NASCAR and brand loyalty

February 14, 2009

- See all 763 of my articles

No Comments

In the expensive sport of NASCAR racing, team owners depend on sponsors. Sponsors pay millions of dollars to have their logos emblazoned on the side of cars. Many NASCAR fans are intensely loyal not only to their driver, but also to the brands he endorses.

I have been a fan of Tony Stewart for as long as I have been a fan of NASCAR. Unfortunately for Tony’s sponsors, I am anything but loyal to them.

Tony has driven three different makes of cars in Winston/Nextel/Sprint cup races – Pontiac, Chevy, and Toyota (winning championships in a Pontiac and Chevy). Every car I have ever owned has been a Ford.

Tony’s primary sponsor until this year was Home Depot. Home Depot is OK, but I live very close to a Menards and do most home improvement shopping there.

Tony is sponsored by Coke. Coke is my third favorite cola, behind Pepsi and RC.

This year, Tony’s primary sponsor will be Office Depot. Of course, I tend to shop at Staples …

Artifact thieves

February 13, 2009

- See all 763 of my articles

No Comments

I’m a fairly new subscriber to Archaeology, which is a pretty cool magazine. It cost $22 for a one year subscription (6 bi-monthly issues). Archaeology has stories various aspect of archaeological discoveries – the culture of the society that left the artifacts, the mechanics of the digs, and even stories about artifact trafficking. My interest in crime causes me to get sucked into the trafficking articles.

The March/April edition has a story about artifact thieves in the southwestern US. There is a lot of federal land in this part of the country. It is illegal to take artifacts from federal land, but much of this land is pretty remote, resulting in the agents from the Bureau of Land Management being stretched pretty thin in their efforts to catch thieves.

There is a new breed of artifact thieves who seem to enjoy the task of searching for artifacts – a process that involves digging holes, scanning the ground closely for artifacts, and repeating the process over and over. It is hard, tedious work.

These thieves are receiving some help, though. The are meth users, and the drug gives them a lot of energy (great when you need to dig a bunch of holes) and also the intense concentration to comb for the artifacts.

The users take the artifacts they find, and trade them to their dealer in exchange for more meth. The dealers then turn around and sell the artifacts for a nice profit. Essentially, the meth dealers in the southwest are financing (with meth) a massive theft of government property. Artifacts that could be in museums, educating everyone about the cultures of the past, end up in a private collection.

Subjects for upcoming blog articles will include:

Reviews of TV shows Monk and Psych

NASCAR brand disloyalty

The best baseball sites

Profile of author Lawrence Block

Corruption in Iowa?

February 11, 2009

- See all 763 of my articles

No Comments

Note that this post contains statements that are allegations. Allegation should not be construed as proof of wrongdoing. The Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier and AM 1630 KCJJ radio (Iowa City) were sources of information for this post.

One of the big local stories this week is about the state of Iowa shutting down a group home where twenty one mentally challenged individuals lived. These men appear to have been productive workers and valued members of the community, but many concerns have been raised about their living and financial arrangements.

The facility was deemed a fire hazard by state fire inspectors. The facility has relied solely on space heaters for heat after a boiler broken down in 2002. Some bedrooms were more than 100 feet from an exit, there were blocked exits, boarded up windows, and overloaded circuits, to name a few of the problems. If a fire had broken out, the consequences could have been dire.

The state is also looking into the financial arrangement between the men and their employer (a turkey processing company). It appears that the company had control over not only the paychecks, but also social security checks. The company deducted room, board, and health care. The state has subpoenaed records in order to determine if the men had given authorization for these payroll deductions – and if they had the mental capacity required to give authorization. The company paid the men less than minimum wage, but this is allowable under state law. State law allows employees with diminished mental capacity to be paid less than minimum wage. This is an effort to have companies employ people who might not otherwise be employable. Additionally, the state is requesting that the county file criminal charges of operating an unlicensed health care facility.

If that was the end of the story, it would be bad enough.

However, this morning, AM 1630 KCJJ reported that former Governor Robert Ray was informed of this situation in the 1970s and told the Department of Human Services not to investigate. KCJJ also reported that Ray was receiving campaign contribution from the Louis Rich turkey company at the time. Louis Rich contracted some of their work to the employer of these men.

KCJJ also said that the subsequent governor, Terry Branstad, was also notified of the situation – and that he also told DHS not to investigate. Branstad was also receiving contributions from Louis Rich.

I sincerely hope that KCJJ has its facts wrong regarding the former governors. If these allegations are true, these people may have endured unsafe living conditions and illegal financial arrangements for decades because of the inaction of the governors. Certainly, there will be much more written about this case in Iowa papers during the coming months.

Checkout line analysis

- See all 763 of my articles

No Comments

Many people choose their checkout line based on how many people are in line. This may give you a rough idea of how long it will take to check out, but if you want to be an expert line analyzer, use these handy tips:

  1. Lucky 13: Your first glance should be to aisle 13. My wife thought I was crazy when I first mentioned this, but in my experience, the line is often shorter. Triskaidekaphobics (and there are more of them than you may think) will avoid the line.
  2. Hang out with the guys: Single guys check out quickly. They tend to have fewer items, their items tend to be easier to scan (more frozen pizza and fewer produce items), and they don’t argue as much about price. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a 21 year old guy quibble about whether the price of an item was $1.49 or $1.09?
  3. Houston, we have a problem: Avoid obvious problem situations. A mom (or dad) with 3 crying kids is probably not going to break the world record for checkout speed. An underage cashier combined with a beer purchase necessitates a call to a manager to OK the sale (in at least some states). It’s not just the number of items that slow things down.
  4. Super Cashier: Cashiers are not carbon copies. Does the cashier appear to be easily distracted, or are they very efficient? Our local Target had a very efficient and knowledgeable cashier. Unfortunately, she was moved (promoted?) to the returns area.

A-Rod and the steroid testing

- See all 763 of my articles

No Comments

Some people are going to think that I am trying to defend A-Rod. Let me be perfectly clear about this. A-Rod’s decision to use steroids was wrong, period.

At the same time, I am concerned about the actions of the MLBPA (the union) and whether they served the best interests of their members.

My concern isn’t even that someone within the union may be the source for the story. My concern was that the information was ever there in the first place.

The 2003 steroid tests were screening tests. The players were tested merely to see if 5% of players tested positive. If more than 5% tested positive (they did), then the union would agree to mandatory testing. There was never any intent to determine if any specific player was taking steroids.

With the nature of this testing, there would have been no reason to link a sample to a particular player at any point in the process. I guess you might say that this would allow a player’s “B” sample (essentially a backup to re-test to rule out a faulty test) to be tested in the case of a positive. However, even this wouldn’t necessitate identifying the player. I am no expert on drug testing, but this methodology would seem to satisfy everyone:

  1. Collect a player’s “A” and “B” samples
  2. Have the team’s union representative and a management representative secure the team. This could be done by having them sign their name on an adhesive strip and placing the strips across the sample’s seal.
  3. Group each A and B sample together. (Perhaps by placing both samples in a small box.)
  4. Have the union rep and management rep leave the room and be replaced by a second team. The new people would have no way of guessing which samples were from which player.
  5. Take the samples out of the box and label them “1A”, “1B”, etc.
  6. The end result is a situation where A and B are tied together, each side is confident that there will not be any tampering with the samples, and the samples are completely anonymous.

The union’s troubles don’t stop there, however. USA Today reported that the test results (from 2003) were later seized from union offices by the feds as part of the BALCO investigation (in 2004). Why on earth would the union keep these results? I struggle to think of any way the union could have used this information for the benefit of their clients. Really, the only important piece of data from the tests were the number (and percent) of positive tests. The specifics of which players tested positive were irrelevant – the only question was whether or not the number was higher than 5%.

I know a lot of people think that it is a good thing that this information came out, but a key point is that the purpose of the union is to represent the players and protect their interests (as defined in the collective bargaining agreement). The role of the union is NOT to decide when the actions of its members are right or wrong.

I would not be surprised if the union ends up with a lawsuit on its hands – especially if the names of the other 103 players who tested positive are leaked to the press.

(Once again, I state that what Alex Rodriguez did is wrong and I do not condone his actions).

The Casebook of Forensic Detection

February 9, 2009

- See all 763 of my articles

No Comments

The Casebook of Forensic Detection and Murder Two: The Second Casebook of Forensic Detection by Colin Evans

I have an interest in true crime (murder in particular, especially serial killers) and my bookshelf has a very interesting assortment of crime books. These two books by Evans are among the best.

The casebook of forensic detection set breaks cases, types of evidence, techniques, and famous criminalists (only in Murder 2) into bite sized sections of just a handful of pages.

The two books have a slightly different layout. The first book is broken down into the various types of forensic evidence (or foresenic techniques), such as ballistics, toxicology, trade evidence, serology (blood), and time of death. Evans introduces each section with a short introduction to the topic. The book spends a few pages on the subject, including how it has evolved through history.

At this point, the book really gets into the meat of the subject and discusses several cases dealing with this type of evidence (or technique). Some cases are famous (Ted Bundy, the Nightstalker, John Wayne Gacy, the Lindbergh kidnapping) while some are relatively obscure (including one old case that occurred in a state park that I used to visit frequently). Some have even inspired scenes in movies (that wood chipper murder in the movie Fargo? Not an original idea). Evans only takes a few pages to tell each story, and packs quite a punch, hitting all the high points in each case. It’s basically written in Bathroom Reader style – you can the book, flip it open to a random spot, read for ten minutes, and feel fulfilled.

Although Murder Two is really a continuation of the original, Evans altered the structure of the book Instead of organizing the book by topic, as with the original, it alphabetizes everything – the type of evidence, name of defendant, and criminalist. As a result, the pages for arson are followed by a case for a defendant with the last name Atwood, because his name is next alphabetically. I guess this allows Evans some flexibility in choosing cases (able to choose cases involving two sorts of evidence without having to choose which section is the best fit), but I really like the layout of the first book better. This is by far the biggest flaw in the book – which means that these books are extremely good.

Murder Two includes brief bios of famous (or less famous, but well respected) criminalists throughout history. While specific criminalists were mentioned in the first book, it did not include the bios.

Evans has chosen good cases, and tells the stories well. The original casebook has long since been a favored choice for my bedtime reading. The second book seems to come up just a wee bit short of the standard set by the first, but that’s largely because Evans did a good job picking the cases for the first book – essentially cherry picking the best ones, with the result that the cases in the second book are of a slightly lesser quality.


Colin Evans
The Casebook of Forensic Detection


Colin Evans
The Second Casebook of Forensic Detection

TV Guide

February 3, 2009

- See all 763 of my articles

3 Comments

I got a phone call last night. Here is the gist:

Me: Hello?

TVG: Can I speak to Melonie?

Me: Who? [wanting to verify that I heard them correctly]

TVG: Melonie.

Me: Oh, you mean MeloDy. Is this a telemarketer?

TVG: No, I’m not a telemarketer. I’m with TV Guide.

Me: We’ll resubscribe when we feel like it.

TVG: Can you put her on the line?

Me: We will resubscribe when we get around to it.

TVG [in a demanding tone]: Just put her on the line.

Me [in an agitated tone]: No. You’re not going to tell me what to do.

TVG: OK, I’ll just call right back.

Me: If you do that, you’ll be in trouble.

TVG: Trouble? What kind of trouble?

Me: Yes. I’ll file a complaint with the state Attorney General’s office.

TVG: What sort of complaint?

Me: Harassment by means of repeated phone calls.

TVG [laughing]: How do you even know who I am?

Me: You already told me you were with TV Guide, moron.

[I hang up]

I’ll admit, the moron comment was unprofessional

However, let’s break this down the other side of the conversation.

1) Make an effort to get the customer’s name right.

2) This was the second call we have received in the last few weeks regarding our TV Guide subscription. It expires in August. When we got the first call, we told them not to call back – that we would just renew manually when it got close to renewal time. Yes, we understand that there may be a price increase in the future. We’ll take that risk.

3) Don’t demand to speak to someone in my household. You do not have the right to speak to them. If you’re a law enforcement professional, I will listen to your demands. If not, I’m going to decide who can or can’t talk to. That’s just the way it is – the person who answers the phone is a gatekeeper. (Note: I did know, for a fact, that my wife didn’t want to take this call. If this was the sort of call she would want to take, I would have given it to her, of course.)

4) Don’t lie about being a telemarketer. You’re trying to sell (market) a subscription renewal on a telephone. Tele + market = telemarket.

5) If you don’t think the FCC or AG’s office can track you down specifically, you’re wrong. Call logs (external as well as your employer’s internal logs) can be used to determine exactly which telemarketer made a specific call. Keep that in mind the next time you feel like getting nasty with a customer.

6) Oh, hey, guess what? In the course of this call, you managed to put a really bad taste in our mouth about TV Guide. Honestly, the product has gone downhill recently, anyway. The listings have gotten very generic (“NFL Game” instead of listing the teams, for example) and the new larger format of the magazine has been a change for the worse. The onscreen guide on our TV (free with our digital cable subscritpion) is considerably more accurate than TV Guide anyway. We plan to let our TV guide subscription lapse when it expires. My wife has been a subscriber for 10 years or more.

Golden rule of telemarketing: don’t annoy your existing customers.

[UPDATE]
This gets even better (worse)
They called again tonight.  When my wife said that we had asked them not to call again, the telemarketer’s response was “waa, waa, waa” (the sound of fake crying).

My wife was not rude and didn’t provoke this, so it was very bizarre and unprofessional.  How do these people keep their jobs?

I wrote up a nice 300 word summary of the problem and submitted it through TV Guide’s “contact us” function.  I suggested that they retrieve the call logs for calls made to our number and listen to them (if they record the calls).  I also suggested that firing these people might enhance the customer experience.

The chance of us renewing our subscription dropped from about 3% to 0.01%.

The Alphabet Soup League

January 29, 2009

- See all 763 of my articles

No Comments

I have played fantasy baseball for about a dozen years now. My only regret is that I didn’t get started sooner.

Last year, however, I decided to make a change. I turned my league into an alternative format league. This isn’t particularly noteworthy – there are lots of leagues that use non-standard formats. The particular format I chose, however, was quite unusual.

The key constraint of the league is that a team could not start more than one player for each letter of the alphabet. If Alex Rodriguez was your “R” starter, you could not also start Manny Ramirez. The league was christened the Alphabet Soup League. Like the other leagues I have run, the winner would be awarded a rather cheap trophy. There would be no money involved – simply the pride of a hard fought championship.

The strangeness of the league began with the draft. It was a ten player league, so I randomly assigned each team 10% of the alphabet (2-3 letters). For the purposes of the draft, Q, U, X, Y, and Z were combined into on letter grouping – if you were assigned the “wildcard” letter, you could pick anyone from those letters.

The draft was conducted by email. People simply sent in their choices for each letter. The order was not important, because people were not competing against each other for players (since the other players had different letters). After everyone was done, I assigned another set of letters, and the process continued until we were done.

The draft strategy was a bit unusual. You had to look ahead to see what letters you would have in the upcoming rounds. The letter M, for example, is stacked with good catchers. If you had M in the first several rounds, you were assured of a good catcher and could ignore other catchers. On the other hand, if you had lousy catcher letters for the next several rounds, you be forced to grab a sub-par guy in the current round, just to have an adequate starter.

The draft itself took about a week to complete. Not terribly bad, considering that it was done via email. This seemed like the best option, though. Getting everyone into a chat room at the same time would have been difficult, and the autodraft systems of the major fantasy sites would not know how to deal with the alphabet restriction.

The importance of the uncommon letters (I and N, for example) also became apparent. If you had the first choice of those letters, you could draft a reasonably solid player. If you had last choice of those letters, you got a guy who rides the shuttle between AAA and the majors.

I laugh at what the Yahoo people would have thought if happened to peruse our draft results.

During the season, the game was very much like any other fantasy league, aside from the fact that players that were studs in normal leagues languished in free agency in our league (especially players from the stacked letter R) while players of minimal value in other leagues got some quality at bats and innings in our league.

Unfortunately, there was not a good way to prevent people from violating the alphabet rule. There, I had conduct random audits of teams and penalize them for violations. As a penalty, they had to forfeit all of their points to their opponents. This meant that they were credited with an 0-10 record for the week, while their opponent got a 10-0 record. This is being tweaked a bit in year 2, so that the opponents do not get such a big reward for having the dumb luck to face a violator.

As spring training beckons, I am readying myself the league. I have my copy of Ron Shandler’s Baseball Forecaster, of course. I also have a fantasy baseball magazine. It was chosen, in large part, because it lists the players in alphabetical order.

The bluffer and the bargain

January 21, 2009

- See all 763 of my articles

No Comments

The bluffer – Jason Varitek

When the rankings that are used to determine free agency compensation came out, Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek was ranked as an “A” level player – the top level. When type A players are signed by another team, the team who loses the player typically gets either the first round pick or second round pick of the team who signs him (let’s call this team “Yankees” in order to simplify things), as well as a pick that is sandwiched between rounds 1 and 2 (referred to as a sandwich pick). In the case where a team signs several type A players, the compensation can be less – the team losing the highest rated player would get the Yankees’ first round pick plus a sandwich. The team losing the second highest rated player would get the Yankees second round pick, plus a sandwich, etc. (More information can be found on MLBTraderumors.com)

One aspect of free agent compensation is that in order to qualify for the compensation, the player’s old team must offer him arbitration, and he must decline (arbitration is a process where each side submit an amount to a panel of arbitrators. The panel chooses one of the amounts as the player’s salary for the next year – they cannot settle on a compromise amount).

The fact that Varitek qualified as a type A speaks to some of the flaws in the system. Varitek will turn 37 next April, and catchers are not the sort of baseball player who age gracefully. The years of squatting behind the player typically catch up with a catcher in his mid 30s, affecting the quality of his play. This is a cruel fact. Add to this the fact that Varitek was coming off a rather lackluster year in which he hit just .220 with 13 homers – by most measures, it was the worst season of his career. Varitek is the captain of the Red Sox and is an emotional leader, so he does have some positives.

The reason why Varitek was a type A player is due to a good 2007 season (the rankings are based on the last two seasons) and a relatively poor group of catchers that he is compared against.

When the Red Sox decided to offer arbitration to Varitek, it seemed like an obvious attempt to bring him back at 80% of his 2008 salary (a player cannot receive a pay cut of more than 20% through arbitration). His 2008 salary was $10.4 million; 80% of that is $8.32 million). It should not have been hard for the Red Sox to win an arbitration case. In fact, it seemed that the smartest thing for Varitek to do would be to accept arbitration. If he declined arbitration, the team signing him would have to forfeit a draft pick to the Red Sox – and also overpay for Varitek (since he does not appear to be worth $8.32M).

Needless to say, I was stunned when Varitek declined arbitration. He now has two options:

1) Negotiate a deal with the Red Sox. It seems difficult to imagine that he’ll be able to negotiate a salary of more than $5 million per year, especially with the Red Sox holding most of the cards (see option 2)

2) Sign a free agent contract with a team willing to forfeit the draft pick and pay him the money he ways (again, he walked away from a $8.32 million salary for next year). For 11 teams, this would mean forfeiting a first round pick. For 17 teams, this would mean forfeiting a second round pick. For the Braves, this would mean forfeiting a third round pick, and for the Yankees, this would mean forfeiting a fourth round pick (because they Yankees have already signed three higher ranked free agents). Realistically, this limits his options to the Braves and Yankees, neither or whom seem to be jumping at the chance to overpay for an aging catcher. In fact the Yankees already have one aging catcher (Jorge Posada, who will also be 37 next year)

Essentially, Varitek tried to bluff the Red Sox by declining arbitration. While it is true that they would need to find another catcher if they lose Varitek, they could make a move and trade a prospect for a young catcher and then use the compensation picks to replenish their system.

The most likely scenario is that Varitek will be forced to sign a contract with the Red Sox for less than he would have received through arbitration – or he will try to sit out part of next year in hopes that a new suitor emerges.

[Update: there has been some confusion about whether or not a player can receive a pay cut through arbitration. Some sources have said that a player cannot receive a pay cut through arbitration. This is completely false. Others have said that a player can receive no more than a 20% pay cut, which is what I based this post off of. However, this only applies to players who are in pre-free agency arbitration (i.e. players who do not have the 6 years of service time necessary to be a free agent). For this group of players, they cannot receive a pay cut of more than 20% of their last year’s salary or 30% of the salary of two years previous (apparently in an attempt to avoid having teams reduce salaries 20% each year) – although this restriction is waived if the player had won a 50% pay raise in arbitration the previous year. This is outlined on page 15-16 of the CBA – article VI.F.3.c.i-ii.

However, for pending free agents, this is not applicable. Page 72 (XX.B.3) of the CBA clearly states “ … the rules concerning maximum salary reduction in article VI shall be inapplicable …”
So my statement about the Red Sox having to submit an offer of $8.32 million is not correct. It appears that they could have submitted any offer of $400,000 or more ($400,000 is the minimum salary for MLB). However, this does not change my opinion that he would have received more in arbitration that he will as a free agent. It is very unusual for a player to receive a substantial pay cut in arbitration, and I think it is quite likely that he could have gotten $7-8 million (if he had been smart and submitted an amount in this range).

In a report on NESN, Varitek said that he was not aware that other teams would be required to compensate the Red Sox if they chose to sign him (effectively reducing the number of suitors). I find it absolutely incredible that he didn’t know this. Even if his agent (Scott Boras) didn’t mention this to him, you would think someone in his circle of family and friends would be aware. Perhaps he could have had a short chat with Red Sox union representative Kevin Youkilis about his options. I’ll admit that I’m geeky about free agency compensation and such, but it seems crazy that Varitek wasn’t aware of the compensation.]

The Bargain – Andruw Jones

Center fielder Andruw Jones signed a two year deal with the Dodgers worth a total of $36.2 million before the 2008 season. He then proceeded to stink up the joint, hitting just .158 with 3 homers and 14 RBI in 209 at bats. He was dreadfully bad. Then he got hurt and missed most of the season.

The fact that Jones had a bad season wasn’t a huge shock to some people. After all, his 2007 season wasn’t particularly good – he did stumble into 94 RBI, but hit just .222.

Recently, the Dodgers severed ties with Jones. They restructured his deal to pay him the remaining $22 million over the next six years, with no interest. Then they cut him. The Dodgers have a glut of outfielders on their roster and didn’t feel that Jones would be a contributor for them.

Any team that signs Jones will only have to pay him $400,000 for 2009 – the major league minimum – since his salary is being paid by the Dodgers. This seems to be an excellent reclamation project for someone. The downside is fairly small. Jones does want a major league contract (rather than a minor league contract) so it would necessitate a roster move to make room on the 40 man roster. However, it would not necessarily mean losing another player to make room – if a player still has “options” remaining, he could be optioned to the minor leagues without passing through waivers. This would, of course, use up one of the player’s three (in some cases, four) allowed option years.

The possible benefit seems worth the risk, though. Jones is only a few season removed from back to back 40 homer seasons, and he’ll be just 32 in April. His strikeout rate shot through the roof last year (1 strikeout in every 2.75 at bats, compared to one K in every 4.5 AB for his career and one K every 4.14 at bats in 2008). This may point to a problem that is more mental than physical.

In short, I would rather take a risk on Jones and be wrong (and waste an option year on a prospect) than have a division rival gamble on Jones and be right (and get 40 homers out of him). In fact, some teams have some dreadful talent (Pirates, I’m looking at you) that it would seem to be a complete no brainer of a decision.

Review: The Serial Killers Club, by Jeff Povey

January 15, 2009

- See all 763 of my articles

1 Comment

The book begins with our hero being attacked. He fights back and kills his attacker in self defense. While looking through the attacker’s possessions, he stumbles upon what he eventually comes to realize is an invitation to a serial killers club. Yes, it’s exactly what it sounds like – serial killers gathering to break bread and share stories. Doug joins the club and eventually goes over to the dark side and becomes a killer himself..

If you’re looking for the next great mystery novel – with strong characters and a dynamic plot – this isn’t it. Nor does Povey attempt to go down that route. This is entertainment, not art. Povey crafts a book that takes an amusing look at serial killers. The plot weaves off onto tangents – a byproduct of the main character’s lack of orientation. The characters are strangely weak – reminiscent of a whiny high school clique. This is a side of serial killers that you don’t often see on TV. Some Amazon reviewers have suggested that the flimsy characters are a flaw with the book. I don’t think this is true – I think they were written this way for effect.

Doug’s decision making process is one of the more interesting aspects to this book. To say that it is flawed in a huge understatement. He has a tendency to make life changing decision with very little thought or preparation. He also has a very broad definition of “normal behavior”, as he glosses over some pretty weird stuff during the narration of the book. In the prologue, he talks about his success in finding the job he was born to do – cleaning up the muck of zoo animals.

This book probably plays a bit more to those of you who are a bit “odd” (or, if you prefer, “eccentric”). If you have a more rigid sense of humor, you might find the humor very sophomoric. If you’re the sort of person who cracks up uncontrollably at Monty Python, you’ll probably enjoy this. All in all, this book was $6 well spent (bargain bin at Barnes & Noble).

Update: I’ve shared this book with several friends since I wrote the initial review. Half of them love it, half of them think it’s pretty dumb – which basically mirrors the split reviews of the book you see on Amazon. Why roll roll the dice and give it a chance?

{burp}

Older Entries Newer Entries