Tuesday is election day. While it's not a national holiday, it should be. Nothing is more important than the peaceful transfer of power we have every 4 years.
While the President doesn't have absolute power in our government, he does set the agenda. Who we choose to lead this country is an important decision, one that will have ramifications throughout our society for a generation. Do you think that's an exaggeration? Think about Supreme Court justices, appointed for life, who may serve for 20 or 30 years. Think about sweeping reforms - The New Deal, The Great Society, Obamacare - that change the lives of millions. Think about the big mistakes - Watergate, The Iraq War, Trickle Down Economics - that haunt us for decades. This is an important decision, best taken seriously. This is why the efforts by some to limit the right to vote is a serious threat to our democracy.
Down ballot issues are also important, of course. In Nebraska, we have an ill-conceived effort to put a protection for hunting rights into our state constitution. In my opinion, this is just a grandstand ploy to get people all wound up about something that's not really a problem - very similar to the "voter fraud" that we keep hearing about (that doesn't really exist). There is NO chance that Nebraska will decide to outlaw hunting at any time in the foreseeable future, but that doesn't stop some politicians from trying to make hay talking about it. We shouldn't clutter our constitution with this nonsense. We also shouldn't send Deb Fischer to the U.S. Senate, although I suspect we will.
As far as the presidential race goes, I guess it is no secret I think it's important to send Barack Obama back to the white house. While I don't agree with everything he's done, he's done enough to merit my vote - particularly when compared to Mitt Romney. As nearly as I can tell, Romney has no core principles - he's willing to take whatever stand he thinks will curry favor with the voters.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Here Comes the Boom - Movie Review
I know I've said here a few times that I don't like a lot of new movies, but here's one I actually kind of liked! Here Comes the Boom is a lightweight comedy, starring one of the funny, "heavyweight" comedians, Kevin James. James plays Scott Voss, a disillusioned teacher just going through the motions - barely staying awake long enough to watch his students disinterest.
James is a funny guy, best known for the sitcom The King of Queens. In that series, he played Doug Heffernan, a roly poly regular guy. Throughout the series, you keep wondering, "How in the world did this guy land that girl (Leah Remini, playing his wife). Somehow, this works, and the interaction between the two makes for some funny moments.
James must live right, because his love interest in the movie is even further out of his league - Salma Hayek, dressed down and low key as the school nurse (Bella) who somehow falls for this lunk. His cheesy attempts to pick her up fall flat - sometimes literally - and serve as good preparation for his later battles.
The plot revolves around a spur-of-the-moment vow from Voss to raise money and save his friend's job - as well as the music department. Henry Winkler, far removed from his Fonzie days, is fine as a bumbling, slightly lost, relic. Since Voss spoke without thinking, he's obligated to do something - he just has no idea what. A chance viewing of a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) bout leads him to pursue that avenue as the easiest way to raise some big bucks. As a former college wrestler, Voss is sure he can handle it - a laughable belief, as it turns out.
To enjoy this movie, you have to suspend your disbelief. In the real world, chunky 40-somethings get killed if they tangle with younger, tougher opponents. MMA is a brutal sport, much more violent and dangerous than boxing, and there's a very real possibility of permanent injury or death if you're over matched. That being said, there's a bunch of funny moments in the fight scenes. James got in shape for this role - although still chubby, he looks like he can handle himself OK. Like most fight movies, you just accept what's happening, while remembering this is a movie, not a real fight.
Voss, with some help from his friend Niko (played with surprising ability by Bas Rutten), fights and loses, donating his purse to the cause. When a lucky punch lets him win a fight, he realizes he could raise the money faster by actually winning now and then. The fight scenes are not too violent, and the injuries inflicted are more funny than traumatic - this is a comedy, after all. Chance and dogged determination lead Voss to the opportunity for a big-money fight. I won't give the ending away, but if you don't know how this ends, you probably can't read this anyway.
It's dumb. It's unbelievable. It's unrealistic. It's also funny and touching. This movie appeals to the part of you that wants to believe we can be more than we are - the part of you that says, "I could step up, if I really needed to". Like The Mighty Ducks, we love to watch the underdog beat the nasty guys. If you want to laugh and have a good time at the movies, get a jumbo bucket of popcorn and enjoy.
James is a funny guy, best known for the sitcom The King of Queens. In that series, he played Doug Heffernan, a roly poly regular guy. Throughout the series, you keep wondering, "How in the world did this guy land that girl (Leah Remini, playing his wife). Somehow, this works, and the interaction between the two makes for some funny moments.
James must live right, because his love interest in the movie is even further out of his league - Salma Hayek, dressed down and low key as the school nurse (Bella) who somehow falls for this lunk. His cheesy attempts to pick her up fall flat - sometimes literally - and serve as good preparation for his later battles.
The plot revolves around a spur-of-the-moment vow from Voss to raise money and save his friend's job - as well as the music department. Henry Winkler, far removed from his Fonzie days, is fine as a bumbling, slightly lost, relic. Since Voss spoke without thinking, he's obligated to do something - he just has no idea what. A chance viewing of a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) bout leads him to pursue that avenue as the easiest way to raise some big bucks. As a former college wrestler, Voss is sure he can handle it - a laughable belief, as it turns out.
To enjoy this movie, you have to suspend your disbelief. In the real world, chunky 40-somethings get killed if they tangle with younger, tougher opponents. MMA is a brutal sport, much more violent and dangerous than boxing, and there's a very real possibility of permanent injury or death if you're over matched. That being said, there's a bunch of funny moments in the fight scenes. James got in shape for this role - although still chubby, he looks like he can handle himself OK. Like most fight movies, you just accept what's happening, while remembering this is a movie, not a real fight.
Voss, with some help from his friend Niko (played with surprising ability by Bas Rutten), fights and loses, donating his purse to the cause. When a lucky punch lets him win a fight, he realizes he could raise the money faster by actually winning now and then. The fight scenes are not too violent, and the injuries inflicted are more funny than traumatic - this is a comedy, after all. Chance and dogged determination lead Voss to the opportunity for a big-money fight. I won't give the ending away, but if you don't know how this ends, you probably can't read this anyway.
It's dumb. It's unbelievable. It's unrealistic. It's also funny and touching. This movie appeals to the part of you that wants to believe we can be more than we are - the part of you that says, "I could step up, if I really needed to". Like The Mighty Ducks, we love to watch the underdog beat the nasty guys. If you want to laugh and have a good time at the movies, get a jumbo bucket of popcorn and enjoy.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The New iPad - Review
There was a time when I was reasonably up to date on the latest tech gadgets. Those days, unfortunately, are long gone. I do have a smart phone, and I can still make my computer work (usually), but I no longer lust after all things electronic.
In my job as a realtor, I have a need to access data in a more or less real-time manner. While my Android smart phone is great, it has limitations, particularly when it comes to displaying data. After much thought, I decided it was time for a tablet.
Theresa has been wanting an iPad for some time now. I'd been dragging my feet, mainly because I couldn't decide exactly what I needed (an iPad, or an Android Tablet?; 3G data access or wifi only?; how much storage?; and so on). I also wasn't sure I wanted to spend all that money for something that could turn out to be just a toy.
After having a great sales month, I decided it was probably time to do something - especially since Theresa was saying she wanted to just go get one. Rather than do that, I decided to go ahead and pick one out for each of us. Now all I had to do was decide exactly what to get!
I quickly determined we should get a "real" iPad, instead of one of the cheaper alternatives. I had a small (about half size) tablet that ran the Android system. Although it worked OK, I knew from experience that the operating system wasn't as stable as I would like (my phone acts up with disturbing regularity). I'd been told by iPad users that their tablets were very stable, and, when it comes to computers, stability is good.
The iPad comes in various combinations of storage capacity and data access. You can get 16, 32, or 64 gigabytes of storage - an obscene amount compared to the limitations of the original personal computers. Each of these models was available in both 4G and wifi, or wifi only versions. In addition, if you choose a 4G unit, you could choose between Verizon or AT&T as your data carrier. That's too many options, especially when you don't even know how you're going to use the tablet!
I knew I'd use the broader data access of the 4G unit, since I planned to use it when I was away from common wifi access points. Since the data plans don't require a contract, the only downside to choosing this feature is the initial price - about $130 extra. Since Theresa and I could share a data connection, the extra cost was easily justified for both units.
I really wasn't sure how much storage we'd need. I didn't think I'd download a bunch of movies or other media - the most common way to fill up your machine - but I wasn't sure. Theresa would probably do a little more of that, but I didn't really think she'd get carried away, either. The iPad isn't upgradeable, but online (iCloud) storage is available. Although I suspect 16 gig would be plenty for either of us, I decided to drop the extra $100 to upgrade to 32 gigabytes, "just in case".
I also quickly decided to resist the temptation to purchase the older "iPad 2" at a discount, and get the current model. All of this meant each of my two iPads would cost roughly $730 each, instead of closer to $500. After buying a couple of covers and a few apps, my total expense was around $1,600 for two iPads. Our data plan, giving us 4 gigabytes of data when we're out of wifi range, will end up costing between $40 and $50 per month.
So, now that I have one of these things, what do I think? The iPad is most often used for two tasks - media and communication - and it does both of those tasks extremely well. After downloading the free Netflix app (there are also free apps for Pandora, Hulu, Crackle, etc), I could watch any number of movies or TV shows, as well as listen to music, comedy, or whatever else I was looking for. With the data access, you could also access YouTube almost anywhere. The iPad screen is large enough, when it's sitting on your lap, to comfortably watch and enjoy without the need to find your reading glasses. The sound, although nothing spectacular with the built-in speakers, is adequate. If you want really good sound, you'll probably want a set of ear buds (or play it through your car's radio or home speaker system). In the unlikely event you still read actual books, the iPad makes a fine e-reader (of course, it also can play audible books).
The iPad really excels at communication. You are always just one click away from your email, and you can use "Face Time" to video chat with friends who have an iPad, iPod, or iPhone. Skype is available if you still associate with the poor unfortunates in the PC world. I've discovered that, although my email works fine on my smart phone, the iPad is far superior if you need to respond, check a link, or view an attachment.
How about other tasks? Since I got this primarily as a business tool, how does it do in that field? Is it a toy, or a tool? As a business tool, tablets have their place. They're not ready to replace your desktop for serious work - you wouldn't want to type a lengthy document, or create a presentation on one of these things, although is could conceivably be done. That's not what they're designed to do. You could, however, easily review a document of almost any length, and make modifications, if necessary. You can find apps to do almost anything you need, many of which are either free or nearly so. The iPad, while not quite the same as a laptop, is probably all you need to stay in touch or keep up with the office while you're traveling.
I'm still getting set up to use the iPad in real estate, but it looks like it has some possibilities there, too. I've located apps that will let me load contracts, edit them, and get signatures - all without resorting to paper and ink. I could, with a little fumbling, write an entire contract, get it signed, and email it to another agent, all from my iPad. I suspect that will be rare, but I'll frequently get final signatures or complete an addendum or counter-offer using just the tablet. The iPad will also work quite well for sales presentations, supplementing - rather than replacing - my printed materials.
If you stay home all day, sitting at your desk staring at your desk top computer, don't buy an iPad - it would be a poor substitute for a "real computer". If, however, you are frequently out and about and need (or want) to maintain your online presence at all times, you'll want to check it out. If your job takes you out of the office, it might be for you. If you travel, and want a small device for entertainment and/or business, it's an option. If you just like to try new gadgets, you shouldn't be reading this - you're already on your third iPad!
In my job as a realtor, I have a need to access data in a more or less real-time manner. While my Android smart phone is great, it has limitations, particularly when it comes to displaying data. After much thought, I decided it was time for a tablet.
Theresa has been wanting an iPad for some time now. I'd been dragging my feet, mainly because I couldn't decide exactly what I needed (an iPad, or an Android Tablet?; 3G data access or wifi only?; how much storage?; and so on). I also wasn't sure I wanted to spend all that money for something that could turn out to be just a toy.
After having a great sales month, I decided it was probably time to do something - especially since Theresa was saying she wanted to just go get one. Rather than do that, I decided to go ahead and pick one out for each of us. Now all I had to do was decide exactly what to get!
I quickly determined we should get a "real" iPad, instead of one of the cheaper alternatives. I had a small (about half size) tablet that ran the Android system. Although it worked OK, I knew from experience that the operating system wasn't as stable as I would like (my phone acts up with disturbing regularity). I'd been told by iPad users that their tablets were very stable, and, when it comes to computers, stability is good.
The iPad comes in various combinations of storage capacity and data access. You can get 16, 32, or 64 gigabytes of storage - an obscene amount compared to the limitations of the original personal computers. Each of these models was available in both 4G and wifi, or wifi only versions. In addition, if you choose a 4G unit, you could choose between Verizon or AT&T as your data carrier. That's too many options, especially when you don't even know how you're going to use the tablet!
I knew I'd use the broader data access of the 4G unit, since I planned to use it when I was away from common wifi access points. Since the data plans don't require a contract, the only downside to choosing this feature is the initial price - about $130 extra. Since Theresa and I could share a data connection, the extra cost was easily justified for both units.
I really wasn't sure how much storage we'd need. I didn't think I'd download a bunch of movies or other media - the most common way to fill up your machine - but I wasn't sure. Theresa would probably do a little more of that, but I didn't really think she'd get carried away, either. The iPad isn't upgradeable, but online (iCloud) storage is available. Although I suspect 16 gig would be plenty for either of us, I decided to drop the extra $100 to upgrade to 32 gigabytes, "just in case".
I also quickly decided to resist the temptation to purchase the older "iPad 2" at a discount, and get the current model. All of this meant each of my two iPads would cost roughly $730 each, instead of closer to $500. After buying a couple of covers and a few apps, my total expense was around $1,600 for two iPads. Our data plan, giving us 4 gigabytes of data when we're out of wifi range, will end up costing between $40 and $50 per month.
So, now that I have one of these things, what do I think? The iPad is most often used for two tasks - media and communication - and it does both of those tasks extremely well. After downloading the free Netflix app (there are also free apps for Pandora, Hulu, Crackle, etc), I could watch any number of movies or TV shows, as well as listen to music, comedy, or whatever else I was looking for. With the data access, you could also access YouTube almost anywhere. The iPad screen is large enough, when it's sitting on your lap, to comfortably watch and enjoy without the need to find your reading glasses. The sound, although nothing spectacular with the built-in speakers, is adequate. If you want really good sound, you'll probably want a set of ear buds (or play it through your car's radio or home speaker system). In the unlikely event you still read actual books, the iPad makes a fine e-reader (of course, it also can play audible books).
The iPad really excels at communication. You are always just one click away from your email, and you can use "Face Time" to video chat with friends who have an iPad, iPod, or iPhone. Skype is available if you still associate with the poor unfortunates in the PC world. I've discovered that, although my email works fine on my smart phone, the iPad is far superior if you need to respond, check a link, or view an attachment.
How about other tasks? Since I got this primarily as a business tool, how does it do in that field? Is it a toy, or a tool? As a business tool, tablets have their place. They're not ready to replace your desktop for serious work - you wouldn't want to type a lengthy document, or create a presentation on one of these things, although is could conceivably be done. That's not what they're designed to do. You could, however, easily review a document of almost any length, and make modifications, if necessary. You can find apps to do almost anything you need, many of which are either free or nearly so. The iPad, while not quite the same as a laptop, is probably all you need to stay in touch or keep up with the office while you're traveling.
I'm still getting set up to use the iPad in real estate, but it looks like it has some possibilities there, too. I've located apps that will let me load contracts, edit them, and get signatures - all without resorting to paper and ink. I could, with a little fumbling, write an entire contract, get it signed, and email it to another agent, all from my iPad. I suspect that will be rare, but I'll frequently get final signatures or complete an addendum or counter-offer using just the tablet. The iPad will also work quite well for sales presentations, supplementing - rather than replacing - my printed materials.
If you stay home all day, sitting at your desk staring at your desk top computer, don't buy an iPad - it would be a poor substitute for a "real computer". If, however, you are frequently out and about and need (or want) to maintain your online presence at all times, you'll want to check it out. If your job takes you out of the office, it might be for you. If you travel, and want a small device for entertainment and/or business, it's an option. If you just like to try new gadgets, you shouldn't be reading this - you're already on your third iPad!
Monday, October 15, 2012
Trouble with the Curve, and Won't Back Down - Movie Reviews
Often, I review old movies here. There are a couple of reasons for that:
Trouble with the Curve has everything necessary to be a popular success: Clint Eastwood, playing his now-familiar gruff old man with a (well hidden) heart of gold; Amy Adams, as his cute-as-a-bug daughter; and Justin Timberlake as the guy who gets Amy Adams (lucky bastard!).
The problem here is this movie is extremely shallow. Clint's character is just like everything he's done since he got old - he's a tough guy who's falling apart physically (I guess this is growth for him - he used to just play a tough guy). He's distant from his daughter, keeping his emotions hidden, with a big heart somewhere deep inside. We've seen it all before - much like his old Spaghetti Western characters, you could take any character he's played, move it to a different film, and just go right on with the story. Clearly, Clint has a limited range as an actor - he's OK in this, I've just seen it all before.
I never get tired of watching Amy Adams. She's very likable, and you want everything to work out well for her. Unfortunately, you don't understand why she wastes time following her father around. She gives up plenty for him, but you don't get a glimpse of what it is that makes her willing to do that. She can't be stupid, but you're left with that impression. Likewise, it's hard to see her ending up with Timberlake - I mean, he's a handsome guy, I guess, but there's no spark between them. There's also no reason they get together in the first place, and no reason for conflict later on (and, no real reason they get back together at the end).
I'm not giving anything away to say this all gets wrapped up nicely at the end - everybody is happy, except the bad guys, who are unhappy. The characters are one-dimensional, the story is predictable, and, as far as I can see, there's no enlightenment delivered as the plot unfolds. The happy ending seems contrived - complicated situations don't lend themselves to simple solutions in real life. The ending really feels like someone said, "OK, it's been long enough, we need to get this wrapped up now". It's not bad, it's just not good. If you really want to see this, wait 6 months and catch it for free on cable. If it starts early enough, you just might be able to stay awake until the end. If you really want to see Clint, pop some popcorn and put High Plains Drifter into the DVD player.
A few days later, we went to Won't Back Down, the story of two women's struggle to save their children's failing school. Maggie Gyllenhall plays a struggling single mother, with Viola Davis as the crusading teacher. This movie has its moments, but many characters are cartoon-like - pure good or bad, with little or no nuance. The movie has a point to make, and they make it with a sledge hammer. According to this, the problems in our urban schools are the sole result of the teacher unions - the teachers don't care about their students, and the only solution is to disband the union.
This is a simplistic view of the problem - poor performance in any field is most likely the result of incompetent management. In the real world, problems have complex causes and solutions. Most conflicts are best resolved by compromise between the two sides. The movie ignores this reality, and can't really be taken seriously because of it. It's the cinema equivalent of Fox News - a slanted, distorted, simplistic view of a complex issue.
Gyllenhall is appealing, and Davis is quite good, as usual, but that's not enough to save this show. There's a good movie in this topic, but this isn't it. Save your money on this one.
- I'm old.
- Many new movies are a disappointment.
Trouble with the Curve has everything necessary to be a popular success: Clint Eastwood, playing his now-familiar gruff old man with a (well hidden) heart of gold; Amy Adams, as his cute-as-a-bug daughter; and Justin Timberlake as the guy who gets Amy Adams (lucky bastard!).
The problem here is this movie is extremely shallow. Clint's character is just like everything he's done since he got old - he's a tough guy who's falling apart physically (I guess this is growth for him - he used to just play a tough guy). He's distant from his daughter, keeping his emotions hidden, with a big heart somewhere deep inside. We've seen it all before - much like his old Spaghetti Western characters, you could take any character he's played, move it to a different film, and just go right on with the story. Clearly, Clint has a limited range as an actor - he's OK in this, I've just seen it all before.
I never get tired of watching Amy Adams. She's very likable, and you want everything to work out well for her. Unfortunately, you don't understand why she wastes time following her father around. She gives up plenty for him, but you don't get a glimpse of what it is that makes her willing to do that. She can't be stupid, but you're left with that impression. Likewise, it's hard to see her ending up with Timberlake - I mean, he's a handsome guy, I guess, but there's no spark between them. There's also no reason they get together in the first place, and no reason for conflict later on (and, no real reason they get back together at the end).
I'm not giving anything away to say this all gets wrapped up nicely at the end - everybody is happy, except the bad guys, who are unhappy. The characters are one-dimensional, the story is predictable, and, as far as I can see, there's no enlightenment delivered as the plot unfolds. The happy ending seems contrived - complicated situations don't lend themselves to simple solutions in real life. The ending really feels like someone said, "OK, it's been long enough, we need to get this wrapped up now". It's not bad, it's just not good. If you really want to see this, wait 6 months and catch it for free on cable. If it starts early enough, you just might be able to stay awake until the end. If you really want to see Clint, pop some popcorn and put High Plains Drifter into the DVD player.
A few days later, we went to Won't Back Down, the story of two women's struggle to save their children's failing school. Maggie Gyllenhall plays a struggling single mother, with Viola Davis as the crusading teacher. This movie has its moments, but many characters are cartoon-like - pure good or bad, with little or no nuance. The movie has a point to make, and they make it with a sledge hammer. According to this, the problems in our urban schools are the sole result of the teacher unions - the teachers don't care about their students, and the only solution is to disband the union.
This is a simplistic view of the problem - poor performance in any field is most likely the result of incompetent management. In the real world, problems have complex causes and solutions. Most conflicts are best resolved by compromise between the two sides. The movie ignores this reality, and can't really be taken seriously because of it. It's the cinema equivalent of Fox News - a slanted, distorted, simplistic view of a complex issue.
Gyllenhall is appealing, and Davis is quite good, as usual, but that's not enough to save this show. There's a good movie in this topic, but this isn't it. Save your money on this one.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Our Fence Fiasco
For the couple of people who are regular readers of this blog, you'll remember we moved a couple of months ago. Since the town home we bought doesn't have an association, our covenants allow us to have a privacy fence in the back yard.
Installing a fence is a job that can be done by a reasonably handy homeowner. In this case, since we were so busy with the move, and because we were in a hurry to have it done before our fall trip to South Dakota, we decided to have it professionally installed. This, I figured, would be the "stress-free" method of installation. In this, sadly, I was wrong.
I didn't really know who to call for fencing estimates, so I did a quick internet search, and called several companies. We though about vinyl fence, but ended up eliminating it based on cost and availability - no one could guarantee we'd have it done by mid-september.
After talking with several company reps, I elected to go with Quality Fence. Their sales rep - "Dan" - had been very responsive during the bid process, and assured me they'd have the job done quickly and professionally. He also told me he'd be around to help me figure out any issues that may come up during the construction. I told him the one non-negotiable need was that we needed to have the fence in by September 15th.
I signed the contract, and wrote a check for the down payment (roughly half of the estimate). Since we had used a surveying company at our old house, we elected to call that company to complete a survey of our property, so we could accurately locate the lot lines.
Our first issue was that the surveyor didn't show up as promised. We waited a few weeks, then decided to let the fence company do the survey. I called Dan, wrote another check, and was again assured we were all set up to have our fence done on time.
As the time went by, I started to wonder if we would get the work done. I called a number of times, and was told "no problem" each time. We were now about two weeks from our deadline. As that week went by, I became more and more concerned about being late (due to our pet care arrangements, we had to have the fence complete to take our vacation). Near the end of the week, I called Dan - no answer, but I left him a message.
I didn't hear back from Dan that week, despite several phone calls. The red flags were up for me - he had always called back promptly in the past. I tried a couple of times the following Monday (now less than one week from our "drop dead" date, and finally caught him. When I asked when they'd start, he said he'd have to "try to get in touch with our contractorr" to find out when they'd be starting. This raised another red flag for me. When I asked if we'd be done on time, he said, "I hope so".
Dan didn't call back as promised, so I called the main office. I also sent an email to their customer service department at that time, saying that I needed to talk to a manager. The receptionist looked at my paperwork, and said, "the soonest they can even talk to the contractor is Thursday". I said, "so, you're telling me there's no way we can hit my date". She agreed. I asked to talk to a manager, and she said they weren't available, but she would have them call me later that day.
When I didn't hear back from them, I decided to go visit their local office. To my dismay, I discovered their Lincoln location was empty. A call to their office confirmed that they had closed the Lincoln location months earlier. I again asked for a manager, and got another promise of a call. This time, I actually got a phone call from the owner. He said he wasn't aware of our issue, but would check on it and call me back in an hour or so. He said his plan was to get a crew out to set posts on Thursday, then finish the job Friday. Of course, I didn't hear back from him that day.
We were now into the middle of the week, and I was no closer to getting an answer than I had been before. I tried calling the office, but got nothing better than the promise of a call. At about this time, I got a call in response to my email of several days earlier. This was Kari - apparently responsible for customer service or at least response to complaints. She hadn't heard any of the story, but assured me she'd try to get something going. The good news was, she actually seemed to be concerned about my issues. The bad news was, she filled me in on what had been going on, and it wasn't good. It seems the company had a serious problem with their work crews - several had quit without notice, and the remaining ones were about ready to bail. She told me she could get a crew from Omaha down to get the work done.
After many phone calls, Kari told me we'd have a crew down to set posts Friday, and another to finish the job on Saturday, the 15th. If this actually happened, we'd have our fence on time (barely). Unfortunately, Friday came and there was no sign of a crew. After another phone call (at least Kari answered her phone), I found out another crew had quit! No problem, though - the owner and his brother were coming out to set posts.
They did show up eventually, getting to the house at about 3:30 Friday afternoon. Since Dan hadn't come over as promised to lay out the exact outline of the fence, we had to figure that out on the fly. The own'er's brother, not too happy to be there, nevertheless helped me figure out a couple of things and we were ready to drill holes. The posts got set before dark, with only a little bit of drama - and a lot of drilling through sprinkler lines.
As much trouble as we'd had to this point, I was pretty sure the crew to finish the job would no-show the next day. Much to my surprise, they showed up bright and early, and got right on the job. The crew - two guys plus a helper - were quite good. The fence went together quickly, and they took great pride in their work. They had a couple of questions about exactly what I wanted in a couple of places, then quickly and efficiently did what I wanted. When they were done, they picked up all their trash, asked me to sign the completion slip, and left. As bad as the rest of the company was, these guys were good.
Finally, we had our fence! After all the hassles and aggravation, I wished I had just decided to do the work myself - I didn't save too much time, considering all the phone calls I'd made. If I thought I was done with dealing with this company, I was wrong, however.
After coming back from vacation, I got a bill for the work. Before paying it, I decided to check my original paperwork and cancelled checks. It was no surprise to me when I found out they had failed to credit me for a $250 payment. I called Kari - apparently the only person in the whole company who even tried to get things right - and got it figured out. I wrote the check - resisting the urge to make them wait for it - and was done with them. Looking back on the whole sorry mess, there were a number of things that ruined the experience for me:
Installing a fence is a job that can be done by a reasonably handy homeowner. In this case, since we were so busy with the move, and because we were in a hurry to have it done before our fall trip to South Dakota, we decided to have it professionally installed. This, I figured, would be the "stress-free" method of installation. In this, sadly, I was wrong.
I didn't really know who to call for fencing estimates, so I did a quick internet search, and called several companies. We though about vinyl fence, but ended up eliminating it based on cost and availability - no one could guarantee we'd have it done by mid-september.
After talking with several company reps, I elected to go with Quality Fence. Their sales rep - "Dan" - had been very responsive during the bid process, and assured me they'd have the job done quickly and professionally. He also told me he'd be around to help me figure out any issues that may come up during the construction. I told him the one non-negotiable need was that we needed to have the fence in by September 15th.
I signed the contract, and wrote a check for the down payment (roughly half of the estimate). Since we had used a surveying company at our old house, we elected to call that company to complete a survey of our property, so we could accurately locate the lot lines.
Our first issue was that the surveyor didn't show up as promised. We waited a few weeks, then decided to let the fence company do the survey. I called Dan, wrote another check, and was again assured we were all set up to have our fence done on time.
As the time went by, I started to wonder if we would get the work done. I called a number of times, and was told "no problem" each time. We were now about two weeks from our deadline. As that week went by, I became more and more concerned about being late (due to our pet care arrangements, we had to have the fence complete to take our vacation). Near the end of the week, I called Dan - no answer, but I left him a message.
I didn't hear back from Dan that week, despite several phone calls. The red flags were up for me - he had always called back promptly in the past. I tried a couple of times the following Monday (now less than one week from our "drop dead" date, and finally caught him. When I asked when they'd start, he said he'd have to "try to get in touch with our contractorr" to find out when they'd be starting. This raised another red flag for me. When I asked if we'd be done on time, he said, "I hope so".
Dan didn't call back as promised, so I called the main office. I also sent an email to their customer service department at that time, saying that I needed to talk to a manager. The receptionist looked at my paperwork, and said, "the soonest they can even talk to the contractor is Thursday". I said, "so, you're telling me there's no way we can hit my date". She agreed. I asked to talk to a manager, and she said they weren't available, but she would have them call me later that day.
When I didn't hear back from them, I decided to go visit their local office. To my dismay, I discovered their Lincoln location was empty. A call to their office confirmed that they had closed the Lincoln location months earlier. I again asked for a manager, and got another promise of a call. This time, I actually got a phone call from the owner. He said he wasn't aware of our issue, but would check on it and call me back in an hour or so. He said his plan was to get a crew out to set posts on Thursday, then finish the job Friday. Of course, I didn't hear back from him that day.
We were now into the middle of the week, and I was no closer to getting an answer than I had been before. I tried calling the office, but got nothing better than the promise of a call. At about this time, I got a call in response to my email of several days earlier. This was Kari - apparently responsible for customer service or at least response to complaints. She hadn't heard any of the story, but assured me she'd try to get something going. The good news was, she actually seemed to be concerned about my issues. The bad news was, she filled me in on what had been going on, and it wasn't good. It seems the company had a serious problem with their work crews - several had quit without notice, and the remaining ones were about ready to bail. She told me she could get a crew from Omaha down to get the work done.
After many phone calls, Kari told me we'd have a crew down to set posts Friday, and another to finish the job on Saturday, the 15th. If this actually happened, we'd have our fence on time (barely). Unfortunately, Friday came and there was no sign of a crew. After another phone call (at least Kari answered her phone), I found out another crew had quit! No problem, though - the owner and his brother were coming out to set posts.
They did show up eventually, getting to the house at about 3:30 Friday afternoon. Since Dan hadn't come over as promised to lay out the exact outline of the fence, we had to figure that out on the fly. The own'er's brother, not too happy to be there, nevertheless helped me figure out a couple of things and we were ready to drill holes. The posts got set before dark, with only a little bit of drama - and a lot of drilling through sprinkler lines.
As much trouble as we'd had to this point, I was pretty sure the crew to finish the job would no-show the next day. Much to my surprise, they showed up bright and early, and got right on the job. The crew - two guys plus a helper - were quite good. The fence went together quickly, and they took great pride in their work. They had a couple of questions about exactly what I wanted in a couple of places, then quickly and efficiently did what I wanted. When they were done, they picked up all their trash, asked me to sign the completion slip, and left. As bad as the rest of the company was, these guys were good.
Finally, we had our fence! After all the hassles and aggravation, I wished I had just decided to do the work myself - I didn't save too much time, considering all the phone calls I'd made. If I thought I was done with dealing with this company, I was wrong, however.
After coming back from vacation, I got a bill for the work. Before paying it, I decided to check my original paperwork and cancelled checks. It was no surprise to me when I found out they had failed to credit me for a $250 payment. I called Kari - apparently the only person in the whole company who even tried to get things right - and got it figured out. I wrote the check - resisting the urge to make them wait for it - and was done with them. Looking back on the whole sorry mess, there were a number of things that ruined the experience for me:
- The salesman - Dan - assured me repeatedly that the work would be done on time. One reason we abandoned our idea of having a vinyl fence was that we weren't sure it could be done on time. It turns out, material availability had nothing to do with our delays - we could have had the vinyl, if we'd wanted.
- It's easy to believe the schedule was reasonable when we ordered the fence, so Dan may not have lied when we first talked. At some point, however, he must have known it was a problem. When was that? I'll never know, but I suspect it was sometime just before he quit returning my calls. The last time I talked to him - a week before the work was done - he was still telling me we'd be OK. There's no excuse for that - I believe I was lied to.
- Dan also made plenty of misrepresentations about service he would provide - laying out the fence, and helping me decide which options made sense. This didn't happen, and according to the bosses when they set the posts, doesn't normally happen. Again, this is one reason I chose this company - because of this alleged high level of service.
- I intended to choose a local company - had I known the Lincoln office was closed, I wouldn't have called them.
- It wasn't my problem that the owner and his brother had to come out and work in my yard. I didn't need an attitude when they showed up - if anyone should have been angry, it should have been the guy who was lied to through the entire process.
- I didn't expect to get the fence for free, even after all the screw ups. I might have expected to get a discount for all my hassles, and for the broken promises. What I got instead was a screwed up bill, being overcharged $250. Considering all the other screw ups on this deal, this is inexcusable.
- The crew that finished my fence was good. If the management is as screwed up as they seemed to be in their dealings with me, it's no wonder they can't keep crews on the job. I won't be surprised to see this company out of business in the near future.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Movie Review - "Witness for the Prosecution"
Last weekend we decided to watch a movie on Netflix, and Theresa picked out Witness for the Prosecution, an entertaining courtroom drama that's full of surprises. Based on a play by Agatha Christie, the film features Tyrone Power and Marlene Dietrich, along with a thoroughly entertaining Charles Laughton.
Laughton plays Sir Wilfred Robarts, a barrister who is recovering from a heart attack, under strict orders from his doctor (and nurse!) to avoid strenuous activity. Robarts is an appealing character, driving his nurse to distraction, sneaking cigars, and, most importantly, taking a seemingly hopeless case - a man accused of a murder that everyone thinks he did.
Tyrone Power is quite good as the accused, Leonard Vole. You like him, and really want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there's just something that makes you wonder if he's on the up-and-up.
Marlene Dietrich is superb as Vole's wife, Christine. I haven't seen her in a lot of movies, so I didn't know what to expect, but she was excellent. Is she the doting wife? Scheming temptress? Innocent dupe? We see all of this, and more, as the plot is revealed.
Being an Agatha Christie story, there's plenty of twists and turns as the story is told. You're certain you know what's going on, then realize you have it all wrong, then certain again. I must confess, I had it figured out about half way through, but I wasn't sure until the end - and I was still blown away as the final twist was revealed. I won't give away the ending - you'll have to rent it to see for yourself.
If you're not used to watching old movies, it takes a bit of adjustment on your part. This was released in 1957, so the film quality is not what you'd expect today. It's shot in glorious black and white, and don't expect high definition. The sound is tinny, and there are no special effects (not that any are called for). The sets are simple - mainly just the law office and courtroom, but the characters are complex. After watching for a few minutes, none of these minor annoyances even registered. It's a great movie, with three-dimensional characters involved in a convoluted plot that reaches a stunning and unexpected climax. Along the way there's suspense, of course, but also plenty of humor. Pop some popcorn and fire up Netflix for an entertaining evening.
Laughton plays Sir Wilfred Robarts, a barrister who is recovering from a heart attack, under strict orders from his doctor (and nurse!) to avoid strenuous activity. Robarts is an appealing character, driving his nurse to distraction, sneaking cigars, and, most importantly, taking a seemingly hopeless case - a man accused of a murder that everyone thinks he did.
Tyrone Power is quite good as the accused, Leonard Vole. You like him, and really want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there's just something that makes you wonder if he's on the up-and-up.
Marlene Dietrich is superb as Vole's wife, Christine. I haven't seen her in a lot of movies, so I didn't know what to expect, but she was excellent. Is she the doting wife? Scheming temptress? Innocent dupe? We see all of this, and more, as the plot is revealed.
Being an Agatha Christie story, there's plenty of twists and turns as the story is told. You're certain you know what's going on, then realize you have it all wrong, then certain again. I must confess, I had it figured out about half way through, but I wasn't sure until the end - and I was still blown away as the final twist was revealed. I won't give away the ending - you'll have to rent it to see for yourself.
If you're not used to watching old movies, it takes a bit of adjustment on your part. This was released in 1957, so the film quality is not what you'd expect today. It's shot in glorious black and white, and don't expect high definition. The sound is tinny, and there are no special effects (not that any are called for). The sets are simple - mainly just the law office and courtroom, but the characters are complex. After watching for a few minutes, none of these minor annoyances even registered. It's a great movie, with three-dimensional characters involved in a convoluted plot that reaches a stunning and unexpected climax. Along the way there's suspense, of course, but also plenty of humor. Pop some popcorn and fire up Netflix for an entertaining evening.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Paul Ryan's Phony Marathon Claim
In 1988, I had been running for about 8 months, and I let myself get talked into running this little race called the Bohemian Alps Endurance Run, in Brainard, Nebraska. The run included both a 5k and a 25K run, as well as a 2 mile walk. Since I wasn't in shape and hadn't ever run more than about 10K, I decided it was a good idea to run the 25K (15.5 miles).
The day of the run was unseasonably warm for October - it was 91 degrees when we started at about 3:00. The race ran from Brainard on the gravel roads, looping around over some nasty hills. I quickly got to the back of the pack, then got to the very last spot. The last half of the race was spent with people driving up and asking me, "Are you all right?". One guy said, "Oh my god - you look awful!" I persevered, and finished long after everyone else was done, escorted in by a couple of my friends. I made it, and got the finisher's medal. I also gained the wisdom to run the 5k the following year!
The next year, I ran the 5K, got done in about a half hour, drank a beer, ate some barbecue, and waited for my friends who were running the longer race to finish. Among those in our group was "Tom", a friend of a friend, who hadn't been running much, but thought he could do the long race. I was quite surprised to see Tom cross the finish line before any of my friends - some of whom were serious runners. Tom finished so fast that he got a medal for finishing first or second in his age group. After the award ceremony, I walked up to congratulate him. He said, "Thanks, but I didn't run the whole race. I got tired, so I cut across country, walked some, and jogged through the finish." It turns out, he ran about half the distance required of the other runners!
Even without training, Tom was a faster runner than me. I didn't have a problem with him taking the shortcut - 15 miles is a long way, and there's no shame in bailing out on that. The problem I had was, he crossed the finish line, accepted the finisher's medal, and even accepted the age group award - an award that others worked really hard to try to win. Tom is a cheater, and I wouldn't want to associate myself with him.
In the years following my Bohemian Alps run, I ran a couple of marathons. I don't have a marathoner's body, but I worked hard and was able to finish both of them - at the back of the pack. My best time was just under 5 hours - I believe it was 4:58, but I could be off by a minute or so. I was, however, definitely under 5 hours. I'm absolutely positive that I was nowhere near 4 hours - there's no question in my mind on that point.
A story recently surfaced about Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan's claim to have run a sub 3 hour marathon. The folks at Runner's World Magazine decided to look it up - turns out his actual time was 4:01 - quite a difference! A four hour marathon is nothing to be ashamed of, but it's not elite. The folks that break 180 minutes are special - they train very hard, and have some natural ability. The difference between a sub-three hour marathon and a four hour marathon is like the difference between playing on your slow pitch softball team and playing major league baseball. It's a whole different ball game.
After he was caught in the lie, Ryan said he "forgot" his time, so he was just trying to make up a "normal marathon time". This doesn't ring true to me - if you've put yourself through the agony of finishing a marathon, you KNOW how long it took. Most of us are ready and willing to give you a mile-by-mile recap of our experience.
My last marathon (trust me, it IS the last one I'll run) was in 1991 (Ryan ran the same race a year before me). I don't remember everything from that year, but I distinctly remember that day - starting by the Metro dome, running from Minneapolis to Saint Paul. I remember the "broken wall" display at the 20 mile mark. I remember running with a woman who's foot was bloody from a blister. I remember dying at about 20 miles, meeting my friend who came back to run the last couple of miles in with me. I remember running the last 1.2 miles in under 10 minutes, to hit my goal of sub-five hours. There's no alternate universe in which I ran 3:45. I remember!
I'm not ashamed of my marathon time. I'm not fast, but so what? I was tough enough to keep running for 5 hours! I'm not embarrassed by that. If you ran a lot faster, good for you! I have great admiration for people who can run faster than me, but I'm not going to lie so you think I'm something I'm not. I don't cheat on my golf score either....
In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter how long Paul Ryan took to run 26.2 miles. His lie is harmless - he's certainly not hurting anyone by it. The issue I have with it is this: what does it say about the guy if he lies about something like this? Is this really something worth lying about? If you can't tell the truth about your marathon time, what else would you be willing to lie about? Would you, for example, lie to get yourself elected vice president of the United States? I don't like Ryan's stand on the issues, but I like him even less as a person. I've had enough of lying politicians - we don't need to put one a heartbeat away from the presidency.
The day of the run was unseasonably warm for October - it was 91 degrees when we started at about 3:00. The race ran from Brainard on the gravel roads, looping around over some nasty hills. I quickly got to the back of the pack, then got to the very last spot. The last half of the race was spent with people driving up and asking me, "Are you all right?". One guy said, "Oh my god - you look awful!" I persevered, and finished long after everyone else was done, escorted in by a couple of my friends. I made it, and got the finisher's medal. I also gained the wisdom to run the 5k the following year!
The next year, I ran the 5K, got done in about a half hour, drank a beer, ate some barbecue, and waited for my friends who were running the longer race to finish. Among those in our group was "Tom", a friend of a friend, who hadn't been running much, but thought he could do the long race. I was quite surprised to see Tom cross the finish line before any of my friends - some of whom were serious runners. Tom finished so fast that he got a medal for finishing first or second in his age group. After the award ceremony, I walked up to congratulate him. He said, "Thanks, but I didn't run the whole race. I got tired, so I cut across country, walked some, and jogged through the finish." It turns out, he ran about half the distance required of the other runners!
Even without training, Tom was a faster runner than me. I didn't have a problem with him taking the shortcut - 15 miles is a long way, and there's no shame in bailing out on that. The problem I had was, he crossed the finish line, accepted the finisher's medal, and even accepted the age group award - an award that others worked really hard to try to win. Tom is a cheater, and I wouldn't want to associate myself with him.
In the years following my Bohemian Alps run, I ran a couple of marathons. I don't have a marathoner's body, but I worked hard and was able to finish both of them - at the back of the pack. My best time was just under 5 hours - I believe it was 4:58, but I could be off by a minute or so. I was, however, definitely under 5 hours. I'm absolutely positive that I was nowhere near 4 hours - there's no question in my mind on that point.
A story recently surfaced about Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan's claim to have run a sub 3 hour marathon. The folks at Runner's World Magazine decided to look it up - turns out his actual time was 4:01 - quite a difference! A four hour marathon is nothing to be ashamed of, but it's not elite. The folks that break 180 minutes are special - they train very hard, and have some natural ability. The difference between a sub-three hour marathon and a four hour marathon is like the difference between playing on your slow pitch softball team and playing major league baseball. It's a whole different ball game.
After he was caught in the lie, Ryan said he "forgot" his time, so he was just trying to make up a "normal marathon time". This doesn't ring true to me - if you've put yourself through the agony of finishing a marathon, you KNOW how long it took. Most of us are ready and willing to give you a mile-by-mile recap of our experience.
My last marathon (trust me, it IS the last one I'll run) was in 1991 (Ryan ran the same race a year before me). I don't remember everything from that year, but I distinctly remember that day - starting by the Metro dome, running from Minneapolis to Saint Paul. I remember the "broken wall" display at the 20 mile mark. I remember running with a woman who's foot was bloody from a blister. I remember dying at about 20 miles, meeting my friend who came back to run the last couple of miles in with me. I remember running the last 1.2 miles in under 10 minutes, to hit my goal of sub-five hours. There's no alternate universe in which I ran 3:45. I remember!
I'm not ashamed of my marathon time. I'm not fast, but so what? I was tough enough to keep running for 5 hours! I'm not embarrassed by that. If you ran a lot faster, good for you! I have great admiration for people who can run faster than me, but I'm not going to lie so you think I'm something I'm not. I don't cheat on my golf score either....
In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter how long Paul Ryan took to run 26.2 miles. His lie is harmless - he's certainly not hurting anyone by it. The issue I have with it is this: what does it say about the guy if he lies about something like this? Is this really something worth lying about? If you can't tell the truth about your marathon time, what else would you be willing to lie about? Would you, for example, lie to get yourself elected vice president of the United States? I don't like Ryan's stand on the issues, but I like him even less as a person. I've had enough of lying politicians - we don't need to put one a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)