Daffy, friend of Walt Clyde's, has moved from Northern New Jersey to New York State. He is chronicling the move here:
The Daffy Renovation Project
His new place will undergo many renovations over the upcoming months, and since Daffy is handy as a fixer-upper you might find it interesting. So check there periodically.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
How kids feel about going back to school
"Conversation" at rehabilitation session for my knee yesterday...
Situation: the room has one physical therapist and several patients of both genders and all ages scattered around going through their exercises. An 8-year-old kid comes in with his mother, and the therapist, who is an outgoing woman in her late 20s, is leaning over talking to him the way you'd imagine one talks to a little kid.
Therapist: "So, are you excited to be going back to school?"
Kid: (shy shrug)
T: "Are you sad that school is starting again?"
K: (shy shrug)
T: "Or do you just show up when they tell you?"
K: (shy shrug)
T: (laughing) "Ok, well, let's get started..."
Inside, I laughed at the concept "You just show up when they tell you" and thought ahead to school about to start back up. That seems to summarize the attitude of a large number of the high school kids I've seen in the past 9 years. They just show up when we tell them. Not excited, not sad. Just there.
Here's hoping that we can get some of them more motivated to do more than just show up when they are told...
Situation: the room has one physical therapist and several patients of both genders and all ages scattered around going through their exercises. An 8-year-old kid comes in with his mother, and the therapist, who is an outgoing woman in her late 20s, is leaning over talking to him the way you'd imagine one talks to a little kid.
Therapist: "So, are you excited to be going back to school?"
Kid: (shy shrug)
T: "Are you sad that school is starting again?"
K: (shy shrug)
T: "Or do you just show up when they tell you?"
K: (shy shrug)
T: (laughing) "Ok, well, let's get started..."
Inside, I laughed at the concept "You just show up when they tell you" and thought ahead to school about to start back up. That seems to summarize the attitude of a large number of the high school kids I've seen in the past 9 years. They just show up when we tell them. Not excited, not sad. Just there.
Here's hoping that we can get some of them more motivated to do more than just show up when they are told...
Monday, August 24, 2009
Pineapple Express
Pineapple Express is an underrated movie. I remember seeing it as soon as it came out, as it is an Apatow movie, and feeling underwhelmed. However, after many re-viewings on DVD, I have appreciated it more and more with each showing.
Yes, it is a stoner movie, but is much more than that. The stoner dialogue is hilarious, and gets funnier with each viewing. James Franco's character, Saul, is the greatest stoner character ever on film. His acting is subtle, organic, and hilarious. The 70s vibe and the over-the-top plot with Bill Lumberg as Ted Jones and Rosie Perez as the bad guys is awesome also.
I strongly encourage you to watch this a couple of times, and pay close attention to every part the dialogue the way you would with Lebowski or GoodFellas. You will not be disappointed.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Teaneck Fighting Championship
The first rule about the "Teaneck Fight Club"? Tyler Durden would probably kick all of our asses.
My brother Beer-on-the-Girl and I were having a beer this summer at the Cottage Bar prior to one of our July Poker League games. We starting discussing who would win in a fight between two of our friends, and we started laughing about the idea, as our group of friends are fairly self-effacing and none of us are big fighters. Later that night, we played poker. After the game, the two of us went with ChuckJerry to Dairy Queen and told him about our conversation, which he also found funny.
The exact question was, "Who would win in a bar fight, right now: Person x or Person y?" The fight has no rules: beer glasses, pool sticks etc.. are allowed to be used, and current physical shape and mentality are to be considered (i.e. the LJT of right now is fighting, not the LJT of 5 years ago).
We listed 15 people that were in our group of Teaneck friends and started to speculate about where people would rank on the list. We came up with a semi-conclusive ordered list of who would kick whose ass.
A few days later, ChuckJerry, LJT, and myself found ourselves at LJT's crib in Jersey City thinking about the list again. We had many laughs and, over much deliberation, made our power rankings of the 14 people (minus Jay K).
Here are the people that were involved in the ranking (full names are not used in order to preserve Internet anonymity, and nicknames are used where appropriate).
Class of 1994:
1) Walt Clyde Frazier
2) MMG
3) Chris H.
4) Andy B.
5) Daffy
6) Joeydidit
Class of 1996:
7) Side Bar
8) Open Bar
9) ChuckJerry
10) LJT
11) Winit
12) Diesal
Class of 1997:
13) Beer-on-the-Girl
14) Jay K.
15) Gold
It helped the committee of 3 at LJT's place to first rank the 1994 people 1 through 6, then the 1996 people 1-6, then kind of shuffle everybody in together.
I don't want to share the list we came up with, so as not to sway anybody's opinion. The question is open, then, to the group:
What would be the power rankings, #1 - 15, of who would kick whose ass in a bar fight?
(Afterthought: Is it a definitive list of 1 through 15? In other words, could person 3 beat person 4, and person 4 beat person 5, but through some mental or physical edge, person 5 could take number 3?)
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Sports Squads Sellout?
As at least three-quarters of you readers know (which I'm confident is at least 6 people), I grew up in North Jersey, which is part of the New York City media market. As such, myself and most of the people I grew up with became fans of the New York-area teams. With all of the major sports, you had your option of two or three teams. Fun debates then arise: Mets vs. Yankees, Giants vs. Jets, Knicks vs. Nets, Rangers vs. Devils vs. Islanders. In each of the major sports, I find myself aligning myself as such:
Baseball: Personally, I found myself preferring the Yankees over the Mets, though I never truly thought of myself as a die-hard "Yankees fan". I've found it hard to be a die-hard fan of a sport where there is a 162 game regular season. Furthermore, I find it hard to get behind a team who buys success by outspending all the other teams. Now, I don't blame the Yankees for doing so - they should use their resources - it's just hard to get enthusiastic about a system where one team has all-star level talent at every position while others are forced to continuously auction off all of their promising young players for economic reasons. But I digress.
The biggest my level of fandom got for the Yankees probably came during my senior year of high school (1993-1994). My friend Chahifquoy would come by from time to time, we'd order a pizza and watch the Yankees play. This was when they were becoming resurgent again after years of being mediocre. I even had a Matt Nokes replica jersey (though, in retrospect, this was really random, I had to be the only guy who had a Matt Nokes jersey, and nobody but hardcore Yankees fans would even know who that is, as the Yankees didn't but names on their jerseys then (and still don't). He was the catcher
The aforementioned Matt Nokes. How many people could possibly have a Matt Nokes card? He caught for the Yankees during the early 90s.
Anyway...
Football: I was never really a "fan" of either NYC team, though if pressed on the issue, I probably slightly preferred the Giants over the Jets. Most Sundays if I sat down to watch football growing up, I would watch the Jets at 1 and the Giants at 4 (or vice-versa), and would want both teams to do well. My father grew up in Chicago and thus was indoctrinated as a Bears fan. Thus, whenever the Bears came on TV, and especially when they were good in the mid 80s, I'd watch them play and root for them. I still have my Walter Payton replica jersey in the closet somewhere. But I was pretty open about football, and just liked the games in general regardless of who was playing.
Hockey: I didn't know dick about hockey. I do wonder how people that we grew up with were Rangers fans, as opposed to Devils fans, when the Devils were good all of our lives, and were in our backyard. Though, I suppose somebody from another part of the country would ask the same thing about the Nets. Speaking of those Nets...
Basketball: This was the one sport I was very passionate about. In high school I became a die-hard Knicks fan. I taped many of their games from 1992 - 1995 or so when I wasn't home watching them. This was back in the days of Ewing and Oak, Mase, Starks, SWISH! Those gritty Knicks fighting against Jordan every year, finally making it in 1994 only to lose to Hakeem and the Rockets.
1994 did seem like the year, though, until the end. Check out this video:
Wow, haven't the 90s become dated quickly?
Anyway, it is interesting how people in North Jersey and NYC pick their teams to be loyal to. Most people who are, say, Yankees fans can justify it to you, can tell you when they became a fan and why, and why they prefer the Yankees over the Mets.
But, I think that it's generally accepted that people choose a team in their local media market to become a fan of. After all, the local team is the one that has all of their games aired and is discussed in one's immediate surroundings. And, if you choose to be a "fan" of a team that is not shown and covered locally, you almost have to have some other reason, like a family member who grew up a hardcore fan of some other team.
(Side note: Has that changed with the introduction of the major sports having sports packages where you can view any team's game in any part of the country? In other words, let's say you're a kid who grows up being able to watch any NBA team play because you have the direct access cable package, and you elect to watch Lebron James instead of your local team and you consequently become a Cavaliers fan, is that somehow less valid than being a fan of your local team? Does this need to be justified to one's peers?)
Ok, so what's the point of all this? Well, you see, I've been getting a lot of shit for switching allegiance in my sports teams. I lived in Northern New Jersey for the first 23 years of my life, then lived in the New Brunswick area, which I would describe as somewhere between Northern and Central New Jersey, for the next 6 years, and have spent the last 4 years living near Philadelphia in Southern New Jersey. Since I've set up shop down here, I've gotten into the local professional teams as follows:
Baseball: I'm still not a huge fan of the sport, but I do find myself now rooting for the Phillies, feeling sorry for the Mets, and having disdain for the Yankees and their ridiculous payroll. I don't feel like this is selling out in any way. I find the Phillies to be an easy team to root for.
Football: South Jersey is crazy for their Eagles. I have gotten swept on in this and watch a decent percentage of the Eagles games, hoping (futilely, so far) for their success and for an eventual championship.
Hockey: Still don't know dick about hockey.
Basketball: This is the big issue. I have completely lost my loyalty for the Knicks and thus, almost by default, have found myself lightly rooting for the Sixers. The Knicks have become a joke of an organization, and I found myself having no problem ditching them and moving on, especially when my local media covers the Sixers and they have become more interesting. I would say that I'm a bigger fan of the NBA, in general, than any one team, though it used to be I would say that I was a "Knicks Fan".
The point of this long post, though, is not to inform you of the history of which teams I like and don't like. Here is the question that I do want a serious answer to:
If you move from one city to another, how much time has to pass before you are allowed to switch your sports allegiance to the new city's teams? Are you ever allowed? Does it depend on other factors other than time passing? If so, what are these factors?
Baseball: Personally, I found myself preferring the Yankees over the Mets, though I never truly thought of myself as a die-hard "Yankees fan". I've found it hard to be a die-hard fan of a sport where there is a 162 game regular season. Furthermore, I find it hard to get behind a team who buys success by outspending all the other teams. Now, I don't blame the Yankees for doing so - they should use their resources - it's just hard to get enthusiastic about a system where one team has all-star level talent at every position while others are forced to continuously auction off all of their promising young players for economic reasons. But I digress.
The biggest my level of fandom got for the Yankees probably came during my senior year of high school (1993-1994). My friend Chahifquoy would come by from time to time, we'd order a pizza and watch the Yankees play. This was when they were becoming resurgent again after years of being mediocre. I even had a Matt Nokes replica jersey (though, in retrospect, this was really random, I had to be the only guy who had a Matt Nokes jersey, and nobody but hardcore Yankees fans would even know who that is, as the Yankees didn't but names on their jerseys then (and still don't). He was the catcher
The aforementioned Matt Nokes. How many people could possibly have a Matt Nokes card? He caught for the Yankees during the early 90s.
Anyway...
Football: I was never really a "fan" of either NYC team, though if pressed on the issue, I probably slightly preferred the Giants over the Jets. Most Sundays if I sat down to watch football growing up, I would watch the Jets at 1 and the Giants at 4 (or vice-versa), and would want both teams to do well. My father grew up in Chicago and thus was indoctrinated as a Bears fan. Thus, whenever the Bears came on TV, and especially when they were good in the mid 80s, I'd watch them play and root for them. I still have my Walter Payton replica jersey in the closet somewhere. But I was pretty open about football, and just liked the games in general regardless of who was playing.
Hockey: I didn't know dick about hockey. I do wonder how people that we grew up with were Rangers fans, as opposed to Devils fans, when the Devils were good all of our lives, and were in our backyard. Though, I suppose somebody from another part of the country would ask the same thing about the Nets. Speaking of those Nets...
Basketball: This was the one sport I was very passionate about. In high school I became a die-hard Knicks fan. I taped many of their games from 1992 - 1995 or so when I wasn't home watching them. This was back in the days of Ewing and Oak, Mase, Starks, SWISH! Those gritty Knicks fighting against Jordan every year, finally making it in 1994 only to lose to Hakeem and the Rockets.
1994 did seem like the year, though, until the end. Check out this video:
Wow, haven't the 90s become dated quickly?
Anyway, it is interesting how people in North Jersey and NYC pick their teams to be loyal to. Most people who are, say, Yankees fans can justify it to you, can tell you when they became a fan and why, and why they prefer the Yankees over the Mets.
But, I think that it's generally accepted that people choose a team in their local media market to become a fan of. After all, the local team is the one that has all of their games aired and is discussed in one's immediate surroundings. And, if you choose to be a "fan" of a team that is not shown and covered locally, you almost have to have some other reason, like a family member who grew up a hardcore fan of some other team.
(Side note: Has that changed with the introduction of the major sports having sports packages where you can view any team's game in any part of the country? In other words, let's say you're a kid who grows up being able to watch any NBA team play because you have the direct access cable package, and you elect to watch Lebron James instead of your local team and you consequently become a Cavaliers fan, is that somehow less valid than being a fan of your local team? Does this need to be justified to one's peers?)
Ok, so what's the point of all this? Well, you see, I've been getting a lot of shit for switching allegiance in my sports teams. I lived in Northern New Jersey for the first 23 years of my life, then lived in the New Brunswick area, which I would describe as somewhere between Northern and Central New Jersey, for the next 6 years, and have spent the last 4 years living near Philadelphia in Southern New Jersey. Since I've set up shop down here, I've gotten into the local professional teams as follows:
Baseball: I'm still not a huge fan of the sport, but I do find myself now rooting for the Phillies, feeling sorry for the Mets, and having disdain for the Yankees and their ridiculous payroll. I don't feel like this is selling out in any way. I find the Phillies to be an easy team to root for.
Football: South Jersey is crazy for their Eagles. I have gotten swept on in this and watch a decent percentage of the Eagles games, hoping (futilely, so far) for their success and for an eventual championship.
Hockey: Still don't know dick about hockey.
Basketball: This is the big issue. I have completely lost my loyalty for the Knicks and thus, almost by default, have found myself lightly rooting for the Sixers. The Knicks have become a joke of an organization, and I found myself having no problem ditching them and moving on, especially when my local media covers the Sixers and they have become more interesting. I would say that I'm a bigger fan of the NBA, in general, than any one team, though it used to be I would say that I was a "Knicks Fan".
The point of this long post, though, is not to inform you of the history of which teams I like and don't like. Here is the question that I do want a serious answer to:
If you move from one city to another, how much time has to pass before you are allowed to switch your sports allegiance to the new city's teams? Are you ever allowed? Does it depend on other factors other than time passing? If so, what are these factors?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Change... please!
I am requesting a change in the way change is given.
Most times I pay for something in cash, here's what happens:
- I take out my wallet and hand over the bills, so I'm holding my wallet in one hand
- They hand me back all the bills, the change, and the receipt in a bundle in my other hand.
- I have two choices: stuff it all in my pocket and sort it out later, or slide my bag over so the next customer can be dealt with, while I place the bundle down, put the bills away, then put the receipt in the bag, then put the coins in my pocket.
Why is this? Are clerks trained to give change in any particular way? It is so annoying. I worked behind a counter for a while, and I would try to see what would make the most sense as far as handing over the money. If a customer's wallet is out, they should hand over just the bills first, let the customer put them in the wallet and put the wallet away, then hand over the other stuff. Having one hand occupied with the wallet is what causes the confusion.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Classic Post: "One Cent Poorer"
Here is a post about a story that happened when I was in 4th grade. The key players are my teacher, "Mrs. S.", and the worst kid in the class, "Dick". This was on my previous blog, and I saved it for retelling, which I will do now. Enjoy.
I didn't know much about Dick, my fourth grade classmate, except that in 4th grade, kids really aren't BAD kids yet. Even the "bad kids" are just a bit rowdy, but they still have a healthy fear of incurring their teacher's wrath. Not Dick though. He was a bad kid even then. Had he demonstrated an identical affect, attitude, lack of participation, and sullen attitude at age 16 in high school, it would have labeled him a "bad" kid in high school, but not one that would have raised eyebrows. But in 4th grade, it definitely stood out.
(As an aside, it was rumored later that Dick was left back a time or two in middle school - and since most people turn 14 either during or at the end of 8th grade, if he was left back twice he may have turned 16 during 8th grade - which would have meant that he could have been the first kid, albeit with a learner's permit in NJ, to drive to middle school. Who knows if this was true. Kids like Dick tend to be the kind of kids that exaggerated gossip circulates about anyway.)
So anyway, one day the class was doing some kind of activity. I forget what it was, but I remember that Dick was not participating. He was slouched down in his chair staring at his desk. Other kids noticed but it was not out of the ordinary. While we were doing whatever we were doing, Dick pulled a penny out of his pocket, procured a bottle of Wite-Out, and started to Wite-Out the penny. As kids noticed and watched him doing this, Mrs. S realized that Dick was doing this. She went over to his desk. The wheels turning in her head, the teacher tried to think of something to do or say that would presumably surprise Dick and let him know how bad he was being.
She leans over so her face is about a foot from Dick's, takes the Wited-Out penny demonstratively, and says loudly to him, "Do you know that because of you, this country is one cent poorer?"
Dick doesn't look up, looks at his desk, and says "Oooh" and makes a mocking face as if to say sarcastically "Oh, wow, that is just SO terrible."
Mrs. S. is obviously shocked. She stares at Dick for about 5 seconds and realizes that Dick is a lost cause. She takes the now useless penny and walks away. Dick sits there, left to continue to mope and stare at his desk. When she turns and looks back to the rest of us, we all immediately turn back to our work and get started again, kind of like the scene in "Shawshank Redemption" where Andy is about to get thrown off the roof and talks his way into doing the guard's taxes and then the guard turns and looks and all the inmates are staring and he yells "Get back to work" and they immediately start again.
Now, I wonder if I've invented or distorted any of this in my head, but as I remember, that's how it happened.
I didn't know much about Dick, my fourth grade classmate, except that in 4th grade, kids really aren't BAD kids yet. Even the "bad kids" are just a bit rowdy, but they still have a healthy fear of incurring their teacher's wrath. Not Dick though. He was a bad kid even then. Had he demonstrated an identical affect, attitude, lack of participation, and sullen attitude at age 16 in high school, it would have labeled him a "bad" kid in high school, but not one that would have raised eyebrows. But in 4th grade, it definitely stood out.
(As an aside, it was rumored later that Dick was left back a time or two in middle school - and since most people turn 14 either during or at the end of 8th grade, if he was left back twice he may have turned 16 during 8th grade - which would have meant that he could have been the first kid, albeit with a learner's permit in NJ, to drive to middle school. Who knows if this was true. Kids like Dick tend to be the kind of kids that exaggerated gossip circulates about anyway.)
So anyway, one day the class was doing some kind of activity. I forget what it was, but I remember that Dick was not participating. He was slouched down in his chair staring at his desk. Other kids noticed but it was not out of the ordinary. While we were doing whatever we were doing, Dick pulled a penny out of his pocket, procured a bottle of Wite-Out, and started to Wite-Out the penny. As kids noticed and watched him doing this, Mrs. S realized that Dick was doing this. She went over to his desk. The wheels turning in her head, the teacher tried to think of something to do or say that would presumably surprise Dick and let him know how bad he was being.
She leans over so her face is about a foot from Dick's, takes the Wited-Out penny demonstratively, and says loudly to him, "Do you know that because of you, this country is one cent poorer?"
Dick doesn't look up, looks at his desk, and says "Oooh" and makes a mocking face as if to say sarcastically "Oh, wow, that is just SO terrible."
Mrs. S. is obviously shocked. She stares at Dick for about 5 seconds and realizes that Dick is a lost cause. She takes the now useless penny and walks away. Dick sits there, left to continue to mope and stare at his desk. When she turns and looks back to the rest of us, we all immediately turn back to our work and get started again, kind of like the scene in "Shawshank Redemption" where Andy is about to get thrown off the roof and talks his way into doing the guard's taxes and then the guard turns and looks and all the inmates are staring and he yells "Get back to work" and they immediately start again.
Now, I wonder if I've invented or distorted any of this in my head, but as I remember, that's how it happened.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
July Poker League 2009 - Game #10 (PRELIMINARY)
Preliminary reports on Game #10 indicate that Hoboken finished first, .com finished second, and Zeus finished third. Myself (Pads) was not there. Therefore, the co-champions of the league are Zeus and Pads.
When a report comes in about the game itself, I will post it.
When a report comes in about the game itself, I will post it.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
July Poker League 2009 - Game #9
Game #9, the penultimate poker game of the July Poker League 2009, concluded in a way that set up a potentially dramatic conclusion in Game #10 which will take place on Thursday, July 30, at My Choice's Hackensack flat.
But first things first, summary of...
July Poker League 2009 - Game #9
7 players were in attendance. Chick was notably absent for the tournament (though she did show up at cash games to get posted on a $40 acey-deucey bet... a story for another time), but Daffy, Hoboken, Lady Luck, Pads, Zeus, My Choice were in attendance. The players were joined by an old friend of My Choice's, Gamer Z. With all the players in attendance, the game got off to an early start.
Gamer Z was hot out of the gate, winning a couple of a big hands early on. However, his hot play did not continue. He lost several decent-size pots and went out first in 7th place. It was a noble effort for Gamer Z in his first showing at the tough league.
Shortly thereafter, Hoboken lost a big pot to Lady Luck, who called Hoboken's all-in bet, turned a straight, and knocked out Hoboken in 6th place.
Daffy played his usual tight poker, making a number of laydowns after the flop, but could not accumulate chips and finished in 5th place, earning 1 point.
Pads, the league leader, was running low on chips and had to push all-in. He was called by My Choice, who knocked him out earning 2 bonus points for knocking out both the league leader and the last game champion simultaneously. Pads earned 3 points for his 4th place finish.
Lady Luck, who had accumulated many chips earlier, found his chip stack quickly dwindling as the blinds escalated. He went out in 3rd place, leaving Zeus and My Choice to battle for the money.
My Choice had a chip lead heads up and went all-in twice. However, both times Zeus' cards were slightly better and Zeus called. Both times, Zeus prevailed and knocked out My Choice to take the victory.
Points (Total):
Pads: 3 (56)
Zeus: 10 (51)
My Choice: 9 (46)
Chick: 0 (39)
Daffy: 1 (19)
Hoboken: 0 (15)
Lady Luck: 5 (11)
.com: 0 (3)
With one game left, it is time to consider the prizes for the league. The top two spots will be paid in a 75/25 ratio.
Chick, Daffy, Hoboken, Lady Luck, and .com cannot finish in the top two. The only three players in contention are Pads, Zeus and My Choice (a.k.a. the Fraziers).
Stay tuned to see who emerges victorious!!!
But first things first, summary of...
July Poker League 2009 - Game #9
7 players were in attendance. Chick was notably absent for the tournament (though she did show up at cash games to get posted on a $40 acey-deucey bet... a story for another time), but Daffy, Hoboken, Lady Luck, Pads, Zeus, My Choice were in attendance. The players were joined by an old friend of My Choice's, Gamer Z. With all the players in attendance, the game got off to an early start.
Gamer Z was hot out of the gate, winning a couple of a big hands early on. However, his hot play did not continue. He lost several decent-size pots and went out first in 7th place. It was a noble effort for Gamer Z in his first showing at the tough league.
Shortly thereafter, Hoboken lost a big pot to Lady Luck, who called Hoboken's all-in bet, turned a straight, and knocked out Hoboken in 6th place.
Daffy played his usual tight poker, making a number of laydowns after the flop, but could not accumulate chips and finished in 5th place, earning 1 point.
Pads, the league leader, was running low on chips and had to push all-in. He was called by My Choice, who knocked him out earning 2 bonus points for knocking out both the league leader and the last game champion simultaneously. Pads earned 3 points for his 4th place finish.
Lady Luck, who had accumulated many chips earlier, found his chip stack quickly dwindling as the blinds escalated. He went out in 3rd place, leaving Zeus and My Choice to battle for the money.
My Choice had a chip lead heads up and went all-in twice. However, both times Zeus' cards were slightly better and Zeus called. Both times, Zeus prevailed and knocked out My Choice to take the victory.
Points (Total):
Pads: 3 (56)
Zeus: 10 (51)
My Choice: 9 (46)
Chick: 0 (39)
Daffy: 1 (19)
Hoboken: 0 (15)
Lady Luck: 5 (11)
.com: 0 (3)
With one game left, it is time to consider the prizes for the league. The top two spots will be paid in a 75/25 ratio.
Chick, Daffy, Hoboken, Lady Luck, and .com cannot finish in the top two. The only three players in contention are Pads, Zeus and My Choice (a.k.a. the Fraziers).
Stay tuned to see who emerges victorious!!!
Sunday, July 26, 2009
New Jersey Highway Driving
From the New Jersey Driver's Manual:
On a multi-lane roadway, motorists must drive in the lane nearest to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway when the lane is available for travel, except when overtaking another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn.
(from N.J.S.A. 39:4-88, which elaborates:
"Upon a highway which is divided into 3 lanes, a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking or passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or unless the center lane is at the time allocated for traffic moving in the direction the vehicle is proceeding and is signposted to give notice of that allocation.")
Now, any of you who have ever driven on the New Jersey Turnpike know that what the law says and what people do in this regard are very, very different. Troopers who are parked on the side of the turnpike, watching for traffic violators, do not stop people strictly for unnecessarily driving in the left lane.
Infact, I would argue that there seems to be an written but widely accepted set of rules for driving on the Turnpike (and the Parkway, 295, 80, etc...) that most motorists seem to abide by. They go something like this:
- The right lane is the "slow lane". If you feel like actually obeying the speed limit (i.e. driving slower than it) you go to the right lane. You also go here when you are getting ready to exit the highway. If you are in the right lane and you want to pass somebody, it is expected that you will go to the middle lane to do so.
- The middle lane is the "cruising lane". People in the middle lane should be going either at the speed limit or slightly above it. You don't feel like going slow to the right. If you are on a 65-mph highway, the accepted speed for the middle line is probably something between 62 and 72 miles per hour. If you are in this speed range, and somebody wants to go faster than you, it is expected that they will go to the left to pass you.
- The left lane is the "fast lane". People in the left lane are in a constant state of passing people in the middle lane, and are taking the risk of getting a speeding ticket. If you are in the left lane you should be doing at least 75 on a 65-mph highway. Also, even if you are doing 75, if somebody comes up behind you and wants to go faster, it is expected that you will go over to the middle lane at the next opportunity to let them by. Then, you are allowed to return to the left lane.
So, let us posit that I am more or less accurate about these unwritten rules. Furthermore, let us agree that these are not the actual driving laws. I do not abide by one of these rules. And consequently, I receive glares, middle fingers, etc... by irate drivers (and almost always, in North Jersey. Don't get me started on the vast difference between the human beings that drive south of Trenton and the stress-inducing lunatics that drive north of New Brunswick. I should have elaborated on this difference more the last time I meditated on this topic.)
Here's the way I usually drive: I am ok with the unwritten rules about the right and middle lanes. When I cruise in the middle lane, I drive at about 65 (or 55 if that's the speed limit) or slightly below that speed. However, when I'm too impatient to cruise in the middle lane (usually when the driver in front of me is not doing 60 (or 55)), I cruise in the left lane. However, I obviously want to minimize my chances of getting a ticket. Therefore, I obey another unwritten rule of driving - which is you should never go more than 10 mph over the speed limit. The thought process behind this, I suppose, is that police won't bother writing you a ticket for speeding by under 10 mph over the limit, as you can plead down in traffic court.
So, anyway, when I cruise the left lane, I do so at about 72 mph (in a 65) or 62 mph (in a 55).
When I do this, before long, somebody is inevitably riding right up my ass. I don't move over for them, nor do I speed up or slow down. Essentially, I pretend that they aren't there. This usually leads to them getting dangerously close to me and high-beaming me. Finally, they give up, swerve around me to the right, match my speed to glare at me, give me the finger, and yell at me. Then, they swerve in front of me, dangerously close, go slow for a couple of seconds (I suppose to show me the size of their dick), then peel away.
Now, Walt, why don't you obey rule #3 about the left lane? Is it passive-aggressive behavior which is a form of road rage? Are you trying to prove a point? No, none of the above. I feel that this is an appropriate way to drive. I do not want to let the behavior of maniacs alter or dictate the way I drive. I understand that when I'm in the left lane, I technically shouldn't be there. However, neither should any of the other drivers. Therefore, their rules are no more valid than mine. We are all breaking the law by being there at all. If you need to go 85 or 90 miles per hour, the onus is on you to swerve through the lanes as you feel necessary, not on me to placate you and implicitly condone your insanity by moving for you.
Ironically, I brought this up at a dinner in North Jersey with my North Jersey family a few months ago, and asked them how they felt. Every single one of them, including my own mother and brother, said that I was being a dick for not moving out of the way in the left-hand lane. I concluded that living in North Jersey makes one a maniacal driver and warps one's otherwise rational perspective on the driving issue. Then again, if I had to fight the crazy traffic up there for the past four years in addition to the previous 11 that I already had done, I'd have lost my fucking mind too.
On a multi-lane roadway, motorists must drive in the lane nearest to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway when the lane is available for travel, except when overtaking another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn.
(from N.J.S.A. 39:4-88, which elaborates:
"Upon a highway which is divided into 3 lanes, a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking or passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or unless the center lane is at the time allocated for traffic moving in the direction the vehicle is proceeding and is signposted to give notice of that allocation.")
Now, any of you who have ever driven on the New Jersey Turnpike know that what the law says and what people do in this regard are very, very different. Troopers who are parked on the side of the turnpike, watching for traffic violators, do not stop people strictly for unnecessarily driving in the left lane.
Infact, I would argue that there seems to be an written but widely accepted set of rules for driving on the Turnpike (and the Parkway, 295, 80, etc...) that most motorists seem to abide by. They go something like this:
- The right lane is the "slow lane". If you feel like actually obeying the speed limit (i.e. driving slower than it) you go to the right lane. You also go here when you are getting ready to exit the highway. If you are in the right lane and you want to pass somebody, it is expected that you will go to the middle lane to do so.
- The middle lane is the "cruising lane". People in the middle lane should be going either at the speed limit or slightly above it. You don't feel like going slow to the right. If you are on a 65-mph highway, the accepted speed for the middle line is probably something between 62 and 72 miles per hour. If you are in this speed range, and somebody wants to go faster than you, it is expected that they will go to the left to pass you.
- The left lane is the "fast lane". People in the left lane are in a constant state of passing people in the middle lane, and are taking the risk of getting a speeding ticket. If you are in the left lane you should be doing at least 75 on a 65-mph highway. Also, even if you are doing 75, if somebody comes up behind you and wants to go faster, it is expected that you will go over to the middle lane at the next opportunity to let them by. Then, you are allowed to return to the left lane.
So, let us posit that I am more or less accurate about these unwritten rules. Furthermore, let us agree that these are not the actual driving laws. I do not abide by one of these rules. And consequently, I receive glares, middle fingers, etc... by irate drivers (and almost always, in North Jersey. Don't get me started on the vast difference between the human beings that drive south of Trenton and the stress-inducing lunatics that drive north of New Brunswick. I should have elaborated on this difference more the last time I meditated on this topic.)
Here's the way I usually drive: I am ok with the unwritten rules about the right and middle lanes. When I cruise in the middle lane, I drive at about 65 (or 55 if that's the speed limit) or slightly below that speed. However, when I'm too impatient to cruise in the middle lane (usually when the driver in front of me is not doing 60 (or 55)), I cruise in the left lane. However, I obviously want to minimize my chances of getting a ticket. Therefore, I obey another unwritten rule of driving - which is you should never go more than 10 mph over the speed limit. The thought process behind this, I suppose, is that police won't bother writing you a ticket for speeding by under 10 mph over the limit, as you can plead down in traffic court.
So, anyway, when I cruise the left lane, I do so at about 72 mph (in a 65) or 62 mph (in a 55).
When I do this, before long, somebody is inevitably riding right up my ass. I don't move over for them, nor do I speed up or slow down. Essentially, I pretend that they aren't there. This usually leads to them getting dangerously close to me and high-beaming me. Finally, they give up, swerve around me to the right, match my speed to glare at me, give me the finger, and yell at me. Then, they swerve in front of me, dangerously close, go slow for a couple of seconds (I suppose to show me the size of their dick), then peel away.
Now, Walt, why don't you obey rule #3 about the left lane? Is it passive-aggressive behavior which is a form of road rage? Are you trying to prove a point? No, none of the above. I feel that this is an appropriate way to drive. I do not want to let the behavior of maniacs alter or dictate the way I drive. I understand that when I'm in the left lane, I technically shouldn't be there. However, neither should any of the other drivers. Therefore, their rules are no more valid than mine. We are all breaking the law by being there at all. If you need to go 85 or 90 miles per hour, the onus is on you to swerve through the lanes as you feel necessary, not on me to placate you and implicitly condone your insanity by moving for you.
Ironically, I brought this up at a dinner in North Jersey with my North Jersey family a few months ago, and asked them how they felt. Every single one of them, including my own mother and brother, said that I was being a dick for not moving out of the way in the left-hand lane. I concluded that living in North Jersey makes one a maniacal driver and warps one's otherwise rational perspective on the driving issue. Then again, if I had to fight the crazy traffic up there for the past four years in addition to the previous 11 that I already had done, I'd have lost my fucking mind too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)