BYU wins! BYU wins! That was a classic game in almost every sense. Nothing quite like winning a close one against your rival, and it doesn't get any more "down to the wire" than that. Makes me wish I'd been there. There is something about this rivalry, however, that bothers me...and that is what the media has apparently dubbed it, i.e., the Holy War.
The Holy War? What? Clearly BYU has a religious affiliation, but Utah? They're just a state school, the U of UTAH. Last I checked Utahn was not a religion. If the rivalry were BYU vs. Notre Dame, the title Holy War would make sense. Is it supposed to be...Mormonism vs. Atheism maybe? Mormonism vs. Agnosticism? And what makes it extra stupid is that the predominant religion at the U of U is probably ALSO Mormonism. Are there feuding sects within the LDS faith that I'm unaware of??
A great rivalry deserves a great name, not a contrived misnomer.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
It's time to talk a little cell phone etiquette...or lack thereof. :)
Let's face it. Using a cell phone impairs your ability to drive safely. BUT, I would venture to say it impairs some a little more (or much more) than others. Have you ever been out driving around, minding your own business, when you see another driver do something so inexplicably stupid or unsafe that you just have to get a look at the driver? And isn't it the case, 9 times out of 10, that they either have a phone crammed into the side of their face, or they're really old, OR (heaven forbid) both? Fortunately technology anxiety makes that last case virtually impossible...but in time it's conceivable that that will change. But I digress. My point is, just as not everyone is suited for driving in general, not everyone is suited for driving while talking on their phone. I think they should make it part of the driver license test. If you fail the "driving while talking" portion of the test, you get a restriction put on your license, like if you wear glasses, etc. Then if a cop pulls you over for doing something stupid, and you were on your cell phone, you get a big NASTY ticket...and the cop has the option to confiscate and stomp on your phone repeatedly, on-the-spot.
Also...it goes without saying (or should, anyway) that you either turn your cell phone off, or put it in silent mode, when you're at church, or in a movie, etc. I get that sometimes you forget, at least I GOT that sometimes you forget...like 8 years ago. :) But now I think there is no excuse for it. Cell phones and their use are so ubiquitous now that not turning them off in church, or a movie, or where ever is simply unacceptable. It would be like showing up to church and then realizing, "Oops! I forgot my pants!" Nevertheless, almost without exception these days, the poor sacrament prayer is tainted by a low-fi, blippy-sounding rendition of some Eminem song echoing louder than life in the chapel...quickly followed by the sound of some poor schmuck desperately trying to silence it (usually takes about 10 seconds). I think you should get a 6 month temple recommend suspension for that. Or maybe...have to give a talk the next week in church. There must be consequences or people will never learn! :)
Lastly, there is a relatively new cell-phone related phenomenon that has been especially bugging me of late, which also occurs in a movie theater. You're watching an exciting movie on a big screen, the room is dark, you're enveloped, engrossed, and then...a small but annoyingly bright light appears three rows ahead of you and takes you temporarily out of the movie. MAN that is annoying. I mean, wouldn't want a little thing like the MOVIE you paid $8 to see, not to mention everyone else in the theater, get in the way of your important text message. HEY TEENAGE CHICK, YOUR MESSAGE CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTERWARDS!!! :) I'm telling you, if they installed cell phone jamming devices in theaters YESTERDAY it wouldn't be too soon. I think it's inevitable...but only time will tell.
Let's face it. Using a cell phone impairs your ability to drive safely. BUT, I would venture to say it impairs some a little more (or much more) than others. Have you ever been out driving around, minding your own business, when you see another driver do something so inexplicably stupid or unsafe that you just have to get a look at the driver? And isn't it the case, 9 times out of 10, that they either have a phone crammed into the side of their face, or they're really old, OR (heaven forbid) both? Fortunately technology anxiety makes that last case virtually impossible...but in time it's conceivable that that will change. But I digress. My point is, just as not everyone is suited for driving in general, not everyone is suited for driving while talking on their phone. I think they should make it part of the driver license test. If you fail the "driving while talking" portion of the test, you get a restriction put on your license, like if you wear glasses, etc. Then if a cop pulls you over for doing something stupid, and you were on your cell phone, you get a big NASTY ticket...and the cop has the option to confiscate and stomp on your phone repeatedly, on-the-spot.
Also...it goes without saying (or should, anyway) that you either turn your cell phone off, or put it in silent mode, when you're at church, or in a movie, etc. I get that sometimes you forget, at least I GOT that sometimes you forget...like 8 years ago. :) But now I think there is no excuse for it. Cell phones and their use are so ubiquitous now that not turning them off in church, or a movie, or where ever is simply unacceptable. It would be like showing up to church and then realizing, "Oops! I forgot my pants!" Nevertheless, almost without exception these days, the poor sacrament prayer is tainted by a low-fi, blippy-sounding rendition of some Eminem song echoing louder than life in the chapel...quickly followed by the sound of some poor schmuck desperately trying to silence it (usually takes about 10 seconds). I think you should get a 6 month temple recommend suspension for that. Or maybe...have to give a talk the next week in church. There must be consequences or people will never learn! :)
Lastly, there is a relatively new cell-phone related phenomenon that has been especially bugging me of late, which also occurs in a movie theater. You're watching an exciting movie on a big screen, the room is dark, you're enveloped, engrossed, and then...a small but annoyingly bright light appears three rows ahead of you and takes you temporarily out of the movie. MAN that is annoying. I mean, wouldn't want a little thing like the MOVIE you paid $8 to see, not to mention everyone else in the theater, get in the way of your important text message. HEY TEENAGE CHICK, YOUR MESSAGE CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTERWARDS!!! :) I'm telling you, if they installed cell phone jamming devices in theaters YESTERDAY it wouldn't be too soon. I think it's inevitable...but only time will tell.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Every year around election time (like right now) someone will inevitably get in my face about "getting out to vote." Try as I might, a few simple reasons explaining why I usually DON'T vote never suffices. This so-called "civic duty", as they often put it, must have been ingrained very deeply and from a very early age, because I can never persuade anyone. Or maybe my arguments just suck. :) I'll let you decide...
First, I would like to clarify that I view the act of voting and the right to vote as different. The right to vote I view as very important. The act of voting, specifically me voting, however, I don't view as nearly important. I have several reasons why I feel this way, but I will only go into my latest one here.
If you're the type of person who carefully considers every candidate, reads all the provided literature, and (heaven forbid) does some independent research on the candidates, then this reason does not apply to you. In fact, you are the type of person I would want to vote. That is to say, an informed voter. But the average citizen, myself included, is a far cry from this ideal...or in other words, an grossly uninformed voter. This fact is not lost on the candidates, of course, whose sole purpose in life come election time is to get into office.
Why do you think the message we get shoved down our throats every couple years is a simple "get out and vote."? Wouldn't it be more productive to send a message something more along the lines of "research the candidates and get informed about the issues."? If someone were to take the time to do that, my guess is the simple act of casting a ballot would follow naturally.
The reason is, when you have so many uninformed voters, winning an election is a simple matter of getting your name out the most. E.g., TV commercials, signs, radio ads, flyers, etc. Who you are and what you stand for are pretty inconsequential. He who spends the most money, and therefore gets the most exposure, wins the election. And that's why I think the message they push is simply "get out and vote". The uninformed voter, or the average voter, is just a sheep susceptible to the proven marketing methods that candidates undoubtedly utilize.
An election that can be bought, which is what it pretty much boils down to, I think naturally leads to corruption. And of course corruption is bad for everyone except the corrupt. So to summarize...I consider myself so grossly uninformed that I feel I would be doing society a disservice by casting my ballot and potentially negating an informed voters ballot. Or put as succinctly as possible, an uninformed vote is worse than a no-vote. And that is why I won't be visiting the polls tomorrow. Well, that and a few other reasons, not the least of which is sheer laziness...but I won't elaborate on that point. :)
First, I would like to clarify that I view the act of voting and the right to vote as different. The right to vote I view as very important. The act of voting, specifically me voting, however, I don't view as nearly important. I have several reasons why I feel this way, but I will only go into my latest one here.
If you're the type of person who carefully considers every candidate, reads all the provided literature, and (heaven forbid) does some independent research on the candidates, then this reason does not apply to you. In fact, you are the type of person I would want to vote. That is to say, an informed voter. But the average citizen, myself included, is a far cry from this ideal...or in other words, an grossly uninformed voter. This fact is not lost on the candidates, of course, whose sole purpose in life come election time is to get into office.
Why do you think the message we get shoved down our throats every couple years is a simple "get out and vote."? Wouldn't it be more productive to send a message something more along the lines of "research the candidates and get informed about the issues."? If someone were to take the time to do that, my guess is the simple act of casting a ballot would follow naturally.
The reason is, when you have so many uninformed voters, winning an election is a simple matter of getting your name out the most. E.g., TV commercials, signs, radio ads, flyers, etc. Who you are and what you stand for are pretty inconsequential. He who spends the most money, and therefore gets the most exposure, wins the election. And that's why I think the message they push is simply "get out and vote". The uninformed voter, or the average voter, is just a sheep susceptible to the proven marketing methods that candidates undoubtedly utilize.
An election that can be bought, which is what it pretty much boils down to, I think naturally leads to corruption. And of course corruption is bad for everyone except the corrupt. So to summarize...I consider myself so grossly uninformed that I feel I would be doing society a disservice by casting my ballot and potentially negating an informed voters ballot. Or put as succinctly as possible, an uninformed vote is worse than a no-vote. And that is why I won't be visiting the polls tomorrow. Well, that and a few other reasons, not the least of which is sheer laziness...but I won't elaborate on that point. :)
Friday, November 03, 2006
Okay, Little Ceasar's Pizza, you make a really crappy pizza and sell it for really cheap. MESSAGE RECEIVED LOUD AND CLEAR!
Clearly you've subsidized the cost of the pizza by cutting the marketing budget dramatically. It would seem you've created exactly 1 (lousy) radio ad and 1 (equally lousy) TV ad in many many months. One part of the marketing budget you haven't scrimped on, however, is the number of times you run your ad. It's a rare day that I don't hear that nausea-inducing radio spot at least 3 times on my way home from work: "Hot 'n' Ready, just 5 bucks!"
The ironic thing is, I would happily dish out $6 or $7 if you would promise to switch your ads up once in awhile. There's a happy medium on the "cost of pizza" vs. "marketing budget" spectrum, but you're a LONG ways from it. Think about it, little toga man. :)
Clearly you've subsidized the cost of the pizza by cutting the marketing budget dramatically. It would seem you've created exactly 1 (lousy) radio ad and 1 (equally lousy) TV ad in many many months. One part of the marketing budget you haven't scrimped on, however, is the number of times you run your ad. It's a rare day that I don't hear that nausea-inducing radio spot at least 3 times on my way home from work: "Hot 'n' Ready, just 5 bucks!"
The ironic thing is, I would happily dish out $6 or $7 if you would promise to switch your ads up once in awhile. There's a happy medium on the "cost of pizza" vs. "marketing budget" spectrum, but you're a LONG ways from it. Think about it, little toga man. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)