Airline Fees That Could Make A Difference

August 4, 2010 Leave a comment

In yesterday’s New York Times, Susan Stellin has an excellent article about airline fees.  Among other things, Stellin points out how many of the fees that exist are set at levels that exceed a reasonableness test.  For example, ticket change fees, now as high as $150 for domestic tickets, are much higher in today’s online world, than they were in the days of paper tickets.  The effort to change an electronic ticket would not seem to justify a larger fee.

I don’t have a problem with airlines charging fees to offset costs that they incur due to passenger behavior.  For example, airlines have charged for a third piece of luggage or overweight luggage for as long as I can remember.  These fees always made sense to me, because airlines let you bring on two bags already.  More bags could mean more fuel and an added cost.  Those that wanted the plane to carry the weight of their extra luggage should foot some of the cost.  Now that most airlines charge for any bags, this fee is nearly a thing of the past.

I don’t have a problem with airlines charging fees for “extras,” such as food on very short flights, headphones or even premium meals.  If you want better service or more amenities, sometimes you have to pay.  I would include fees to board early in this bucket.

Where I have a problem is when airlines charge for things that make no sense.  Stellin feels this way about stand-by fees, and I agree.  If I am willing to wait in the hopes of getting a seat that would otherwise be empty, why does an airline have to charge?  The plane is flying anyway, with or without me.  If I get on, you have a seat open on the later flight.  If I don’t, then you have done just enough work to put me on the list, nothing more.

Fees should be used directly to influence behavior to benefit the airlines and other passengers.  If you raise the stand by fee, fewer passengers will fly stand-by.  If you increase fees for checked bags, then fewer people will check bags.  With that in mind, here are airline fees I’d like to see put in place immediately that, if enforced, would end stupidity and rudeness and make things flow faster.  By making things flow faster, planes would leave on time, customers would be happier, and the airlines would be happier and more profitable.

If You Don't Have Your ID Out at the Checkpoint, You Pay a Fee Under My Proposal

  1. $50 if you can’t figure out how to swipe your credit card or passport in the ticketing kiosk. Come on!  Push the credit card in and pull it out.  It’s not that hard.
  2. $25 if you do not have your identification out of your pocket before you hand the TSA agent your ticket. You have just stood in line for 15 minutes watching each person show identification to the TSA agent, but it didn’t occur to you to have your ID ready?
  3. $100 if you have to ask the TSA whether water is allowed through security. I am reminded of the TSA agents who shout, “Ladies and gentlemen, water is a liquid.”
  4. $150 if you hang around the boarding area before your row or group is called such that people can’t tell if you are waiting in line or not. Frequent flyers call these people lice.  Just stay seated.
  5. $25 if you try to board a plane before your group or row is called. Listen to the gate agent.  Ask a fellow passenger if you need to.   You aren’t special.
  6. $50 if you have frequent flyer status and try to cut the line after general boarding starts. You know what?  You missed your chance.  You aren’t special either.  Back of the line.
  7. $75 for using an overhead above someone else’s seat when yours is empty – paid directly to the passenger whose space you took. If only.
  8. $75 for not heeding a flight attendant’s request to put one bag in the overhead and one under your seat and, instead, putting both bags above your seat. Again, you aren’t special.  You are one of many travelers on that flight.
  9. $150 for putting both bags up top, hoping space will stay available and not removing one when the flight attendants say there is no more space and ask again. These people are really quite special, but not in a good way.
  10. $50 for running up the aisle upon landing and not waiting patiently to disembark. I’ve written about this before.  This one boggles my mind.  Where are they going?
  11. $100 for stopping right at the end of the jet-way upon exiting to get your bearings. When you do this, you hold up the line.  Get yourself clear of the gate, and then stop to look around.  You know you are in an airport.  You aren’t lost.

Lastly, I’d add two new baggage fees:

  • $100 per bag (in addition to regular checked baggage fees), for any carry-on bag that makes it on the plane, doesn’t fit in an overhead bin or beneath the seat, and has to be checked.
  • $150 per bag (in addition to regular baggage fees) for any bag checked by a passenger who ignores the flight attendant’s warning that “there is no more overhead space” and continue down the aisle with their bag.

All of this is easily administered, as the airlines have our credit card on file.

Unfortunately, it makes too much sense to implement.

Filed under Vacations and Travel Tagged with ,

Lamenting the Disappearance of Kids’ Summer Vacation

August 3, 2010 Leave a comment

Am I the only one, or has everyone else noticed that many kids’ summer vacations have disappeared?

I’m not referring to the trimester system that lacks a summer vacation at all.  I’m referring to the fact that between academics and extra-curricular activities occurring year-round, kids no longer get any time off.  And, if they do take time-off, they can be punished.

I got to thinking about this while reading about the conflict between the Washington Redskins and defensive lineman Albert Haynesworth, the Redskins’ highest-paid player.  Haynesworth is not allowed to take part in team training camp practices until he passes a fitness test.  He must pass the fitness test because he did not participate in the Redskins’ off-season conditioning program.   He was, in fact, the only Redskin that did not participate in this program.  Interestingly, the program is not mandatory; it’s voluntary.  Nonetheless Haynesworth is being singled out for not attending.

Haynesworth’s plight (for which I have no sympathy as he pocketed a $21 million bonus check on April 1) is, unfortunately, not dissimilar from situations encountered by school age kids today.  The difference is that Haynesworth is paid to focus on football year-round.  Kids in school are not paid, but can still suffer similar consequences if they decide not to participate in off-season activities.

It used to be that summer school was populated by those that failed courses in the prior year.  It used to be that the football team would start practicing a few weeks before school started, and the marching band would go to band camp for a week in August.  It used to be that only outstanding athletes would play their sports year-round.  Not any more.

And it’s a shame.

Instead of going to summer camp or hanging at the pool or getting a job, more and more kids are giving up their vacations to get ahead in academics or get ahead in sports.  Many times, like Haynesworth, they seem to have a choice, but really don’t.

If Only Today's Kids Experienced What Calvin Did

In our school district, if students want to take advanced electives junior and senior year to have on their resumé for college applications, they must first take the intro courses.  To find room for the intro courses, they have to complete required courses.  When do they complete those required courses?  In summer school.  If they don’t do this and don’t take more advanced courses, they’ve reduced their chances of getting into top schools.

The competitiveness and complexity of sports have driven many schools to have summer practices or camps.  Like the Redskins, these camps are “voluntary.”  Like the Redskins, players can be “punished” for not attending, in that they’ll be well behind the rest of the team.  Unlike the Redskins, however, many of these practices or camps charge a fee to attend because they are off-season.  What a double-whammy for kids and parents!

Kids and parents are then forced to make difficult choices.

What are the implications for not attending those mandatory voluntary hockey practices in July to go on a family vacation to celebrate your grandparents’ 50th wedding anniversary?  Will the player fall behind, get demoted to JV, or get banished from the team entirely?

What if your daughter skips the 2nd week of cheerleading practice to attend summer camp with the same girls she has for the past 8 summers?  Will the coach really kick her off the squad?

I understand the coaches’ desire to win.  I understand, therefore, why varsity basketball teams play in summer leagues together, why cheerleading teams have eight-hour choreography sessions in mid-July, and why football teams are on the field all summer.  It’s a zero-sum game.  Once one team does it, they all do.

I also know times are different.  Back in the day, all pro athletes has off-season jobs.  Yogi Berra was once the head waiter at an Italian restaurant here in St. Louis.  Mickey Mantle spent a summer in the mines near his home of Commerce, Oklahoma.  Football star Jim Brown was once a marketing rep for Pepsi.  Now, athletes are paid to focus on their sport all year.

Of course, kids are not paid to focus on their sport or on academics all year.  In fact, they aren’t paid at all.

Let’s give them their summer vacations back and let them enjoy the peaceful summers like we did.  They’ll join the rat race soon enough.  Why push them there now?

Filed under Family Matters Tagged with , , ,

Overcoming Your Brain’s Barrier to Dieting

August 2, 2010 Leave a comment

There is a concept in pop psychology called hyperbolic discounting.  Hyperbolic discounting is the notion that we value things today about twice as much as we value things at any point in the future, from tomorrow to ten years from now.  Hyperbolic discounting is also the scientific reason why we are always going to start dieting and exercising tomorrow.

When we start to consider dieting, we always pick a point in the future to begin.  It might be the day after a vacation or New Year’s Day or the day you will get your first NutriSystem or Jenny Craig food in the mail.  More simply, you might decide at lunch that as of dinner (four to six hours away), the diet begins.  You may even have a last meal in anticipation of the diet.  However, we never decide to go on a diet just as the waitress brings the bacon cheeseburger or right after we order Domino’s or just as the Baskin Robbins scooper hands us our double cone.  It is always as a point in the future.

Hyperbolic discounting explains why.  We value the effort required to diet in the future at about half the effort required in the present.  Somehow, we have to have the slice of cheesecake now, but we can easily avoid it next week.  It’s a brilliant concept really. And it makes sense.  More people decide to diet on Sunday night, only to blow it at breakfast on Monday morning when they have to put in double the effort to eat Puffed Wheat and not Captain Crunch.

The same notion can be used to explain why we decide at night to exercise in the morning, but then in the morning decide not to get out of bed.  Somehow it’s a lot harder to get out of bed at 5am than we thought it would be when we set our alarm.

Our brains know how to diet, and our brains know how to exercise.  I don’t think we need books to tell us what to eat or how to exercise.  We use books and web sites to give us easy to understand plans and schedules so that the effort required to diet and exercise is reduced.  Then we can overcome the hyperbolic discounting that we have already done.  If we have the plans and menus in place today, it won’t be any easier in the future than it is today, and we will start now.

One Way to Overcome Hyperbolic Discounting

This morning, I overcame hyperbolic discounting.  First, I made sure that there was no extra effort required to start a diet and exercise regimen anew.  The treadmill repairman had fixed our Nordic Track in the basement.  We had plenty of Honey Nut Cheerios, fat-free milk, apples and Zone bars on hand in the house.  I have no client dinners or social events planned the whole week.  Even better, Mrs. Spidey had a book club meeting tonight, so I could plan my dinner.  All was perfect.

But then, at 5:45am this morning, hyperbolic discounting hit me square in the face. I had planned to exercise at 5:00, but I slept through my alarm.  My mind immediately said, “Tomorrow, it will be a lot easier when you get up at 5:00.  5:45 is too late.”   Somehow, however, I pushed through.  I told myself that I had to get going, that I could work late or work in the evening to make up the time.  Once I got my workout clothes on and made it to the basement, I was fine.  I applied the effort today, despite my brain telling me it would be easier tomorrow.

Long story short, it was time for another diet, and it’s underway.  I reprogrammed Lose It on my iPhone.  I commit to tracking it here every Monday, come good or come bad.  I weighed in this morning at 197.4.  Ouch.  By Christmas, I’d like to be close to 180.

Scientifically, I know my brain is telling me that it will be easier than it will actually be.  Perhaps knowing how my brain works will make it a bit easier?  Stay tuned.

Filed under Health, Diet and Exercise Tagged with , , ,

Baseball Owners, Why are You Helping the Yankees?

August 1, 2010 1 Comment

I am a die-hard Yankees’ fan. As a Yankees fan, I’m excited by their pick-ups before the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline, but I am very surprised by what was exchanged in the deals.

Typically, when you see a team make a trade to pick up an impact player, they have to give something up.

Here in St. Louis, the Cardinals had to do just that, giving up starting right fielder Ryan Ludwick to get starting pitcher Jake Westbrook, whom the Cardinals believe will complete their rotation through the end of the season.  Ludwick was a Silver Slugger winner in 2008 and was hitting .283 with 11 HR and 43 RBI at the time of the trade.  More importantly, perhaps, Ludwick was, by all accounts, an exceptionally positive force in the Cardinals’ clubhouse.  Westbrook is a sub-.500 career pitcher, who is 6-7 with a 4.65 ERA in 2010.  The Cardinals wanted him, however, so they had to give up value.

Lance Berkman in His New Yankees Uniform

In Los Angeles, in order to get Ted Lilly for their rotation, the Dodgers had to give up their starting second baseman, Blake DeWitt, and two minor leaguers.  DeWitt is only 25, has a .980 fielding percentage at second base, and was hitting .277 at the time of the trade.  For this up-and-comer, the Dodgers got Lilly, 3-8 with a 3.69 ERA this year and a free-agent at the end of the season, and Ryan Theriot, the Cubs starting second baseman, a bit older than DeWitt and hitting .283 with only 21 RBI when traded.  To compensate the Dodgers for the loss of a potential superstar, the Cubs also shipped the Dodgers $2.5M to cover some of Lilly’s remaining salary.

To their credit, the Yankees picked up three strong role players for their stretch run:

  • Lance Berkman from the Astros, a switch hitting first basement and designated hitter. Berkman is a career .296 hitter, a five-time all-star, and a good first basemen with a fielding percentage of .995 in 2009.
  • Austin Kearns from the Indians, a steady outfielder and possible designated hitter. Kearns is a lifetime .258 hitter, but he was hitting .272 at the time of the trade and has a career .986 fielding percentage playing all three outfield positions.
  • Kerry Wood from the Indians, who will be given the opportunity to take on the 7th or 8th inning set up role for closer Mariano Rivera. Wood is having an unremarkable season and is just off the disabled list, but consistently has more strikeouts than innings pitched throughout his career.

Unlike the Cardinals and Dodgers, however, the Yankees didn’t give up a single player on the major league roster:

  • For Berkman, the Yankees gave up a AAA relief pitcher Mark Melancon, who has appeared in a total of 25 major league games in his career, and Jimmy Paredes, a minor league shortstop at the A level.
  • For Kearns, the Yankees traded a “player to be named later.”
  • For Wood, the Yankees traded a “player to be named later” or $500,000, if the Indians decide against a player

    Kerry Wood Pitches in His First Yankees Game

Let’s delve a bit deeper into the trades.  The Astros also gave the Yankees $4 million towards Berkman’s remaining 2010 salary of $5.5 million and a $2 million buyout.   The Indians also gave the Yankees $2,172,131 towards Woods’ remaining 2010 salary of $3,672,131.  The Indians did not give any money along with Kearns, but, then again, his entire 2010 salary is only $750,000.

I find this amazing.  The Yankees already have the largest payroll in the major leagues ($206 million in 2010), the most revenues (between $450 and $500 million in 2009), and likely turned a profit even with other operating costs.  Yet the Astros, with $189 million in 2009 revenues, and the Indians, with $170 million in 2009 team revenues, both sent the Yankees money.

Why?  Rational economics suggest the Astros must want to save the $3.5 million they will with Berkman, and the Indians must want to save the $1.5M they will with Woods. The other possible answer is that Yankees’ competitors are in such poor economic shape that they can’t afford the $3.5 million the Yankees will pay Berkman and the $1.5 million the Yankees will pay Woods.  I find either difficult to believe.  All deals end in 2010, so there is no savings or extra payments beyond this season.

In the end, Yankees gave up very little to make themselves much stronger for the stretch run.  ESPN, NBC Sports, Yahoo! Sports, and Sports Illustrated all list the Yankees among the trade deadline “winners.”  In my opinion, they were basically paid to take these players.  Could the Jimmy Paredes for Lance Berkman deal work out as poorly for the Yankees as the Curt Shilling for Glenn Davis deal did for the Orioles back in 1991?  It’s possible, but it will take years to know.

For all the complaining about the lack of a salary cap and complaining about how the Yankees buy championships, I’m amazed that other teams are willing to ship the Yankees money to help them make their team better on another championship run.  To me, it doesn’t make sense.  Good for Brian Cashman, Joe Girardi and the Yankees.  Shame on the rest of the league.

Filed under The Sporting World Tagged with , , , ,

Things About Work I Wish I Knew Earlier – Part 5

July 30, 2010 2 Comments

Staying under the radar is important in the early days at a new company or in your overall career for that matter.  You want to create the right impression by not creating a negative impression.

#5 Volunteer, but choose wisely

Volunteering is a trap that over-achieving, ambitious employees easily fall into.  I’m here today to warn you about this trap.

Before diving in, let’s get on the same page regarding the definition of volunteering.  Volunteering, in the context of this post, means offering to do something when someone (typically your boss) throws an idea out to a group of people.  This could occur in a meeting, in the hallway, at lunch, etc.  She might say, “We need someone to get a list together of everyone’s birthday and ensure we have a once-a-month team birthday lunch.  Who can do that?”  I draw a distinction between this and any time that your boss asks you specifically to work on something.  If you boss asks you “if” you want to do something, the answer is almost always “yes,” unless it’s illegal, inappropriate, unethical or she’s forgotten something more critical you need to finish.

The logic in volunteering for things seems valid, doesn’t it?  You are showing your ability to take on more work.  You are showing your willingness to help others out.  You will add another items to that year’s performance review.  You may even get some good exposure from it.

More often that not, however, this logic amounts to no benefit at all in your career.  I’ll bet, if you think about all the items for which you’ve volunteered, a very small portion have truly resulted in the benefits noted above.  Why is this?  Because this is the truth about volunteering:

  1. When bosses ask for volunteers to do something, that “something” is not considered important or critical to the business. Think about it.  When was the last time your boss said “We have our most important client coming in tomorrow.  Who wants to take him on a factory tour?”   When was the last time your boss said, “We need to give a presentation on our three-year strategy to our CEO and CFO, who’s got that?”  When bosses have critically important tasks, then they decide who leads and who participates.  This is a hard and fast rule.  If they ask for volunteers for anything, then it’s just not that important to them.
  2. Requests for volunteers are usually thankless tasks that are quickly forgotten or have no value in your career. Volunteers pull together social events, pitch in to collate and bind presentations, proofread documents, or meet and greet the new employee.  Not only do none of these ever make up for poor work performance, but they carry risk, because they are usually so easy to complete.  What if the pot-luck lunch sucks?  What if you miss a page when collating?  What if  you find errors in the boss’s document, but he takes feedback poorly?  For me, the risk/reward trade-off is lopsided towards risk.
  3. Volunteering can aggravate your co-workers. The constant volunteer risks carrying a reputation similar to the head cheerleader, who is also head of the prom committee, editor of the yearbook, and coordinator of all the student assemblies.  She may do a good job, but she becomes known for being involved in everything and not for the quality of her work.  She becomes known as excluding other from helping, even if that isn’t her intent.  Don’t volunteer all the time, even if you can.
  4. Volunteering will lead your boss to question how you have time to do it all. When I realized this, it was incredibly frustrating.  When bosses see their team members doing things that don’t contribute to work on deadline, their brain says “How can they afford the time to do that?”  It’s not always rational, but that’s how executive brains work.  You may hit your deadline, and the summer intern dinner may go off splendidly, but that momentary thought by your boss will stick in his mind.  Bosses want to see their teams working, not putting up decorations or organizing the company softball leagues.
  5. Volunteering puts you on the radar, but for reasons other than work success. Simply put, this is not the best way to get on the radar or create a  reputation.  It distracts from other successes.

So – when do you volunteer?

I recommend volunteering for charity events.  Join the group to clean up a park, rehab a house, serve food at a shelter.  If you are at a level where you get asked to attend charity dinners, you should go to a few (although all require donations, so be careful).

I recommend volunteering for things when you get a chance to meet people who you don’t know well and can do so without the risk of failure at work.  Volunteer to courier materials to a senior executive’s house on the weekend.  Volunteer to attend a reception or usher at a reception that you know is dear to a senior executive’s heart.

I recommend volunteering when something needs to be done at the last minute.  This is when you will get credit for being flexible, and this is when your boss really needs you.  This is when even running to Office Depot to get some thumbtacks can be helpful to your career.

Remember, even if you identify a good time for volunteering, don’t do it every time – even if you can.  Let’s others volunteer.  Stay off the radar a bit.

In the end, you will gain the most benefit by contributing on an important extracurricular project that you are requested to work on.  That’s when bosses will give you credit and that’s what the right way to get on the radar.

—————————————-
Previous parts:

#1 Don’t Complain or Make Waves
#2 Don’t Talk Negatively About Anyone Behind Their Back
#3 Don’t Ask Questions in Large Meetings
#4 Don’t Offer Suggestions Unless You Are Asked

Filed under Jobs and Business Tagged with ,

In Praise of Webicon

July 29, 2010 Leave a comment

For this Thursday’s “Other Sites I Like” post, I’ll add one more site that is purely for fun to go with Graphjam and GIFSoup that I’ve featured in previous weeks.

Webicon.me is a feature of Paste Magazine and allows users to take ordinary photos and modify them into one of five designs, with four core features:

  1. Obamicon which transforms photos into images with blue, grey and red colors reminiscent of the Obama campaign posters
  2. Luvicon which puts photos into a pink posterized format complete with a heart on which you can write a message
  3. Iranicon which similarly transforms photos but puts them into a green format similar to Iranian election posters
  4. Conanicon which modifies the photo to add a big swath of red hair to look like Conan O’Brien

Like similar sites, Webicon stores users’ creations and shares them in a gallery for rating and comment.  In addition, once you’ve created an image, you can order a mug, t-shirt, stamp and other items with that image emblazoned.

The pictures are all created with similar functionality.  Click on the design you’d like from the Webicon main page.  You then either snap your own photo with a webcam or upload any jpeg, gif, or png photo up to 4MB in size.  Once the photo is uploaded, you can choose to use the image as-is or tell the software where your main image is located by clicking around that image.  It’s a bit tedious, although the image of Marcia Brady at right took only three minutes to cut out.  Once you’ve saved your image, you can then change the picture text, rotate or zoom in, and change the color.  Click “save & submit” and you are all done.

(For the record, I don’t have a Marcia Brady thing.  Since I used Marcia for the animated GIF, I might as well use her here as well.)

To show the ease of this site – I create a few others below.

My fellow Washington Capitals fans should enjoy the one of the left and my kids the one on the right.  Enjoy.

Filed under Other Sites I Like Tagged with

One Traveler’s Ranking of Las Vegas Casinos

July 28, 2010 1 Comment

During our Las Vegas trip a few weeks back (see this post and this post), I visited 12 different hotel casinos.  There were several that I didn’t visit this time that I have visited in the past and know well.  I do not like all of them, and my like or dislike has nothing to do with whether I won or lost money.  This post includes my thoughts on the ones I know and a final ranking.  If you don’t see a Casino (i.e., Rio, Hard Rock, TI), it’s because I haven’t spent any time there recently.

Full-disclosure – I am a slot player.  As such, here’s what I want in the casinos I go to and what forms the basis of my ranking:

  • Newer slot machines and newer poker machines
  • A floor plan I can navigate
  • Light
  • High ceilings
  • Bathrooms are easy to find
  • Frequent drink offers from waitresses
  • Some level of winning – I don’t have to win big or every time, but don’t eat my money without giving something back.

Newer Slot Machines and Newer Poker Machines

Three Best — Aria, Palazzo, Wynn.

Three Worst — Luxor, Monte Carlo, New York-New York

Casinos need to keep up with the times.  If I can visit a casino after one year and find the same machines in the same spot, I think that’s bad.  Newer machines have larger screens, so I don’t want to see the smaller ones any longer.  Lastly, I’d like to see casinos keep up with trends:  machines with more than one screen, machines with respins, and newer theme machines.  This year’s new themes are Sex and the City, Amazing Race, Lord of the Rings, and the Monkees.

A Floor Plan I Can Navigate

Three Best — Palazzo, Wynn, Palms

Three Worst — New York-New York, Planet Hollywood, Caesar’s

Please make your casinos big, square and open, with easy-to-find exits.  I can never find the exit at New York-New York.  I get lost in Caesar’s – really.  PH is just a mess with a big circular area with the down escalators to the buffet in the middle.  Yuk.

Light

Three Best — Aria, Palazzo, Palms

Three Worst — Luxor, Monte Carlo, Caesar’s

Back in the day, casinos had no windows and doors were sealed so no light could get in.  No longer.  I want real light from the outside coming in.  The Palms is a bit like the casinos on Native American reservations I’ve seen in Minnesota and Arizona, with big entry ways that carry light in from the parking lot.  Luxor, Monte Carlo and Caesar’s are old school.  The casinos are deep inside the building with no light at all.

High Ceilings

Three Best — Aria, New York-New York, Palazzo

Three Worst — Flamingo, Monte Carlo, Palms

High ceiling for me equals comfort.  I don’t want to feel claustrophobic.  As much as I dislike New York-New York, the ceilings there can’t get much higher.  On the other hand, the ceilings at Monte Carlo are so low that I think the little black “eyes in the sky” hit people on the head as they walk by.

Bathrooms are Easy to Find

Three Best — Palms, Venetian, Wynn

Three Worst — Aria, Flamingo, Harrah’s

Honestly, I had trouble coming up with three best here.  Let me make a special shout out to the Palms, with very clearly market restrooms with directional signs.  Good for them.  As far as Aria, Flamingo and Harrah’s – I’ve been home 10 days, and I’m still looking for the bathroom at all three places.

Frequent Drink Offers from Waitresses

Three Best — Aria, Palms, Wynn

Three Worst — MGM, New York-New York, Planet Hollywood

Kudos to Aria here.  I was approached at least once every 10 minutes and asked for a drink.  On the other hand, I played over an hour in the same spot at PH and MGM and wasn’t asked once.

Some Level of Winning

Three Best — Flamingo, Harrah’s, MGM

Three Worst — Caesar’s, New York-New York, Palms

I come not to praise Caesar’s, but to curse it.  I could win once, couldn’t I?  Just a few bells or bonus games?  Say what you will about Flamingo and Harrah’s, but I win there.  I won this trip, the trip before that, and the trip before that.

Final Ranking

  1. Wynn
  2. Aria
  3. Palazzo
  4. Harrah’s
  5. Flamingo
  6. Venetian
  7. Mirage
  8. Mandalay Bay
  9. Palms
  10. Bellagio
  11. Encore
  12. MGM
  13. Luxor
  14. Planet Hollywood
  15. Monte Carlo
  16. Caesar’s

One last note – we have been up to Fremont Street and into some of the casinos up there, like the Golden Nugget.  They have an entirely different feel.  They are small, cramped, less glitzy and more smoky.  Some say that you can win up there, but we didn’t notice anything appreciably different.  Because of the large number of casinos on Fremont Street, I excluded them from the rankings.  They would be towards the bottom anyway.

Filed under Vacations and Travel Tagged with , ,

“Should Parents Check Their Text Messages at the Movies?” and Similar 2010 Parenting Questions

July 27, 2010 4 Comments

In the past 24 hours, I’ve found myself confronted with two parenting questions that weren’t questions when I was the same age as my kids.  And they got me thinking.

Last night, Mrs. Spidey told me that a few parents of our kids’ summer camp mates had complained that not enough photos were posted on the camp’s website.  Being a bit more old school, I thought about the years I went to summer camp (1974-1981), during which the only contact with the outside world was USPS mail that came once a day.  I saw and talked to my parents at visiting day halfway through my 8 weeks at camp.  No one ever asked “How come there aren’t more photos on the camp website?”

Then earlier today, on the Japers’ Rink Off-Topic Thread, one of the regulars sent through a note from inside a movie theater telling that he had made it in before the movie started.  He was criticized (nicely) for texting from inside the theater.  I agreed, but I noted that I was torn as a parent, because one of my kids might be texting because they were hurt or locked out of the house.  When I posted that thought several jumped in a said I was wrong and pointed out that before texting parents went to movies and the world didn’t end.  “Should parents check their text messages at the movies?” wasn’t asked back in the day.

The reason these questions are relevant and get asked is because times have changed and our expectations have changed along with them.  In 1976, my parents couldn’t get photos of me at camp.  They didn’t even think to ask “How come I can’t see my kid more often?”  In 1980, parents couldn’t be reached inside a movie theater unless you called the theater itself.  Expectations have changed and new questions get asked.  Just because we were satisfied the way things were, doesn’t mean we should be satisfied keeping things that way.

I came up with five other 2010 parenting questions to consider that fall into the same bucket:

  1. Why did you get an 88 on your test today? With immediate online grade posting, we parents are more informed than ever.  Our parents learned of grades only when we brought tests home.
  2. Why does it take so long for your teacher to respond to my email? Our parents communicated with teachers twice a year at parent-teacher conferences.
  3. What store should Aunt Jenny get you a gift card from for your birthday? Gift cards have replaced cash and checks as presents.
  4. Why doesn’t little Bobby going to the library to do research? The Internet has ended the practice of going to the library to meet girls for research.  It is faster and more convenient.
  5. Why didn’t you tell me you were going from the mall to Taco Bell? Kids who are old enough to go to the mall, usually have a phone and can text or call.

In all five of these examples, there is an understanding that expectations have changed from the past.  I distinguish this from other questions such as “Why isn’t little Susie buckled into her car seat?”  Yes, we all survived no car seat or a flimsy car seat, but that doesn’t mean someone would argue it’s OK to keep Susie out of her car seat.

However, I can easily see someone who thinks it was “good enough” back in the day and answers back:

  1. You really need to check your kid’s grades online every day?  When my kids were young we kept track of his test scores, but we’re OK not knowing their final grade until we got the report card.
  2. Why should the teacher respond to you so quickly?  They have parent-teacher conferences, don’t they?
  3. Isn’t it easier for Aunt Jenny just to send a check?
  4. Learning how to do library research is a critical skill.  Don’t let Bobby take the easy way out with the Internet.
  5. You don’t need to know where he is always.  What did you do before mobile phones?

All these responses are true.  But they are based in an earlier reality.  To tell me that I don’t need to talk to the teacher between parent-teacher conferences ignores the fact that using email or voice mail makes the communications easier and faster.  I can communicate with teachers outside of conferences, because I can.  Why shouldn’t I?  Didn’t my parents want to know more about my education?  Sure they did, but it just wasn’t done.  Well – it is done now.

So when I hear from a fellow Japers’ Rink poster that I should check not my text messages during a movie ever, I respectfully disagree.  I check because I can. I don’t have to wait until I get home to find out there is a problem, so I don’t.  If the momentary flash of light bothers you, I apologize.  I will not write texts or get on the phone during a movie.  If I need to do either, I’ll stand up and walk out.

I’m not living in 1980.  This is 2010, and I check to see if my child needs me because I can.

Filed under Family Matters

The Evil Goodness of Theater Popcorn

July 26, 2010 Leave a comment

At about 9:15 last night, I shut off the computer and headed to watch the season première of Mad Men and the latest installment of Entourage.  It was three hours after I had eaten dinner, and I wanted something to snack on while I watched.  I grabbed a bag of 94% fat-free microwave popcorn.  Then my eyes caught a glimpse of two large bags of theater-style, pre-popped popcorn that Mrs. Spidey had bought for our daughter’s end-of-school party.

The theater style popcorn was too good to pass up, and I soon found myself in our basement with a large-sized serving bowl full of this evil goodness.  75 minutes or so later, with both shows under my belt, the bowl was empty.  I felt a strange mixture of tasty satisfaction and oily dietary calamity.

1,030 Calories and 57g of Saturated Fat of Evil Goodness

I know theater popcorn is bad for me.  Don’t we all?  When I plan to see a movie, I will eat a lighter meal in advance, making room in my daily calorie intake for the popcorn.  But with that oily aftertaste in my mouth last night and the “tasty satisfaction” quickly disappearing, I vowed to remind myself today just how evil this popcorn is.

The fan was first hit back in 1994, when the Center for Science in the Public Interest published an exposé on just how bad movie popcorn is from a health and nutrition perspective.  The Center updated the report late last year, and found, for example, that AMC, which owns the theaters we frequent, has a whopping 1,030 calories and 57 grams of saturated fat in the 16 cups of popcorn in its large popcorn — without any buttered topping.  According to CSPI,

That’s like eating a pound of baby back ribs topped with a scoop of Häagen-Dazs ice cream—except that the popcorn has an additional day’s worth of saturated fat.

I’m still stunned.

This means, even if and your kid or significant other split a large popcorn,  you end up with 500 calories and 28 grams of saturated fat.  That’s 25% of the daily intake from a 2,000 calorie diet and 50% of those calories from fat.  The popular Zone Diet recommends 30% of calories from “good” fats, which would be 600 calories in a 2,000 calorie per day diet.  Eating 1/2 a large popcorn would provide you with 250 fat calories, nearly half of the daily allowance.  Although coconut oil is among the healthiest of fats, I still don’t think anyone recommends getting fat in this way.

By the way, a large tub at AMC also has 580 mg of sodium.  So when you split a tub, you get 290 mg, which is 12% of your daily recommended intake of 2,400 mg.

The popcorn I ate last night, purchased at our local Dierberg’s, is from the C.R. Frank Popcorn Company here in St. Louis.  The bag holds 2 pecks, which I’ve learned is 4 gallons or 64 cups.  I won’t bore you with the math, but trust me, based on the nutrition facts, that 16 cups (the size of a large AMC popcorn) or 25% of the bag results in 700 calories, 40 grams of saturated fat, and 1,300 mg of salt.  Calories and grams of fat are less, but salt is more, and, like AMC, this popcorn generates 50% of its calories from saturated fat.

320 Calories and 2.67g of Saturated Fat for the Same Amount

Microwave popcorn, on the other hand, is indeed better.  However, watch out for serving sizes.  Labels can be confusing.  In our pantry we have the Pop Secret 94% fat-free buttered microwave popcorn.  One bag has 2 servings or 12 cups.  If we gross up to 16 cups (again – trust me on the math), we get 320 calories, 2.67 g of saturated fat, and 1,120 grams of sodium.  So, you get fewer calories and only 7.5% of your calories from fat, but also get an awful lot of salt to go with it.

I did this research for myself to show once again how bad this theater popcorn can be.  I learned that microwave popcorn also has its nutritional challenges, but is better.  Will I stop eating popcorn at the theater?  Certainly not, but at least I can’t complain that I don’t know how evil it is.

Filed under Health, Diet and Exercise Tagged with ,

T.O. to STL? NO!

July 26, 2010 Leave a comment

I was stunned to learn towards the end of last week that the Rams are apparently interested in signing Terrell Owens.  I was truly incredulous.

I am so hoping that in this age of Twitter-based, light-speed rumor mills, that this is a joke.  I’m not the only one.  Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post Dispatch thinks the Rams are nuts.

I was surprised, however, to see both Mike Sando of ESPN and the much respected Peter King of Sports Illustrated write that it isn’t a terrible idea.  And the online, very unscientific vote at STLToday, showed local fans in favor of signing T.O. by 53% to 47% as of the morning of July 26.

The positive spin on signing T.O. is that a team can get a very talented wide receiver for lower than market prices.  As I see it, Owens is desperate to find a team willing to take him.  In theory, T.O. is a player looking for redemption, wanting to show a new team, the league, and the public that his team and the world know longer revolves around him.  It’s a often-told and often-seen tale in professional sports, but it rarely comes true.  Players that are difficult to work with tend to stay difficult to work with throughout their career.

The Rams Do Not Need the T.O. Distraction This Season

The downside with T.O., in my opinion, is much more significant.  T.O. will be a distraction for the Rams.  Even if he tries to stay out of the limelight, the local and national press will suck him back in.  Eventually he’ll say something he shouldn’t, and disarray will result.  The Rams, under second-year coach Steve Spagnuolo need peace and quiet at training camp.  The Rams need to take things slow and steady and build a nucleus around this years #1 pick Sam Bradford.  The Rams need to be Bradford’s team from the get go.  Owens presence at camp and on the field will simply not allow that to happen.

Even more so, it appears that T.O. is on the downside of his career.  He hasn’t been to the ProBowl since 2007, which is also the last year that he was among the statistical leaders at wide receiver.  Take a look at his career stats.  After three  years with more than 90 receptions with the 49ers, Owens has not exceeded 85 receptions in a year since 2003, and his number of receptions has declined every year since 2006.

In the age of free agency, smart owners and general managers have learned that championships are won by teams and not by individual players.  These same team executives have learned that you can rarely go from last place to first place in one year.  Teams like the Chicago Blackhawks, the Washington Capitals, the Orlando Magic, and the Dallas Cowboys have had woeful seasons in which they retooled before advancing to the tops of their leagues, and, in the Cowboys’ and Hawks’ case, to the championship.

What does Billy Devaney, the Rams General Manager, gain by signing Terrell Owens?  Does he sell a few more tickets?  Does he attract a bit more national press?  Does he win a few more games?  Perhaps, but to me it doesn’t matter given the downside.

The 2010-2011 season for the Rams is about building for championships in future years, which means building a team.  I really don’t believe that # of wins is a top goal for the Rams this year. Their goals should center around educating and gaining experience for their young nucleus and building a cohesive unit in which the sum of the parts is greater than the individuals.

There is no way that T.O. fits into that plan.  Rams –  please stay away.

Filed under The Sporting World Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →