...you have to create a folder in your e-mail called, "Stupid stuff I've said that almost cost me my job."
Today's that day.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
What Mr. Tony Should Have Said
Last week on his eponymous radio show, Tony Kornheiser went on one of his trademark rants regarding bicycle lanes on roadways and cyclists in general. The initial issue was the addition of bicycle lanes to some downtown Washington, D.C., streets at the possible expense of existing vehicle lanes. Tony went on to "attack" cyclists, saying:
Unfortunately, Tony's recent notoriety has apparently brought a number of new listeners to the show who are not familiar with Tony's act. As a result, Tony's comments were taken out of context and resulted in a Twitter confrontation with Lance Armstrong:
During that conversation, Tony asked a question along the lines of "Why do think there's such animus between cyclists and motorists?"
Armstrong responded with something like, "I don't know. Look, motorists will patiently sit behind school buses and farmers on tractors, but they have no patience for cyclists."
Armstrong also provided a scenario along the lines of, "Let's say a 40-something women with a couple of kids decides she wants to lose a few pounds. She goes out and buys a bike. The first time on the bike, a motorist 'taps' her. I can guarantee that she'll be so freaked out she'll never get on a bike again and that's a shame."
I certainly agree that there's no place for that kind of behavior by motorists; you can't be out there with your two-ton car intimidating cyclists. Let me make that perfectly clear, I do not in any way condone any behavior in which a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist, scooter-driver, or other automobile is placed in jeopardy by the actions of a motorist.
The problem, however, is that many cyclists are not aware that a bicycle is classified as a vehicle -- the same as a car, truck, motorcycle, scooter, etc. -- and is subject to the same laws and "rules of the road." It is, for example, illegal in most jurisdictions for a cyclist to weave through cars stopped at a traffic light just as it is illegal for a car, truck, motorcycle, scooter, etc. to do the same. Many cyclists act as if they are exempt from these rules and I think that's where the root of the animosity from motorists comes from.
Do motorists have a responsibility to be on the look out for and drive carefully around cyclists? Absolutely. Cyclists, however, have an equal responsibility to obey traffic laws and operate their vehicles as responsibly as any other motorist.
Why is is that we require motorists, truck drivers, motorcyclists, scooter operators, school bus drivers, etc. to get licensed? Because operation of those vehicles take certain skills and mis-operation of those vehicles can lead to harm to innocent bystanders. Why don't we require cyclists to to get licensed? I have no idea, but we should.
The idea that the 40-something woman in Armstrong's example can just go out, buy a bike, and begin riding on busy streets frightens me as a motorist. I no more want her out there, untrained and unlicensed, than I want some 16-year old kid who hasn't passed his learner's permit test out there driving. Both are road hazards that the rest of us don't need.
This is the point that I think was missing from the exchange between Tony and Lance; namely that the two communities, cyclists and motorists, need to show equal respect to one another. Cycling, like driving, is a privilege, not a right. And, if you abuse that privilege, there are going to be consequences. Again, those consequences should be legal -- no one has a right to "tap" a cyclist.
"And they all, my God, with their water bottles in the back, and their stupid hats, and their shiny shorts, they're the same kind of disgusting posers that in a snowstorm come out with cross-country skis on your block. Run them down."Regular listeners to the show recognized this for what it was: shtick - a sarcastic, over-the-top rant, meant to entertain and not to be taken seriously.
"So you tap them. I'm not saying kill them."
Unfortunately, Tony's recent notoriety has apparently brought a number of new listeners to the show who are not familiar with Tony's act. As a result, Tony's comments were taken out of context and resulted in a Twitter confrontation with Lance Armstrong:
"Listening to Tony Kornheiser's comments/rant on ESPN radio re: cyclists. Disgusting, ignorant, foolish. What a complete f-ing idiot."Tony reached out to a mutual friend and apologized to Armstrong both off-air and during an on-air conversation on his radio show.
"Not happy about Kornheiser's comments? Let them know @ESPNRadio980, @ptishow, and here http://www.espn980.com/info/contact_us.php"
During that conversation, Tony asked a question along the lines of "Why do think there's such animus between cyclists and motorists?"
Armstrong responded with something like, "I don't know. Look, motorists will patiently sit behind school buses and farmers on tractors, but they have no patience for cyclists."
Armstrong also provided a scenario along the lines of, "Let's say a 40-something women with a couple of kids decides she wants to lose a few pounds. She goes out and buys a bike. The first time on the bike, a motorist 'taps' her. I can guarantee that she'll be so freaked out she'll never get on a bike again and that's a shame."
I certainly agree that there's no place for that kind of behavior by motorists; you can't be out there with your two-ton car intimidating cyclists. Let me make that perfectly clear, I do not in any way condone any behavior in which a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist, scooter-driver, or other automobile is placed in jeopardy by the actions of a motorist.
The problem, however, is that many cyclists are not aware that a bicycle is classified as a vehicle -- the same as a car, truck, motorcycle, scooter, etc. -- and is subject to the same laws and "rules of the road." It is, for example, illegal in most jurisdictions for a cyclist to weave through cars stopped at a traffic light just as it is illegal for a car, truck, motorcycle, scooter, etc. to do the same. Many cyclists act as if they are exempt from these rules and I think that's where the root of the animosity from motorists comes from.
Do motorists have a responsibility to be on the look out for and drive carefully around cyclists? Absolutely. Cyclists, however, have an equal responsibility to obey traffic laws and operate their vehicles as responsibly as any other motorist.
Why is is that we require motorists, truck drivers, motorcyclists, scooter operators, school bus drivers, etc. to get licensed? Because operation of those vehicles take certain skills and mis-operation of those vehicles can lead to harm to innocent bystanders. Why don't we require cyclists to to get licensed? I have no idea, but we should.
The idea that the 40-something woman in Armstrong's example can just go out, buy a bike, and begin riding on busy streets frightens me as a motorist. I no more want her out there, untrained and unlicensed, than I want some 16-year old kid who hasn't passed his learner's permit test out there driving. Both are road hazards that the rest of us don't need.
This is the point that I think was missing from the exchange between Tony and Lance; namely that the two communities, cyclists and motorists, need to show equal respect to one another. Cycling, like driving, is a privilege, not a right. And, if you abuse that privilege, there are going to be consequences. Again, those consequences should be legal -- no one has a right to "tap" a cyclist.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Hey FedEx! Ever heard of Google Maps?
Update 4:
Flowers (replacement bouquet) delivered today (Saturday) and looks great! ProFlowers absolutely did right by us and has my business going forward.
Flowers (original bouquet) actually delivered today @ 3:41pm although FedEx website still shows "At FedEx destination facility." Good news is they held up really well, I'm told.
Update 2:
My wife just called to tell me she received a call from Ralph at ProFlowers apologizing profusely for the non-delivery. ProFlowers has sent out a new bouquet. Thanks, Ralph!
Update 1:
Had a very nice Twitter exchange with FedexDolores who "contacted the local terminal and they left the driver a message to deliver this asap." The web tracking app still shows the package "At FedEx destination facility," so we'll see.
Original Post:
Yesterday was my lovely wife's xxth birthday and, for the first time in our ten year marriage, I was out of town on business and unable to celebrate the day with her.
So, I did what any good husband who knows what side his bread is buttered on would do, I sent her flowers. Or, more accurately, I attempted to send her flowers.
Earlier in the week, I went to ProFlowers (no link, 'cause they don't deserve one) and I ordered the lovely "Hugs And Kisses" bouquet. Now, it just so happens that this particular product included "Free Weekday Delivery." I didn't order it because of that, but it didn't hurt. Notice that it said "delivery," not "shipping."
Turns out, the bouquet is shipped from a non-local florist and "delivered" by FedEx Home Delivery Services (again, no link).
I'm checking the FedEx web site all day yesterday to see when the flowers are going to be delivered so I know when to expect the phone call with squeals of delight from my wife.
It's getting later and later and the status still says "On vehicle for delivery." Finally, around 7:00 pm, I get a "Delivery Exception" email that FedEx was "unable to complete delivery of the following shipment..." due to an "Incorrect address - Street name."
Gee, that's funny, the newspaper guy finds us, the US Postal Service finds us, UPS finds us, freaking Google Maps finds us, why can't FedEx? In fact, FedEx has delivered to us in the past, but now they can't find us?!?
So, my wife didn't get her flowers. She called FedEx (I was at the airport boarding a plane when all this happened) and gave them directions, so she should get the (somewhat wilted) flowers sometime today.
Oh, this morning the phone rings at 7 am and it's FedEx asking for directions. My wife answered the phone and told them (much more nicely than I would've) that she already provided this information last night.
Dear FedEx - you get a FAIL.
Friday, August 07, 2009
I am a complete wuss
So, last night I was in line at Dairy Queen when I realized that the guy behind me was Cleveland Indians Executive Vice President and General Manager Mark Shapiro.
What I should've done was to confirm his identity ("Say, aren't you Cleveland Indians Executive Vice President and General Manager Mark Shapiro?)" and then lay in to him with a George Costanza-like tirade similar to the one he delivered in the classic Seinfeld episode "The Opposite:"
Instead, I picked up my Blizzard and got back in my car.
I suck.
What I should've done was to confirm his identity ("Say, aren't you Cleveland Indians Executive Vice President and General Manager Mark Shapiro?)" and then lay in to him with a George Costanza-like tirade similar to the one he delivered in the classic Seinfeld episode "The Opposite:"
MR. STEINBRENNER: Nice to meet you.(Thanks to seinology.com for the script.)
GEORGE: Well, I wish I could say the same, but I must say, with all due respect, I find it very hard to see the logic behind some of the moves you have made with this fine organization. In the past twenty years you have caused myself, and the city of New York, a good deal of distress, as we have watched you take our beloved Yankees and reduced them to a laughing stock, all for the glorification of your massive ego!
MR. STEINBRENNER: Hire this man!
Instead, I picked up my Blizzard and got back in my car.
I suck.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Fixed It...
In case anyone cares, I fixed my BlackBerry by using the instructions found here: http://www.blackberryforums.com/rim-software/67224-remove-policy.html.
I found a couple of other places/posts with instructions on how to apply a new, "blank" policy, but this post seemed to have the only policy.bin that allowed "split-pipe" connections, which is what seemed to be the problem.
FYI, disabling the bbproblem@rorywohl.us email address, so don't bother trying to spam it.
I found a couple of other places/posts with instructions on how to apply a new, "blank" policy, but this post seemed to have the only policy.bin that allowed "split-pipe" connections, which is what seemed to be the problem.
FYI, disabling the bbproblem@rorywohl.us email address, so don't bother trying to spam it.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Anybody know why my BlackBerry does this?
I have a BlackBerry 8330 (Curve) smartphone on Verizon (CDMA).
The operating system version is v4.5.0.77
Most of the time when I download and run a new application, I get the following message:
Secondly, if I go into Options > Security Options > Firewall, the status of the firewall is Enabled and there's a little red lock icon next to the word "Enabled" and I can't disable the firewall.
Thirdly, if I go into Options > Security Options > Application Permissions, select "Edit Default Permissions," and expand all the categories, all the options are set to "Allow."
Fourthly, if I go into Options > Security Options > Application Permissions, select the application, then select "Edit Permissions," and expand all the categories, all the options are set to "Allow."
I'm at a loss for why this keeps happening. Google searches haven't suggested anything I haven't already tried. (I even searched on Bing!) If anyone has any ideas, please e-mail bbproblem@rorywohl.us
The operating system version is v4.5.0.77
Most of the time when I download and run a new application, I get the following message:
The application application_name has attempted to open a connection to a location inside the firewall and outside the firewall which is not allowed by your IT policy.First of all, I don't have an IT policy. I bought the phone new from Verizon and it has only ever been connected to the Blackberry Internet Service. It has never been connected to a Blackberry Enterprise Server.
Secondly, if I go into Options > Security Options > Firewall, the status of the firewall is Enabled and there's a little red lock icon next to the word "Enabled" and I can't disable the firewall.
Thirdly, if I go into Options > Security Options > Application Permissions, select "Edit Default Permissions," and expand all the categories, all the options are set to "Allow."
Fourthly, if I go into Options > Security Options > Application Permissions, select the application, then select "Edit Permissions," and expand all the categories, all the options are set to "Allow."
I'm at a loss for why this keeps happening. Google searches haven't suggested anything I haven't already tried. (I even searched on Bing!) If anyone has any ideas, please e-mail bbproblem@rorywohl.us
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
What's a .283 Hitter Worth?
Well, if you're the Cleveland Indians, apparently a Class A pitching prospect.
The Tribe hasn't traded away the big name tandem of Cliff Lee and Victor Martinez (at least not yet -- at the time of this post).
They did however, trade Ryan Garko to the San Francisco Giants for Class A minor league pitcher Scott Barnes.
In parts of four major league seasons with the Indians (he batted once in 2005), he hit .283, with an on-base percentage of .355, a slugging percentage of .450, and an OPS of .805. Not great, not terrible, but, at 28 years old, "Gark" was a serviceable player. In fact, in getting Garko, SF GM Brian Sabean called him a "professional hitter."
Now, the Indians have about a million first basemen in the system. In fact, I bet we could field an entire team made up of guys whose primary position is first base.
So, my beef isn't so much that we traded him; my beef is what we got in return. I'm sure Scott Barnes is a swell guy, but the fact of the matter is he's pitching in A-ball. He's nowhere near major league ready and the odds of him making it are pretty slim. (Can you say Adam Miller?)
As ESPN.com's Rob Neyer wrote:
Between this and the Mark DeRosa deal earlier in the season, it's hard to believe that Mark Shapiro is the same guy who got Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips, and Cliff Lee for Bartolo Colón.
Gee, what are we going to get for Cliff Lee or Victor Martinez this year? A box of bats and a bucket of balls?
The Tribe hasn't traded away the big name tandem of Cliff Lee and Victor Martinez (at least not yet -- at the time of this post).
They did however, trade Ryan Garko to the San Francisco Giants for Class A minor league pitcher Scott Barnes.
In parts of four major league seasons with the Indians (he batted once in 2005), he hit .283, with an on-base percentage of .355, a slugging percentage of .450, and an OPS of .805. Not great, not terrible, but, at 28 years old, "Gark" was a serviceable player. In fact, in getting Garko, SF GM Brian Sabean called him a "professional hitter."
Now, the Indians have about a million first basemen in the system. In fact, I bet we could field an entire team made up of guys whose primary position is first base.
So, my beef isn't so much that we traded him; my beef is what we got in return. I'm sure Scott Barnes is a swell guy, but the fact of the matter is he's pitching in A-ball. He's nowhere near major league ready and the odds of him making it are pretty slim. (Can you say Adam Miller?)
As ESPN.com's Rob Neyer wrote:
Just for the record, Barnes was ranked by Baseball America last winter as a top-10 prospect in the Giants' system (No. 9, to be precise). Of course, you know the perils that await a Class A pitcher, no matter how talented; the odds are against Barnes ever becoming more than a bit player in the majors (though of course we'll be pulling for him).I know you can never have too much pitching, but the Indians need either major league or major league-ready pitching in order to compete next year. (Even with the Tribe's recent five game winning streak, this season is over.)
Between this and the Mark DeRosa deal earlier in the season, it's hard to believe that Mark Shapiro is the same guy who got Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips, and Cliff Lee for Bartolo Colón.
Gee, what are we going to get for Cliff Lee or Victor Martinez this year? A box of bats and a bucket of balls?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
