This past weekend was the annual Donation To The Mohegan Indian Tribes Trip.
Thankfully, after all the money I've poured into their coffers over the past several years, this time they donated to me.
I went up $300 on Saturday and paid for drinks and dinner on Saturday night with those winnings. I also paid cash for my hotel room.
After one monstrous hand of blackjack on Sunday afternoon, I went up another $400 and quit while I was ahead. Some kind pit boss put $100 on my Player's Club card, so I stocked up on sweatshirts and golf jackets for the family. I also topped off my gas tank with Player's Club cash.
So the whole weekend was paid for with winnings and I still went home with a few hundred dollars in my wallet. Woohoo!
Some comments I made in a Mediapost interview concerning Blog advertising have generated a bit of hate mail.
Before skewering me, please read below, where I've posted the entirety of the e-mail interview.
Q. Do you notice that more of your clients are spending more money advertising on blogs?A. We've done some testing and have had great results. Some of our clients wish they could find more sites like the blogs we advertise with. Given that the number of blogs continues to accelerate, I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities going forward.
Q. In your opinion, how much money do you think advertisers will begin allocating toward advertising on blogs?
A. I'd hate to see blog advertising become a line item on a flowchart (like paid search) simply because it's the 'latest and greatest' or because media planners see the word 'blog' in dozens of trade media stories. It would be easy to lose sight of the opportunity given all the hype. Blogs tend to be topical and in many cases are small in terms of the audience they draw. But those audiences tend to be very loyal and very dedicated.
For some categories, like political and cause-related advertising, it's a layup because of all the popular political blogs. The question often becomes whether or not advertisers and agencies can use multiple blogs to roll up desirable audiences. I like what folks like Nick Denton, Jason Calacanis and Henry Copeland are doing with site representation and networks in the blog space. But often, I find that it makes sense to approach bloggers directly. That may change as more blog networks and rep firms (Burst!, for instance) are brought to market.
Q. Has blogging become an 'accepted medium?'
A. I think blogs have a critical role to play in the news reporting dynamic. News stories are being vetted every day in the blog community and bloggers are breaking some very important stories. Bloggers serve an important function in that they analyze what's being reported in the mainstream press to the Nth degree. They poke holes in stories, disclose unforseen biases, check facts and formulate new opinions. To me, the blogging movement is all about accelerating Holmes' concept of the 'marketplace of ideas.' Ideas get passed around from blogger to blogger and the cream rises to the top. Bloggers are also finding their own stories and picking up on things that the mainstream media tend to miss. Not only are they an important part of the media landscape, they're also critical to the newsgathering and reporting processes.
In our own industry, check out sites like MarketingVox and AdRants. They're talking about things that the AdAges and AdWeeks weren't talking about. Is it any coincidence that AdWeek launched a blog?
Q. It seems that traditional companies seem to be advertising on blogs much more AND talking about it more openly than they would have in the passed. What has changed?
A. I think it was something that clients needed to quietly test before making a big fuss about. And if other advertisers are anything like our clients that have tested blogs, they've found success and are ready to commit to larger-scale campaigns. As for how vocal they are about it, that might have something to do with the general popularity of blogs and the revelation that over a quarter of Internet users read them. Advertisers may want to be counted with the folks who realize how big blogging is.
Other folks I'd recommend you talk to...Rick Bruner at DoubleClick. (Runs BusinessBlogConsulting.com and is an authority on blogs.) rick@bruner.net
Jeff Jarvis at Buzzmachine. (Check out Buzzmachine.com for his contact info. He's been making regular appearances on Air America and doing lectures on blogs all over the place, so he might be tough to reach, but he'll give you tons of great material if you can get him.)
-TFH
Eric sent me some warnings from his ISP about security issues with older versions of Movable Type, so I decided to quickly upgrade to 3.15.
The process went pretty smoothly and took about 30 minutes, including the backup I made of my FTP directories. No bugs found yet. (Fingers crossed...)
Do your negotiations with potential clients look like this?
Guy: Hello. I’d like to buy a widget from you guys.
Me: That’s great! Thanks for choosing us for your widget needs. Widgets cost $X.
Guy: Oh, well… That’s a bit more than what we planned to spend. Our research indicates that we can get widgets for 10% of $X.
Me: Here, let me e-mail you some information about widgets and once you’ve had a chance to take a look at the information, you’ll see why it costs $X.
Guy: Thanks. I’ll get back to you.
One Month Later…
Guy: You’ve gotta help me. We bought a widget for 10% of $X from another company and it doesn’t work right.
Me: What seems to be the problem?
Guy: Well, it seems to work only in Japan when the relative humidity is 50% or less.
Me: That’s unfortunate. I wish you had bought your widget from us. Our widgets work worldwide. It was in that information I sent you.
Guy: Well, what if you sold me a widget for 5% of $X? That would get me off the hook and it would get you our widget business exclusively.
Me: I’m sorry, but if I sell widgets for less than 90% of $X, we lose money. And we lose time, too – time I could spend with my other clients who happily pay $X for widgets.
Guy: Aaaaargh!
Two Weeks Later…
Guy: How about if you gave us the widget for free, and we’ll give you a percentage of what we make using your widget?
Me: I’m sorry. I can’t take that kind of risk. We know our widgets work, but there’s simply too much we don’t have control over to be able to be 100% confident that you can make money using our widget. I mean, what if you have the wrong widget holder or you fail to properly maintain your widget? We can’t be responsible for that.
Guy: Well, I can’t afford to pay you full price for the widget, because I spent the budget on the widget we got for 10% of $X.
Me: I can come down on price to 90% of $X if you sign an exclusive deal with us, but I lose money if I sell widgets for less than 90% of $X.
Guy: You’re being inflexible! I can’t work like this!
Me: Then why do you keep calling me back?
Two Weeks Later…
Guy: Okay, we’ll give you 90% of $X for a widget.
Me: That’s great. I’ll draw up the paperwork.
Guy: Not so fast. We need to test your widget first. I’ll give you 9% of $X for 1/10th of a widget. And if it works, we’ll buy the rest of the widget.
Me: I’m sorry, but a fractional widget isn’t going to get the job done for you. We’ll be set up to fail. You won’t be happy, you won’t buy from us anymore and it will be a big waste of time and money for the both of us.
Guy: But how do I know whether or not your widgets work?
Me: In the information I sent you a while ago, there were plenty of case studies from other satisfied customers that attest to how well our widgets work.
Guy: Yeah, but no one else is using your widgets to build a barnacle removal business in Upper Volta and Transylvania. How do I know whether or not your widgets will perform in that capacity?
Me: Well, no one else is using the widgets to do specifically that, but there’s a case study in there from a boat refinishing business in Miami. They were very happy. Isn’t that close enough?
Guy: No. They don’t do business in Transylvania.
Me: I don’t think anyone who sells widgets right now will be able to provide you a case study specifically for barnacle removal in your particular markets. But all business is not without risk.
Guy: What if you paid for a market research study to predict how your widgets would do in Transylvania?
Me: Why should I pay for that? If you don’t do business with me, how would I recoup those costs? I don’t know anyone else who is running a barnacle removal business in Transylvania. The resale value of that research is practically nil.
Guy: Until you can do market research proving that your widgets have 100% success rates in Transylvania, I can’t do business with you.
Me: Okay, forget it then.
Guy: Aaaaaaaaargh!
One Week Later…
Guy: You’ve gotta help me! My boss is going to fire me unless I get this widget business straightened out!
Me: You know the prices. Can you pay $X yet? Or at least 90% of $X?
Guy: We had a budget cut! I can’t afford $X. Or 90% of $X. Heck, I can’t even afford $X minus $X!
Me: Sorry. We can’t give widgets away.
Guy: But if you don’t give me a widget, I’ll lose my job! How about this? If you give me a widget, we’ll let you share in the profits of the resale of stripped barnacles in Transylvania…
Me: I think I explained that we can’t do revenue-sharing agreements.
Guy: I’ll throw in a percentage of the profits in Upper Volta.
Me: No. I’m sorry.
Guy: Aaaaaaargh!
Me: Please don’t call back until you’re prepared to pay at least 90% of $X.
Three Days Later…
Guy: Okay, I’ll pay you 90 percent of $X. We had to fire three hard-working barnacle strippers to be able to afford your widgets. I hope you’re happy.
Me: I’m sorry your business isn’t doing so well. And it sucks to have to let people go. But I’m sure you’ll be happy with this widget and maybe it will help things turn around for you.
Guy: Do you have a contract?
Me: I just e-mailed it to you.
Guy: I’ll check it out and fax it back to you.
Two Hours Later…
Guy: I made some changes to the contract and signed off on it.
Me: Let’s see here… You inserted a clause that says we have to pay you six million dollars in Romanian lei if I walk my dog on a Tuesday morning. There’s also a clause in here about my need to maintain $50 million worth of insurance against vampire attacks in order to do business with you.
Guy: That’s just standard stuff. Don’t worry about it.
Me: I’m sort of fond of walking my dog on Tuesdays before work. And I don’t see how walking my dog has anything to do with the quality of the widgets I’m providing to you. Oh, and vampires aren’t real.
Guy: This is how they do things in Transylvania! I thought you had experience doing business with Transylvanian companies!
Me: No client has ever tried to tell me when I can and can’t walk my dog. And even though the risk of vampire attack is nonexistent, carrying $50 million worth of insurance isn’t exactly cheap.
Guy: Let me talk to legal.
Three Weeks Later…
Guy: Okay, I spoke to the legal department and we were able to get the dog-walking and vampire insurance clauses waived.
Me: That’s great! When can you sign off on the paperwork?
Guy: Right now. We just need to make a teensy adjustment to the payment schedule.
Me: What sort of adjustment?
Guy: We’ll pay you 20,000 lei net 90 and the balance in monthly installments of 10,000 lei.
Me: U.S. dollars only, please. And your payment plan would get us paid off in 2012, so I think we ought to look to accelerate those payments a bit.
Guy: You’re being inflexible! I’ll take my business to your competitors!
Me: You tried that already. It didn’t work, remember?
Guy: *click*
Three Weeks Later…
Guy: Hi, this is Guy. Remember when I was working for that Transylvanian barnacle removal company? Boy was that a dog… Anyway, I’m working for a ferret de-scenting operation in Yemen now. And we need widgets! How about 4% of $X?
Me: *click*
So amazingly cute... Mom Cami was looking quite healthy and animated and was cracking jokes last night while we visited. Daddy Dennis is beaming.
Mom went through the birth au naturel with no drugs or anything (not even an epidural). Amazing. Given my low tolerance for pain, if I were in her shoes, I would have demanded morphine under penalty of heavy lawsuit.
Congrats to Cami and Dennis. When they've checked out of the hospital and are comfortably at home, we can broach the subject of when the little tyke will get his first quad. ;-)
There is a special place in hell reserved for people who try to cram the entire contents of an e-mail into the subject line, such as:
Tom, I need the specs immediately for the media buy that starts on the 20th or we could experience some majo"
Subject fields can't be that big. So take a deep breath, click on the part of the e-mail that says "Message Body" and quit being lazy. And if it's something that's only 2-3 sentences and urgent, that's what IM is for. Or the phone. Or any of the krillions of other ways you can reach me.
Welcome to the world, Colin William Smith!
Dennis and Cami Smith welcomed Colin William at about 10 PM last night. He's a healthy 8 lb., 7oz.
Mom and Dad are reportedly doing well, and I plan to see if I can get home early today in time for hospital visiting hours.
Mom did the natural childbirth thing, which is amazing. No drugs, no epidural, no nothin'. That's one tough lady!
Best wishes to the whole family. Hopefully, pics to come soon.
Anyway, the snow was already deep enough at that point that you couldn't even tell that there was a pool in the back yard.
Monday morning's commute was hell. Got the car out of the driveway okay, but I was doing a significant amount of skidding and fishtailing on the secondary roads. The LIE was fine, but I lost traction a few times on the William Floyd Parkway and on 35th and 27th streets once I got into Manhattan. I would have taken the train today, but we have an afternoon meeting at a client in NJ and need to drive there.
Something's wrong with my quad again. After a weekend of romping around in the snow, I think it fouled another plug. Only one way to tell...take apart the whole machine again. We'll save that for weekend after next, when I have some time.
Craig swung by to pick up Rob and me around 3 PM. Rob and I did some woods riding while he got used to riding a quad again, and Dennis and Craig hit some other trails. After about an hour, Rob had had enough fun and decided to head home. I met up with Craig and Dennis and we did some more woods riding.
It wasn't long before the woods trails became buried in deep snow and we started moving out to the surface streets. Despite a state of emergency declared in Suffolk County, there were still quite a few folks out in cars. But most of the vehicles we did see on the streets were plow trucks and large 4x4s.
Some of the parking lots had at least 6 inches by 5 PM. We made a circle track in one of them (see pic).
By around 6 PM, the snow was starting to get too deep on the surface streets for even the quads. We were making it up hills, but fishtailing all over the place. We started to see snowmobiles out and about as well.
Craig had a bit of a nasty spill barreling down one of the back streets. He went from a plowed area into an unplowed one with a big snow drift and flipped over. Fortunately, he was okay.
I went outside briefly a few minutes ago and I can't see the birdbath on the front lawn. I'm wondering how I'm going to get to work on Monday... The snow is not supposed to stop until after sundown tomorrow and I wouldn't even THINK of trying to take a car out in the snow that's already on the ground.
We put some de-icer down on the driveway before the snow started up, so hopefully that should make shoveling tomorrow not as bad as it might otherwise be.
I have some big client meetings and things due on Monday. Looking out the window right now, I can't help but think I don't have a prayer of making it out of here and I might have to work from home. I guess we'll see what tomorrow will bring... (Other than getting in some more riding time, I mean.)
I'm noticing a trend in mass media coverage of terrorism - one that's quite disturbing.
In examining how safe Americans typically are, the mainstream press tends to look at weaknesses in our security in everyday life. How safe are our trains, airplanes, water supplies, and other everyday things? And we should be looking for weaknesses in our current systems. It's healthy and it makes sense.
But there's a big piece missing. What I don't see a lot of is analysis on the likely methods that terrorists could use to have maximum impact here in the U.S. given their resources. We seem to be concentrating too much on security exploits in our current systems, losing sight of how effective a terrorist could be in exploiting those systems.
A good example would be the whole "blinding airline pilots with lasers" scenario. Yes, pilots can be blinded by lasers, but the investments required as well as the dependability of the method makes this an unattractive option for someone who wants to have maximum impact with comparatively little investment.
Think about it. There are too many variables - too many things that could go wrong along the way. A terrorist would have to invest in a commercial laser, a tripod and possibly some electronic aiming gear in order to have a reasonable chance at success. Wouldn't it make more sense for a terrorist to invest that time and training in acquiring black market weapons?
I think we identify where the risks are when we start with a zero base approach - putting ourselves in the shoes of the terrorist and looking at what is easily and reliably exploited with the resources terrorists are likely to have available.
We can start by asking ourselves where our security is most easily exploited. Some would say the fact that only a small percentage of shipping containers entering the country are adqeuately searched and screened is something that immediately comes to mind when we think of inadquate security. When we think further about what's riding on this lax port security, we realize that shipping is critical to our economy and that ports tend to be in areas that are filled with people and businesses. A well-placed dirty bomb or worse could cause not only immediate loss of life, but a blow to the economy and to an entire system that our economy depends on for long-term stability.
What makes more sense to you? That a terrorist already in the U.S. would opt to try to bring down an airplane with a laser? Or that a terrorist not yet in the United States would use an unscreened shipping container to deliver a bomb right to our doorstep? To your thinking, what has the greater chance of success? What requires the least amount of resources to accomplish the most damage, both in terms of human lives and economic impact?
Our efforts against terrorism require smart deployment of resources. After all, we can't make everything 100 percent secure overnight. But we hope to make use of what we have to reduce our exposure appropriately. That means making tough but intelligent choices about the allocation of manpower, capital and other resources. To do that, we do need to examine the weaknesses in our current systems, but we also need to look at the big picture and avoid things like expending too much time and effort on patching security holes that are relatively less easy or effective to exploit.
It's all about priorities, people.
I've been noticing something lately that leads me to believe that perhaps the country isn't as divided along traditional conservative/liberal/libertarian lines as we might like to think. Well, actually I can't say that, because my circle of friends and acquaintances is not exactly representative of the U.S. population or anything. I guess the lesson might be "You can't judge a book by its cover."
Somebody I used to think was ultra-conservative launched into two separate tirades recently about justifications for the war and lack of accountability in the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo scandals.
Somebody I used to think was ultra-liberal told me she sees merit to the "freeing the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator" justification, even though she knows that wasn't the original justification for the war.
Somebody I used to think was steadfastly libertarian told me that he thinks the government ought to break up media monopolies for the sake of accuracy and balance in news reporting.
And then there are friends I used to avoid discussing the war with. I used to avoid it because I didn't think they cared much, or that they weren't interested enough in the news to formulate opinions based on what they had read about. You'd be surprised. Some of these folks really do want to discuss the issues and even though the budget deficit or education or welfare reform aren't topics they have a strong opinion on, they do have strong opinions about the war.
It's like that Bloom County cartoon from many moons ago, where Opus is at a bar talking to this conservative looking farmer-type guy in a flannel shirt who ends up spouting a bunch of typical liberal rhetoric. Then some hippy guy on the other side of the bar yells, "America! Love it or Leave It!"
I guess I should be encouraged about this. I'm not running into too many people who aren't opinionated in some way about the war. And it looks like my friends are reading and watching the news a whole lot more than I might have expected.
Let's face it, the Bush Administration has used the Jedi Mind Trick on us. Liberation of the oppressed Iraqi people emerged as a justification for war only after it became evident that no WMDs were likely to be found. That's still being used as the main justification for the war, even as polls show more than 90 percent of Iraqis view the American presence as an occupation rather than a liberation.
But there are those of us who are not so easily fooled, and remember when Bush took us to war, leveraging that wonderful culture of fear his administration is so good at cultivating. We remember Colin Powell showing satellite photos of alleged mobile chemical weapons factories. We remember the "disarm or else" rhetoric. We remember the skeptical among us who were shouted down when they merely suggested that perhaps Saddam Hussein had disarmed and was reasonably contained. And we remember the early insistence that WMDs would be found and Bush would be proven right.
Is this formal announcement that the WMDs were an illusion going to get the press coverage it deserves? I doubt it. As of a few minutes ago, when I did a Google News search for a cite, it took a bit more effort than I would have expected to find an American newspaper website with a story. The international press seems to be going off about it, and while the American press isn't exactly silent, it's not exactly giving the story its due.
Why? Because of the Jedi Mind Trick, that's why.
Yesterday, my troll friend accused me of being a drone. But who are the drones, people like me or the seemingly countless right-wing Bush fans who constantly parrot this line about liberating the Iraqi people as justification for the U.S. pre-emptive strike and subsequent occupation? Who is the one refusing to think here?
I still can't understand how people believe this war and occupation were justified, especially since the original justification has proven to be bullshit. Add to that the evidence we've seen that an attack on Iraq was pre-ordained as of 9/11, that there are many other oppressive regimes around the world that the Bush Administration tolerates or supports, and that the "revised" justification for the war also happens to be bullshit.
So I created this test for rock guitar players on OKCupid. No one's taking the damned thing. If you play, and you think you're the goods, take it.
WARNING: Taking a test someone created is how I got sucked into OKCupid in the first place. I didn't really see myself putting up a profile on an online dating site, but it's really easy to get sucked into when you've already answered questions and made that time investment. You have been warned.
Here's a gem from my comments:
What an amazing drone you are. Guess you don't mind if it's your plane. Guess it doesn't strike you that this seems to be happening all of a sudden, while laser pointers have been around for quite a while. Guess you voted for Kerry, and are looking for any way to strike out at those darn patriotic Americans who want to protect themselves from terrorists.
"Patriotic Americans" don't let the press get away with an overblown story, which is precisely what this laser pointer BS is. To have even a remote chance at bringing a plane down, one would have to fire a laser - and not just a laser pointer, but a commercial laser with extended range - through a cockpit, directly into the eyes of both the pilot and co-pilot. On top of that, in the highly unlikely event that both pilot and co-pilot are blinded by the laser, they'd have to be in the middle of a manual landing for serious problems to occur that might result in a crash.
My point? There are more reliable ways for terrorists to bring down an airplane. No terrorist is going to rely on this ineffective strategy to cause an airplane crash when they could buy weapons or explosives. Have we caught any members of Al Qaeda using this method to cause plane crashes? No. It's some idiot. In New Jersey. Playing with his daughter. Admittedly, he was doing something both illegal and stupid, but he's no terrorist. Yet, the press keeps hyping this thing as if there are terrorists all over the place trying to bring planes down with laser pointers.
Let's go back and see what you were saying in Nov, YUP, quoting that self-admitted source of lies and propaganda, the daily Kos, and oh, here is this gem titled 'to those who would not think': "John Kerry didn't send thousands of people to their deaths in Iraq to satisfy his personal bloodlust. Who would think that a comparison of the candidates' moral values would lead people to come to the conclusion that they prefer Bush's morals to Kerry's?But that's exactly what happened. And ironically, many voters who chose to identify with the moral values of George Bush did so without an ounce of moral thought. What we've witnessed in the 2004 general election is the triumph of feelings over facts."
Great stuff, except that it was you and the other less-than half of America that forgot what morals were about. It IS about going into Iraq and saving those who are being exterminated by their islamo-fascist leader. It is not about lying and distorting the facts, over-and-over, it is not about accepting millions in donations from George 'offshore' Soros, who as I write today is financing Iran's propaganda effort. It is not about buying every lie that rolls out of Michael Moore's lips.
Forgot what morals were about? Nah. You're kidding yourself.
Today on the radio, I heard about how the Bush Administration abandoned its search for WMDs in Iraq last month. And what have they found? Precisely squat. Yet, the presence of WMDs was what the Bush Administration used to justify the war. Remember when Colin Powell gave his wonderful speech about mobile weapons factories and other sites in Iraq that he was positive were storage facilities for WMDs? Well, that turned out to be bullshit. And this line about "saving those who are being exterminated by their islamo-fascist leader" is total crapola. The notion of liberating the Iraqi people didn't become a justification for the war until it became clear to the Bush Administration that the WMDs would never be found. What of oppressive regimes around the world that the Bush Administration routinely ignores or tolerates? Are those people worth less to us than the Iraqis?
Whose morality is really in question here?
And here you are still spouting Anti-Americanism, months later. Dude, I am embarrased to share NYC with you. Go to Canada, or France, and undermine their security efforts, why don't you.In Disgust,
X
Anti-Americanism? I love how you right-wing fascists use that broad brush to paint anyone who questions the moral direction of the current administration. We have a moral duty to question the decisions made by our leaders. I'd argue that anyone who refuses to think and immediately swallows whatever justifications the government offers up without question (much like yourself) is Anti-American.
So I'd urge you to think about how the adminstration, which led us into a pre-emptive strike under false pretenses, can justify its ethical direction.
And yes, I did vote for John Kerry.
I'm more than halfway through Bill Clinton's biography. I was particularly intrigued by how Clinton described how Bush I's lowballing of the deficit tripped up his economic plan somewhat. But it occurred to me that Clinton was able to explain essentially what he wanted to do in a very simple fashion that even someone like me, with little experience beyond Econ 101, could understand.
And then it occurred to me that this was one of the things that was missing from the discussion and debates in the last election. Kerry made plenty of stink about how we went from a huge budget surplus to a huge deficit, but I didn't hear specifics about how he wanted to address this if elected. I thought that perhaps, if Kerry was able to explain what he wanted to do with the economy in a way that was as simple as how Clinton explained his own economic plan, things may have turned out differently.
Instead, the Bush II administration was able to take potshots at Kerry by harping on the absence of a realistic plan. Clinton was able to get people to understand what was important about cutting the deficit and making investments at the time. Kerry wasn't nearly as effective. With America just starting to pull out of a recession, maybe the Dems could have pulled some additional votes by explaining their economic policy in real-world terms that highlighted just what the benefit would be to the middle and working classes.
Finally managed to get a new battery into my quad this weekend. I went over to the yard for a bit and yanked the old battery. Craig showed up and helped me get the new battery in. Unfortunately, the quad still wouldn't start. So we dumped the old gas from the gas tank and tore apart the machine so we could get to the spark plug. Turns out the plug was bad - completely fouled and not giving off a spark at all. If there's one thing I dislike about the Cannondale machines, it's the frequency with which they foul plugs. I've had to tear apart my machine at least three times to replace plugs, and it's no fun. It involves taking almost all the plastic off, the seat and the gas tank. Then you have to disconnect the linkage to the rear shock just to be able to get at the plug. From there, it's not too bad.
Since we had done this many times already, it wasn't too big a deal, but it still does take a couple hours to tear it apart and put it back together. I can see fouling plugs on a two-stroke, but this is a four-stroke motor and there's no reason why I should be getting these nasty carbon deposits on my plugs with a fuel-injected four-stroke. And there's no reason the plug should be buried so deep in the machine that it takes as long as it does to get to it.
With the new battery and new plug installed, though, the machine fired right up. No time to drop the oil or the tranny fluid before dark, so we just took a quick 20-minute ride around Split Rock.
Next weekend, I'll change all the fluids and take care of the chain (lube, plus take up the slack).
But the machine runs now, which is good news if we get another snow storm.
The Gauntlet outside Penn Station is becoming tougher and tougher to safely navigate every day. Seems you can't get through there without having to dodge the Falun Gong people distributing literature, the crappy newspapers giving their product away, the folks bumming cigarettes, etc.
Hey, I'm sympathetic to the plight of the Falun Gong people, but hey - folks have to get to work. And it's not like they haven't been there every day for three months passing out the same pamphlet.
I've found that your closest ally in these situations is your iPod. Simply insert headphones, crank up the tunes, and blow past anyone trying to stuff literature in your face. If anyone blocks your path, deliver your best "Sorry, can't hear you" understanding smile and keep moving. That's the key - keep moving. Don't stop and don't look back. If you do, you'll be stuck listening to the speech for a half hour.
It also works on crazies on the subway, Jehovah's Witnesses and candidates running for office.
What is it about people who file complaints about television content that makes them forget they can change the channel or turn their televisions off?
You'd think that those who file lawsuits and complaints with the FCC were bungee-corded into stiff-backed chairs, facing their televisions with toothpicks propping their eyes open. Oh, and the remote must be out of reach as well.
A common thread I've noticed about folks who file complaints about stuff they see on TV is that they all seem to act like the content is being injected directly into their brains and they just...can't...stop...it.
That aside, Fear Factor makes my stomach do somersaults, too. But you don't see me filing a $2.5 million lawsuit against a network, do you?
From CNN...
The FBI investigation into recent incidents involving laser beams aimed at aircraft has found no link to terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security's transportation security chief said Monday....
"In certain circumstances, if laser weapons adversely affect the eyesight of both pilot and co-pilot during a non-instrument approach, there is a risk of airliner crash," the bulletin said.
In other words, this is just more law enforcement chest-puffery - an overblown, oversensationalized non-event designed to scare the crap out of people. Somewhere along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, there's a cave full of Al Qaeda terrorists watching CNN and going, "Laser pointers? Get the fuck outta here! We never would have thought of that..."
Meanwhile, there's this guy in New Jersey...
A man who initially claimed his daughter aimed a laser at a helicopter was charged after he told federal agents that he pointed the light beam at two aircraft, authorities said Tuesday.
Awright, so this guy might not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, deciding to point his laser pointer at a plane and a helicopter with all this controversy going on and all. But let's face it, he probably didn't intend to bring a plane down. Not that he really could have, unless he managed to simultaneously hit the pilot and the co-pilot in the eyes and they were landing or taking off and their instruments happened to be down.
Welcome to the War on Terror. Your tax dollars will be used to put the local "Laser Pink Floyd" show out of business, and maybe screw with some people who use annoying laser pointers.
I'm starting to get tired of the warnings about everyday things that Homeland Security is claiming terrorists will use in future attacks. First it was laser pointers. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that the one-in-a-billion shot required to temporarily blind a pilot is something we need to be worried about. While it's true that a recent Slate article made mention of high-powered lasers and their potential to blind pilots, it seems that those scenarios are equally unlikely. And wouldn't the problem be easily solved by placing polarized or otherwise filtered glass in airplane cockpits? Instead, Homeland Security has chosen the alarmist path once again, trying to make everyone paranoid that there are terrorists sitting at the end of runways trying to blind pilots upon take off or landing.
The most recent bullshit concerns cheap watches. Some of these watches have hidden cigarette lighters in them. Others have altimeters. There are a few things that bug me about the recent alarm concerning these watches.
First of all, aren't cigarette lighters routinely allowed on planes? I've traveled many times since 9/11, and I've never had a problem with cigarette lighters on planes. No one has ever even mentioned anything about them to me at airport security. If Homeland Security is concerned about cigarette lighters, shouldn't they first move to confiscate cigarette lighters that aren't hidden in watches?
The other thing that bugs me is the singling out of a particular watch brand - Casio.
"Casio watches have been extensively used by al-Qaida and associated organizations as timers for improvised explosive devices. The Casio brand is likely chosen due to its worldwide availability and inexpensive price."
Am I to believe that Casios are particularly dangerous? It's not like there aren't other brands of cheap watches out there. Why single out Casio? I'm sure it wouldn't be terribly difficult for a terrorist to invest in some other brand of inexpensive watch, but Homeland Security wants us to be on the lookout for Casio. I can almost see the corporate folks at Casio freaking out because of the brand damage they're likely to suffer because some fool at Homeland Security decided they needed to be singled out.
Needless to say, this is all bullshit. To what end it's been disseminated to the public, I can't say for sure. Perhaps it's to convince the public that Homeland Security is actually doing something about terrorism and not sitting on its ass. Maybe it's a distraction thing. Who knows?
Happy New Year, everybody!
Some things I learned on my holiday break...