Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

High Speed Stimulus Money

So I was reading this article in the New York Times today about how Republicans aren't going to want federally funded public works projects in their states.  The article specifically mentioned the Florida governor's office examining whether it should accept $2.4 billion (with a B) in federal stimulus money to build a high-speed rail line from Tampa to Orlando.  And of course who could forget New Jersey Governor Chris Christie turning down $3 billion from the federal Department of Transportation to update the only tunnel connecting NJ Transit to Manhattan as well as to build a new one.
"Subsidize me!"

You know what? Good.  Don't take our stupid money.  Give it to the Washington Metro System so that millions of ignorant tourists can finally stand to the left on functional escalators, and fewer trains plow into the back of other trains.  Give the money to the MTA (like they need more money) so the terribly rundown Connecticut Metro-North cars can get an update (and so we can keep the bar car).  So that they can take back that really just plan unnecessary 10% price increase they just instituted.

No but don't invest in our infrastructure.  Because pretty soon we'll all be driving over bridges on the verge of collapse.

Friday, January 07, 2011

The Importance of Customer Service in the Medical Profession

Have you realized recently that the medical profession has downright atrocious customer service?  As a people-oriented service-intensive industry, one would think that medical professionals would provide a pretty high level of customer service. You know, like the service industry does. As it turns out, this is patently false.

In the real world (which includes basically every industry known to man except healthcare), when the vendor shits the bed, they need to perform some kind of service recovery to retain business.  This could be for defective products, bad advice, long waits, incorrectly listed price, the list goes on.  When I worked in hospitality, we gave shit away all the time to upset guests.  Because we not only cared about how they viewed us, but we cared about their level of happiness.   

If you look at the below graph, you will see that the medical sector performs basically zero service recoveries.  (Note: this was created using conclusive, peer-reviewed data.)

Think about it for a second.  What other industry would you be expected to wait upwards of an hour after your scheduled appointment as standard practice?  Where else is it remotely acceptable for your vendor to refer to you in the third person when you are literally right in front of him?

How is this possible?  Brainstorming rationally, we can come up with these hypotheses:
 H0:This Medical Professional genuinely doesn't give a shit about your level of satisfaction with their service
 H1:This Medical Professional has a monopoly on the market
 H2:This Medical Professional can't afford to adequately staff his support team
(There were other hypotheses, but I got lazy.)  Let's go ahead and knock H1 and H2 out right now because they're clearly wrong.  First of all, because we do not live on the moon (or in the middle of North Dakota), we have access to more than one doctor.  And furthermore, the barriers to switch medical professionals (unless you have an HMO, which I don't and neither should you) are low.

Also, MDs clearly aren't broke.  Let's stereotype for a second, and assume that all doctors drive new Mercedes-Benzes and play golf on Wednesdays.  And although we know that not all of them drive Mercedes, we know that they can afford them.  So they can clearly afford to hire and pay competent staff.  Furthermore, if doctors did not make a substantial amount of money, we would expect to see a drop in applications at Medical schools nationwide.  In fact, the inverse is happening.

Therefore we prove the null hypothesis and are left with the incontrovertible fact that your doctor doesn't give a shit about you.  And furthermore, because we know that the barrier to switch in the healthcare industry is low, we can iterate out that every doctor doesn't give a shit about you.  Let me illustrate:

As you can see here, Doctor Cost of Giving a Shit (COGS) has a perfectly inverse relationship with how much free time said doctor has.  And, if I could draw your attention back to Chart #1, there's no monetary cost for not giving a shit.  Ceteris paribus, doctors can minimize COGS by providing the minimum care and maximum free time.  It's economics.
This graph illustrates another reason why doctors have no incentive to improve their customer service.  For our purposes, pressure to improve means pressure by superiors.  Before I explain this graph, let's ponder on this scene from Office Space:



The problem is that doctors' bosses are almost always doctors.  And you know what that means? They don't give a shit about your customer experience either--as long as you don't a. kill anyone, b. get sued, or c. get them sued.

So how can we rectify this?  Must we incentivize medical pay based on something other than the number of tests that they run on you?  It could be almost like a tip based system that servers get.  Based on your bill of tests, you may elect to tip (which really means pay) your doctor up to 100% of what he currently makes.  Suddenly the medical industry is now customer oriented.  Just like the service industry.  Just like it should be.

I understand that in order to become a medical doctor it requires something like seven years of schooling plus three years of residency, and that your social development has been retarded as a result.  But you had, at the very least, 17 years to practice normal human interaction.  And if you can't pick up something as simple as giving a shit in 17 years, what makes you think you can pick up this doctoring shit in 10?

Monday, December 13, 2010

The Intentional Tourist

Here's a phenomenon I'm having trouble understanding: the 7:00am New York City tourist.

Lets start from the beginning. I walk from Grand Central1 to Herald Square2 every morning at around 8:30am. The path that I take allows me to steer clear of the onslaught of people from Penn Station, however I do walk right past the visitor's entrance to the Empire State Building.

On the entire block in front of the Empire State, there are groups of people offering discounted tickets on bundled bus tours and trips to the top. I don't know who's who, but we've got the Red Jackets, the Yellow Jackets, and the Blue Jackets. They're legit, mainly because they don't hustle me.
What I question though, is their need to be there. The thing is, these guys are busy as shit when I walk past them. They're pitching, signing people up, and just doing their thing. And I get that part, it's supply and demand. There is a healthy supply of tourists who need to do touristy things, so there are going to be several company reps trying to solicit them.

But why the hell do the tourists need to be there in the first place, at 8:30am?! Yes, there's a lot to do in the Big Apple, and you really want to take it all in, especially when you're from Gas, Kansas (pop 554)3, but there is still no reason why you can't get going after 10:00. I just don't understand how there could be so many people willingly awake at that hour during their vacation.
For one, tourists walk wrong. If you want to be out and about during rush hour, please follow these commonsense maxims:
  • Rule Number 1: If there are no cars coming, do not wait for the light to change. Just fucking walk!
  • Rule Number 2: When it's flashing "Don't Walk", what the sign is really telling you is hurry the fuck up! As long as that shit is blinking, you better keep moving.
  • Rule Number 3: Do not stand at a busy street corner and try and figure out where you are. Please do that from the safety of standing out of the main flow of pedestrian traffic.
So you know what, walk wrong, I don't give a shit. Just wait until after I've gotten coffee and gotten to work.

For two, nobody's happy at 8:30. And its because it's too fucking early. And because you can't afford to stay in midtown, you had to wake up at like 7:00 to get the kids up, shower, get to breakfast, take a cab (because you were told the subway is dangerous), and eat breakfast--all before you had the privilege to get swindled by Mr. Yellow Jacket.

At this rate, by the time you see the Lion King, you're already exhausted, and then you miss out on that fantastic dinner at Applebee's in Times Square because you're too tired. Start later! New York is much cooler at 8:00pm than 8:00am. Sleep in, go out late, make bad decisions. You'll come back having had a much better time than you would plowing into me because you're not following the aforementioned rules of walking on the fucking street.

In conclusion, let those poor guys in the multicolored coats sleep in for a little while. You'll make everyone much more happy.


1 Grand Central
2 Herald Square
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas,_Kansas

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Astrology is not Astronomy / Great Business Plans

I was perusing NME.com today and came across an article (http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/39944) with the headline "NASA commissions rap about Astrobiology." Jonathan Chase, the English born rapper, was selected for this momentous opportunity to accomplish NASA's goal of making "astrobiology easy to understand."

Jonathan Chase had this to say: "Being commissioned by NASA to produce the 'Astrology Rap' was a great compliment."

1) Astrology is not Astronomy. You are now confusing people, making it hard to understand

2) Astrobiology is hard to understand!! Yes, because it is astrobiology.

Dear NASA,

I hope you come to terms that Astrobiology just might be hard for some people to understand. It's ok to be who you are and you should be comfortable with that.

p.s thanks for paying for this video; I particularly liked the dancing green alien and the clip art

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Shameless promotion

Class
Demure
Understated

What do these words all have in common? Answer, they do not describe Chad Johnson, WR for the Cincinnati Bengals. Already in this post I have in fact made an error. There is no Chad Johnson anymore; his name is legally changed to Chad Ocho-Cinco; 85 in spanish and it is his uniform number. I very much dislike you Chad Ocho-Cinco.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Gas Prices too motherfucking high

Earlier in the year I wrote a post saying relative to other goods, by the gallon, gas is still a good value. It seems that the tables have turned as P.Diddy reveals in his latest video blog post that he is forced to fly...commercial. Yes, the jet is grounded and American Airlines has earned another passenger. I'm glad that Diddy feels the plight and can relate to the common man. Diddy was even kind enough to offer some advice to "tell whoever the next president is that we need to bring gas back down."


Tuesday, August 26, 2008

I don't want to blame it all on 9/11...but it certainly didn't help

I must say it's really refreshing to see a level of professionalism and modesty in professional basketball, especially among the olympic. Case in point, following the United State's Gold Medal Basketball win under the direction of Coach K, 2004 coach Larry Brown was able to lend some nice words by blaming his loss on injuries...and 9/11.

"We had guys that committed and then all of a sudden 9/11 happened, and then there were injuries" - Larry Brown.

Brown poorly aseembled a team lacking long range shooters and defenders. Perhaps that and personal hubris are to blame among the ever increasing talent in international basketball. Or... it could be 9/11.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Alternate Side of the Street Parking

Seriously, when is it not "in effect," and why must every tri-state area local morning news feel compelled to tell you?

Friday, August 15, 2008

Thank you for helping me clean up the place

Dear Former Roommates:

I would just like to take a second to thank you for helping me remove some of the clutter from the apartment we all used to occupy. I know that the place was a bit cramped, but we made the best of it didn't we?

So as we're clearing out the apartment, thanks for also helping me get rid of some of my stuff--the four bottles of wine that you took from my wine box. I probably would have never gotten around to drinking them anyway. But more importantly--thanks for leaving the one with the screw top. After all, I wouldn't have been able to get it open, because you probably also took my cork screw.

When you open the 2004 Jordan Cabernet Sauvignon, please make sure to decant it for at least two hours prior to drinking it. Although I got it as a birthday present 2 years ago, I know you'll be able to derive more value out of it than I would ever be able to. Before it's opened, you should probably chill it slightly, to about 67 degrees, in order to release the full complexity of the grapes.

The Twisted Oak white should be chilled to anywhere between 45 and 50 degrees. Drink it immediately after opening, and make sure to savor the crisp refreshing blend of California grapes. I've found that this particular bottle tends towards the dryer side of the spectrum so it will probably go nice with a sharp cheese. I could also envision it going lovely with a rich chicken dish. But after all, it's your bottle now so use at your discretion.

The two Latin American reds both should be decanted for anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours. I can't remember the names of them, but one was a delicious, spicy rich wine, i believe coming from Argentina. It's also very moderately priced, if you like it, I hope you continue to buy it. It's one of my favorites, please enjoy it. The other one, probably the most expensive bottle in my collection, has been aging for about 3 years. I was going to open it when I graduated. But it's probably too complex for my palate anyway, so please take it, and enjoy it with my complements.

Anyway, I'm glad that you're able to enjoy one of my favorite past times. Ben, because you told me when you were really drunk that you were taking a class to learn about wines at Cornell in the fall, I'm going to go ahead and assume it was you. I hope you can enjoy and savor them as much as I was going to.

Have a great semester!

Sunday, August 03, 2008

It's The Economy, Stupid

Stanley Bing, Fortune's resident last page columnist, has a new column out regarding the state of our economy. The gist of his argument is, and I'm paraphrasing, life on earth has always been tough, so we might as well spend more money now, because, why not? You can read the more thorough version here.

Apparently, the root of our economic trouble is the fact that CNBC has a 24 hour news scroll and bloggers are the 21st century version of malcontents. It's not like the country's top lending institutions have been just completely screwing the little guy. It's not like car companies have resisted mile-per-gallon improvements for years, and when oil prices suddenly shoot up because of increased worldwide demand, the American driver takes a bath. No, it's clearly the fault of the news media, and the consumer who watches it. It's never big business's fault.

Well, as Stan pointed out, it could be worse. We could be living with the threat of nuclear war with the Soviets. We could be living during the time of the Crusades. Tell that to someone who could be only days away from losing his/her house or job. You can console their homelessness with the fact that at least they won't have to go to the Middle East and try and take back Jerusalem.

Comrade Bing suggests ignorance. Only watch 45 minutes of news a day. Don't read blogs. Take a soma holiday. This is exactly the type of thought process that got us into our current financial situation in the first place.

Just one more thing before I sign off here, Stanley says that "Three-quarters of our economy is built upon our willingness to part with our money in exchange for goods and services." What I'm still trying to figure out is, what's the other quarter based on?

So, "Get out there every goddamn weekend and pump as much money as you can back into the economy." Too bad it's money that you probably don't have to begin with.

Monday, June 30, 2008

a years supply...

I was watching an episode of Jeopardy and at the close of the episode the 3rd place contestant was at a miserable negative 1,100. Not only did our poor contestant not have to reimburse Trebek, he even received a years supply of Turtle Wax.

It's really unfortunate Jeopardy couldn't afford to bulk up that prize with a year's suppy of calendars, christmas trees, or colonoscopies.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

The Continual Abuse of Expectant Mother Parking

So the parking lot at my office has 3 spots reserved for expectant mothers. I think this is a nice touch, it emphasizes the family values of the company and makes things a little easier for those who really shouldn't be walking long distances lugging any sort of bag.

As I entered in today a young lady pulled into the one of the reserved spaces. She got out and didn't appear to be pregnant with anything, maybe emotion.Of course I confronted her over this and I found out she is 5 weeks along. I have very little pregnant experience but 5 weeks doesn't seem like such a strain. She said she is pregnant and has every right to park there.Now that I don't care for.

There needs to be statutes and protocals in place to prevent this flagrant abuser. Where does it end; some scofflaw could be trying to institute parking there at conception. How about any girl who expects to have children at some point?

Smohog.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Stop Correcting My Grammar

Let me qualify the above statement. Unless you know you're right, stop correcting my grammar. Why? Because it makes you look pompous and stupid at once. When you use bad grammar, I believe you should be corrected, but the corrector should make sure that the correction is, indeed, correct.

The following example is one that really just drives me off the wall:

Me: Hey do you want to meet me and Larry (the awesome bartender) at the Ebbitt for some delicious half off raw bar and drinks?
Idiot: It's Larry and I.
Me: You don't even know who he is!

The thing is, it's not Larry and I, you idiot. You could make the case that it should be "Larry and me," but to be honest with you, I just feel weird saying that. In the written form, I or me should always go last, but I think the English gurus give us a little more latitude when the spoken word.

It isn't Larry and I, and it's never going to be. Why not? Just take out Larry and see if it still makes sense. "Hey do you want to meet I?" No dice Chicago.

So if you're going to correct someone, make sure a. you're right, and b. it won't make you look like a total elitist.

We hope you enjoyed today's grammar lesson, and remember, if you don't have something nice to say, then don't say it. Unless you can support it with facts.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

D.C. Cabs (not the movie)

After what feels like decades, the D.C. Taxicab commission finally changed the arcane, inconvenient zone pricing system to a time and distance system involving a meter. After fighting this all the way to the Supreme Court, Illustrious Mayor Fenty finally got this new legislation (is it legislation?) approved. A great victory for the consumer, yes? Not so much.

So what does this mean for your average D.C. cab rider? Basically nothing. Under the auspices of a very quietly released study, the Taxicab Commission found that under the current meter system, the average price of a cab ride is nearly identical to that of a zone system. Which means still absurdly expensive.

One of the goals of switching to the meter was to get rid of some of the surcharges that plague us today. The gas surcharge, the rush hour surcharge, the additional passenger surcharge, and most importantly, the “You’re drunk (and/or a tourists) and I’m going to fuck you over” surcharge—where does it end? Well, thanks to the new regulations, it doesn’t. The gas surcharge is still in place, and so is the absurdist of absurd, the additional passenger surcharge. Rush Hour might still be in place, and I know that drivers are really going to try and use the drunk surcharge as often as possible.
What I am trying to figure out is why the additional passenger surcharge still applies. I mean this really must be one of the only cities in the country that uses a meter in addition to per-passenger rates. For one thing, the meter isn’t exactly cheap. It costs $3.00 to drop the flag (which is more expensive than NYC, if you were wondering) and then 25 cents per each 1/6 mile and then 25 cents per minute of being stuck in traffic. With adding surcharges, one person going one block can still expect to pay $5.00.

So why do we need the per-person fares on top of this?

Cabbies should be trying to get as many short distance rides as possible. Instead, they’re trying to get as many big groups as possible. This system is, quite simply, doomed to failure.

The average cab fare in New York is $6.00. The average cab fare in Washington is $11.83. Why? Perhaps it’s because D.C. is bigger geographically than New York. Or does D.C. have a higher cost of living than Manhattan? Or perhaps it’s because cabbies need to charge that much per fare in order to make a decent living. Why would that be? Especially with the K Street crowd, cabs are a highly sought after form of transportation in D.C. For one thing the Metro closes at midnight and unless you want to take the bus (and who knows where those run?), a cab is your only bet. So that leads me to believe that there is a drastic oversupply of taxis in the district, meaning that they have to charge higher fares to survive.

Assuming that average fares dropped to $6.00 a trip, Cabbies would need to pick up twice as many fares to earn the same amount of money, ceteris paribus. If there was a somewhat normal number of cabs per person in D.C., then making up the additional revenue would be extremely difficult. The demand for cab service, in my opinion, leans towards the inelastic side, and dropping rates by half will not cause ridership to double. However, according to a Progressive Review article (LINK) that I wholeheartedly disagree with, D.C. has 1 cab for every 75 citizens. New York, on the other hand, has 1 cab for every 600—London and Paris have similar proportions.

Are D.C. Residents eight times as likely as likely as New Yorkers to take a cab places?

My solution, would then to increase barriers to entry to reduce the oversupply of taxis in the district. Perhaps that way I could get a cabbie who actually knows where the address I give him is, or that the car I’m in is younger than I am (more on that in a bit). New York has medallions, London has The Knowledge (LINK), D.C. has a piece of paper that says sign here on it, and then you get your cab license—I just made that up but it sure feels that way.

Furthermore, district cabs fall way behind in other categories compared to other cities. For one thing, they’re really shitty cars. Not only that, but they’re old and falling apart. On a recently rainy evening, I was in a cab where water was literally coming in from the ceiling. And I’ve been in dozens of cabs where the suspension was completely shot, the seats were ripped, the windows didn’t work, or the car just looked thoroughly distressed. This is what I’m paying a premium for?

By both reducing the number of cabs on the street, and the overall cost of trips, D.C. cabbies could be making a whole lot more money. Besides that, with lower trip costs coupled with cleaner cabs and nicer drivers, the money made on tips could increase greatly. A solution like this would benefit both drivers and riders, and at the end of the day, isn’t that what we all want?

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Very Modest

I was drunkenly staring at this bottle of Jefferson's Reserve Whisky recently when I came to the following conclusion: They are cocky motherfuckers.

I mean most of the time when you have a niche, expensive product, you don't actively advertise it on the label. Even when it's just expensive, you don't tout it on the packaging. Take Gray Goose for example. Gray Goose (quite possibly the most overpriced vodka on the market) relies on word of mouth, a pretty bottle and a certain amount of undeserved cache to find its way into $9 vodka tonics.

You might as well spray paint the following on a Rolls Royce:
Very Expensive
British Car Made by the Germans
You'll Get Laid, Guaranteed.

In my opinion, the whole thing is completely absurd. If Jefferson Reserve was really as prestigious as its makers would lead you to believe, then you wouldn't need to hear about it on the outside of a bottle.

On a different note, there's been a lot of hubbub about Alltel Wireless. It's not that I have anything against the company (except that fuckass Chad). So besides from being stupid, and not knowing what I'm talking about, if you could at least help me understand why you're so passionate about your phone company, It'd really help me understand all the commotion.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Who The Hell Has Alltel Wireless?

I am so sick of those commercials with "Chad," the dyed-blond, other annoying adjectives, yokel that Alltel Wireless has as their spokesperson. Note the term spokesperson rather than spokesman. It's not that I'm trying to be politically correct, I seriously wonder if Chad has balls.

To be honest, I just don't know how they keep paying for advertising. Seriously, can you name anyone that has Alltel? Start asking around. If you know someone who has Alltel, have them get a hold of me. I wonder if they look different.

So I did a little research and this is what I found out: They are the 5th largest cell phone provider in the country. If you can name more than 5 cell phone providers, I'd be amazed. Alltel has 13 million subscribers (or so they claim...), which is half as many as the next largest provider, T-Mobile, which was 27 million subscribers. There isn't an Alltel store within 50 miles of New York City or Washington, D.C. On the other hand, AT&T has 4 stores within 5 miles of downtown Little Rock, AR--home of the headquarters of Alltel Wireless.

I've really got to wonder about Alltel's marketing strategy. Why blanket the northeast with advertisements if you can't even actualize any interest you do manage to drum up. It's just so frustrating, as someone who wants to be in advertising, watching a company like that completely shit the bed.

That's all for now, but after a short hiatus, we here at A Clean, Well Lighted Place will be coming back in force. And I'm proud to say that we are in fact a we.

Monday, March 24, 2008

I Just Wanted to Destory Something Beautiful

That must be the thought that constantly pervades Rupert Murdoch's stupid, megalomaniacal mind. (The title of the post, that is, in case you weren't following along.)

The New York Times, today, featured a piece about how the Wall Street Journal is changing, and "evolving" as one Murdoch flunkie so eloquently put it. Apparently the Journal is evolving into just another USA Today--but with slightly fewer graphs. The newspaper is trending towards much more political news, less business news, and shorter stories. And now they're going to heavily revamp...excuse me, evolve, the Marketplace section into lord knows what. I love the Marketplace section, it's full of random tidbits and 'soft' business news-fun stuff.

Murdoch is killing the Wall Street Journal. It's the Wall Street Journal, not the Main Street USA Journal or the Something Else That Gets Me Really Angry Journal. And what is Wall Street known for? Business. People read the Journal for its detailed business information, and if that's not what the Journal is doing, then they are moving far away from their core demographic.

Don't get me wrong, I don't love the fact that the Journal's editorial pages are horribly slanted right (actually I hate it), but that's not why I read it. The Journal's investigative techniques are top-notch and there is just so much damn information in each piece, I love it.

And now all that is going to change? What's next, the Money & Investments section turns into the Comics section? I'm telling you, the more I think about it, the more this paper isn't worth my 70% off student home subscription rate. (www.wsjstudent.com if you're interested)

Read the whole article here: click the headline, pops into a new window
Published: March 24, 2008
The Wall Street Journal’s transition to more breaking news and shorter articles will include a makeover of its Marketplace section, editors and reporters there said.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Why is gasoline so cheap?

I was filling up my tank with premium from the Mobil station by my house for the very reasonable 3.79 a gallon and I couldn't help but hear the pratt next to me complain about the price of gasoline as he filled up his SL600 for a ride.

Sure crude will be $115 a barrel in the coming weeks and the nations average for gas is probably around $3.20 a gallon, but isn't that really cheap. Think about how much goes into getting that gas to you; expensive and dangerous drilling somewhere around the world, shipping it to a refining plant, and then shipping it halway across the globe again to a truck to deliver it to a location no doubt within a couple of miles of you.

After all this for a gallon of gas, the price to move you 20 or so miles in your own car for only a dollar more than the average rountrip metro ride for you dc folk, people complain regularly while gin continues to run me $80 dollars a gallon; and you really can't drive anywhere with a gallon of gin.

Fuck complaining about gasoline, complain about orange juice, Worcestershire Sauce, and extra virgin olive oil.

Gallon of Liquid - Price
Poland Spring - $1.99
Regular Gasoline - $3.29
2% Milk - $3.99
Tropicana Grovestand (extra pulp) - $5.99
Odwalla Mango Madness - $16.99
Starbucks Mocha Frappucinno - $34.83
Worcestershire Sauce - $47.34
Bertolli Extra Virgin Olive Oil - $59.99
Bombay Saphire Gin - $79.99
Chateau Cheval Blanc 03' - $1,700.00
Clinique Repairware Anti Aging Makeup - $2,432.39
Burberry Touch for Men Cologne - $3,742.85
Krazy Glue - $4,005.51

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

GW Hatchet Breaking News

I know, I know, I'm normally not this prolific, but this is time sensitive, and I need to get this out before this goes stale.

I hope we all know about the tragic events that happened at Northern Illinois University this past Thursday. I think that's something people would consider "Breaking News". And furthermore, it happened at a college, so it's college breaking news. Before I continue, let's get this straight, I am not trying to make light of the situation at all.

What I am trying to do is understand why nine hours after this, the GW Hatchet, our bastion of editorial something or another, would send out a Breaking News alert informing us that the University received money for renovations. I'm not kidding. Here's the email I got: (as always, clicking on it makes it bigger)
You can clearly see that the email was sent out on February 15th at 12:49 am. This just happens to be the night after the shooting in Illinois.

I mean talk about a misinterpretation of breaking news. Even if they didn't have a story for the shootings (I don't believe Hatchet writers can come up with something that fast), but they could have canceled the email. Or perhaps renamed it to: "Not even close to Breaking News".

Everyone at GW keeps talking about sensitivity. Sensitivity to this, sensitivity to that. How about sensitivity to realize that this might not qualify as "breaking".

Anyway, that's my little thing. You stay trashy, GW Hatchet.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Tooth-to-Gum Ratio

Let me tell you about a little-known measure of attractiveness--one I deem crucial for a healthy, long-term relationship, or even a one night stand with that girl you picked up in the bar.

It's the 'tooth-to-gum' ratio, and it could not be more important. I find that even otherwise attractive women can have problems in this department, and there is regretfully very little that can be done about it. I'm sure men can be afflicted with poor tooth-to-gum ratios, but honestly, I don't pay attention to men's mouths a whole hell of a lot.

What it is:
The tooth-to-gum ratio addresses the size of the teeth compared to the visible gum line. I personally am in heavy favor of the teeth compared to gum, but for each person, I'm sure it's a little different. Most of the time its like, whatever, not really noticeable. But when you have an extremely out of balance t-to-g ratio (favoring the g), it's just a very unflattering look.

An example:
Thanks for not saying hi to me the last time we saw each other. It's not like we went to the same school for like 7 years or anything.

As you can clearly see the size of the teeth is completely disproportionate to the size of the gums. I'm not going to lie, its a complete turn-off to me. The girl in the background, on the other hand, has a good tooth-to-gum ratio. Interestingly, I don't have a problem with a t-to-g ratio that's extreme in the other direction, though I've never really seen one radical enough to notice

I guess really my point is that I don't like seeing too much of your gums when you smile. I don't know why. And neither do you. So do you have small chicklet teeth and huge brontosaurus gums like this girl? My advice: stop smiling.