My stomach turns every time I think about this Senator appointment nonsense. This is honestly one of those instances where you look at this and think, "The Democrats really are 100% entirely wrong about this. There is no wiggle room." The Republicans are up in arms, but if you read quotes and look at their actions, they are more disheartened by the partisan nature of this whole episode. They are correct in so many things, primarily that this is a Golden Parachute for Deval Patrick. He is lining his pockets with this move.
If the people of this state vote to have him removed from office, he has earned himself a cushiony seat in Washington, Ambassador to Barbados, or wherever his heart desires. He is playing a game, and it all comes back to why we are in this position. Why are we in a spot where we need a Legislative body to change the rules in a way that is so disheartening? Because of the state's unrelenting and unreasonable love for all things Kennedy, that is why.
I am so tired of people who make their own beds refusing to lie in them. This has been a long battle, a 6 year long battle essentially, on this one issue. The details have been beaten over and over again, but Kennedy really kept himself in that seat as Senator, missing 97% of the votes, because he knew it would all work out in the end. And why wouldn't it? We have created safety nets for that family for as long as I can think, and as long as my parents could think, and so on. Kennedy's can do no wrong, it isn't Politics, its a way of life.
You know what it is? It's sickening. It's the way Texas adores Bush. It's the way the GOP talks about Reagan. It's nonsense, its childish, and it's unfair.
People don't understand when I talk like this that I am actually a Democrat. I was Independent for a while, but the way things are set up, you are removed from some processes as an Independent, as in the Primary, and I don't want to play by that rule, so I moved myself back to the D side. I am a Democrat. But now, as I get more entrenched in knowing and understanding politics, I realize I am more on the side of being honest, fair, and making sense.
This move by Dems is none of those things. It is dishonest b/c they are not coming out and saying, "We are purely doing this for the vote, period." They are disguising it by saying, "it's the most crucial time in history," or, "Kennedy would have wanted it this way," or "It was Kennedy's precious bill to begin with, it's wrong to take his voice away now." All of those things may have a grain of truth to them, but I cannot for the life of my understand why that would make it right what they are doing.
This isn't fair at all - it's actually the opposite. They are taking a power we have given them as an electorate and going in a direction we didn't even realize they could go. Do you realize what precedent this sets? Essentially, in order to play this game, you have to remain in power, and once there, you write the rules. It doesn't matter what the other side thinks, the other side of the aisle may as well just not exist, because they need to be avoided, ridiculed and lied to. As long as it's all in the name of maintaining your numbers, your lead. Win at all costs, period.
And it certainly doesn't make sense. Look at this from a wide lens - they made a rule, the rule isn't working for them now, so they want to change it. It is that simple. There are no other ins and outs, there are no caveats or explanations, it's that simple. The reality is, this Health Care bill is days away from becoming a joke, a bill that wouldn't require that 60th Democratic signature, b/c there are going to be a handful of Republicans who will be proud to sign the piece of filth. We didn't need to do this. There is no need, except to somehow elevate Kennedy's place in history, rub the GOP's noses in our power, and get people angry.
Oh, and to ensure that Deval gets a First-Class ticket to Barbados.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
...First Class to Barbados, now boarding...
Monday, September 21, 2009
...Lunch Break...
Where I work now is great. New Balance is a fantastic place. I can't describe it, because it makes it sound boring. But I guess if you know me, you know I am boring in the best way possible. People go in, they work, they are nice to each other, they are competent, efficient, and intelligent. It's a wonderful thing.
One of the things I miss about my old job was hanging out at lunch with a few folks. I developed a good crew of lunchmates my last few months at adidas, and it was fun. But I am enjoying equally my new lunch experience. I basically take my paper, find an empty table, and read the paper at lunch. It's really awesome. I am taking a favorite pasttime from this past year, and I don't feel the same guilt/awkwardness because I am actually in the middle of a full work-day.
Today's paper was interesting. This Afghanistan stuff is so interesting. Today's paper revealed one thing, pretty much without argument, we have absolutely no strategy or main goal that defines our "experience" in Afghanistan right now. I can't think of a good analogy for this whole thing, but for them to say, this many years in, "we need more troops, lots more troops, in order to be successful." (at this point I should describe that we still cannot get a definition of success, although Clinton did allude to what that may mean, and at the risk of making every American, on either side of the aisle, furious, I'll leave out what she said)
They need more troops. I have realized that this is just like any other workplace. The division that is responsible for kickin' Global Ass isn't talking, at all, to the division that is responsible for being responsible. Or, at least they aren't on speaking terms now. On the same page in the Times, you read an article about a country that is completely unstable, voter fraud to a completely hilarious degree. And right next to that, we have a military that is asking our President to send in more troops, and you get a feeling that nobody cares that those two things are connected.
Of course, just a few months ago, I think it was late August even, Hilary was saying they needed to stay out of the election business in Afghanistan, see where it all netted out, then we'd make our move. She didn't allude to possible voter fraud, she was speaking about it more like a proud parent waiting for their child to choose a college. But guess what, they chose chaos.
Someone on Bill Maher pointed out that we are constantly talking about these nations like they are on the verge of something great. Only if they could just do this, or do that, this one small thing and this one tiny change, then we could leave, Al Qaeda would evaporate, and we'd be a superpower. But the thing we always forget is that they cannot do the humane thing. Women don't have a say in any of this. The inhumanity of that. They are basically a 100 years behind us in that aspect. And this isn't a debatable aspect. This is 1/2 of the population having a voice. Half.
So the thing that makes me so sad is that 1.5 months ago we stayed out of the election, and that wasn't related to our military presence. But now, how many deaths later? How many 20 year olds had to see something so horrendous PTSD is the only thing they have to look forward to? So we've decided that the elections results and the presence of a freely-elected leader is completely tied to, and essentially the only factor in, whether or not we send troops?
Why do all these Presidents do this? Why can't we just get out of Afghanistan? Why do they think that this is increasing or decreasing the chances of a small group of horrifying terrorists from doing something horrible to this country? It doesn't take an entire nation or an entire border filled with angry Pakistani and Afghan people to kill thousands. It takes a few dozen, tops.
We are just in a black hole. No way out. No leadership on this one.
However, Obama has a chance. He has a chance right now, no matter what the results of the election follow-up may be, he can say, "no more troops, period." I cannot imagine the set of circumstances that would lead to that, especially when his Sec. of State is painting a picture that if we don't monitor hte borders of Afgh/Pak we are all going to die the very next day. I'll leave everyone with this thought.
We are dangerously close to Obama's legacy being the 3 following "things":
1. Grant Park, election night
2. The collapse of the economy and the Stimulus package
3. The deepening of our involvement and failure in Afghanistan
That could be it for this 1 termer...
One of the things I miss about my old job was hanging out at lunch with a few folks. I developed a good crew of lunchmates my last few months at adidas, and it was fun. But I am enjoying equally my new lunch experience. I basically take my paper, find an empty table, and read the paper at lunch. It's really awesome. I am taking a favorite pasttime from this past year, and I don't feel the same guilt/awkwardness because I am actually in the middle of a full work-day.
Today's paper was interesting. This Afghanistan stuff is so interesting. Today's paper revealed one thing, pretty much without argument, we have absolutely no strategy or main goal that defines our "experience" in Afghanistan right now. I can't think of a good analogy for this whole thing, but for them to say, this many years in, "we need more troops, lots more troops, in order to be successful." (at this point I should describe that we still cannot get a definition of success, although Clinton did allude to what that may mean, and at the risk of making every American, on either side of the aisle, furious, I'll leave out what she said)
They need more troops. I have realized that this is just like any other workplace. The division that is responsible for kickin' Global Ass isn't talking, at all, to the division that is responsible for being responsible. Or, at least they aren't on speaking terms now. On the same page in the Times, you read an article about a country that is completely unstable, voter fraud to a completely hilarious degree. And right next to that, we have a military that is asking our President to send in more troops, and you get a feeling that nobody cares that those two things are connected.
Of course, just a few months ago, I think it was late August even, Hilary was saying they needed to stay out of the election business in Afghanistan, see where it all netted out, then we'd make our move. She didn't allude to possible voter fraud, she was speaking about it more like a proud parent waiting for their child to choose a college. But guess what, they chose chaos.
Someone on Bill Maher pointed out that we are constantly talking about these nations like they are on the verge of something great. Only if they could just do this, or do that, this one small thing and this one tiny change, then we could leave, Al Qaeda would evaporate, and we'd be a superpower. But the thing we always forget is that they cannot do the humane thing. Women don't have a say in any of this. The inhumanity of that. They are basically a 100 years behind us in that aspect. And this isn't a debatable aspect. This is 1/2 of the population having a voice. Half.
So the thing that makes me so sad is that 1.5 months ago we stayed out of the election, and that wasn't related to our military presence. But now, how many deaths later? How many 20 year olds had to see something so horrendous PTSD is the only thing they have to look forward to? So we've decided that the elections results and the presence of a freely-elected leader is completely tied to, and essentially the only factor in, whether or not we send troops?
Why do all these Presidents do this? Why can't we just get out of Afghanistan? Why do they think that this is increasing or decreasing the chances of a small group of horrifying terrorists from doing something horrible to this country? It doesn't take an entire nation or an entire border filled with angry Pakistani and Afghan people to kill thousands. It takes a few dozen, tops.
We are just in a black hole. No way out. No leadership on this one.
However, Obama has a chance. He has a chance right now, no matter what the results of the election follow-up may be, he can say, "no more troops, period." I cannot imagine the set of circumstances that would lead to that, especially when his Sec. of State is painting a picture that if we don't monitor hte borders of Afgh/Pak we are all going to die the very next day. I'll leave everyone with this thought.
We are dangerously close to Obama's legacy being the 3 following "things":
1. Grant Park, election night
2. The collapse of the economy and the Stimulus package
3. The deepening of our involvement and failure in Afghanistan
That could be it for this 1 termer...
Friday, September 18, 2009
...I am basically sick about this...
Here are the lessons the Massachusetts legislature is teaching the entire state. Be ready, because they are not lessons that you should want to learn. They are embarrassing lessons that should not be taught.
1. The Kennedy name in this state is of more importance than any kind of political or legal justice. I used to hang a poster of JFK in my bedroom for a while when I was younger, and I had no idea why. I voted for Ted Kennedy more than once, and I have no idea why. The result may have been correct - Ted Kennedy as my Senator may have been something I personally benefitted from, as well as the entire state, and maybe the country, but the problem is that nobody ever asked for proof. We can only hope Ted is the last of the Free-Ride Kennedy's. The best thing to happen to this state is that no Kennedy is running for his seat. They would be underqualified, overhyped, and ultimately elected into what is arguably one of the 100 most important jobs in the country. Being a Kennedy in Massachusetts writes the type of free pass that we all dislike in every other instance.
2. When our morals are challenged, and we have to stand up for either what we believe in our heart is right, OR what we think will selfishly serve us the best, in this state, we will choose the one that serves own our selfish purposes, rather than the one that is right. When things get hard, we go the easy route. In 2004, we defiled justice by stealing the right of the Gov. to appoint a Senator away from Romney. Dems. talk now as if in 2004 there were no big choices to be made, they act as if it were an easier time, which it may have been, where any old fool could be a Senator, and, if the situation arose, we could go Senator-less for an extended period of time. No biggie, only in a few wars around the globe and we only were developing a one-of-a-kind State Health Care Law. But again, no biggie, we can go without. As long as a Republican isn't Senator.
Fast Forward to 2009, and it is clear that nobody really believed that. Bravo for them, right? Wrong. This is partisan bullshit at it's most pure and disgusting form. They were wrong in 2004, and they are wrong in 2009. How can they be wrong both times, you ask? Well, because you are stuck in the mentality that the result is what is important, rather than the process. It all comes down to honesty, and being real. The Dem. majority lied to themselves in 2004, and they lied to us. They put us all in a bad situation that could have resulted in Massachusetts having 1/2 a voice in the Senate. And now, here we are. We let Kennedy stay in office until his death, nearly a full year after he was basically incapable of sipping soup, never mind battle through Health Care debates, Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a financial collapse and the election of a (potentially) Life-Changing President.
Kennedy died, and our morals were challenged. Do we stick to the laws that we selfishly allowed our legislators to change? Or do we change the laws, again, to serve our selfish needs? Well, that one is easy, we do what is wrong, and we change the law. Again, the result is a positive one, I think. Having 2 voices is what we need the most. But I believe we have needed 2 voices for a long time, and Kennedy hasn't been able to give a voice in his state for months.
3. Above all else, your party is all that matters, and do not question it's authority. Mike Dukakis is our solution? He may be a great man, and he may have been a great President (21 years ago!), but how could he be the most qualified person to be Senator? You are telling me there isn't a Selectman or State Senator that isn't prepared, willing, hungry and altogether fired up to do work for the people of Massachusetts? The "authority" of the state of Massachusetts not only wants to defile the laws our State, playing Gipetto the public's Pinocchio, but they also want to appoint a figurehead. They want to appoint a false dignitary, Harshbarger, another Kennedy, Dukakis?! What!?!?
The greatest thing that has happened to me, in the section of my life that is political, is to see this Health Care debate unfold in this country. The Democrats entered this debate like the 2001/2002 St. Louis Rams. They had all the weapons, the House, the Senate, the President. The Rams were a juggernaut, so fired up and prepared to do damage in the Super Bowl to the lowly Patriots. But the Patriots rallied and battled. By any means necessary. The Republicans are reminding me a lot of the Patriots in that Super Bowl. All of a sudden the game was over, and the world was shocked. How did they do it? How did they win? Well, they organized and streamlined. They fought together, they probably even cheated, but they won.
This debate on Health Care didn't need to be a debate. The Dems. lacked a game plan. Confusing vocabulary, the inability to even win over their own party, and an altogether too-tight time line put Obama in a situation where, before he knew it, he was on his heels. From the start this was a moral argument, and that right there, is where we lost. There is no bravery in politics anymore - the idea of putting out a moral argument for a large-scale social program is so foreign to the public, and especially those who vote, that our leaders aren't expected to be brave anymore.
All it would have taken was a passionate speech that would have rallied the People. The Blue Dogs were able to be Blue Dogs because their constituents weren't motivated to care. Obama was able to get the majority of this country to see him as a Rock Star, as a motivational genius who also was capable of leading our country out of war, into greatness, and ultimately to a place where, morally, we could feel like we had returned as a Global Power. But then he flat out chickened out.
He needed to stand in front of America and tell them, "This is our country, people. We talk every day about defending ourselves from terrorists, keeping ourselves safe at home, yet we deny millions of people around this country the ability to lead healthy lives. We demolish families with the precision of nuclear weapons by allowing a sick mother with cancer to die because she doesn't have the 'right' kind of job, and the 'right' kind of coverage. This isn't the America I was born into, and this isn't the America our children should grow up in. We need to offer stronger leadership than that, this will not stand."
And then, THEN, he needed to back that up, and keep forcing it down people's throats. But that isn't what happened. They went into prevent Defense, they let the Republicans lead the moral argument - of which there is really none besides greed - and even Dems. started believing in the rhetoric. The court of public opinion drove this debate, and ultimately put us where we are, on the verge of a Health Care bill that will not change the lives of a statistically significant % of the people, and out those it will effect, there is argument as to whether or not it will even effect them positively.
Obama quit on us, he simply didn't treat the opposition with the respect it deserved, and he let them jam rhetoric down our throats. He made the argument confusing, and unclear. But what he really did was he allowed the public - the people of America - to stand up and be heard in opposition of his plan. He is smarter than us, as a collective. He needed to hear our concerns, and then squash them. He needed to take into account what Blue Dogs and Doubters and Birthers, and those who interrupted town halls had to say, and then outsmart them. He didn't. He quit on us.
And now here we are, a defeated Party in the Majority, have you ever seen that before? The Democrats are lacking the ability to speak from a place of morality on the Health Care debate, and lacking morality in practice on the Massachusetts "Pick-A-Senator" debate.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
...Sonic...
Sonic, the Experience
Sunday morning, Grum, Wizzy and myself went out for an entire day of golf. 9 holes at Atkinson Resort & Country Club's Par-3 course, followed immediately by 18 holes on their big boy course - which provided me with the worst of round golf I have played in years. I wasn't that horrible off the tee, I was bad, but not that horrible. I just couldn't hit a solid iron shot. 8 out of 10 of my iron's were pulled left, the other 2 were pushed right. I didn't hit a green in regulation all day, despite the fact that I was on the fairway 6 out of 14 holes, and only 1 or 2 penalties.
After we played Atkinson, which I highly recommend, we moved on over to Crystal Springs in Haverhill, which literally may be the worst course I have ever played. In all fairness, we only played the front 9 of the course, which was quite possibly the worst layout I've ever played, for the first 5 holes, specifically. By the end of 5 holes, the 3 of us were completely screwing around, which resulted in highlights, lowlights, and, of course, a lot of fun. Overall, it was a great day of golf, beautiful weather, and nothing bad to say about the day.
Aftter golf, we were all extremely starving. Golf finshed at around 6:45pm for us, and we knew exactly where we wanted to go - directly into the disaster known as Sonic Burger on Rt. 1 in Peabody. We had heard horror stories, such as this one as told by my friend Roy. In large portion, the 3 of us wanted this kind of horror story as our own, so we drove out to Peabody. After a small GPS snafu, we ended up at Sonic at around 7:30pm.
When I say, "at Sonic," I should explain that we weren't quite there yet. We were in the line, about a 1/4 mile away, on the shoulder of Rt. 1 North, with the bright lights of Sonic clearly in view. There were directional signs, navigational police, horns, lights, blinkers...it was a great experience. After about 25 minutes of waiting, moving ever so slowly up the line of cars, Grum noticed a sign we hadn't seen before, which essentially stated we were in line for the Drive-Thru only. If you've ever been to Sonic, you know that you can't go to the drive-thru. It is a place where waitresses (almost exclusively) bring you your food on rollerskates out to your car if you are parked at a dock. If you go through the drive-thru, you may as well go to Wendy's.
So after about a 1/2 hour of waiting in the drive-thru line, we pull the chute and head over to the back entrance, which we learn from signs is actually where you will be put into a new line to get a rollerskater, which is what we wanted. Again, another 1/2 hour or so passes, and we have moved up only a few car lengths. Having no idea what the geography of this whole experience will be like, we send Merriweather Grum out to navigate the landscape, and he tells us we are way, way, back in line.
I then instruct Grum and Wizzy to go stand in the "take out" line, which at least allows you the experience of Sonic, you can see the excitement around you, and you can take it all in. I will sit in my car, as there is no place to park, and wait in the long line - whoever gets to the front of the line first alerts the other via bluetooth/cell phone. I think all in all, a few phone calls later and almost a 1/2 Stern Show broadcast, maybe just under 2 1/4 hours, Grum and Wizzy got to the front of the line.
I had to pull the chute and get out of line, as I was about to get stuck in the Sonic parking lot, so by the time food was recieved, I was in the back of a Wendy's, which I had gone into to buy a water and use the restroom, and finally Grum and Wizzy came to the car, with multiple bags, drink holders, and $51.00 lighter in the wallet.
We sped out of the Wendy's lot as fast as we could, and found ourselves a few miles down the road behind a TGI Friday's in the parking lot eating fast food at 10:00pm, trying not to get the interior of my new car dirty and trying even harder to make ourselves sick. Bacon Burgers, Chicken Burgers, Popcorn chicken, mozzerella sticks, tater tots, oreo blasts, diet coke, onion rings...we had it all.
Sonic, the Corporation
We had a blast, and it was fun, but it was completely a time-killer and something to do to tell a funny story. It had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with being reasonable or actually desiring the food itself so badly that we'd wait two hours. But you have to ask yourself, were we the exception, or the rule, in this cluster of vehicles? Were most people there acting as if they were just in line for regular food? Were they intermittently cursing out Sonic Burger for the long lines, or were they there understanding they were part of an odd experience?
I mean, there are hundreds of Sonic burgers in the country with no wait, at all times of the day. People in the Carolina's or Florida would read the story above and think, "are you nuts?" Yes, well, in this case we openly admit a streak of psychosis. But again, it was funny.
The proper direction to aim the "are you nuts" question is Oklahoma City and the Sonic headquarters. There very well may be a great reason why Sonic isn't up in New England yet, but for the purpose of this post I am going to elect to believe there is no good reason at all, and I am going to continue with that until I hear otherwise.
Sonic has had a compelling National TV campaign for years now, the "Two Guys" commercials as they are known, which feature the 2 Improv actors talking about the offerings of Sonic and how unique they are, and they have garnered a good response, in general, people seem interested in what the commercials have to say. The Sonic hysteria had reached New England before a Sonic had actually opened, so it is no surprise that there are long lines, consistently, for nearly a week at it's first opening.
However, I am of the opinion that this hysteria, in some form or another, will not calm down. When I say "hysteria," I obviously mean this in a relative term. I mean, Sonic in Peabody isn't like The Beatles on Ed Sullivan, but it certainly is interesting when a fast food chain can open on a major public road and require a 3 to 4 cop detail each day/night in order to ensure safety and civility.
But the question is, "What is Sonic doing?" If I were a shareholder, and I believe in the next few weeks I will be one, given what seems to me to be the obvious need, desire, and public outcry for more New England, specifically Boston-based rooftops, I'd be screaming at the top of my lungs to upper management. What has taken them so long? What were they thinking? Were they so wrapped up in what is going on in the South/Midwest to realize that there are, in fact, fast food eaters in the Northeast?
If people were willing to sit in their car, not moving, for 2+ hours on a Sunday night to eat Tater Tots, doesn't that indicate to you that you have a product worth selling? There should be Sonic chains in Framingham, S. Attleboro, Burlington, and a few scattered along 495 as well, and then quickly expanding out to Worcester and Springfield. I-84 in and around Hartford should be littered with Sonic's and Portland, ME should get one as well.
I personally don't care, my life would be a "10" without Sonic in it anyway, I am speaking purely from a business model perspective, and if these guys were just sitting on their hands, patting each other on the back because a few improv comedians got the South & Midwest interested in Lime Rickey's, well, shame on them. They should have been growing prior to this economic bust, because from what I saw on Sunday night, the economy, in the land of Fast Food and Sonic Burger, is doing just fine.
Sunday morning, Grum, Wizzy and myself went out for an entire day of golf. 9 holes at Atkinson Resort & Country Club's Par-3 course, followed immediately by 18 holes on their big boy course - which provided me with the worst of round golf I have played in years. I wasn't that horrible off the tee, I was bad, but not that horrible. I just couldn't hit a solid iron shot. 8 out of 10 of my iron's were pulled left, the other 2 were pushed right. I didn't hit a green in regulation all day, despite the fact that I was on the fairway 6 out of 14 holes, and only 1 or 2 penalties.
After we played Atkinson, which I highly recommend, we moved on over to Crystal Springs in Haverhill, which literally may be the worst course I have ever played. In all fairness, we only played the front 9 of the course, which was quite possibly the worst layout I've ever played, for the first 5 holes, specifically. By the end of 5 holes, the 3 of us were completely screwing around, which resulted in highlights, lowlights, and, of course, a lot of fun. Overall, it was a great day of golf, beautiful weather, and nothing bad to say about the day.
Aftter golf, we were all extremely starving. Golf finshed at around 6:45pm for us, and we knew exactly where we wanted to go - directly into the disaster known as Sonic Burger on Rt. 1 in Peabody. We had heard horror stories, such as this one as told by my friend Roy. In large portion, the 3 of us wanted this kind of horror story as our own, so we drove out to Peabody. After a small GPS snafu, we ended up at Sonic at around 7:30pm.
When I say, "at Sonic," I should explain that we weren't quite there yet. We were in the line, about a 1/4 mile away, on the shoulder of Rt. 1 North, with the bright lights of Sonic clearly in view. There were directional signs, navigational police, horns, lights, blinkers...it was a great experience. After about 25 minutes of waiting, moving ever so slowly up the line of cars, Grum noticed a sign we hadn't seen before, which essentially stated we were in line for the Drive-Thru only. If you've ever been to Sonic, you know that you can't go to the drive-thru. It is a place where waitresses (almost exclusively) bring you your food on rollerskates out to your car if you are parked at a dock. If you go through the drive-thru, you may as well go to Wendy's.
So after about a 1/2 hour of waiting in the drive-thru line, we pull the chute and head over to the back entrance, which we learn from signs is actually where you will be put into a new line to get a rollerskater, which is what we wanted. Again, another 1/2 hour or so passes, and we have moved up only a few car lengths. Having no idea what the geography of this whole experience will be like, we send Merriweather Grum out to navigate the landscape, and he tells us we are way, way, back in line.
I then instruct Grum and Wizzy to go stand in the "take out" line, which at least allows you the experience of Sonic, you can see the excitement around you, and you can take it all in. I will sit in my car, as there is no place to park, and wait in the long line - whoever gets to the front of the line first alerts the other via bluetooth/cell phone. I think all in all, a few phone calls later and almost a 1/2 Stern Show broadcast, maybe just under 2 1/4 hours, Grum and Wizzy got to the front of the line.
I had to pull the chute and get out of line, as I was about to get stuck in the Sonic parking lot, so by the time food was recieved, I was in the back of a Wendy's, which I had gone into to buy a water and use the restroom, and finally Grum and Wizzy came to the car, with multiple bags, drink holders, and $51.00 lighter in the wallet.
We sped out of the Wendy's lot as fast as we could, and found ourselves a few miles down the road behind a TGI Friday's in the parking lot eating fast food at 10:00pm, trying not to get the interior of my new car dirty and trying even harder to make ourselves sick. Bacon Burgers, Chicken Burgers, Popcorn chicken, mozzerella sticks, tater tots, oreo blasts, diet coke, onion rings...we had it all.
Sonic, the Corporation
We had a blast, and it was fun, but it was completely a time-killer and something to do to tell a funny story. It had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with being reasonable or actually desiring the food itself so badly that we'd wait two hours. But you have to ask yourself, were we the exception, or the rule, in this cluster of vehicles? Were most people there acting as if they were just in line for regular food? Were they intermittently cursing out Sonic Burger for the long lines, or were they there understanding they were part of an odd experience?
I mean, there are hundreds of Sonic burgers in the country with no wait, at all times of the day. People in the Carolina's or Florida would read the story above and think, "are you nuts?" Yes, well, in this case we openly admit a streak of psychosis. But again, it was funny.
The proper direction to aim the "are you nuts" question is Oklahoma City and the Sonic headquarters. There very well may be a great reason why Sonic isn't up in New England yet, but for the purpose of this post I am going to elect to believe there is no good reason at all, and I am going to continue with that until I hear otherwise.
Sonic has had a compelling National TV campaign for years now, the "Two Guys" commercials as they are known, which feature the 2 Improv actors talking about the offerings of Sonic and how unique they are, and they have garnered a good response, in general, people seem interested in what the commercials have to say. The Sonic hysteria had reached New England before a Sonic had actually opened, so it is no surprise that there are long lines, consistently, for nearly a week at it's first opening.
However, I am of the opinion that this hysteria, in some form or another, will not calm down. When I say "hysteria," I obviously mean this in a relative term. I mean, Sonic in Peabody isn't like The Beatles on Ed Sullivan, but it certainly is interesting when a fast food chain can open on a major public road and require a 3 to 4 cop detail each day/night in order to ensure safety and civility.
But the question is, "What is Sonic doing?" If I were a shareholder, and I believe in the next few weeks I will be one, given what seems to me to be the obvious need, desire, and public outcry for more New England, specifically Boston-based rooftops, I'd be screaming at the top of my lungs to upper management. What has taken them so long? What were they thinking? Were they so wrapped up in what is going on in the South/Midwest to realize that there are, in fact, fast food eaters in the Northeast?
If people were willing to sit in their car, not moving, for 2+ hours on a Sunday night to eat Tater Tots, doesn't that indicate to you that you have a product worth selling? There should be Sonic chains in Framingham, S. Attleboro, Burlington, and a few scattered along 495 as well, and then quickly expanding out to Worcester and Springfield. I-84 in and around Hartford should be littered with Sonic's and Portland, ME should get one as well.
I personally don't care, my life would be a "10" without Sonic in it anyway, I am speaking purely from a business model perspective, and if these guys were just sitting on their hands, patting each other on the back because a few improv comedians got the South & Midwest interested in Lime Rickey's, well, shame on them. They should have been growing prior to this economic bust, because from what I saw on Sunday night, the economy, in the land of Fast Food and Sonic Burger, is doing just fine.
Friday, September 04, 2009
...Books...
An article posted in today's Boston.com, and most likely the in the Globes paper edition, drove me a bit batty, momentarily. The article is here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/04/a_library_without_the_books/?page=1
Personally, I think this kind of model is ground-breaking, completely revolutionary and the way things ought to be. I think the Cappucino machine for $12k is insane, but I think the idea of buying dozens, rather than a dozen, Kindles or Sony Digital readers would be a good idea for students. One quick note, if you are reading this and you don't know what a Kindle or Sony Reader is, than you should recognize that, on this particular topic, you aren't quite prepared to have an opinion. It is people like Liz Vezina, the Librarian at Cushing, who sorta send me reeling. I have no problem with her, and I am sure she is a wonderful person who really has nothing but the best interest of students in mind, but it is possible that we need to recognize her comments as insanity, rather than romantic.
"'It makes me sad,'' said Vezina, who hosts a book club on campus dubbed the Off-line Readers and has made a career of introducing students to books. 'I'm going to miss them. I love books. I've grown up with them, and there's something lost when they're virtual. There's a sensual side to them - the smell, the feel, the physicality of a book is something really special.'"
I understand her personal perspective, but when things like this are put in an article, we, as readers, are expected to look at these lines and sigh, and think, "geez, she's right...they are putting together a strong argument. Books sure do smell great." She represents the opposition opinion, which really in this case is romanticism v. science. Guess which side I'll fall on every time...
Smell? Can people stop talking about the smell of books? Put this in some context, please. We live in an era where we do not have to wonder things anymore. We can get everything we want answered, at any moment, by the internet. The argument can be made that our direction is off - we often ask ourselves questions about Alec Baldwin's marital status, rather than what drove a spike between King George and John Adams. But the point is that we have tools at our fingertips that we have to embrace, especially on the educational level, and to avoid that is, to me, very backwards.
I am trying to think of something, 40 years ago, that people spoke romantically about that now we realize is completely insane. Like radio, for instance...people can find the idea of 30's and 40's radio really romantic. The muffled sound of the radio shows, bad acting, silly commercials...how wonderful. But how about the alternative? How about HD televisions, still bad acting, still silly commercials...My point is that we cannot rely on the testimony of those with the biggest vested interest, Librarians, to give us the opposing viewpoint. It is too skewed, too crazy. And we cannot speak in romantic terms about technology that is so outdated, that it isn't even technology. What a waste of space a library is when digital readers exist!
If there is a psychologist, or a series of psychological studies, that can prove to me, that beyond reason, people are incapable of reading a Kindle and computing the information, then I'm all for old, smelly, space-taking-up-books...but to deny this revolution of technology - potentially every book you ever wanted packed into a Kindle thats smaller than your copy of The Goblet of Fire, that's just fighting progress...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/04/a_library_without_the_books/?page=1
Personally, I think this kind of model is ground-breaking, completely revolutionary and the way things ought to be. I think the Cappucino machine for $12k is insane, but I think the idea of buying dozens, rather than a dozen, Kindles or Sony Digital readers would be a good idea for students. One quick note, if you are reading this and you don't know what a Kindle or Sony Reader is, than you should recognize that, on this particular topic, you aren't quite prepared to have an opinion. It is people like Liz Vezina, the Librarian at Cushing, who sorta send me reeling. I have no problem with her, and I am sure she is a wonderful person who really has nothing but the best interest of students in mind, but it is possible that we need to recognize her comments as insanity, rather than romantic.
"'It makes me sad,'' said Vezina, who hosts a book club on campus dubbed the Off-line Readers and has made a career of introducing students to books. 'I'm going to miss them. I love books. I've grown up with them, and there's something lost when they're virtual. There's a sensual side to them - the smell, the feel, the physicality of a book is something really special.'"
I understand her personal perspective, but when things like this are put in an article, we, as readers, are expected to look at these lines and sigh, and think, "geez, she's right...they are putting together a strong argument. Books sure do smell great." She represents the opposition opinion, which really in this case is romanticism v. science. Guess which side I'll fall on every time...
Smell? Can people stop talking about the smell of books? Put this in some context, please. We live in an era where we do not have to wonder things anymore. We can get everything we want answered, at any moment, by the internet. The argument can be made that our direction is off - we often ask ourselves questions about Alec Baldwin's marital status, rather than what drove a spike between King George and John Adams. But the point is that we have tools at our fingertips that we have to embrace, especially on the educational level, and to avoid that is, to me, very backwards.
I am trying to think of something, 40 years ago, that people spoke romantically about that now we realize is completely insane. Like radio, for instance...people can find the idea of 30's and 40's radio really romantic. The muffled sound of the radio shows, bad acting, silly commercials...how wonderful. But how about the alternative? How about HD televisions, still bad acting, still silly commercials...My point is that we cannot rely on the testimony of those with the biggest vested interest, Librarians, to give us the opposing viewpoint. It is too skewed, too crazy. And we cannot speak in romantic terms about technology that is so outdated, that it isn't even technology. What a waste of space a library is when digital readers exist!
If there is a psychologist, or a series of psychological studies, that can prove to me, that beyond reason, people are incapable of reading a Kindle and computing the information, then I'm all for old, smelly, space-taking-up-books...but to deny this revolution of technology - potentially every book you ever wanted packed into a Kindle thats smaller than your copy of The Goblet of Fire, that's just fighting progress...
Thursday, September 03, 2009
...Iraq reminds me of something...
I flat out don't have time to post to this as much as I used to, obviously, but I also don't have as much time as I want to to post either. I am going to do quick things from now on I guess, and maybe on weekends or whatever I'll have more time. Or when I am watching Celtics games.
I read this article about backwards/wacky justice in Iraq. My first thought, in combination with the news out of Afghanistan that the elections were completely fixed, was to think back on an interview with Hilary who proudly boasted that we are going to stay out of it in Afghanistan, as far as the election - then we'll get back to killing a mixture of civilians and terrorists haphazardly, like we have basically perfected.
So we are mixed up completely in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight to either, for completely nonsensical goals of leaving the countries better off than we found them, and the "better" means completely, and almost exclusively, "Free, Democratic elections." We know, without question, both countries are incapable of doing this, at least right now. So we will stay there til when? Til the next election cycle, I guess. What is our choice? I mean, our idiotic political choice, not the logical, get-the-hell-out-of-dodge, choice.
But I am straying from my initial point of writing this, and that was to compare what is going on in Iraq and how the Times treated it, as compared to one of our major political snafu's and horrendous abuses of Prisoner's of War, which is Abu Ghraib. This line: "In this case, the henchmen will be hanged. But the suspected ringleaders, with well-known ties to the Shiite political elite, have escaped," reminded me of Erroll Morris' amazing documentary, Standard Operating Procedure.
It struck me so clearly that the Times writer, and all of us reading this, look at the article and think, amongst other things, "what a joke of a country - even the most basic elements are justice are corrupted and corruptable, and nothing can be done to change that, ever."
Well, guess what, our country operates on that same process on a minute-by-minute basis, with literally the most powerful and most in-charge actively taking place on a daily basis. This is from an article I found regarding the sentencing of only low-ranking officials in the US Army for the atrocities of Abu Ghraib.
I should say this, and I feel like I have wanted to say it forever, but I can't stand when people downplay what went on there. You hear so frequently, "oh who cares, so what we made a guy get naked, he was trying to kill Americans!" There are a few responses to that, but mainly a lot of guys abused at Abu Ghraib weren't ever terrorists, and 100% of them were not convicted as terrorists - the people who defend the horrors of that prison are the same ones who think our actions in Iraq are justified because they don't have axioms like "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" in place. We fight for things we don't believe in. Our soldiers go to jail, and die for, things they don't really believe in. It's so baffling.
But back to the article I read regarding the sentencing of low-ranking officers getting all the blame, I found this excerpt I loved. This is old, so "yesterday" doesn't mean early September '09.
"Also yesterday, an Army officer who has told members of Congress and a human rights group that vague policies from military leaders fomented abuse spoke publicly for the first time. Capt. Ian Fishback, 26, said in an interview that he believes the Army is examining his claims of command failures and unclear treatment guidelines mainly to punish low-ranking soldiers and not to explore whether top commanders bear responsibility.
Fishback, assigned to Fort Bragg, N.C., expressed frustration that Army investigators who have talked to him in the past week have focused almost entirely on identifying soldiers who spoke anonymously to Human Rights Watch. Fishback and two unidentified soldiers spoke of detainee abuse at bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, including instances in which detainees were severely beaten, pushed to exhaustion or humiliated.
"The way we have been treating detainees is immoral," Fishback said. "We had a serious command climate problem, across the board. One of the things that infuriates me is that the leaders are not accepting responsibility."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at a news briefing yesterday that the Army is taking the allegations seriously. "And to the extent somebody's done something that they shouldn't have done, they'll be punished for it," Rumsfeld said. "And in any event, we'll know the truth."
Rumsfeld is as much of a criminal as those assholes who executed Prison Guards in cold blood in Iraq. We laugh at Iraq as a country the way the British laughed at us when we fought for our freedom, as Iraq is doing as well. We are, in all respects and all historical contexts, a completely dying and declining Empire. The end in only near, it is in plain view, and I really didn't think it was going to be in my lifetime when I'd see 'the collapse', but I'm starting to change my World View.
I read this article about backwards/wacky justice in Iraq. My first thought, in combination with the news out of Afghanistan that the elections were completely fixed, was to think back on an interview with Hilary who proudly boasted that we are going to stay out of it in Afghanistan, as far as the election - then we'll get back to killing a mixture of civilians and terrorists haphazardly, like we have basically perfected.
So we are mixed up completely in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight to either, for completely nonsensical goals of leaving the countries better off than we found them, and the "better" means completely, and almost exclusively, "Free, Democratic elections." We know, without question, both countries are incapable of doing this, at least right now. So we will stay there til when? Til the next election cycle, I guess. What is our choice? I mean, our idiotic political choice, not the logical, get-the-hell-out-of-dodge, choice.
But I am straying from my initial point of writing this, and that was to compare what is going on in Iraq and how the Times treated it, as compared to one of our major political snafu's and horrendous abuses of Prisoner's of War, which is Abu Ghraib. This line: "In this case, the henchmen will be hanged. But the suspected ringleaders, with well-known ties to the Shiite political elite, have escaped," reminded me of Erroll Morris' amazing documentary, Standard Operating Procedure.
It struck me so clearly that the Times writer, and all of us reading this, look at the article and think, amongst other things, "what a joke of a country - even the most basic elements are justice are corrupted and corruptable, and nothing can be done to change that, ever."
Well, guess what, our country operates on that same process on a minute-by-minute basis, with literally the most powerful and most in-charge actively taking place on a daily basis. This is from an article I found regarding the sentencing of only low-ranking officials in the US Army for the atrocities of Abu Ghraib.
I should say this, and I feel like I have wanted to say it forever, but I can't stand when people downplay what went on there. You hear so frequently, "oh who cares, so what we made a guy get naked, he was trying to kill Americans!" There are a few responses to that, but mainly a lot of guys abused at Abu Ghraib weren't ever terrorists, and 100% of them were not convicted as terrorists - the people who defend the horrors of that prison are the same ones who think our actions in Iraq are justified because they don't have axioms like "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" in place. We fight for things we don't believe in. Our soldiers go to jail, and die for, things they don't really believe in. It's so baffling.
But back to the article I read regarding the sentencing of low-ranking officers getting all the blame, I found this excerpt I loved. This is old, so "yesterday" doesn't mean early September '09.
"Also yesterday, an Army officer who has told members of Congress and a human rights group that vague policies from military leaders fomented abuse spoke publicly for the first time. Capt. Ian Fishback, 26, said in an interview that he believes the Army is examining his claims of command failures and unclear treatment guidelines mainly to punish low-ranking soldiers and not to explore whether top commanders bear responsibility.
Fishback, assigned to Fort Bragg, N.C., expressed frustration that Army investigators who have talked to him in the past week have focused almost entirely on identifying soldiers who spoke anonymously to Human Rights Watch. Fishback and two unidentified soldiers spoke of detainee abuse at bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, including instances in which detainees were severely beaten, pushed to exhaustion or humiliated.
"The way we have been treating detainees is immoral," Fishback said. "We had a serious command climate problem, across the board. One of the things that infuriates me is that the leaders are not accepting responsibility."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at a news briefing yesterday that the Army is taking the allegations seriously. "And to the extent somebody's done something that they shouldn't have done, they'll be punished for it," Rumsfeld said. "And in any event, we'll know the truth."
Rumsfeld is as much of a criminal as those assholes who executed Prison Guards in cold blood in Iraq. We laugh at Iraq as a country the way the British laughed at us when we fought for our freedom, as Iraq is doing as well. We are, in all respects and all historical contexts, a completely dying and declining Empire. The end in only near, it is in plain view, and I really didn't think it was going to be in my lifetime when I'd see 'the collapse', but I'm starting to change my World View.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)