Last Status About This For Four Years

I can’t shake the urge to Leap over something today

Well, it is Leap Day, after all.  Happy Birthday to everyone who turns 1/4 of their age today! 

So today is one of those holidays that doesn't get as much corporate pandering as some of the others.  And why not?  People are instructed to buy all kinds of decorations and cards and candies and fireworks and pumpkins and trees and all sorts of other crap for other holidays that happen every year.  Leap Day comes along every 4 years (give or take a millennium) and it gets little more attention than a reminder not to turn your calendar over to March just yet.  How very sad for Leap Day.

I'm Right, But I Don't Know Why

“There is a lot of reasons to…”  Grammatically correct or not?  Discuss

Seems pretty obvious that it's not correct.  Why is this even a discussion?

It's not so much that I'm concerned with which whether this is correct or not.  Obviously, most people would "correctly" say "There ARE a lot of reasons to..." given that 'reasons' is a plural countable noun.  Therefore, the above statement would be considered grammatically incorrect...I'm just searching for the correct explanation as to WHY this is the way that it is.  Here's what I mean:

My issue stems from the grammatical differentiation between quantifiers and collective nouns.  The way I see it, "of reasons" could be considered a prepositional phrase, making the object of the sentence the singular collective noun "Lot" as in "There is a lot."  The addition of "of reasons" merely described the Lot, thus making the use of a singular predicate form "Is" correct.  This would be using the word "Lot" as a collective noun similar to talking about a flock of geese.  You would (correctly) say "There IS a flock of geese outside my window."  In that case, "Flock" is the singular object of the verb, therefore, the singular verb form "is" would be appropriate.  

All that said, the phrase "A lot of" is considered a part of speech called a "Quantifier," which when looking at sentence structure is a complete add-on.  In that case, the object of the predicate in the above example would be the plural noun "Reasons," making the proper verb form the plural "Are."  As in "There ARE reasons."  You add in the quantifier "a lot of" and you get "There are a lot of reasons..."  

I'm okay with this.  

What I'm not okay with is any explanation that's available for why a flock of geese is different from a lot of reasons.  Sure, there are grammar lesson websites on the internetz, and I've scoured a couple of them looking for a clear-cut answer, but I get nothing.  I more or less get "this is the way it is, so say it this way," and that's the end of it. 

My old statistics professor used to say, "People in most parts of the world speak broken English, except the United States where it's been ground into a fine powder."  I'm not always surprised because English can be really confusing sometimes. 

No Smoothies Until Further Notice

I never liked that blender anyway

Is the blender in any way related to The Famed Toaster Of Hades?

I don't think so, but I wouldn't be surprised.  Here's my story:

Awe geeze...we have to sit through a story now?  

Not long ago, I decided that I was going to start making smoothies.  This had nothing to do with laughing every time I hear the word "smoothies" because of how my old home-ec teacher used to pronounce "SMIEWthies," although, I'll admit that is not lost in the thought process.  In order to do this, I needed the ice maker to work on my fridge (It no longer does...I should try to fix that at some point, I guess) and I needed a blender.  I went to some store somewhere and picked out what looked like a nice blender with features and stuff, that happened to match the decor of my kitchen.  Seemed like a win-win.

I enjoyed the occasional smoothie with whatever fruit was available locally, experimenting with different flavors to mixed results (Peach and blueberry...awwe yeah!).  The problem was often the blender.  It wasn't particularly adept at the initial blending part when there were still ice cubes involved.  It would create a pocket of air around the blades into which nothing would fall to be blended until I turned the thing off, shook it around or shoved a spoon down in there to get things loosened up.  After a couple tries at this, the smoothie would usually get the idea and blend up, afterwards, I would enjoy a refreshing fruity beverage. 

That is until recently, when there was an uncharacteristically loud cracking sound when mixing up a smoothie.  Blending ice is never without its crunches, but this was unusual.  Also, afterward, the blender motor would spin, but the blades went nowhere.  I pull the jar off the blender motor to discover the piece that connects the blade mechanism to the motor's drive shaft in three pieces underneath.  Come to think of it, this is not unlike what happened to my lawnmower last summer, and the concepts are strangely similar.  Either way, this cheap plastic thing that is pretty integral to the blending process and thus, you'd think would be made of something a little sturdier, is shot.  I needed a replacement.  I do the usual internetz thing looking up the model number of my blender and what websites are available that sell spare blender parts...bupkis.  Unphased, I locate the owner's manual (oh yeah...I had the owner's manual.  Don't think I ever opened it until just now, but I still had it) and discover the customer service phone number for the company.  Here's where it gets fun.

The large, faceless automatonic company which produced my blender is none other than General Electric.  Remember that name, kids.  I call up the number and speak with a reasonably nice representative who looks up the model number of my blender and informs me that they do not sell any spare parts for that blender.  I ask about a whole replacement blade mechanism or full jar.  Nope...they can do roughly nothing to help me.  I say "roughly" because what they can do is take my order for a whole new blender and ship it to me.  I explained to the reasonably nice representative that I would not be placing an order that day.  In fact, my exact words were more along the lines of "If I have to buy a whole new blender because you can't replace a cheap plastic part, I'll let you guess what brand of blender I'm NOT buying." 

So...to the fine folks at General Electric who make disposable blenders, you are officially On Notice.  (Again, I coined that phrase LONG before Colbert, but have no documentation to back that up.)  Your blenders are bad and you should feel bad.  

And to all of you loyal readers out there...anyone have any suggestions for a good quality blender that will make smoothies, not fall apart, comes in satin silver, and won't break the bank?  I'm all ears.   

I Can't Believe Nobody Said Something

Why is Schroeder from “Peanuts” playing a Bach piece in the insurance commercial?


It's a piano recital.  So he's playing piano.  It's kinda what he does.


My issue, of course, is not the fact that he's playing piano, but merely the fact that he's playing Bach on the piano.  Everyone knows that, to a fault,  his favorite composer is Beethoven.  If he's playing a piano piece at a filled concert hall, he should be playing Beethoven, not Bach.  No explanation you can provide me for this oversight is going to be enough to convince me that this piece was the proper choice.  

Incidentally, the piece he's playing is Bach's Italian Concerto in F Minor.  You want proof?  Here you go:


The Commercial


and


The Bach

I'm Never Watching That Channel Again...Until Next Season

Newest candidate for “Worst Thing Ever”:  Fox Sports’ KidKaster

Yeah...that's right up there with the Holocaust, I'm sure.  

As many of you are aware, the bane of my existence is the Children's Choir.  While pretty much no Children's Choir can match This Guy when it comes to lousy singing, the regularity with which they're going to be awful is pretty alarming.  

Seriously, people.  DO NOT CLICK THAT LINK.  Your ears will thank you, and not explode.  

Where's the fun in that?

 

I'm a humanitarian.  I can't, in good conscience, subject people to that.  That guy thinks he's famous for his singing? 

I guess that's beside the point.  I was introduced to a new terrible thing not long ago while watching a hockey game.  Fox Sports brought out a special guest commentator during the second period...a grade school kid whose name was picked out of a hat.  The purpose for the kid being there was to provide one-word answers to commentator's attempts at leading questions, leaving plenty of dead air while trying to coax audio from the non-forthcoming kid.  Meanwhile, there was a hockey game going on in the background which was being ignored while we learned what the kid's teacher's name was and if he liked math class.  

I don't know which Fox Sports studio exec's kid wanted to be on TV, but there can be no other explanation for this sort of thing going on.  The commentators are paid professionals for a reason (With the possible exception of the Bruins' and Penguin's commentators.  Yeah, I'm looking at you, Jack Edwards.)  They've learned how to talk about the intricacies of the game while talking about and identifying players at break-neck speed, all without any gaps or dead air, while remaining interesting.  To subject these professionals to babysitting and the torture of trying to make a mush-mouthed grade school kid into good TV seems unfair to them.  The result was pretty inhumane to the rest of us. 

Very Convenient

My new phone book lasted about 5 hours

Showing off your strongman skills again?  Something just doesn't seem right about that for some reason.

Sadly, no.  The phone book is still at least reasonably intact wherever it may be.   

See, the phone company still feels the need to deliver phone books to everyone.  The problem with this, of course, is that nobody uses phone books anymore.  That's what the internets are for.  Most smartphones will even dial a number for you when you find one on a website.  Combine that with the fact that everyone's cell phone is unlisted, and there is precious little information that can be gleaned from a phone book that can't be found through other easier means.  By "precious little," I of course mean "none."  

Yet, there it was on my doorstep yesterday afternoon as I came home from work.  500-some pages of dead tree that would make for a good paperweight but for the fact that it's too big and made of paper itself.  I have no other use for the phone book.  Fortunately, the phone company had the good sense to deliver the phone books on garbage day!  The thing made it as far as 10 feet into the garage where it was promptly placed in the recycling bin.  The bin was at the curb 5 hours later waiting to be picked up.  Seems like a bit of a waste, but I don't feel bad about it because had I brought it inside, it would have taken up room on my desk for about a year until the next phone book arrived and met the same end.  I merely sped up the process.  Also, I recycled...that's good, right? 

Vote Washington!

I doubt George Washington could have gotten himself elected in 2012

Well, he has been dead for 213 years.  Pretty well limits his campaign speeches.  

More importantly, I'm referring to the amount that the political landscape has changed since Washington was elected unanimously.  Sure, he was a respected military leader and businessman, not to mention one of America's greatest presidents, but Washington has some flaws that would have been relentlessly attacked by today's media, making enough people hate him so that he would be unelectable.  

First, there's the fact that he wasn't a member of a politcal party.  You can be as popular and whimsical and rich as you want (Just ask Ross Perot), but if you don't have the full backing of one of two groups of people (Democrats or Republicans), you have no chance of getting elected.  The best ever performance of a third-party candidate in a presidential election?  Theodore Roosevelt, running under the "Bull Moose Party" in 1912, to a whopping 27.4% of the popular vote.  That's just not getting it done, folks. 

One of the biggest issues in this year's election is how rich politicians are out of touch with the rest of the people in the country.  (The whole 99% debate)  This is one of the sticking points in Mitt Romney's campaign...the fact that he's not worried about the poor, and thinks that handing somebody 50 bucks out of his wallet at a photo op somehow cures all of a person's financial woes.  I'm not making that up.  Well, should Romney secure himself the White House, at a net worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $200Million, he would be only the second richest president in US history.  Who was the first, you may ask?  None other than George Washington, who owned over 8000 acres of prime farmland (back when farming was profitable) and had a net worth of well over $500Million. 

Oh yeah...George Washington owned slaves.  Sure, that was socially acceptable back then, but today's political action committees sure aren't going to let that ruin a perfectly good attack ad slamming Washington for something that would certainly be a human rights violations today.  (Remember the Clinton didn't inhale thing?)

Washington proclaimed the United States to be neutral in times of European wars, something which would be branded as weakness today.  Washington raised taxes...in the sense that there really was no government to collect taxes before Washington created it.  That's a cardinal sin in today's government.  Those taxes went to support bigger government in the form of infrastructure improvements, commerce improvements, military spending, you name it.  If people had health insurance back then, you can bet Washington would have supported that, too.  

So you see...even though we all remember George Washington as a great president, it's important to note that if he had been alive today, he wouldn't have even gotten the chance to become president.  The election system would have done away with him too quickly, leaving only a hollow shell of a party windbag for the voters to pick.  It's a little sad.  Think about that during the next presidential debate.