Browsing Tag: rant


    The Seahawks, March Madness, and the NFL Playoffs

    January 6, 2011

    seahawks-logoLast Sunday, two teams from a lousy division played a game for the right to be in the NFL Playoffs. The Seahawks beat St. Louis and, despite their 7-9 record, they’re now the NFC West champs and part of the 12-team playoff tournament. Their reward is a game against the defending Super Bowl champs.

    Every year (for the past few years), March Madness begins with two teams from lousy conferences playing on a Tuesday evening for the right to join the NCAA basketball tournament. It’s called a “play-in” game and the winner gets a date with the top overall seed in the tourney.

    Even before this play-in game began, March Madness always included (and usually still does) a couple no-name, lousy basketball teams with won-loss records of 12-18 or 15-17 who either A) managed to get hot at the right time, B) come from bad conferences, or C) both of the above.

    When this happens in March Madness, people love it. The underdog! The drama of a 16-seed trying to beat a 1-seed. David vs. Goliath and all that stuff.

    For some reason, now that it’s happened in the NFL, people are posting on message boards, calling sports radio, tweeting, Facebooking, writing articles and blog posts and who-knows-what-else about what a joke it is that the Seahawks are in the playoffs, how embarrassing it is, how unfair it is, yadda-yadda-yadda. (Even Seahawks fans are doing this!)

    Get over it.

    It’s football. It’s a game. It’s not sacred. If you’re offended by a 7-9 team making the NFL playoffs, your priorities are really warped.

    If you’re a Seahawks fan, relax and enjoy. They’ll lose by about 25 points, but it’s all good. They won the division. Sure beats the heck out of another 4- or 5-win season, doesn’t it?

    Go Hawks!


    Yahoo: Enough with the Ads in RSS

    April 5, 2010

    I have RSS feeds and news alerts setup across a lot of different web sites for a lot of different words and phrases. A lot of those alerts are setup for U2-related stuff, you know, because I work on this little U2 site … and this U2 concerts site, too.

    One of the feeds I track is a Yahoo News Alert via RSS for any articles that mention “U2.” That feed, for the past two or three days, has suddenly started showing Yahoo ads. Ack!


    Seriously, Yahoo … this is beyond annoying. Make it stop. Yesterday, please.


    Just Give Me The $!@#$% Weather!

    July 16, 2008


    There are only three things we all need to know when watching the weather report on local TV news:

    1. How hot/cold did it get today
    2. What’s going on right now
    3. What’s it going to be like tomorrow and over the next couple days

    That’s it. Three things. Heck, you could remove #2 from that because you can look outside and figure out what’s going on right now with the weather. (“…sun is shining, sky is blue, don’t see any cows sailing across the sky — nice day!”)

    In my hometown, the weather guy/gal usually gets between three and four minutes out of the 30-minute newscast. I trust that’s the same pretty much anywhere in the U.S. On the station we watch most often, the weather guy fills his time with “tower cam” video shots that show absolutely nothing, satellite doppler-type stuff, water vapor outlook, jet stream data, cloud cover (even on sunny days), the three things I listed above, and then he ends by spending 30-45 seconds showing “weather photos” sent in by viewers and then chit-chatting about how nice the photos are (even when they’re not) with the chatty news anchors.

    Oh, and he’s shown in a small box on the screen so that all this “weather plus” data (like temperatures of cities in Idaho and Oregon that I’ve never heard of) can scroll and rotate on the screen like CNN on steroids.

    It sucks! For every 10 seconds of useful weather information, there’s 20 seconds of crap. And then they wrap it up with a nice smile and a corny joke.

    Just give me the #%@%$# weather!!!!!!!



    Scan this!

    August 8, 2004

    Is there a worse invention in recent years than the self-scanning checkout line at grocery stores? I don’t think so. They don’t speed things up. They aren’t convenient. They expect you to be every bit as skilled as the trained checkout person — and not just when scanning the item originally, but also in fixing something if it scans the wrong way. (And do I even need to mention that they take jobs away from the economy?)

    The first time I tried one of these lines, I had about six items with me — “Sure, this can’t take too long.” Well, the tomatoes didn’t have a scan code on them. The bread scanned at the wrong price. The gal assigned to monitor us daring self-scanners was, of course, busy with other customers having the same problems I was. And in the end, it took about 8 minutes more than it would’ve taken in a regular line.

    And this a step in the right direction?