Archive for January, 2011

Moderately Confused (1/31/11)

January 31, 2011

I must be part of a very small minority of iPhone users that doesn’t care about the alleged majesty of Verizon Wireless. Yes, I know, the iPhone will be available on that most infallible of networks in early February. Will it be nice to have a choice of carriers when my contract expires in 2012? Absolutely. Do I expect Verizon to be significantly better than AT&T in terms of call quality and mobile internet speed? Absolutely not. Forgive me for being insufficiently cynical, but I’ve dropped so few calls on my iPhone that I can’t remember the last time it happened. And while I’ve encountered data dead spots on my train ride home, they tend to pass quickly. So, no, I don’t have serious service problems that I’d like Verizon to solve. Now cost of service problems…that’s a different story.


Pickles (1/30/11)

January 30, 2011

I can not think about waffles all I want…as long as I’m thinking about pancakes. When it comes to breakfast foods, pancakes are top of the short stack. Waffles are fine; they can even be light and fluffy and delicious. French Toast is okay; it can even be rich and buttery and scrumptious. But pancakes are in a category all their own. When I got a griddle for Christmas, I was genuinely excited. I saw a future for myself that included pancakes each and every weekend for years to come. Nothing could be finer.

Bliss (1/29/11)

January 29, 2011

I’m one of those people who shies away from drugs, and not just the illegal kind. Some folks trudge to their doctor for a Z-Pak whenever they feel a sniffle coming on, but not me. I’m apt to drink orange juice, go to bed early, and let nature take its course. Even when I’m told to take medication, I try to minimize the number of pills I actually swallow. Late last year, my dentist made an incision in my gum and wrote me a prescription for pain pills. He gave me ten, and I managed to take only three. I was pretty proud of that.

Bizarro (1/28/11)

January 28, 2011

Judging by the goofy expression on his face, this Ben fellow doesn’t appear to be too bright. He might not be dumb, per se, but he’s certainly oblivious. Let’s face it, people who have a good grasp of the world around them don’t wear smiley face sweatshirts, don’t stare blankly ahead as they paddle down the rapids, and don’t fail to take notice when a menacing frowny face makes its way onto their otherwise unassuming oar. Ben might get lucky and survive his boating trip, but even if he does, his future looks dim.

Pearls Before Swine (1/27/11)

January 27, 2011

If it were indeed part of the English language, “pompouser” would be the greatest word of them all. I mean, would it even be possible for there to be a funner word than “pompouser?” (Well, maybe “funner,” but that’s beside the point.) At any rate, I suggest “pompouser” be added to the Oxford English Dictionary post haste. If that happens, it would automatically become the, um, most fun word anyone could possibly use.

Cul de Sac (1/26/11)

January 26, 2011

Here’s something that would keep all those darned neighborhood kids occupied during the winter. Every time it started to snow, their parents could send them outside to trap individual flakes under their mittens, melting them in the process. Of course, kids can’t be counted on to cooperate so we’d need a minimum of three children per snowflake in order to keep the sidewalks clear. That would probably add up to trillions of kids per snowstorm, so it might just be easier to pay a few kids $10 to shovel.

The Duplex (1/25/11)

January 25, 2011

When I was a teenager, I entertained the notion of becoming a lawyer. I’m glad I didn’t go that route, because if I had I’d either be (a) attending school, (b) looking for a job, (c) struggling to pay my student loans while working as a clerk, or (d) combing through case law to prove something inane like whether or not Rahm Emanuel is a Chicago resident. Yesterday, an Illinois appellate court ruled that Emanuel was not eligible to run for mayor in February because he will not have resided in the city for one year prior to the election. This, despite the fact that the state election code clearly states an elector (i.e. a voter) cannot lose his residency if he leaves on “business of the United States.” (Emanuel left town to serve as Chief of Staff to President Obama). As far as I can tell, the court ruled that while Emanuel remained a resident for the purposes of voting, he didn’t meet the stricter requirement of having “resided in” Chicago for the purposes of running for office. A “resident” who does not “reside?” Really?