Numbers are symbolic for lots of people. Sometimes randomly prescribed by a fortune cookie, but usually just by reappearance in one's life, whether actually or perceived to be more frequent. For me, those numbers include 2 and 5. With both good and bad associations, there is a comforting balance when I see them. And in the form of the number 52, there is even more wonder. The number of weeks in a year, cards in deck, and a pleasantly offsetting multiple of two superstitious values. The Chinese and Japanese abhor the number 4 as it is a homonym for death in their languages. And most people also regard the Baker's Dozen (13) as an unlucky number. But multiply them together and perhaps two wrongs make a right in 52. (Or two Wrights make an airplane, I know, mom.)
But it is with this 52th installment of daily pseudo-Rooney reflection, along with a step increase in other daily responsibilities, that I am hanging up the typewriter. No, not for good, but just no longer in the capacity of this periodical. Look at Andy, he only ever had to report once a week, or at most 52 times a year. Not quite by design but in retrospect I figure each of my posts demands about an average of 2 minutes of readership attention, maximum, about the same length of attention needed to digest a closing Rooney rant. But if you're a speed reader, I imagine you can whip though each essay in little over a minute, perhaps then taking in all essays in a tad More Than 60 Minutes.
Absent finding a Lucky Penny today, I figure there could be some other cosmic significance in the fact that it is a New Moon tonight. But those occur 13 times a year so there was a 1 in 28 chance of that happening anyway. But it is also Fat Tuesday, the annual party in New Orleans. That's a plus. It also happens to be Ellen Page's birthday (she's 25), but I don't think that represents much of anything except what her Mama and Papa Pages were doing about 9 months earlier in 1986.
Since this post will ultimately become an intro to the overall blog, I figured I'd mention that upon it's start, there was no real format or goals, it was simply to transform eclectic views into print. Although initially biased towards pop culture and opinion, in hindsight I would add that there were also bits of investigation, stories, and experimental production. Nothing fanciful, but diversions from the main approach at times, for entertainment and, well, test purposes.
Also, while each post is stand-alone, there are some continuing themes throughout the entire collection. Admittedly, some are straightforward and calculated, but some are less obvious and evolving. Perhaps if you indulge in every article you might even figure out my grandma's famous chicken noodle recipe. But as a minimum you might learn something about cupcakes.
With quality the intended recipe, not every post makes it into the chef's rank of "favorite". If you do you have a mild interest, allow me to reference you to the following: MexWeCan, Spam, and Calendars. The directory is easily navigated so be rewarded those who seek.
I will also go old-fashioned in the web linking by suggesting that if you would like to support this endeavor, two options are available. There is a Facebook Page expressly set up for Andy Rooney's Revenge whereby, again, if you seek it out and friend it, you would be demonstrating a neighborly interest plus reciprocating in an audience appreciation fashion (in which case Thank You). Secondly, for y'alls pleasure, I made the Nacho Bama's graphic available as a bunch of cheesy novelties in Cafe Press. Just click the sidebar version to visit. Trust me, I don't get peanuts from this, but I figured throw it out there, especially if the Mexican Mitt Romney gets the Republican nod this year then the tagline "Vote Mexican" could perfectly ambiguate the whole message. C'mon Mitt!
In closing, let me revisit the quote offered in the very first post. Borrowing form Walt Whitman, "To be a great poet, you need a great audience." That's one naturalist's point of view. The realist would also say you need hard work, dedication, and some luck.
And a Don King-promotion of a headline.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Hanes My Way
If there is anything in this world that I would appreciate just a little more quality and cost control it would have to be Hanes T-shirts. The standard white ones with a crew neck cut. Likely the same vintage as the one famously depicted by James Dean strutting down a NYC street.
I don't do wife beaters. That just ain't my style. So when I throw on a dress shirt, my undershirt of choice is a white T-shirt. And since I go through a lot of these for work and other all-purpose dress occasions, I prefer to just go with the standard (aka "cheap") ones. I could go with another, more expensive brand, but this wouldn't guarantee year-to-year quality control. Plus these are primarily undershirts, with occasional summertime or working-man exposure. Why drop more than a few dollars for essentially a disposable work horse?
So anyway, when the time comes to refresh my existing batch of shirts, I simply go with the same large Hanes T-shirts. And I find that despite going with the same brand and size, I can either look hip with a neatly trimmed, yet un-tuckable, shortie, or deflated in a bloused gown fitting for a pregnant giant. Then, of course, there are the ones that sometimes fit perfectly, which is why I guess I continue this high-risk behavior. But then I have to segregate my stack of white shirts based on which version is, well, more fitting for the occasion. Knowing that I will never blouse in public but that I could, in short un-laundered supply, use one as an undershirt.
But c'mon, man, why can't a large just always be the same size? The white is always the same. You get the name brand spelling correct. Is it that the Asian country of origin fluctuates and so does the cultural point-of-reference? Sumo is pretty large in Japan, should we create a new size for that human profile? Do some countries or languages fail to recognize the international scaling of small-medium-large? How do the girth and length both vary by hundreds of percent??
This inconvenience is more aggravating by the fact that you can't reasonably try on the shirts before purchasing them. Not like the more expensive, and less breathable, ones that you might buy one at a time at an Old Navy or American Eagle. Speaking of which, if you want a good deal on these onsie-twosies, always scope out Michael's Crafts Stores- they sell them as blank shirts for designing with speckles, etc. but without that crap they actually make great out-in-public shirts for not a lot of moolah. No comment, though, on their 9-to-5 undershirt-ability.
Anyway, so the Hanes ones are tightly wrapped in plastic and not available for dress fittings. Then couple this presentation with the fluctuating price. Over the weekend, I stopped myself before agreeing to purchase a 5-pack from Kohl's for $35. Yes, $35. The sale was then you get a second pack at half price, or $18. Ridiculous, but this was manufacturer suggested price, apparently. Intelligently, I held out and my girlfriend took my advice and grabbed me an identical pack at Target for $13. Yes, almost a 1/3 the price at Kohl's. What the hell, Kohl's!? Not only do I have to put up with inconsistent shirt quality, but now you inflate the price the same 300% scale that sometimes the waist size grows! Although, I do see some potential increased return in rag and sunblock protection in future stages of the T-shirt life-cycle.
Next time, I'd appreciate all Hanes T-shirt point of sales displaying an aptly buff mannequin of about my proportions displaying the proven fit of the current stock of shirts. That and the same $10+ cost no matter what the store is. I realize the shirts might sell in Hollywood or somewhere were idiots (a.k.a. models) might be willing to pay the ridiculous MSRP but don't screw with blue-white professionals everywhere else. I'm not a model but I'd appreciate if you treated me like one when it comes to the fit. Thanks.
I don't do wife beaters. That just ain't my style. So when I throw on a dress shirt, my undershirt of choice is a white T-shirt. And since I go through a lot of these for work and other all-purpose dress occasions, I prefer to just go with the standard (aka "cheap") ones. I could go with another, more expensive brand, but this wouldn't guarantee year-to-year quality control. Plus these are primarily undershirts, with occasional summertime or working-man exposure. Why drop more than a few dollars for essentially a disposable work horse?
So anyway, when the time comes to refresh my existing batch of shirts, I simply go with the same large Hanes T-shirts. And I find that despite going with the same brand and size, I can either look hip with a neatly trimmed, yet un-tuckable, shortie, or deflated in a bloused gown fitting for a pregnant giant. Then, of course, there are the ones that sometimes fit perfectly, which is why I guess I continue this high-risk behavior. But then I have to segregate my stack of white shirts based on which version is, well, more fitting for the occasion. Knowing that I will never blouse in public but that I could, in short un-laundered supply, use one as an undershirt.
But c'mon, man, why can't a large just always be the same size? The white is always the same. You get the name brand spelling correct. Is it that the Asian country of origin fluctuates and so does the cultural point-of-reference? Sumo is pretty large in Japan, should we create a new size for that human profile? Do some countries or languages fail to recognize the international scaling of small-medium-large? How do the girth and length both vary by hundreds of percent??
This inconvenience is more aggravating by the fact that you can't reasonably try on the shirts before purchasing them. Not like the more expensive, and less breathable, ones that you might buy one at a time at an Old Navy or American Eagle. Speaking of which, if you want a good deal on these onsie-twosies, always scope out Michael's Crafts Stores- they sell them as blank shirts for designing with speckles, etc. but without that crap they actually make great out-in-public shirts for not a lot of moolah. No comment, though, on their 9-to-5 undershirt-ability.
Anyway, so the Hanes ones are tightly wrapped in plastic and not available for dress fittings. Then couple this presentation with the fluctuating price. Over the weekend, I stopped myself before agreeing to purchase a 5-pack from Kohl's for $35. Yes, $35. The sale was then you get a second pack at half price, or $18. Ridiculous, but this was manufacturer suggested price, apparently. Intelligently, I held out and my girlfriend took my advice and grabbed me an identical pack at Target for $13. Yes, almost a 1/3 the price at Kohl's. What the hell, Kohl's!? Not only do I have to put up with inconsistent shirt quality, but now you inflate the price the same 300% scale that sometimes the waist size grows! Although, I do see some potential increased return in rag and sunblock protection in future stages of the T-shirt life-cycle.
Next time, I'd appreciate all Hanes T-shirt point of sales displaying an aptly buff mannequin of about my proportions displaying the proven fit of the current stock of shirts. That and the same $10+ cost no matter what the store is. I realize the shirts might sell in Hollywood or somewhere were idiots (a.k.a. models) might be willing to pay the ridiculous MSRP but don't screw with blue-white professionals everywhere else. I'm not a model but I'd appreciate if you treated me like one when it comes to the fit. Thanks.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Presidents Precedents
With President's Day upon us (tomorrow), and an upcoming election this fall, I figured I'd take a look at some of the interesting statistics regarding past Presidents and what impact, subconscious or known, it might have on the forthcoming election.
I won't get into political positions, topical issues of the nation, or any other debatable historical issues. I plan to keep it simple, since, frankly, who has the time to impartially weigh every candidate's position? And therefore judgments expectantly defer, in part, to psychological influence. Like what name sounds more presidential.
I also won't get into the obvious pattern of an all-male Chief Executive since our country's birth. Or the fact that only one race was represented since the last election. But I would suggest that there is an interesting rarity to our current President's name, one that may have in fact helped his cause by complementing both the new physical identity he represented in the White House as well as his bold message of change. For if the same candidate was named Eric Smith and ran on those grounds, perhaps the national reception would not have been as grand.
It's not unusual to conclude that the Presidency, by name, has been branded. People are comforted by brands, and that's a large reason we return to ones that we love, or ditch ones that we don't. It certainly sounds superficial, but the truth is how many times do names become synonymous with a feeling, and strongly so? Look at Steven Spielberg. If you were to hear of another person named Spielberg you might, subconsciously, become more attune to listening openly for a good story or advice even. Even though the person may have nothing to do with the famous director. Or look at Hitler. One name says it all. Chances are it will be difficult for any person, worldwide, to ever come to power with a name like that, or Adolph for that matter.
With the U.S.A, the preeminent precedent is George Washington. A simple yet bold name with a first name of a British monarch (perhaps something that may have helped propel him to leadership). In fact, 17 of the 44 Presidents elected have first names that correspond to British or Scottish royalty. A disproportionate percentage (39%) of the population based on 1990's census statistics of male first names (11.5% of population went by William, Richard, John, George, or James that year). There would certainly be some difference in name popularity over time, but this example clearly shows a pattern that would be difficult to normalize in any historical election snapshot.
Then you can consider the repetition of a given name. 18 out of 44 (41%) first names have been repeated. 5 of 44 (11%) last names have been repeated. Sometimes the repeat is due to familial relation, but this reinforces the mindset of the voter particularly in cases where there is no relation. Instinct or not, people associate others by their names, so if another President had the same name, and they weren't named Nixon, chances are that there would be a favorable connotation of inherent leadership. Again, looking at 1990 census statistics, take the most popular last name "Smith". It occurs in almost 1 out of every 100 people. If you were to take just 2 people at random to name president, you would have a 1 out of 1,000 chance they'd both be a Smith. But even if you had one already named Smith, it would take you, statistically, 11 election cycles to reach the 11% repetitive frequency seen in Presidential last names. And the Presidents would still have slightly better odds of repeating than this most popular last name.
Back to our initial President Washington, there is another pattern in simply the last 2 letters of his name. 11 out of 44 (25%) of all Presidents have this "-on" ending in common, the latest being Bill Clinton. Bill is anomaly, himself, with Presidential branding all over him in his formal name of William Jefferson Clinton. Interestingly, he was born William Jefferson Blythe III but changed his surname to Clinton after his stepfather when he was 15. The name "Clinton" first appeared in U.S. executive power as early as 1804 as the 4th Vice President of the United States (George Clinton VP to Thomas Jefferson). Not well known in history, but still a bit that could have been learned at a young age by voters then later registered, subconsciously, during Bill's elections.
While these stats are basic in their methods, and could be refined to look more closely at other leaders, such as Representatives, Senators, and Vice Presidents, there appear to be at least some patterns that are worth acknowledging for there influence on the minds of voters. Also, familiarity, in general, is the common theme and this is also evidenced by the large number of re-elections (this study just focused on changes in command). A staggering 20 of 44 (45%) of U.S. Presidents have been re-elected (this is counting Grover Cleveland as 2 of the U.S. Presidents since his terms were split and he is recognized as the 22nd and 24th President, respectively, the only person with two such designations).
But the number 45 is symbolic as you wonder if we will see a 45th President this year or if the 45% will hold and Obama will be re-elected. Interestingly, the conservative Republican party primaries are experiencing a shift in it's top candidate from Mitt Romney to the more conservative sounding, and historical name, Richard (Rick) Santorum. And while his last name does not end in "-0n", phonetically it is close. This would certainly make for an interesting election if Mr. Santorum, and naming history, were pitted against Mr. Obama, and re-election history.
I won't get into political positions, topical issues of the nation, or any other debatable historical issues. I plan to keep it simple, since, frankly, who has the time to impartially weigh every candidate's position? And therefore judgments expectantly defer, in part, to psychological influence. Like what name sounds more presidential.
I also won't get into the obvious pattern of an all-male Chief Executive since our country's birth. Or the fact that only one race was represented since the last election. But I would suggest that there is an interesting rarity to our current President's name, one that may have in fact helped his cause by complementing both the new physical identity he represented in the White House as well as his bold message of change. For if the same candidate was named Eric Smith and ran on those grounds, perhaps the national reception would not have been as grand.
It's not unusual to conclude that the Presidency, by name, has been branded. People are comforted by brands, and that's a large reason we return to ones that we love, or ditch ones that we don't. It certainly sounds superficial, but the truth is how many times do names become synonymous with a feeling, and strongly so? Look at Steven Spielberg. If you were to hear of another person named Spielberg you might, subconsciously, become more attune to listening openly for a good story or advice even. Even though the person may have nothing to do with the famous director. Or look at Hitler. One name says it all. Chances are it will be difficult for any person, worldwide, to ever come to power with a name like that, or Adolph for that matter.
With the U.S.A, the preeminent precedent is George Washington. A simple yet bold name with a first name of a British monarch (perhaps something that may have helped propel him to leadership). In fact, 17 of the 44 Presidents elected have first names that correspond to British or Scottish royalty. A disproportionate percentage (39%) of the population based on 1990's census statistics of male first names (11.5% of population went by William, Richard, John, George, or James that year). There would certainly be some difference in name popularity over time, but this example clearly shows a pattern that would be difficult to normalize in any historical election snapshot.
Then you can consider the repetition of a given name. 18 out of 44 (41%) first names have been repeated. 5 of 44 (11%) last names have been repeated. Sometimes the repeat is due to familial relation, but this reinforces the mindset of the voter particularly in cases where there is no relation. Instinct or not, people associate others by their names, so if another President had the same name, and they weren't named Nixon, chances are that there would be a favorable connotation of inherent leadership. Again, looking at 1990 census statistics, take the most popular last name "Smith". It occurs in almost 1 out of every 100 people. If you were to take just 2 people at random to name president, you would have a 1 out of 1,000 chance they'd both be a Smith. But even if you had one already named Smith, it would take you, statistically, 11 election cycles to reach the 11% repetitive frequency seen in Presidential last names. And the Presidents would still have slightly better odds of repeating than this most popular last name.
Back to our initial President Washington, there is another pattern in simply the last 2 letters of his name. 11 out of 44 (25%) of all Presidents have this "-on" ending in common, the latest being Bill Clinton. Bill is anomaly, himself, with Presidential branding all over him in his formal name of William Jefferson Clinton. Interestingly, he was born William Jefferson Blythe III but changed his surname to Clinton after his stepfather when he was 15. The name "Clinton" first appeared in U.S. executive power as early as 1804 as the 4th Vice President of the United States (George Clinton VP to Thomas Jefferson). Not well known in history, but still a bit that could have been learned at a young age by voters then later registered, subconsciously, during Bill's elections.
While these stats are basic in their methods, and could be refined to look more closely at other leaders, such as Representatives, Senators, and Vice Presidents, there appear to be at least some patterns that are worth acknowledging for there influence on the minds of voters. Also, familiarity, in general, is the common theme and this is also evidenced by the large number of re-elections (this study just focused on changes in command). A staggering 20 of 44 (45%) of U.S. Presidents have been re-elected (this is counting Grover Cleveland as 2 of the U.S. Presidents since his terms were split and he is recognized as the 22nd and 24th President, respectively, the only person with two such designations).
But the number 45 is symbolic as you wonder if we will see a 45th President this year or if the 45% will hold and Obama will be re-elected. Interestingly, the conservative Republican party primaries are experiencing a shift in it's top candidate from Mitt Romney to the more conservative sounding, and historical name, Richard (Rick) Santorum. And while his last name does not end in "-0n", phonetically it is close. This would certainly make for an interesting election if Mr. Santorum, and naming history, were pitted against Mr. Obama, and re-election history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)