Whuddup

I Want My Two Dollars

2009-02-19T04:41:00.001-06:00

OK, so the title should read "I Want My $52.97, but I'll Take $53 Please." But it's not as catchy. Why should it read that? Because that is the amount that Dave & Buster's at 1030 N. Clark St in Chicago, IL (aka Goldcoast) owes me for purchasing a battery charger for a video camera. I needed to purchase this charger so that I could complete a video job for their annual (used to be semi-annual) All Store Meeting. I completed the project on the 21st of January and shipped the video to them on the 22nd. They received it on the 23rd.

A little background here. I used to work for D&B. When I moved to Chicago in 2001 I befriended someone that is a wiz in video editing, though it's not his profession. He agreed to help me with this introduction video a few times. He eventually moved away and I coincidentally got a new laptop and took up the task of doing the editing. I continued to work for D&B until February 2005.

At that time, I figured I had done my last video. So I was very happy and honored to be asked to do their video a few months later. Since I no longer worked for them I decided to do a trade with them for my services. Over the years it was a good relationship. I got to have some fun and get paid (in trade) for it.

When I moved down to San Antonio in June of last year (2008) I figured I had not only done my last D&B video, but also my last ESPN Zone video. Imagine my surprise at getting a text message saying in a somewhat matter-of-fact way that I was doing this year's video. I laughed at first and replied that they needed to send the camera, tape, and my trade payment along with a return label. I was told that would be no problem.

A week or so later the package arrives sans payment. And sans battery charger or power cord for the camera. A back and forth happens and eventually a week later I just go ahead and buy a battery charger. From Circuit City no less as they are the ONLY store in my city that carries this charger. No one else has it unless I want to order it online. I don't have that kind of time. It was agreed that I would be reimbursed monetarily too, not additional trade.

When I leave the store, things only get better. I walk out to find that I have a flat tire. Oh, and my spare is flat, of course. So another $80 or so spent, watch the inauguration at Firestone, then head home to finally import the entire footage. Around 4AM the next morning I finish the editing and I set the computer (the same computer I bought 5 years ago BTW) on the task of creating the movie file so I can watch it on the big screen TV. That afternoon it's all finished and two DVDs are burned. The next afternoon I go to FedEx to return everything.

A week goes by and I still haven't received my money (or trade). I inquire with my contact and am assured it will be sent. Another week, and the trade comes and more assurances the cash will be sent. A third week and I talk with the person that is actually in charge of getting the money and shipping it to me and assured it will be sent. ANOTHER WEEK and I am told, "you'll have it by Wednesday." That was yesterday, and today I'm writing a blog about it at 4:15AM. WTF? Cue Johnny:

Seriously. 4 weeks, and 20 newspapers later and I still haven't been paid. So it's time to take it to the next level. I am no longer Johnny the Paperboy from Better Off Dead. I am now Stewie from Family Guy. Cue Stewie:

Cue my hourly tweets to this blogpost via Twuffer. Cue my phone call to the GM when I wake up in the morning. And Cue me making private all of D&B Goldcoast's videos I (and my friend) have done over the years until I get paid. For an example of what they look like, feel free to go to my You Tube page and watch the ESPN Zone videos:

My You Tube Page

This is ridiculous. I mean, seriously. It's not like I'm destitute and am in dire need of $52.97. I'm not. The point is I shelled out my own money, spent time and gas, and had the fun time of sitting in a Firestone getting a new tire to complete a video that I was getting paid (in trade) about 1/10 of what a professional would get paid (plus the licensing fees for the music). All because I still know people there and do it as kind of a favor as they have no one else to do it. I also enjoy it tremendously.

So where's my money?

l8r,

Marz

MeToday090204

2009-02-04T19:38:00.001-06:00

Show Me the Money

2009-02-04T12:20:00.001-06:00

So President Obama announced his salary cap for executives at companies receiving financial assistance from us, the taxpayers. $500,000. Of course, there is a loophole of sorts. Companies that already received money are grandfathered. While on first look most people will view this as a good thing, I don't. And I'll explain why it's not "fair" like Obama claims it is.

First of all, I understand why we have this animosity towards executives at the Wall Street firms, banks, and auto makers for getting huge bonuses, going on junkets, sponsoring Superbowl "Fan Experiences", and flying to Congress in their private jets with "hat-in-hand." I get it. Some of these things are just boneheaded. However some of these cannot be changed due to the contractual obligations of the companies involved. And while many people feel taking the company jet being wasteful, it was more wasteful for those Big-3 Auto execs to drive themselves cross-country (in 3 different vehicles by the way), than to decide to jet pool. That travel time probably cost their companies more than taking a jet.

Anyway, the problem I have with this is it's changing the rules in the middle of the game. We gave these bozos $700mil dollars of our money with effectively no oversight. Thanks, Hank. So why are we upset that they decided to use it however they felt was appropriate for the survival of themselves, er, I mean their companies? The problem is we gave them the money in the first place, instead of playing hardball by telling them to slash their payrolls without laying off people. Take commercial flights. Cancel the junkets, parties, etc. Focus on cost-cutting, building your brand, advertising, and making products that people want to and can afford to buy.

But, no. We were sold a bill of goods. It was so bad that we were on the verge of collapse if we didn't pass this bill on that day day, at that hour. If we waited even just another week, we would see rioting in the streets. No offense to the Europeans already experiencing this. We let the same bunch of crooks that got us into the mess decide how much money was going to be doled out and to whom. They all know each other, worked for each other, and therefore will take care of each other. And now, we need to spend another $800mil - $1tril?

So back to this salary cap. It's on future help to companies. OK, fine. So when Acme, Inc. decides it needs help and Joe Executive makes $5mil, his VPs make $2mil ea, and some other execs make $750k, maybe if they just did their own cost-cutting of the highest paid guys they could weather some bad times? Of course, they don't and just do freezes on raises for everyone. That means the 50%+ employees making minimum wage or just above get screwed at trying to stay even, and Joe Executive still gets his money.

Of course, the more money you have, the more money you spend. In general. Joe Executive is no different than Six Pack Joe. Just that Joe E. buys more expensive beer. No Natty Light for him, only Samuel Adams Utopias will do. Joe E. doesn't live in a double-wide, he lives in one of several 10-room mansions. But I'm not faulting Joey E. It's his money, and he can spend it, or not spend it, any way he wants.

My issue with today's announcement is the government coming up with a maximum wage. Yeah, it's only tied to government aid. Buy why $500k? Why not, $250k, $1mil, $100k? We already have a minimum wage. We need a maximum? Didn't I warn about Obama taking us down the path of Socialism a couple months ago?

It starts with this, then government contractors who are financially stable, then large businesses, and finally little Joey E. who has that lemonade stand on the corner. They tie the maximum wage to a company's gross revenue. So little Joey E. has a hard time expanding and getting ahead in his personal life, because he doesn't sell enough lemonade for him to upgrade from a 3-speed to a 10-speed bicycle.

I feel that a person should be compensated for his or her work. If you want to add a bonus based upon some kind of score or performance level, fine. But it shouldn't be something that is automatic. The bonus (or commission) should be reasonable.

If Acme, Inc. decides that it's CEO is worth $22mil, then they should be able to pay him that. If the company underperforms and their CEO isn't performing, either fire him or cut his pay. But it should be the market doing this, not government.

Here is what should have happened with the bailout money. An oversight committee of some sort should have been created. Any company requesting assistance should have been audited to explore what cost-cutting measures (including payroll reductions, but avoid layoffs initially), should be implemented first. This allows the company to do everything it can to trim the fat short of firing employees.

If a company has already done that, give them the money. But let them know it comes with restrictions. You don't necessarily need to tell that company it's capped at $500k for its executives. Some smaller companies might not pay their CEO that much anyway. And those that pay their CEO tens of millions may not realistically be able to cut that CEO's salary to $500k. Use the model of those credit counseling companies. Make arrangements on how to reduce your debt and if you break that arrangement, then you're stuck with your debt.

The key is, there should have been conditions to being able to get this money, and penalties for abusing the aid. But Paulson and his cronies figured that they could just give away the money and the public wouldn't get outraged. Now the Congress is red-faced in embarrassment and outrage for being duped. And so John Q. Public.

Get rid of this salary cap. It's a bad idea. It's only there to make us "feel good" about sticking it to these evil executives. We gave them the money with no stipulations. If they screw up, then let them. Let the companies that use the money wisely come out ahead, and the companies that don't fail or get bought out.

If not, then have all of us just make $500k/yr regardless of our job. If you want fairness, then everyone just gets paid the same amount of money. We don't own anything. The government gives us our homes. We get rations of food. Oh wait, didn't someone already try that a few times? Communism anyone?

OS X meet Trojans, Trojans meet OS X

2009-01-26T12:45:00.001-06:00

While trojans or virii aren't really a new thing to OS X technically, the proliferation of them has been very limited. One of the things I've used to lure people to the Mac platform is that fact that OS X really doesn't suffer from getting infected. There are exploits to the system, but that's mainly websites or vulnerabilities in something like QuickTime.

Windows users are more familiar with these things than OS X users. For the OS X user, you could download software or mp3s to your heart's content and never worry about some piece of malicious code being installed. You could open e-mails with wild abandon knowing that if that PowerPoint attachment was really a trojan, nothing would happen to you since it's an .exe file and won't run on OS X. Surf the darkest corners of the Internet and come out unscathed (meaning the OS, not you necessarily).

Well, those days have been slowly coming to a close. The fact that exploits have to be written so that OS X can run it still means you can mostly do all of the above with no problem. The vast majority of this stuff is for Windows. So even if you do go to a bad website, most likely the exploit they have there can't harm you. That PowerPoint file will just not run. The mp3 will not play. And the software will probably run just fine since you were downloading the OS X version.

Below is an article detailing two new trojans that are in pirated versions of iWork '09 and Adobe's CS4. To me, this is the true beginning of OS X finally showing up on the radar as being viable to target. Here is the article:

New OS X Trojans

As I discussed with one of my Twitter friends, the tech savvy will probably not be affected to much by this. And the non-tech savvy will probably be affected a little bit. iWork is pretty cheap and I don't see that many people downloading this. However CS 4 is pretty expensive, but has a relatively small user base. Especially those that will pirate it. Even so, there will be people who will download these pirated copies that are infected. And they probably will get infected since many people don't use an Anti-virus on OS X.

So do I use an Anti-virus program myself? No. A lot of that is because it really hasn't been needed for OS X. However, I also consider myself as someone that "knows better." Even with the fact that there really hasn't been anything bad for OS X, every year I get more cautious with being exposed to those bad things mentioned above. I'm just smart about it.

Having an AV is a good thing in general, but it also runs the risk of giving people a false sense of security that their AV will protect them. You really do need to think of an AV like birth control. Nothing is 100%. Some are better than others, and if used improperly, won't protect you from pregnancy or an STD. Not using an AV can be very risky if you don't know what to look for. I'm not saying that the sex-savvy can just go around having unprotected sex though ;)

Anyway, these two trojans really won't affect me too much. I already have safe practices in how I use my computer. Plus I have no plans on downloading these two programs. I plan on buying iWork when I get a new computer, and I have no use for CS4.

I'm also going to paste my comment I posted to the above article. It was the reason for me actually wanting to do a blog post. It addresses some of the comments from other posters:

Just to address a few things.

1. Why do people steal software? Many reasons:

One, because they can. Some people just like to collect software. Even if they will never use it.
Two, money. While most of us feel that $80 isn't a lot of money to spend on iWork, others may feel it's too much but still feel they must have it instead of saving up the $80.
Three, they are trying to "hook up" a friend. Even if they actually bought it for themselves, they may give a copy to a friend or download it for them.
Four, OS X's relative security till now. Up until now, there really hasn't been any credible threat to someone's system if they did download something. Even mp3s. My guess is that as this story gets more circulation, many would be pirates will decide it's not worth it anymore. Or they'll install anti-virus software in the hopes of it protecting them.

2. MD 5 hash.

Someone mentioned to check the MD 5 hash. Someone else said it was easy to fake. Yes and No. MD5 is no longer as trusted as it once was. This much is true. However, it's not easy to fake. I mean if getting 200 PS3 to do the crack is easy to you, go right ahead. Re: http://www.itproportal.com/articles/2009/01/05/md5-algorithm-cracked-using-gaming-consoles/

3. It's OK to steal CS4, but not iWork.

One poster mentioned the difference in price and how he could see someone stealing CS4. Another poster replied to him asking why it's OK to steal it. I don't think the original poster was saying it was OK to steal CS4, just understanding why someone would since it is very expensive. They also (I think it was the same person) added justification (to them) by claiming Adobe is out to screw people. Be that as it may, one reason software companies charge so much (and it's not the only reason) is to make up for theft. Common practice in Retail. If someone steals an item out of the store, the price of that item is partially set to help recover the cost of someone stealing it.

4. Anti-Virus software won't protect you.

Another Yes and No answer. First of all, no one AV program will be able to completely protect you. And even multiple ones aren't 100% effective. Mainly because of their virus definitions database. An AV is only as good as its DB. A virus or trojan that is new probably won't be in any AV's database for awhile, so you could get infected. Also, depending on how the AV is set, it's possible for the virus or trojan to get installed even if it is in the AV's database. However, an AV could prevent the installation of a virus or trojan if it has scanned the file prior to it being executed, or the e-mail prior to the person reading it. So, Intego's claim that their AV could protect someone would be valid.

5. Intego telling people it's OK to steal if you have their software.

I don't read it as that entirely. I read it as they say don't do it. However, to protect yourself from these two trojans it wouldn't hurt to have their AV. It's not like these two trojans couldn't be used in something else. I'm getting outside of my knowledge here on this one, but I would say it's possible for either trojan to be put into an e-mail and distributed. I might be wrong on this one. But I can see how one could read their statement as saying "Don't steal, but if you want to, use us to protect you."

Guess that's it for me on this. Just my $0.02 x 100 ;)

MeToday090121

2009-01-21T23:01:00.001-06:00

tiesto

2008-12-08T23:21:00.000-06:00

Tiesto bitches!

DJ Tiesto

2008-12-08T22:46:00.000-06:00

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

MeToday081201

2008-12-02T21:56:00.001-06:00

I Voted

2008-11-04T12:55:00.001-06:00

Hello, all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MeToday081015

2008-10-15T17:27:00.001-05:00

BirthdayToday080908

2008-09-08T14:35:00.001-05:00

MeToday080904

2008-09-04T12:54:00.001-05:00

5000 Tweets

2008-09-01T16:32:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On to 10,000.

l8r,

Marz

The Death of the Newspaper?

2008-08-07T21:05:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome more comments about this on the blog.

Mark

Not in Favor of Favre

2008-08-04T11:02:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

l8r,

Marz

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

MeToday080729

2008-07-30T01:25:00.001-05:00

Los Angeles and Fast Food

2008-07-29T22:06:00.001-05:00

Headline:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's all I got tonight.

l8r,

Marz

I Wanted to Believe

2008-07-28T10:32:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I shoulda seen Dark Knight instead.

l8r,

Marz

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

MeToday080723

2008-07-23T14:28:00.001-05:00

Texas Citizenship

2008-07-23T10:23:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

l8r,

Marz

The Story of Outstanding

2008-07-16T21:29:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- good
- OK
- alright
- uh
- not bad

And that about covers it. Never:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I'm Outstanding. How are you?

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

MeToday080714

2008-07-14T13:13:00.001-05:00

5Things About Marz

2008-07-09T16:51:00.001-05:00

MeToday 080709

2008-07-09T10:50:00.001-05:00

MeToday080629

2008-06-29T14:47:00.001-05:00

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