something I was rarely going to read given the nature of the work I did - Restaurant/Bar. Odd hours where I would usually work at night and sleep during the day.

Some of it was just a long-forming habit. I had a routine of not reading it on a regular basis and the availability of the news becoming easier on the 'Net. However, I also kept bookmarks of all of those newspapers mentioned so that I could keep up with places I lived currently and before. Not so much with Cincinnati, but yes in Chicago.

In Chicago, I had a pretty good excuse. It was too much hassle to get a subscription. On top of the crazy hours and habit that had formed. I lived in what they call a "5 Flat." That is, a building with five floors of apartments where you needed a key to get into the building. So it's not like the paper carrier was going to come inside and drop off a paper to my door like they do in suburban apartment complexes.

However, I did occasionally pick up a paper from the rack outside my apartment or the convenience store on my way to work. And normally it was the Chicago Sun-Times since it's format is the easier to read on trains and buses "Tabloid" format. Nothing wrong with the Chicago Tribune. That's actually my preferred website for Chicago Newspapers. I would also occasionally get one if I was having dinner in my neighborhood.

Now I'm back in San Antonio. And I pretty much read the paper every morning. Much of that is the fact that when I do have a morning shift, I don't have to be there until about 10 AM. And I'm usually awake by 7:30 or 8:00 anyway. Plenty of time to peruse the paper. And I've rediscovered the joy of that.

A newspaper, while it's yesterday's news, tends to give you a more detailed description of a story than the TV or Radio can. An argument long-used by newspapers when trying to compete with TV and Radio. And it's a valid one. However, the Internet is a bit different. There is no need to edit the story to fit in a given time-frame. Even the physical limitations of print rarely apply. There's no concern about being able to fit those 1/4 page ads and a reporter's copy on the same page.

But, here is what a newspaper does give you. The ability to quickly scan the content and digest it to determine what is relevant for you. You can't do that on the 'Net. A webpage only gives you a small window at any point in time of a newspaper's page. Yes, you can use newsreaders to give you the headlines, but it's still different. Newsreaders don't necessarily sort those headlines like a newspaper.

Try it sometime. I can digest an entire newspaper and eat breakfast in about 30 minutes or less. I only read the articles that interest me, but I still get relevant info from a headline. I can kind of do the same thing with the 'Net, but there is still some lag time with scrolling down pages, and clicking links to go to different sections. They don't make their web versions like a paper where you just turn the page. Oh, and my laptop isn't at the kitchen table.

Now the New York Times and a few others used to do something similar by showing you a replica of their front page. I really liked that. Their website was designed a little bit like the real thing. However, they no longer do that from what I can tell. For a short period of time you could still view the old version, but they took away that link.

So besides what I think is a more efficient way of digesting news, what other advantages are there? Believe it or not, the ads. Only in the newspaper will you get the kind of ads you see. Newspaper ads are also efficient and cost-effective compared to TV and Radio for small businesses. Even larger companies like car dealerships.

And what is this advantage? It's a physical object that you can refer to and take with you. Can't really do that with TV, Radio, or the 'Net. Yeah, I have the Internet in the palm of my hand with an iPhone, but it's still not the same. I still have to connect, whereas I can just pull out the ad from my pocket and unfold it.

And this is where I'm really going with all of this. The physical nature of a newspaper is it's greatest advantage. Most people really don't bring their iPhone, laptop, or Kindle to the "John" to read do they? OK, maybe some early adopters will. C'mon, admit it. That's the real reason you got wi-fi.

But seriously, there's no connecting to a network to retrieve your info. No worry about dropping a piece of electronics and damaging it. No worry about sitting on said piece of electronics. And you can't use those electronics to cover your head in a thunderstorm when you left your umbrella in the car.

Also, for local stories, only a newspaper can really deliver that content. Local radio and TV can't devote enough time to cover everything a newspaper can. And most of the time, those stories don't make it the web version of the local paper.

So, do I think newspapers are doomed? Not entirely. We still have books, right? People like the feel of a newspaper in their hands. They like the feel of a book in their hands. They even like the feel of a plain document in their hand. Remember the paperless office? Yeah, that never happened.

While I don't think newspapers are doomed, I think they are really missing the boat. They really need to cross-promote between their print and web versions more. I know the Express-News is doing that a bit. But the 'Net is not the only reason for circulation numbers declining.

Many cities have become one-newspaper towns. And when that happens, they all of a sudden think they don't need to advertise their product anymore. No more promotions. No more giveaways. No more sponsorships. Why? When you're the only game in town, you need to still advertise. When you're the #1 of a product, you need to advertise. Do you think Coke, Apple, Budweiser think that because they're number one they don't need to constantly remind you about that? Being the only game in town is the same as being the #1 in town.

Newspapers for too long have alienated their readership. The old guard took too long to understand the power of the 'Net. A perfect opportunity to capitalize on an electronic version to complement the print version. The industry has continued to constrict in reaction to lower circulation numbers and lower ad revenue, which leads to lower circulation numbers and lower ad revenue.

I saw a similar thing in magazines. Circulation numbers drop so we dramatically drop the draw to an area that barely covers the displays in town. That means less "billboards" in people's faces to remind you to pick up that copy of their favorite magazine. I'm not saying be wasteful, just be intelligent with your distribution.

So I have rediscovered reading the newspaper everyday. It never really completely went out of my life either. I also get a lot of information on the 'Net. And that information is more specialized. I can only get it from those sources. I also get it from TV. Not so much from radio though.

What people need to understand is that newspapers are still a relevant source of information. They are part of an expanding pool of sources to gain information. No one part can be the ultimate source. So pick up a copy of your local newspaper if you haven't done in a while. Sit in a relaxed environment and just read it.

I welcome more comments about this on the blog.

Mark

Not in Favor of Favre

Hello, all. Football is just about here. Pre-season has officially started with both a bang and a yawn with Favre's return and the Hall of Fame Game last night respectively. It should have started with a yawn alone. In my opinion, Favre should have stayed retired.

Now let me first say that I highly respect his skills as a player. Many a time I have "hated" him when he faced my favorite team, the Minnesota Vikings. And even many other times when I just wanted the Packers to lose so that it would help my beloved Vikings. And Brett, you had an amazing season last year. One that is worthy of retirement. Even though you didn't make it to the Super Bowl, it was a great season for you. Unlike Robert Horry's disappointing season last year and his desire to come back to retire on a high note, Favre DID retire on a high note.

The Packers had moved on. The state of Wisconsin had moved on. The country had moved on. And Aaron Rogers was ready to move on up. We were all ready for life after Brett. Some of us in the NFC Central more than others too. I'm not saying that the Packers can't be contenders with Aaron Rogers, but he really hasn't been elevated to messianic status yet. The rest of the division was ready to participate in the free-for-all....well, maybe not the Lions ;)

Hey! They're like the Cubs. Tons of hope at the beginning of each season, then they come crashing down. BTW, what is going on with the Cubs this year? Did someone forget to tell them they are supposed to choke already?

So now Brett is back in Packerville and will be reporting to camp today. From all the reports I read the starting QB is still Aaron Rogers. So where does this leave Brett? A backup QB there to coach Aaron? Aaron has been there since 2005 so it's not like he's a rookie anymore.

A trade? Well, let me tell you right here, right now. Brett should not be traded unless it's to a team with a legitimate chance at a Super Bowl. Hmmmm, let's see, pretty much any of those teams already have a QB of his caliber. So why would you want to end your career on a team with no chance?

And let me also state that if he does get traded to the Vikings, I still stand by my statement. Just remind me of this if it does happen and he takes the Vikings to the Promised Land.

Why do I feel this way? It's not entirely a rivalry thing where your hated enemy becomes an ally. That was Robert Horry for me a few years ago. The difference here is that Horry didn't retire and then at the last minute change his mind and expect to be welcomed with open arms. No, his contract with L.A. was up and the Spurs felt he could be a good addition to the team. And he was. Now Horry won't be back as a Spur and if he does get picked up by a team, he will return to the hated enemy (although loved/respected) status.

Favre retired. Plain and simple. He should be embracing this moment. Hell, the Packers offered a sweetheart deal of $20 or $25 million (depending on the report) for a 10-year marketing deal. Zoinks?! Are you kidding me? Get paid a couple mil a year to NOT play football? That's like being a farmer and getting paid to NOT plant crops that year.

And that analogy might be more true than you think. Brett obviously wants to play again. And for the Packers. Someone who loves playing the game probably doesn't want to be paid to not play. Same thing for a farmer. Even though the farmer can get paid to not plant a crop (for various reasons), he's still a farmer and that's in his blood. It's also more profitable in the short term for him to plant than not.

Same thing for Brett. While $20-25mil isn't a lot for 10 years as a veteran 3-time MVP football player. That's still a lot of money to get paid 10 years from now when he physically couldn't play.

So with all that said, here is the real reason. And shoot me now for just finding this out last night - AFTER I had decided to write this post. He's on the frakkin' cover of Madden '09!? Brett, for the love of football fans and fantasy football fans everwhere, break the curse! Stay retired. There are no stats to go into decline if you're retired. You can't get injured on the field if you are retired. Dude, think about it. The only non-active player in the history of this huge video game to even be on the cover?!

Man, either EA is just pissed off about all of this or they are loving it. Talk about being able to really hype the game. The bottom line is the bottom line. This was all a big marketing ploy a la New Coke. The big switcheroo, folks. Brett retires, then EA strikes a deal to put him on the cover and milk the retirement angle. BUT, if he doesn't retire, sure we need to re-market it, but the payout will outweigh the additional costs.

And there you have it. It's a conspiracy by EA and the NFL to get more money ;) And now you know....the rest of the story.

l8r,

Marz

P.S. If he does become a Viking, I'm not really sure how I'll take it. But that's a separate post entirely.

MeToday080729

Los Angeles and Fast Food

Headline:

"Los Angeles City Councils Passes Moratorium on New Fast Food Restaurants"

Huh? So you're telling me that the City Council is going to prevent me from being obese in South L.A. (where the moratorium is to be in effect pending the Mayor's signature), solely from preventing more fast food places from opening up? Uh, don't think so. People are not obese because of the fast food places. They are obese because of what they eat AND how much exercise they get. How many non-fast food places serve tasty fattening food? Lots. And how many of them also serve less-fattening food. The same. Lots.

This is ludicrous. A government controlling what restaurants can be built based upon if they have table service and use heat lamps? Hmmmm, let's see, even restaurants WITH table service use heat lamps or some other type of heating element to keep food hot in the "window" while waiting to be "expo'd" and delivered to a table.

These council people are morons. Plain and simple. I guarantee none of them have ever worked in the Food & Beverage Industry. If they hear NRA they think guns, not the National Restaurant Association. It's not the restaurants, it's the eating habits of the people. I mean if they really wanted to tackle this, why not give people the incentive to buy healthy ingredients at this nifty invention from decades-past that's still around. It's called a Grocery Store. You see, you can buy all kinds of really cool and healthy items there.

Psst. Guess what, you can also buy some really tasty unhealthy stuff too. Just like every fast food place in existence. These council people are so stupid in thinking that a proper "sit down" restaurant will guarantee healthy food.

Anyone care to guess how many calories are in a Bloomin' Onion appetizer at Outback Steakhouse? 2100 calories! How about Chili's Big Mouth BBQ Burger. Just the burger. 1110 Calories. Olive Garden's Tour of Italy. 2000 calories. Pizza Hut Cheese Personal Pan Pizza. 850 Calories. Subway's 6" Super Seafood & Crab(R) made with light mayonnaise. 444 calories, 888 for a 12". Mc Donald's Double Quarter Pounder® with Cheese. 740 Calories. Burger King's Whopper(R) w/Cheese. 760 Calories. Popeye's Chicken & Biscuits Mild Breast. 270 Calories each. Shall I go on?

So regular sit-down restaurants are not necessarily healthier than fast food. They also argued that the people in South L.A. don't have cars so fast food is their only option. Waaaa! I lived in Chicago for 7 years and 5 years without a car. And so do many people most of their lives. You know what we did? We walked or took the bus to that new-fangled thing called a grocery store, or yes, Virginia, we walked to a fast food place, or even a real restaurant to eat.

They also wanted to argue that fast food was cheap and therefore the people there were eating cheap food and getting fat. So.....that means if you don't put fast food restaurants for a year to draw healthier sit-down places those places will charge me $5.00 for a full meal deal? Yeah, right. Using the economics of fast food places is stupid. Again, a GROCERY STORE gives me a better value.

So what if I have to microwave it, or God forbid, cook it. If I'm that lazy (and I can be many times), I can make this other thing called a sandwich. Couple pieces of my choice of meat between two slices of bread (they make some with only 6g of carbs per slice ya know) and a condiment. A lot less calories than that Big Mac from down the road and cheaper to boot too, yo.

I lost a lot of weight a few years ago by adjusting my diet. Cut out a lot of bad things. Healthier meals and less visits to the bar after a closing shift. And ya know what? I still went to Mc Donald's and got a Hamburger. Just the regular hamburger. The $0.69 kind? Yeah. A few times a week for lunch. That and water. Among other meals and the physical exertion/stress from work I lost about 30lbs in 2-3 months.

Don't blame the restaurants. Blame the people. Other than the ones that seriously have a medical condition that prevents them from losing the weight, the rest of the World can be a lot less obese. All that weight I lost? I gained it back. How? Not eating like I did for a couple years. I got lazy again. And a job that had less physical exertion/stress.

So here's the link to an article (not the only one BTW) about this. And the poll I took from that site showed that 79% percent of the people taking the poll effective agree with me.

Government policing what I eat. Before you know it, we'll be eating Soylent Green.

That's all I got tonight.

l8r,

Marz

I Wanted to Believe

I saw X-Files: I Want to Believe last night. I Want to Believe that there are still conspiracies in the World for Fox and Dana to fight. I Want to Believe there was a shady character that was secretly helping Mulder. I Want to Believe Chris Carter would give us some new nemesis to hate. I Want to Believe there were aliens about to abduct someone. I Want to Believe it was a good movie.

It wasn't. It was bad. No, wait, BAD. No, BAAAAAAAAD. Really. Seriously. I've never walked out of a movie before that I can remember. And there were a couple times I thought about it. I thought Indiana Jones was bad, but this was worse.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh. I mean, was I expecting too much? Was I romanticizing how good the TV series was? Was there really some new story to be told here since Fox and Dana were effectively done with the FBI? I had hoped so. I wanted to believe there was.

I first found out about this movie in February/March. Somehow I stumbled upon a link to a video from a Sci-Fi convention that claimed it showed a preview of the new X-Files movie. I clicked the link, and sure enough, I was watching a preview of the movie. I heard the crowd go nuts. I went nuts. I went to work to request the day after the premiere off so I could go to the midnight show. That's how jazzed I was about it.

Fast forward a few months later. My personal life has changed a bit so I didn't go see it on opening night. I was able to catch the last show on the way home from work last night as I had gotten out early. I was stoked.

What I saw was nothing more than an hour-and-a-half episode (it would have been 2 hours with commercials). And not a very good one at that. One of those episodes easily forgotten. You, know, one of those that are really just a filler; doesn't advance the main story-line? That's what this one is.

I won't really go into the plot itself. I read that Gillian Anderson said she had a hard time getting into character for this movie. I really think the movie itself had a hard time getting into character. I actually though she did a pretty good job. Duchovny did OK. Oh, did I mention that during the previews was a movie with a forgettable title that stars Téa Leoni. Hmmm, David Duchovny's wife's movie trailer before David Duchovny's movie. Coincidence? Doubtful.

Anyway for most of the movie I thought we were going to get this big reveal of aliens being behind the mystery. I kept waiting for the scene of the secret government or corporate conspiracy trying to block Mulder and Scully. Instead I got Scully in conflict of trying to save a boy's life at a Catholic hospital and her desire to help Mulder. Waste of time. I got Mulder being Mulder for the most part, so that's OK. I got Skinner in way too late. I got no other compelling characters other than a psychic who is a former pedophile priest that Scully loathes. I got lots of snow and frozen people. What I go was just really weak.

And in doing a little bit of research just before writing this, I come across a statement that Chris Carter wants to do a third movie based upon the idea of the alien colonization on 12/22/12 based on the Mayan Calendar's date for the end of the world. As long as this movie does well. Hrmph. Well, Chris, I doubt you'll make that movie.

Unless you are an X-Files nut and just have to see everything associated with the X-Files, stay away. Just like all but 5, that's right 5, of us at the 10:30 show last night.

I shoulda seen Dark Knight instead.

l8r,

Marz

P.S. Hey, FOX (as in the movie studio, not the character), since you seem to have some extra coin laying around to make bad movies, I could use a little bit of that. I've got a couple ideas for a movie, though nothing really thought out. Couldn't be worse than what I saw last night. KTHXBAI!

MeToday080723

Texas Citizenship

So, today I officially became a citizen of Texas. Well, I don't have the picture ID yet, but I got slip of paper that says I'm a citizen. So does that mean I have dual citizenship in Texas and the United States of America? Well, son, yes it do.

Why is it that the people who live here have such a state pride? Well I think I covered much of that in an earlier post on Texas.

Over the past several weeks I've changed my profiles and accounts everywhere online (and I got a lot of them) to reflect I live in Texas. However, until I went to DPS (Department of Public Safety) - the equivalent of the DMV in most places, I didn't feel like a citizen of Texas. Yes, I keep using the term citizen. Not resident. Most Texans would probably like to be called a citizen rather than a resident. It's that whole Texas was once a nation thing.

So how did the experience go? Well, rather smooth. Though it took two days. Huh? Two days? Well, I went at about 11:30 yesterday hoping to beat the lunch crowd. HA! I don't think it was a lunch crowd I hit. There were probably 50+ people in line. I literally would have been the last person in line that would have been inside the building. I couldn't even get the form I needed until I got half-way through the line. So I bailed.

I went back this morning. Got there at 8:15 AM. 15 minutes later than I wanted, but no biggie. Unlike Chicago, I only had one person in front of me in line at that time. In Chicago, it was like 40 at 8:15. So JimBob was my longest delay as he didn't have all of the right paperwork with him at the first counter. That's where they make sure you have everything you need before going to the second counter where you actually get your license. Chicago did the same thing.

Apparently JimBob needed 3 pieces of ID and he only had two. The lady kept telling him other things he could use and he would say, "I got that." OK, but he didn't have it WITH HIM. All of this took maybe 5-10 minutes at the most. Of course I'm thinking, "Dude, she already told you what you need and you don't have it. Go on, git." Actually I think I really thought, "didn't you look this up on the internet? I did." So, with that said, I walk up and show my Illinois driver's license, Social Security card (the same card I've had for about 35 years), and my Birth Certificate. See, I came prepared. She gave me a form and I sat down to fill it out.

Next line. So I was the only one in line, but had to wait for one of the 4-5 clerks to see me. They were all taking care of people. I waited under 5 minutes. I hand over all of my paperwork and start the process. Painless. One difference between Texas, Ohio, and Illinois. In the latter two states I had to take a written test in order to get a license. In Texas I didn't. Not really sure why unless it's because I've had a Texas driver's license in the past. But I don't remember that license number. Maybe she found it.

When she got to my birth certificate, she had to go ask a supervisor about it. Apparently because it has the word "Registration" up top she thought it might not be valid. It also says "Certificate" right after it so it was OK. The lady next to her had the same thing from NY (mine is from NJ). After that smooth sailing. Raised right hand, asserted authenticity of my answers, took vision test, took picture (glasses off please), scanned both thumbs, capture signature.

Now here's the part I really don't understand in this day in age. First. They only accept cash and checks. No credit cards. Why? I understand that the credit card companies charge a fee to process one (that's one way they make money), but we don't live in the 1950s anymore. And if the person defaults on paying their credit card bill, the State still has the money. That's the advantage over checks. I mean I had the $24 in cash to pay. No big deal. And I knew it prior to actually having to pay as there were signs strategically placed to let me know of this fact. But still.

Second. Why do I need to wait 3-4 weeks to get my actual license? OK, so one of my Twitter buds said it took two weeks to get hers, but seriously? Ohio in 1997 gave me my license right then and there. I was stunned. Illinois, same thing in 2003. I wasn't as stunned then. I actually expected it. But Texas? 2nd largest state in the Union can't give me my license right now. Oh, and Texans hate the fact that Alaska is bigger...they like to conveniently forget that.

Anyway, I'm now a citizen of Texas. Welcome home, Mark.

l8r,

Marz

The Story of Outstanding

Hello, Everyone. This is the Story of Outstanding. What is that you ask? Just about anyone who knows me in real life knows that my stock reply to "how are you" is the word "outstanding." So how did that become my automatic reply? Well, lemme tell you a story.

Back in the mid-90s while working for Dave & Buster's in Houston I had a General Manager named Joe. I won't attempt to spell is last name, but we all called him Joe Z. Well, most people called him other names, but that's not important right now. What is important is that no matter how Joe Z. really felt, if you asked him how he was doing, he always gave the same reply - "Outstanding." He could be on Death's door and he would still have the same answer.

Now, Joe Z. wasn't all bad as I may have alluded to. However he was a harsh GM if he didn't like you. I happened to be someone he liked, even though I was just a Blackjack dealer. And part-time while he was there. I didn't go full-time till after he left that store. He was also a bit shady. Not in the skimming off the top shady (at least I assume he wasn't). Shady in the aspect that he would manipulate people. He tried to do that with me and my Pit Boss, but that's also not important right now.

As people got to know him, and know his stock reply, it became a trademark. It also became farcical. This is related to him not being the most-liked of GMs. We would imitate him when he wasn't around. But in spite of that it still was effective. Even if you laughed about it, you couldn't help but fell even a little better because he used the word.

Eventually, Joe Z. left us in Houston, and we would remember his trademark. We also would remember other aspects of him. Now let me be clear - I was never one of those that hated him. I actually thought he wasn't THAT bad. He actually held people accountable, and the slackers of the world hate people like that. But he also had other negative qualities that others weren't too happy about.

So fast forward to 1997 when I moved to Cincinnati, Ohio to open the Dave & Buster's there. I was the Pit Boss. The least important of the important people (i.e. salaried manager). I had my own 800 sq. ft. area of a 65,000 sq. ft. building that I was responsible for. Over time I developed two "trademarks." OK, I actually developed a third that I will briefly mention. Anyway, the two trademarks I'm referring to are the Word of the Day, and the Color of the Day.

I'll briefly cover the Color of the Day. We had, like most of the D&B's at the time, a fortune teller game near the front door. Also near the front door was the aptly named Front Desk. At our location (and Houston) the Front Desk staff would constantly complain about this fortune teller game as it would say a few phrases over and over known as "attract mode." One of those phrases said, "Hello, what's your lucky color today?" So as a bit of fun, I would call the Front Desk from my Casino (they were literally behind me so a phone call wasn't necessary) and repeat the phrase. This evolved into me deciding on a different color for each day and the staff would ask me what the color was. There were two rules:

1. It had to be a one-word color. No blue-green, or ocean blue, or pine green, etc. Most of them only needed the one word anyway.

2. It had to be a color I never used before. That got very difficult as time went by.


The other trademark, the Word of the Day, was a word that I would use in response to "how are you?" The rule was that I could never use the words "good", "OK", "alright" and a few others as they were overused and boring. I had a little Sharp or Casio (I can't remember) organizer. And in that organizer I actually had a list of words that I would use. I would add words as I thought of them. Many of the words really weren't true synonyms of "good" but were close enough.

Obviously "outstanding" was one of the those words. It wasn't a word that I used a lot actually. I used "spectacular" and "phenomenal" quite a bit. "Phenomenal" was one of my favorites. One of the servers came up with that and a certain way of saying it, emphasizing each syllable.

One day one of our newer managers heard me say "Outstanding" in a certain way. She turned to me with one of those looks. A combination of quizzical, disbelief, scorn, and amusement if that is possible. I really didn't notice it at the time to be honest. I used that word a few more times that day and she finally asked me if I had ever worked for a guy named Joe Z. "Why, yes, as a matter of fact," I replied. She immediately started laughing and I was a bit stunned she knew him. We shared stories about him and his use of "outstanding" for as long as we worked together.

Somewhere along the line after that I started using the word on a regular basis as a bit of an inside joke with her. And, over time, it stuck. Not only did it stick, but I would be very demonstrative about the word. "OUTSTANDING!" was the normal response. Sometimes it was just "Outstanding!" And rarely it was "outstanding." The staff starting having some fun with it too. I was a regular manager at that time after going from Pit Boss to server to manager.

Remember when I said that this word was effective? It is. If you ask someone how they are, typically they will reply in one of a few different ways:

- good
- OK
- alright
- uh
- not bad

And that about covers it. Never:

- Phenomenal
- Spectacular
- Great
- Stupendous
- Fantastic, like the NBA - one of my other favorites
- Awesome
- Outstanding

And this is because most people go through life in a blah state. So to not make you feel bad, or to not talk about how they really feel, they give one of the first group of responses. Now if you ask someone how they are and they reply from any of the second group of responses (or any similar words) don't you feel just a little bit better? Especially if they ask how you are too? Unless you're a Scrooge, that "Outstanding" feeling is a bit contagious. Just like a smile.

While watching Joe Z. and my own experience in using all of these great words to express how I was, I noticed that others seemed to be in better moods. Whether they were an employee or guest. And "Outstanding" really is one of the best words to use. And it became a word for me at work only. Outside of work, I would rarely use it. I typically reverted to the same group of words as others do.

Why? Well, while I was at work, especially in a manager role, I felt that one of the best motivational tools is to never be in a grumpy mood with your staff. OK, so there are times when they piss you off and you have to yell at them. But it is very counter-productive to be a Mr. Grumpypants everyday. No one wants to be around Mr. Grumpypants. So keying in on that word got a desired result.

Outside of work, I had no one to inspire. No one to motivate. I was like everyone else. And I hated living in Cincinnati. There are plenty of people that love that area. And most of them only live there. I was one of those that didn't. A friend of mine in Houston who tried to warn me about moving there was right. They really do roll up the sidewalks at 10:00PM. On a Saturday night! But I digress. I really wasn't "outstanding" living there. On the other hand, I was "outstanding" working at that D&B.

At work, I had many, many people come up to me and tell me they loved my use of that word. It made them feel better. They had a better time at work knowing I was there. Knowing that I was always "outstanding." Getting that feedback would really make me feel "outstanding." So it became a two-way street.

Eventually I moved to Chicago, and no one there was part of the history of the "Word of the Day", the "Color of the Day", or "Outstanding." We had a fortune teller game at the front door, but the Front Desk was on the 2nd floor at the top of the escalator. And that fortune teller never asked what my lucky color was like in Houston and Cincy. So my use of "outstanding" diminished.

Until.....I started getting really frustrated at work. Frustrated at being taken for granted. Frustrated at doing more work than about 90% of the rest of the people in the building. Frustrated at being passed over for an AGM position by others who were incompetent (except for one person). So I started using "outstanding" again.

But it had a double meaning. While I would say it seriously, there was a tinge of sarcasm. I would hide that sarcasm most times, but occasionally, with only a few staff, I would say it dripping in sarcasm. These people knew why. But I tried to not let that get me down. I didn't want my staff depressed. I needed them to be as upbeat as possible. Let me carry that burden.

And I also told the story of Joe Z. And I told the story of the "Word of the Day." And I told the story of the "Color of the Day." And they listened. Politely. Mainly because they weren't there to experience the why. It's like telling a funny story only to have to say, "you had to be there."

But the sarcastic "outstanding" started growing. But here's a strange twist. I started using it outside of work. It became such a habit for me, that it translated to outside of work. And do you know why? Because I really was "outstanding" when I wasn't at work. Chicago is a great city. I had made friends, though some of those were "bar friends," but even those people made me feel outstanding.

And I got the same reactions from everyone in Chicago like I did in Cincinnati. People's general attitude improved. In a way it was similar to one of my server's phrases in Cincy. "Your attitude determines your altitude." Or something like that.

After leaving D&B, I continued to use "outstanding." At my new place of employment, ESPN Zone, I used it genuinely. With no hint of sarcasm. Well, only on the rarest occasions. And I continued to use it in my personal life. No matter how bad things got there, I was always "outstanding." And it became a trademark for me there. Especially on the weekly conference call. Over time, the people on the conference call began to realize that I really was "outstanding." I had the best job in the building practically.

Now I live in San Antonio. I still use the word. About the only people that will not hear me use it as an automatic response are my parents. I'll use it if I really am outstanding. Otherwise I'll revert to whatever I feel. Don't get me wrong. I am extremely happy I moved back to S.A. And in general I AM "outstanding." But I don't need to put on an act on front of them.

My fellow employees at work aren't used to me yet and the use of "outstanding" but they will be soon. I can already see that they subconsciously feel better. And not only do I respond "outstanding" I also ask them how they are. That is very key. It makes someone feel better if you reciprocate. Even more important if they work with you or for you. It also helps that they see me work as hard or harder than do.

So, I'm Outstanding. How are you?

Oh, what was that third trademark? "In the Casino!" That's part of another story.

MeToday080714

5Things About Marz

MeToday 080709

MeToday080629

So, Viddler wouldn't play nice with Blogger and post the vid. So I'm doing it manually:

What I WON'T miss about Chicago

OK, so I posted a list of things I'll miss about Chicago. And while I really liked living there, there are some things I won't miss.

1. The Cold. Cold weather in and of itself isn't that big of a deal to me. As a matter of fact, I would always laugh at some of those native Chicagoans who would say it's bitterly cold when it's in the 40s. What I don't like is the practically 6-8 months of having to wear a jacket, coat, or some other winter gear to go outside. I realized when I moved to Ohio about 11 years ago that I had some unconscious rule that I only wear a jacket from 12/1-2/1. In Ohio, I was able expand that to 11/1-3/1 for the most part. In Chicago I stubbornly had to modify that to I wear a jacket from 10/1-6/1 (sometimes in May I didn't need one). Ugh, it's cold for too long.

2. The Cost. It's expensive to live up in that mug, yo! Now my rent wasn't extravagant, but for what I paid I had a small 1-bedroom apartment in an OK neighborhood with none of the amenities of a suburban apartment. Though I rarely used said amenities when I did live those places. Food and drink are high-priced. Mostly downtown. In my 'hood the regular bars were a little bit cheaper. Owning a car in the city. If you can't always find a place to park on the street at home, then you could pay anywhere from $75-300 PER MONTH for an assigned parking space at your apartment. PLUS if you drove to work, pay upwards of $20-30 A DAY at a garage unless your job had a 1/2 price deal or, even better, free with a garage. I had that with Dave & Buster's. Then the City sales tax is over 10% there. And there's a State income tax too. Don't have a State income tax in Texas (maybe the Fed can remember those days too). I could go on even more, but I think you get the point.

3. Sports. Yes, I raved about Chicago being a great sports town. However, for someone who's a Spurs, Astros, and Longhorns fan, you don't get much coverage up there. The only favorite team I do have in that part of the country is the Minnesota Vikings. And they get as much coverage as any other non-Chicago team. I'll be back in a part of the country where I won't have to do PPV to see the Longhorns, or go to a bar to watch one of my teams if they are not on a national feed like TNT or ESPN.

4. Being 1300 miles away from my parents. It's a lot harder to celebrate those family-centric holidays or occasions when you are that far away. Maybe I'll stop being apathetic about Christmas now.

5. The inconvenience of public transportation. While I praised it earlier, it's really only good if you just have to take that one train or bus to your destination. More than one? It'll take an hour or more to get somewhere, while by car it's 15-30 minutes. Also, the recent (as in the past 6 months) issue of the Red Line not going underground on the weekends. That sucks when you close and that's normally the easiest way to go home at night.

6. Mayor Daley. Or more specifically the corruption of Chicago politics. I'm not saying they're saints down here in San Antonio, but there's a lot less of it here.

And that really seems to sum it up. So since I only came up with 6 things here and 23 things on what I will miss about Chicago, why did I move? Pretty much for most of the reasons above. They outweigh the positives. I do miss living there and hope to visit again some time.

L8r,

Marz

In Honor of George Carlin

Holy.....

Shit
Piss
Fuck
Cunt
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits

AND

Fart
Turd
Twat

That is all :(

What I'll Miss About Chicago

Well, I'm now down in San Antonio. I'm very happy to be down here, but there are quite a few things I'll miss about Chicago in really no particular order other than #1:

1. My Friends. Awww, yeah I know that's sweet and all, but I did live there 7 years. And I have some really great friends. I also have many "work friends" or acquaintances that I'll miss. I had a small group of friends that I hung out with or talked with on a regular basis. I'll miss being able to do that. I have a couple friends here in SA from high school and we'll get together occasionally I'm sure. I also have a friend that I worked with up in Chicago who is now here in SA.

2. CTA. As much as people in Chicago complain about CTA, it's better than 90% of the rest of the country. Only places like NYC, Boston, and DC really have public transportation (not sure about LA or San Fran). CTA was very convenient for me. Especially since I lived in a part of town that had 24hr service via the Red Line or 151 bus. If I was out till all hours of the night, CTA kept me safe. Can't really do that in most places. You either called for a cab and waited forever (I'll talk about cabs later), or you drove - which is stupid. CTA got me to many of the places I needed to go with relatively little hassle. Unfortunately, if I needed to take more than one bus or train, that convenience lessened.

3. Cabs. Dude, I could ALWAYS get a cab within 5 minutes outside my apartment if I needed it. Usually I could walk out and there was a cab driving by. And since I worked downtown and hung out downtown cabs were plentiful too. Very nice for those 4AM nights when I didn't want to ride on a stinky train.

4. Sports. Just about every professional sport league - actually I think every professional sport league - has a team there. I truly became a baseball fan by living there. Here in San Antonio we are a one sport town - NBA. Chicago? I lived 5 El stops from Wrigley Field. And I could take the same train to see the White Sox. Bulls/Blackhawks games were easy to get to. And Bears games too. Not that I went to many of those, but when I did I didn't have to go out to the 'burbs. The only major team I didn't get to see was the Chicago Fire. While I could get there, it would take like 2 hours.

5. Food. My God, does Chicago have some phenomenal food! And most restaurants are good. Just about all ethnicities are there. I'll especially miss all the Italian restaurants there.

6. Snow. Yes, I like snow. Granted I never had to shovel the stuff, but I thought it was still a novelty. Growing up in Texas, snow is a rarity. So I did like it.

7. The apparent lack of bees/wasps. I think there was a handful of times I saw a bee living there, and I cannot remember a time I saw a wasp. I hate them. Seriously. I'll run like a little girl to get away from them. Mostly that due to a fear of being allergic to them. As a kid I had a nice group of allergies, and from that there was a possibility of being allergic to them. So I've never been stung by one and don't want to be.

8. Summer. While I love it hot, Chicago summers are really nice. Even today (6/20/08) it is 73 degrees there right now (2:50PM). It's 89 but feels like 91 here in San Antonio. I love that actually, but when you need to be outside for a few hours, a la a baseball game, you don't get drenched in sweat.

9. Festivals. Not that I went to a lot of them, but I did go to a few. There was even one in my neighborhood (most 'hoods have one). And from May - early September there are festivals every weekend. Plus the Taste of Chicago. One of the biggest in the country.

10. Hook ups. In Chicago, your business card is like an AMEX. Don't leave home without it. If you are in the F&B industry, a business card is like a VIP card most of the time. No cover, getting discounts/freebies at bars/restaurants, etc. Chicago works on the hook up. I give you mine and you give me yours.

11. 4AM/5AM bars. This is mostly if you worked a close shift you still could hit your favorite watering hole after work for an hour or two. Most places everywhere else close at 2 and last call is 1:30. So you go home. Which will be good for me here.

12. The Residents. People in Chicago are genuinely nice. Yes, there will always be jerks, but people there are nice.

13. Walking to the beach. I lived a couple blocks from Lake Michigan. While it's not a beach in the sense of an ocean, it still has sand. For the couple of years I went just about every day during the summer, that was nice.

14. Lake Shore Drive. This is that road you see along Lake Michigan in every movie made in Chicago. I took that to work every day when I worked at the Zone. Especially nice in the Summer when you passed by all of the harbors. Side note - it was also cool to see all the places in the movies that were made in Chicago.

15. Two airports. I had plenty of choices for airlines when I flew. And both took about the same amount of time to get to via CTA.

16. My neighborhood. While I didn't live in the best of 'hoods, it wasn't bad. I could walk 5 blocks in any direction (except East cuz that would be the lake), and encounter the entire world just about. Seriously. The variety of languages I heard on a daily basis was awesome.

17. Walking. Related to #16, but also downtown. You learned to walk everywhere. Even when I did have a car up there, I learned that walking was more convenient much of the time. There is nowhere to park in most places. So you walked. I could walk to my bank, the grocery store (two as a matter of fact), the dentist, the eye doctor, to get a haircut, several restaurants and bars, the post office, a few fast food places, the El, etc. Very few of my needs could not be met by walking from my apartment. In downtown, same thing. You walked. If it was 20 degrees out and you had to go 5 or more blocks, then you took a cab.

18. The guy at my bus stop. He lives in my building and sits at the stop just about everyday (except the really cold days in the Winter). He reminds me of the guy, Norman, in the movie Ghost World that keeps waiting for a bus. Except in that movie, the bus line wasn't active.

19. Delivery. When I was lazy, I could order a meatball sub and have it delivered. I could have Chinese Food delivered. Not that I did it, but Jimmy John's (sandwich shop) delivered. Most local places delivered anything on their menu. You weren't restricted to just pizza from Domino's.

20. 4/5AM Pizza places. When you had a late night, there were a couple places that delivered till 4 or 5 AM. Not the best pizza, but hey, it's food.

21. Patios at restaurants. Yeah, I got a lot of food stuff here. This is mostly downtown, but a few places where I lived had patios.

22. No Smoking. I loved the law that prohibited smoking in restaurants and bars. However, I personally think the government had no business doing that. But that's politics and I won't get into that in this post. And this isn't strictly Chicago, but I don't think that's the case here in San Antonio yet.

23. The Tourist Factor. Chicago is a great city. And it's got a wealth of cool things to see or do. Here's a plug to one of my Twitter friends, go to her site The Local Tourist .

Well, I guess that's about it. I'm sure I can come up with more, but I'm having a harder time of picking Chicago-only things. There are plenty of things I'll miss, but I can do that or get that here in San Antonio. I'll have a "Things I Won't Miss About Chicago" post in the next few days.

L8r,

Marz

Back in Texas

My Video/Slideshow of my move back to Texas!

3G iPhone

So they finally announced the new iPhone. As I type this entry from MY
iPhone I am excited about the new one. It's not everything yet but
there are some major improvements.

No, I have no plans on buying one on or about July 11th when it comes
out. Depending on how things work out my potential new job will buy
one for me. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Let's talk about what's good. First 3G. This is the biggest thing
about the iPhone that everyone wanted originally. Now they have it.
3G is nice. Broadband-like speed in your phone. I've experienced this
on a Razr. It's nice. Even better with a real browser.

Microsoft Exchange. This will have the iPhone directly compete with
the Crackberry and other business smart phones. However, not only did
they implement this, they also implemented push services for native
applications. This means that your app won't run in the background
eating up resources and battery life.

GPS. I personally haven't had a need for it here in Chicago, but with
my move it would be nice. Especially for the move itself. Others have
made a big deal about the pseudo-GPS already available not being enough.

Back to apps. This wasn't a revelation as they were announced earlier
this year. And I only got to listen to the audio feed as Apple no
longer does a live video stream. But from what I heard and the
comments from those there apps are going to be incredible.

Price. The biggest obstical for most. Now an 8GB iPhone will be $199.
Now we are talking. 16GB $299. This is huge. The same price all over
the world. And it's going to launch in over 20 countries July 11th.

The mail app is better. Better integration of MS Office and iWork
docs, searchable contacts, and more I can't remember round it out.

What's missing? How about Multimedia Text Messaging? I'd like to not
have to go home to a website to view an MMS a friend sent me. And I'd
like to be able to send one too.

Video recording. It can be done. The iPhone's camera is basically a
video camera. I have an app that will do it with sound. I have the
trial version, but it seems to work pretty well.

Camera settings. It's only a point and shoot thing. With great light
the pics are really good. Poor light not so much.

Flash. Yeah we all know Steve Jobs said it doesn't work right. C'mon
Apple and Adobe work together on this. No flash really hinders web
browsing.

That's really all I got. I still think the new phone is a great
improvement over the old one.

L8r,

Marz

Sent from my iPhone

MeToday080608

MeToday080606

Good Bye Chicago

My going away slide show.

MeToday080602

Spurs are Old

Yeah, folks, let's hear it. The Spurs are old. Washed up. Duncan should retire. He won't win another championship. Hmmm...let's do a bold comparison. Years Duncan (and others )won a championship and age - 1999 (23), 2003 (27), 2005 (29), 2007 (31). Manu Ginobili is also old cuz he's 30 - 2003 (25), 2005 (27), 2007 (29). Tony Parker isn't old but surrounded by old men 2003 (21), 2005 (23), 2007 (25). Then there's Michael Jordan 1991 (28), 1992 (29), 1993 (30), 1996 (33), 1997 (34), 1998 (35). Hmmmm...did any of you remember hearing that Jordan was old? Washed up?

Why are the media so quick to include the Big 3 of the Spurs in the "old men" category. Let's look at the real old men on this team. Robert Horry (37), Michael Finley (35), Brent Barry (36), Bruce Bowen (36). There are a couple others 33 or older, but these are the guys that play a lot. So the Spurs again won't repeat. There are some who will say they won't win again for a long time because of their age. I say that the Spurs are prime for cutting away quite a few players and replace them with some more, gasp, 28-30 year olds from the rest of the league.

Big Shot Rob/Bob is done. He gave it his all, and really wasn't that explosive force in the Playoffs. Even in the even years with the Spurs he was better. Sorry, Robert, that last ring for a finger (technically a thumb is not a finger), won't come as a player. Michael Finley. You showed some flashes of brilliance this past year, but I fear next year will be an Horry-like year. Barry, the same. Bruce Bowen....dude, how do you do it? You have one more good year defending and shooting 3s from the corners max, but I wouldn't fault you for retiring.

I don't know how many years are on any of these guys' contracts, but I say cut 3 of the 4 at least. Grab two guys in the above age range (28-30) in the off season and draft the rest. The "Big 3" still have at least 2 more championships in them as a unit if they stick to the every other year pattern. Ginobili 3 more. Hell, Parker could end up with 5 more if the Spurs stick with the same pattern. That's eight rings, yo. This team was built for championships. Just not in any consecutive years. Grrrr... Of course for Ginobili and Parker, there needs to be others coming along in the next few years.

I say the Spurs tank the 2009-2010 season and pick up Duncan's replacement like what happened when they picked up Robinson's replacement (Duncan). The problem is that the rest of the league finally caught up with the Spurs in realizing that there is some major talent outside the U.S. Mainland. 8-10 years ago, the international make-up of the Spurs was "The Story." How could a "rag-tag" group of international players being winning so much? Stories about how many different languages were being spoken at practices. Pop's inspirational quote translated into every player's native language (just Google the 101st hit on a rock quote). Now, many teams sport players from other countries like never before.

So Pop needs to come up with another trick. Maybe they only draft guys from the Mainland. Maybe he keeps all the old dudes and gets more 30+ guys. Then only let them play 20 minutes a game including the playoffs. Maybe only sign under 21 and get rid of everyone except for the Big 3. Maybe he hires Avery Johnson as an Assistant Coach. Bring the Little General back to S.A. and groom him to be the Head Coach in 5 years. All the while winning a couple more rings.

Who knows? I'm a fan of the game, but not an expert. I couldn't draw up a pick-n-roll to save my life. What I do know as a Spurs faithful is that their Championship days aren't over yet. For the rest of Parker's career with the Spurs, I see at least 2 more rings guaranteed. And one of those may be after Duncan retires. I'm being ultra-conservative about that. The crazy theory is that Parker could get another 6-7 if the Spurs build a couple 3-peat teams. Far-fetched? How? Jordan was 28, that's right, 28 when he won his FIRST ring. Tony has 3 right now and he's 26. He starts a 3-peat next year when he's 27 with a three year break? Yeah, and pigs may fly.

T.P. is the future of this franchise. Duncan is the David Robinson of the late 90s. Not quite done, but only about 4 more good years left. Ginobili is in the middle of both of them. That's all you need to build on. Most teams only had 2 main guys. The Spurs have 3.

However, the supporting cast is a bit of a burden. The Spurs could have won the Western Conference Finals. Game 1 was theirs. In the bag. They let it slip away. Kobe took over, and the Spurs forgot how to make baskets. Game 2. A throwaway. Game 3. Welcome back Manu. 4. Ginobili disappears and Brent Barry is the hero (huh?). Yeah there was the non-call at the end, but the same thing happened on the previous possession. And the Spurs played like crap anyway. 5. Similar to Game 1. Only Game 3 was a smackdown. The rest were a slugfest until the end.

I'm bummed that I when I finally make it back to San Antonio, the Spurs won't be there in the Finals. Every year they go, I get more homesick. But, at least the don't have to worry about screwing up their undefeated record in the Finals. Did I mention that Boston is scary? Yeah, I forgot about that part. Boston may have been struggling on the road, but they seem to be on a mission more than any other team. I don't see Kobe getting that ring without Shaq just yet. And add the Spurs to that list too if they had made it.

It's K.G.'s year. As much as I hate the Lakers, I tend to hate the Celtics more. And in any other year I'd be rooting for the Celtics to lose (take note of how that was worded). But I want K.G. to win a ring. No one else on that team. Just K.G. He deserves it. So Boston needs to take care of business with Detroit and then whup up on the Lakers.

2009? Spurs-Orlando. Spurs in 6, at home. Huh? No home court for them? Yeah, I said it. The Magic get a better record than the Spurs, but they lose to the Spurs. In San Antonio. While I'm at the AT&T Center. Mark it on your calendar.

Yo.

Indiana Jones 4

Hello all. Just got home from watching the new Indiana Jones movie. First off, there WILL BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW! So be warned now. I will try to delay them as much as possible.

I think the attitude of the Producer and Director is really evident with the opening scene. The previous 3 movies do a nice job of incorporating the Paramount mountain. A nice statement, especially when a "real" mountain is used. But a gopher hill? Not exactly a bold statement. More like, "we couldn't think of anything else and hey, we only did this cuz we're tired of the fans bugging us for 20 years to make another one."

The movie isn't all bad. I mean it's no Howard the Duck. Well, maybe. I dunno. I kind of like Howard the Duck actually. I think only one other person in the universe likes it besides me. The first half of the movie is pretty good. Some nice references to the other movies. Some subtle, others not so subtle. I'm sure I didn't catch all of them, but I did watch all 3 this week. The last 2 last night.

At least the action takes place 20 years after "Temple of Doom" since Harrison Ford is 20 years older. So gone are the Nazis to be replaced with the Soviets. McCarthyism is in full effect. A nice nod to what some may feel is a similar attitude today. While Indy seemed to show his age at the beginning, and there are some nice one-liners about that, we quickly see Indy kicking some major ass.

And really up until about half way into the movie I'm playing along. It's not as cool as the others. No evil Nazis, but the story behind the Crystal Skull is a little weak. So, I'm a bit on the fence at that point. Then things begin to fall apart for me.

I really think that the overall story needed to go in a different direction. Huge potential in the ideas, just not executed how I and 70% of the audience in my theater wanted.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<< WARNING! HERE BE SPOILERS!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

OK, if you haven't seen the movie yet, stop here. No. Seriously. Stop. Unless you have no plans on seeing it or don't care if I reveal the "punch line."













Here's my two word review of the movie. Seriously? Aliens? Yeah, that about sums it up. I didn't come to the theater at midnight to watch a sci-fi movie. No it's not Star Wars meets Indiana Jones (though there is a nice quote associated with the movie). But, it takes on a sci-fi feel. Yes, it's from the beginning of the movie, but my impression was that it was just a backstory that really wasn't going to be the main story.

Once we understand that this skull is the skull of ET (OK, not literally, though I was expecting a glowing finger), I was already half-way down the slippery slope. This franchise is about adventure. Old school adventure. A rugged archaeologist that saves the girl and gets the prize - kind of. This isn't sci-fi adventure. We aren't on a far off planet trudging through the jungle brandishing laser blasters looking for treasure. Save that for the Saturday night Sci-Fi Channel movie.

I'm looking for what Lucas originally intended. The cool guy fighting the bad guys on Earth in a jungle looking for treasure that my parents' generation watched on Saturday afternoon matinees in the movie theater. Errol Flynn style. Not a combination of Indy, ET, Close Encounters, X-Files, and Star Wars just to be funny. The History Channel was airing a program hyping the series. One of the quotes was something about how Indy inspired many people to get into archaeology. This movie won't do that.

Again. Seriously? Aliens?

I went with a friend and also ran into a co-worker. Two different screens between the three of us. About the same reaction from both audiences. Lots of comments that weren't too positive. And only about 30% of the audience in both theaters applauded. You can guess that we were part of the 70%. All three of us used the word "bad" to describe the movie.

That's all I really have right now. It's late, and I'm tired. Worked in the morning and stayed up straight through until the movie.

L8r,

Marz

Seriously? Aliens?

MeToday080519

Spurs showing what's up

MeToday080514

Here is Marz eating crow about last night's game.

MeToday080512

More Spurs!

Where I Stand in the Political Landscape

For a very long time people's political orientation has been placed on a linear spectrum. Are you a liberal? Are you a conservative? Are you Ultra either way? Are you a moderate? How you answer that question determines where on the political spectrum you fall.

However, over the past few decades political experts have created a two axis chart to try to place people in a more accurate category. I've included a simple representation here:



I used this image as it doesn't try to place politicians and other people on a chart. Depending on the organization using something like this, they try to place their favorite person/people in the most flattering place (i.e. as centrist as they can get away with) and people they hate as far to the extremes as they can. So where do I fall on here? Somewhere in the upper right quadrant. Not really sure exactly where, but I can tell you not at the extremes.

Back in college where many people "find themselves" I found that I am neither liberal nor conservative in the stereotypical sense. I especially found this from a class I took one summer about the Constitution.

When I tell people I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, they really can't understand this. Many think by me saying "socially liberal" that I want the government to "take care of me." That's not really the case. It's more of a situation where I feel people should have the freedom to persue their interests as long as it doesn't harm society. And by me saying "fiscally conservative" that I am a Republican. No. While I tend to share many of the economic philosophies of Republicans, I am not a true Republican.

I am closer to Libertarianism than anything else. Some people think that is a cop out. Others feel that is a refuge of crackpots and confused people. I can remember living in Austin and Houston going to various festivals and seeing these crazies called Libertarians asking people to take their political spectrum test. At the time I found it funny how the test seemed to consistently place people in that Libertarian part of the chart. This was also the first time I had seen a chart versus a linear spectrum. However, I pretty much agreed with where I feel on the chart. However, Constitutionalist is also another tag to describe me. While I may not adhere 100% to that philosophy either, I do agree with most of what Constitutionalists agree.

So what is it I stand for? I'll give a brief and broad description. Free Speech. Privacy. Limited Government. Individual rights. Elimination of personal income taxes in favor of sales taxes. Strong defense. Free Trade with all nations (unless we decide on sanctions for a particular nation). Not allowing ourselves to become subject to another nation's sovereignty (i.e. the UN or NATO cannot act like our Congress). Free markets.

Without getting into more specific issues, the above covers most. I plan on covering more specific topics at a later date.

So basically this means that the candidates left over really don't represent the vast majority of my views. So I'll end up voting Republican again. When a Democrat shares enough of my views I'll vote for them, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I had a previous post a couple weeks back that kind of touched on this issue of not having a good candidate to vote for, but I did deleted it. I felt it was too much of a rant that I had typed while out at 1AM at a bar. I've included most of it below since it was still in my iPhone's memory:

So I'm at the bar watching Obama trying to spin his loss in Pennsylvania by speaking in Indiana. He talks about helping the common man while having 3 frat boys stand behind him with their A&F t-shirts (Abercrombie & Fitch). 'Nuff said about that.

He decides to bash John McCain and George Bush. Now while they are not saints he then says that all the previous administrations have screwed us. A direct attack against Bill Clinton and then Hillary via guilt by association. So he is going to fix that? I haven't heard any of the 3 remaining candidates give me concrete plans.

This will be yet another election of the lesser of two evils. And I will again vote Republican, though I think The Party has lost its way right now.

I long for the day that a Dem is moderate enough to get my vote. Actually I long for the day that a candidate from either party shares enough of my beliefs to really warrant my support. Right now it's McCain.

While typing this a couple guys from a Central European country come in and bash Obama. The one person who supports him speaks up. Good for her. Except that she quickly resorts to name-calling as in calling those guys "gutter snipes." Hey, Liberals, if you want some respect in debates, then don't resort to name calling towards those you are trying to debate. That makes you look stupid. Funny thing, she left instead of trying to defend Obama other than saying, "I used to know him." OK, I like cheese. BTW I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of what I mentioned above and she ignored it.

Hillary is not going to win the nomination. And America is not ready for either a Black or woman President. We're close. 2012 or 2016 it can happen. The divide in the Democratic Party is too great right now. And that's the only reason the Republicans are going to win. Otherwise the American public would vote in a Dem.

MeToday080510

Iron Man today!

MeToday080509

Go Spurs!