My wife has shamed me out of buying any of the Wii fishing games to date, but she’s going to have a harder time doing that with a bass fishing game called The Strike coming this fall on the Xbox 360.

The video above shows a more realistic fishing pole controller complete with a motor in the crank. I’m digging how detailed the process is of buying your equipment and then riding the boat out to the hot spots. Hat tip to dvice.com.

On the Wii front I keep looking over Rapala fishing. It seems to me that the Wiimote with its motion sensitivity and rumble would provide a decent virtual fishing game without the need for any additional controllers.

Some reading this might be thinking: why not just go out and do some real fishing? I have no good excuse for that. Would like to get back into fishing someday offline again. I did a good amount of fishing when I was a young boy and I like eating fish.

I wonder how much The Strike with fishing pole is going to cost? I’m guessing around $100. This fall I’m also looking forward to The Beatles game.

On Tuesday night I went through the Eagles initiation ceremony. If I told you what happened I’d have to kill you so will skip the non-public details, but suffice to say I’m now an official Eagle member. I’ve the got the schedule of events on my wall for reference although I don’t have the member card yet. The Eagle who presents my card is on vacation and will give to me when he returns.

 

Last night Kara, my oldest son and I went for the all you can eat Taco dinner. For $6 you could fill right up. Afterwards Kara and I stuck around for the speed bingo from 6:30pm-8:00pm.  Our first official night of offline social networking didn’t result in much social activity other than playing a game, but it was fun and we recognized a few people there.

I think that’s part of what we need to work through with our offline social networking. Attending and getting involved with enough events that we recognize and remember more people in the community. I’m not sure how many of these type events we’ll need to attend before we start building upon the number of people we know in the community but our goal is to attend at least one event a week.

Compare and contrast this to online social networking. It’s a lot easier to do things socially online, but a lot less personal so there is a give and take.

Kara’s initiation into the Eagles will happen on April 14. She was a bit disappointed that her initiation didn’t happen the same night as mine, but the women and men have different initiations in the Eagles.

Oh, and to answer the question I’ve now heard a couple times: no, the Eagles aren’t just for ‘old people’ – we’ve seen a number of young people there (not in the bar area, of course).

Was talking with a client yesterday and the subject of cold calling arose. The client was wondering how things were going in our business reboot 2009. I had mentioned that part of every week involves me doing some amount of cold calling. I mean frigid, icy cold leads. Calling people out of the phone book that are not on the Do Not Call list and/or face to face marketing.

And yes, this still works. Some salespeople have told me over the years that this is a waste of time and I can’t disagree more.

 
Cold calls are bridges to humility

I’ve been calling primarily from our business line at all different times of day and night (never cold calling before 9am or after 9pm and rarely on Sundays) and the caller ID recognizes our business name clearly so anybody picking up the phone will know exactly who is calling. Not using computers to spam mass calls or some other annoying mass contact strategy. Just picking up the phone and dialing one … at … a … time. And I do not call anybody cold who is:

1. on the Do Not Call List. Each number is checked each time before calling and our DNC database is kept current.
2. has a first name listed in the phonebook I cannot pronounce correctly. I like to be able to ask: “is this John?” “Mary?” rather than the more formal: “Is Mr. or Mrs. Jones available?” I’m sure this puts off some people who do not know who I am and hear me addressing them by their first name, but I feel more comfortable and have had more success starting this way than being more formal.

Tuesday night this week I called someone totally new and random, had a very friendly, productive conversation over their speakerphone, made an appointment and went out yesterday and added a brand new client to our 2009 rebooted insurance business. These folks are really nice too and took a bunch of my business cards and promised to help us out with additional referrals.

Then on the way back to the office I stopped off at a nearby mobile home park. There was a big sign as you enter the park that stated in bright red lettering: NO SOLICITING. I drove straight to the manager’s office and walked up to him and introduced myself as a local, independent insurance agent who had lived in town for nearly 20 years. I asked him if it would be ok if I brought a brochure stand with me for mobile/manufactured insurance to his office. He not only said yes, but promised to put it on his desk right by his computer so that anybody who asked about insurance he’d have it there handy for them. Right on.

Yesterday was one of those magical cold lead marketing days. There are plenty of days where the opposite happens, where you are shut down, hung up on and worse. It’s not easy being a cold call salesman but it is very humbling. That brings me full circle to the client I was speaking about who asked me why I kept cold calling people when I could focus on more warm leads.

There are several reasons but the one that is most important to me is humility. To remember how hard it can be to grow our business and attract new clients. If all one does is work the warm and hot leads, including the referral leads, it can spoil you. Or at least it spoils me. I want to appreciate the bond that people have with those they do business with and how easy it is to break, but how hard it can be to solidify.

Add to that, in the current economy especially we’re providing a valuable service for people with important coverage with excellent rates from good companies and serviced by a family owned and operated agency. It’s a driving force to get on the phones or stop by in person and tell our story. Some folks, perhaps many at times, won’t want to hear our story or take part in our journey but it shouldn’t slow us down.

So to other salespeople reading: keep some cold in your marketing. Humility is very important in business and with clients. Never forget how hard it can be to forge a new client relationship and how easy it can be to lose one. It’s not just about plans, products, companies to me, it’s always been about people and relationships. People can choose to change who they want to do business with at any time for any reason they want. Thank your clients often for the privilege of doing business with them. We sure do.

Getting stopped by a police officer is never fun. Getting stopped out of state by a state trooper over five hours from home for a bogus reason is even worse. This is the story of what happened to my wife and I over our anniversary trip to Lincoln City beach in September this year.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and nothing written in this post should be construed as a substitute for real legal advice from a trained professional. I’m simply sharing the story of what happened to me on an informational basis because it was a new experience for me and perhaps might be helpful for others who are curious how the process works.

Oregon state troopers ticketing for following too close

First fellow motorists please be warned that if you are traveling through the state of Oregon, understand that the state troopers can and will stop you and issue a citation for following too closely. The recommended safe distance for speeds over 30 MPH is 4 seconds. The Oregon state driver’s manual indicates that this distance is required to prevent an accident from occurring.

And yes, Oregon state troopers will ticket you even if you are not in an accident. Their statutes do not provide that an accident must occur. The officer can and will videotape you from some clandestine location and stop you if he deems that you are following the car in front of you too closely. You will not get the opportunity to see this video evidence unless you plead not guilty and face the officer in front of a traffic circuit court judge.

This ticketing is more heavy-handed than Washington state where we haven’t seen following too close citations issued not in conjunction with a motor vehicle accidents. I understand from talking to others that they do happen, but I’ve yet to know anybody personally or professionally who has gotten one. Most common is when a rear-end collision occurs.

When the trooper pulls you over

So my wife and I are traveling to the beach along Hwy 18 in Oregon traveling a sloping hill in the late afternoon. It was still daylight and the roads were dry along a mostly one lane stretch of road. We had turned on our lights as had many other motorists. I’m embedding a map below of the approximate location in case other readers are traveling this same area. Does anybody know how to search for milepost locations in any of the mapping services? I don’t see this as an option in Google Maps. This would be a very handy feature to add. The location in question is Hwy 18 close to milepost 10.

View Larger Map

I would be extremely cautious in this area as the troopers are targeting motorists that they feel are following too close in this area. This is the most selected chosen GPS route coming North from Seattle or Portland to Lincoln City, Oregon

Having gotten a speeding ticket in the past out of state (not in Oregon, in Jackpot, Nevada) I was careful to ensure we traveling under the posted speed limit of 55, but since our car didn’t have cruise control didn’t know the exact speed at any given moment. I recall us dragging on some of the more speedier traffic and letting these folks pass in the stretches of passing lanes, but we did pass a couple cars here and there that were at an even more leisurely pace.

Around milepost 10 suddenly in the rearview mirror we see those familiar red and blue flashing lights in the distance behind. I slowed down, moving to the shoulder in a safe location. My wife and I looked at each other puzzled why the trooper pulled in behind us. I told my wife we weren’t speeding.

We had no idea why we were being stopped.

Talking to the state trooper

The trooper came to the passenger side window and informed us right away that we were being video and audio taped. He proceeded to tell us that he was enforcing motorists following too closely and that he observed following the car in front of us less than one second apart. He continued on to say that the recommended safe distance is 4 seconds. He asked us how fast we were traveling and my answer was: "55 … 50, I don’t know."

He then informed me at that speed we needed a minimum space of 120 feet to stop in time from the car in front of us. As he’s explaining this to us I’m seeing tons of trains of cars passing on both sides with cars much closer than 120 feet. I pointed this out to the trooper. He didn’t seem very interested in what most motorists passing by were doing. He took my license and insurance information and went back to his patrol car. 

While he was gone my wife and I shared more puzzled gazes. In November 2003 she was hit as a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Many doctors visits and a surgery later, she is very skittish as a passenger in cars if we are too close to the car in front of us. Being mindful and respectful of her fears, I try to put extra distance between the vehicles in front. Many times what happens is other cars will pass and move into the space between us, creating a dangerous distance. Her reaction to traveling too closely is like she wants to push on passenger side brakes that don’t exist.

But she didn’t do that at any point along this highway or even trip. She didn’t give me any non-vocal gestures that we were ever too close to any car, including the car the trooper said we were less than one second away from.

The trooper returned and handed back my license. I fully expected to get a warning and some words of caution about keeping a safe distance, but instead he informed me that he "reviewed the videotape and the evidence is clear that you were following too closely."

And then he said he was going to issue me a ticket.

My first reaction wasn’t anger, but even more confusion. I showed him more cars, trucks and motorcycles passing us in groups with plenty of other cars closer than 120 feet. He remarked that he could write these citations all day long. We want back and forth in a somewhat argumentative fashion, but nothing ever got too heated.

He then asked if I had any questions.

"How much is the ticket?"

He shifted on his heels, "I don’t know, the judge sets that." He then handed us the ticket and it was folded into the shape and size of a long cigarette. "But the judge will probably reduce the ticket for you since you have no record."

After that he was gone before we could unroll/unfold the ticket and show him in his own writing where he had written in the price of the ticket.

Following too close ticket options: guilty, no contest or not guilty

The ticket for following too close was $242. Like most traffic tickets in other states, your options are three: plead guilty or no contest and hope the judge reduces the ticket. Which the judge may do if your record is otherwise clean. Or the third option: plead not guilty and fight the ticket.

As we left the scene my wife and I talked about the ticket and what option to choose. While the gut reaction for a traffic ticket 5+ hours away might be to pay the ticket and move on, there were two reasons I didn’t want to do that:

1. I felt that I was innocent.
2. I didn’t want this ticket on my driving record.

So I pled not guilty.

Being prepared for that day in court

Like most readers (hopefully) I am not that familiar with the traffic court system. In my nearly 25 years of driving I’ve only had two tickets, both of which were for speeding. One was out of state in Jackpot, Nevada and since I was clearly breaking the law, I just paid it and moved along. The other was questionable on the way coming home one night and thought about fighting it — even blogged about possibly fighting it here — and decided to just pay that as well.

But this ticket felt like the weakest of the three. I felt like the worst case scenario would be that we got the ticket reduced but maybe we could prevail in court. I wanted to test the Oregon state traffic court. And hey, along the way I’d learn about how the traffic court system worked — or didn’t work — for me.

Before going to court, my wife and I did some research. We looked up the driver’s manual at the Oregon Dept of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website and printed the page (31) that the trooper referenced. We didn’t look up the ordinance 811.485 but that would have been a good idea. At the very least I tried to do the following before coming to traffic court:

1. Not show up empty-handed. I wanted to have some sort of drawing, map, pictures of the location, video, anything that would help support the exact conditions of when/where the infraction took place. If one was fortunate to have a videocam or digital camera or heck even a camera phone, taking pictures at the scene as close to when it happens can’t hurt. You know the state is going to have video evidence, so I wanted to bring my own.
2. Planned to bring any witness(es). You can put this witness on the stand and ask questions. Run through what questions you intend to ask this witness. I didn’t do this because I didn’t realize things would work this way. We’d talked enough about what happened that I was confident when she testified under oath that the truthful answers she provided, whatever they would be, would be helpful to my case. So this is one that I wish I had done.

   It occurred to me that if a witness has any related experience, either professional or personal experience that might be relevant to your case, figure out how you can bring this line of questioning into the current case. In my wife’s case, the accident in 2003 was pivotal to my defense and I had to find a way to bring that into the current case without it being thrown out for being irrelevant.

3. Remember that the burden of proof is on the state. You do not have to use any of the evidence brought along or call upon witnesses of the event. I kept my exhibits to myself until the time needed to use them in the case. They asked at the beginning of the trial if any exhibits would be used and while I had one, I didn’t share it at that time. More on why I did that later.
4. Dress professionally. I might have been overdressed in some people’s view wearing a shirt and tie, but I believe appearance works on a subconscious level. The judge is supposed to be impartial but little things like appearance do work on some (most? all?) people, even if it has no clear impact on the final judgement of the case. I’m not sure if this helped or hurt my case being the most professionally dressed defendant in the room, but I wasn’t taking any chances.

How traffic court works - our day in court

Our court time was at 3:30pm and there were five other cases posted along the wall. We arrived a good hour early and I read the cases on the wall both because I was curious who else would be in the courtroom with Kara and I and because I wanted to know when we would be up. Of the five other cases three of them were also for following too close infractions. We were listed last on the docket. I was happy about this positioning and feel like this is the best possible scenario for inexperienced defendants like me. I would be able to see how court process worked for others.

We filed into the courtroom at 3:30pm and waited. 3:35 and a lady from the court told us that they were waiting for another case and the trooper. They would wait a maximum of 10 minutes. I had heard that if the police officer doesn’t show up your case is thrown out. As 3:40 drew closer, the anticipation that he wouldn’t show was great.

3:37. A guy behind us joked about us fixating on the clock. It was true. I don’t think anybody in the room was hoping the officer would show.

At 3:39 the door opened and the trooper walked in, fully dressed for duty.  He had some paperwork in hand and three VHS videotapes. Yes, it’s true, the Oregon State Patrol are still using VHS tapes! 

The court trial process worked like this:

1. Before the judge hears your case you are allowed time to review the evidence the other side will be presenting. In my case this was the videotape. When I reviewed it, I didn’t realize there was an audio portion which would become a key sticking point later in the testimony. In the beginning of the tape, you could clearly see the car in front of us pass and almost two seconds later by the VHS tape counter, you see me pass by the officer. He then proceeds to follow and pass the car behind us and pull us over. I thought this was all there was, but there is more. There was the audio of when he went to the window of the car and talked to us. My voice inside the car was muffled but somewhat audible. 
2. You and the officer are sworn in. You must raise your right hand to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury.
3. The police officer presents the state’s case against you first, outlining how he feels you broke the law. He will present any evidence he has, possibly including but not limited to audio and video evidence, pictures and the like. He may even draw pictures on a white board for the court. He did in two of the five cases we saw, including ours.
4. At any time during the officer’s testimony you can object to any statement or presentation. You must provide reasons for your objection. In the first following too close case we witnessed, the defendant didn’t object to anything the officer said. I think this was a mistake on his part. While he shouldn’t have objected on baseless merits, some things seemed to this layman like they were just way too speculative or something he could have disagreed with letting the court put into testimony. As I found myself disagreeing with what the officer presented — and it wasn’t even my following too close case — I made a note and hoped I might be able to use in my case. As it turned out, you can’t use testimony from another case made by the officer. Bummer.
5. You are allowed the opportunity to cross examine the officer. Once the officer has finished presenting his case against you then you get the opportunity to ask him questions about his testimony. I did this.
6. Next you state your full legal name for the record and present your defense. Why didn’t you break the law? Why do you feel that you are innocent? This is also the stage where you will introduce your witness(es), if you have any.
7. The officer can object to any/all/part of your testimony.
8. The officer can then cross examine you and any witness(es).
9. Since the burden of proof is on the state, the officer gets the final opportunity to rebut any of your defense testimony and/or witnesses.
10. You can object to the state’s rebuttal. I did.
11. The judge will then render a verdict. It only goes one of two ways: guilty or not guilty. I suppose there is a dismissal option you could ask for before the trial begins, but unless you have strong evidence that the case is completely meritless, you probably won’t have much luck there.
12. If you are found guilty by the court you will be asked when you can pay the ticket. Either you must pay now in full or can schedule when to make the payment.
13. If you are found not guilty then you’ll sign something and walk away without paying any fee or having the ticket on your record.

Witnessing the cases before mine

In the first following too close trial the defendant brought up that the ordinance does not give an exact number of seconds. I thought this was a very clever defense. He pointed out that it was "suggested" and could be open to interpretation. I made notes. The defendant was weak though on cross examination and didn’t seem to object to things it seemed he might be able to object to. Also it was night in his case unlike mine.

The judge ruled against him reducing the ticket by $60 to $182.

Next up was a guy who was caught speeding on a Harley going 84 MPH in a 55. He had some weird defense about having to speed up to be safe. There was this intricate powerpoint printout he offered as an exhibit along with a long statement he read. He rambled at points and made the room uncomfortable. Besides being not very respectful to the trooper, he even interrupted the judge a few times. The case ended badly with him saying: "just tell me what I need to pay." He served as a good example how not to present my case.

Next up was the second following too close case that had to be moved to another courtroom because the judge knew the defendant. This bummed me out because I was hoping to glean some more information from how others were defending their cases.

The court sandwiched in a DUI please where the defendant pled guilty to DUI and got the reckless driving charge thrown out.

Last up was me. Minutes before 5pm, I asked if we were up against the clock and the judge, a woman in her 40s by my estimation politely replied, "nope, we have plenty of time."

The moment of truth: the state’s case against me

The trooper presented his case against me by first playing the VHS videotape in extreme slow motion. He explained how he used the markers to determine how many feet apart our car was from the car in front. He said he estimated that while traveling at speed of 55 –

I objected. No where was it established by me or him that I was traveling 55 MPH.  He then proceeded to play the videotape further where the audio started and I objected again.

"Your honor, I didn’t know there was any audio."

The clerk next to the judge confirmed that I wasn’t aware that there was audio on the tape. She left to her chambers while I had a chance to review the audio portion of the tape. This was important because I could be heard answering the trooper’s question about how fast I was going by saying: "55 … 50, I don’t know really."

I made notes of this and the trooper got the judge to return to the courtroom. She asked me if I objected to the tape being played with the audio portion. I said, no.

The trooper continued to use the higher end of my statement — the 55 MPH — to determine that I was only 70 feet from the car in front of me. He referenced the fact that the Oregon state driving manual requires "3-4 seconds" distance between. I didn’t object, but made a note for cross on this.

Unlike the first following too close case, he didn’t get into how he looked for "a pattern of continued breaking of the law" by following along to see if I braked. I was hoping he would, because there was no pattern. He came right after me.

He completed his testimony by saying that despite there being "almost optimal" conditions: road was dry, daylight, that he didn’t feel in his professional opinion that I was following at a safe distance and that was why he issued the citation.

In my cross examination, I asked him how familiar he was with the Oregon State Driver’s Manual that he had referenced multiple times in his testimony. He replied that he felt very familiar. I then offered into evidence page 31 of the DMV manual.

He objected saying that this page was from "the old manual, not the new manual." I told the judge that it was taken directly from the DMV website and would be happy to boot up my computer with internet and present that into evidence. He withdrew his objection and allowed it into evidence.

I pointed out that the manual doesn’t state "3-4 seconds" it states "2-4 seconds" and that it was a suggested guideline. He replied that the new manual says ‘3-4′ seconds. I repeated that the statute — which I’d learned in the prior case — was a suggested distance and asked him to confirm that. He said it was.

I then asked him to explain why he thought I was traveling less than a second distance from the car in front of me when the timestamp in the video clearly shows more than a second had elapsed. He said by his estimation I was.

I had no further cross examination questions. It was time for my testimony. The first thing I did was dispute the trooper’s statement to me versus the video evidence he introduced. In the video one of the very first things he did was tell me that we were traveling less than a second behind the car in front when the video showed this to be inaccurate.

Next, I called my witness, my wife, to the stand. She got to sit in the witness chair to the right of the judge. I asked her if we were in a hurry to get to the beach. No.

"When we were stopped were we both confused and if so, why?"

"Yes," she replied and then explained neither of us knew what we did wrong or why we were stopped.

I asked her if in the past driving with me had she been in situations where cars were too close to us, whether they swerved in front from another lane or that I needed to brake to be safe.  She affirmed she’d been a passenger in situations like that.

"At any time during this trip — including at/around the scene portrayed in the videotape — do you recall a situation where you felt that we were traveling too closely to the car in front?"

"No."

I then went for the background.

"In 2003, you were –"

"Objection," the trooper replied, "Irrelevant."

"Your honor, I need to explain that my wife was in an accident in 2003 and has had a condition since then as a passenger where she’s fearful of cars that are too close in front."

The trooper objected again saying that had nothing to do with this case. The judge agreed to allow the testimony. The trooper was noticeably disturbed.

I continued: "In 2003 you were hit by a car and what sort of reaction to you have to being too close to cars in front of you?

Kara explained that she tenses up and gets very uncomfortable. From the driver’s seat in my peripheral vision this is very noticeable. It’s like having a traffic light inside your car. A big, bright yellow warning light. I slow down — always.

"So on this trip, I ask you again, did you at any time feel any anxiety or concern that we were traveling at too close a distance to the car in front."

"No."

"Did you feel unsafe at any point in this trip, including the moment portrayed in this video?"

"No."

"Do you feel that bearing the road conditions that if this car in front would have slammed on its brakes I would have been able to stop in time, safely?"

"Yes."

"At the conclusion of the stop, what were the circumstances of the officer handing us the ticket?"

"He asked if there were any questions and you asked how much the ticket cost. He said he didn’t know, that was up to the judge and then handed us this wadded–"

"Objection," the trooper jumped in, "what does this have to do with…?"

The judge replied, leaning closer, "Wait, I want to hear this."

Kara continued to explain that the trooper had handed us the ticket folded and rolled almost like a cigarette and that by the time we unfolded and looked at it that the ticket amount of $242 was there to see.

The trooper objected again.

"Your honor, we couldn’t confirm that the information on the ticket was accurate or ask any specific questions about the ticket because he gave us the ticket in this condition and left right away. Clearly he gave us misinformation and also our mailing address is not correct on the ticket. We were not able to give him the correct information, nor was he interested in waiting around for us to help him make sure the information was accurate. This drew suspicion from us that other elements of this stop may be in doubt."

The trooper cross examined Kara, asking if she’s ever had a driver’s license. She replied no. He asked if she ever had taken a driver’s exam.

In a follow-up statement rebutting the cross, I stated that having a driver’s license does not mean you have any additional ability to assess danger from the passenger’s side of the vehicle.  I then closed my testimony saying that I felt overall that I had been traveling at a safe enough distance to stop with the conditions before me and that I’d never been involved in an accident in nearly 25 years of driving.

The trooper went to the whiteboard in his final rebuttal of my testimony and proceeded to explain how I needed to be 120 feet distance from the car in front of me and that "being generous" I was 80 feet away. He then said that given the time involved I would not have been able to stop without avoiding danger.

I objected during his testimony when he wrote 70 and 80 feet saying he didn’t know that for certain. He couldn’t know exactly how many feet I was from the car in front of me without knowing the speed. He didn’t know the speed, I didn’t know the speed, so we were guessing. It was a guess based on a law which is gray to begin with: suggested following distance is just that: suggested. It’s not an absolute. It depends.

The trooper rebutted by saying that unless I was a drag racer how I could stop in time safely he didn’t know. And then like that, almost an hour later, the case was over.

My Perry Mason moment had ended. The judge then asked me if there was anything else I wanted to add. I said no, I think that’s sufficient.

The verdict

If you skipped down here, you missed all the good stuff, scroll back and up and read through the court case, blow by blow. Really. After the trial, I felt pretty good about how I conducted myself. Felt like good points were made and if there was any chance of being found not guilty I’d done about as best as could be expected to making that finding happen.  I don’t think the ticket was fair, I think for traveling this far to begin with the ticket should have been reduced (I expected it to be reduced and would be very disappointed if it was not)

The judge leaned forward pensively. "This is one of those cases where things could go either way. I’m going to do some additional video watching on this." I was nervous that there would not be a finding on the case but didn’t think that could happen. Could it be possible that something was presented that made a judge think? What was it? Could there be another court date? No.

My heart started thudding against my chest. Say it, I thought. Just say it.

"I’m going to find you not guilty."

When you think of blogs do you immediately think about the connections made from and because of them? From time to time, I am reminded that his blog has opened doors that otherwise might have remained closed.

Sitting in the car outside the Westin hotel in downtown Seattle about an hour before the American Marketing Association (AMA) Hot Topics meeting registration starts. What can I say, traffic into Seattle was light this morning, so I’m here with some time to blog. With handy Sprint EVDO connection and laptop blog posts can be written almost anywhere these days. Got to give underwater blogging a try someday (in jest).

Has four years really passed already?

Four years ago I wrote about an AMA Hot Topics meeting that I didn’t attend. Seriously considered attending but our budget by this time of year in our small business is almost always tapped. This year with the economic meltdown it’s no exception, but am going to try not writing in this post lamenting the price tag of the 2008 event like I did in 2004. The event four years ago cost $695 and today it costs $795. From inflation standpoint that’s a fair increase four years later. I’ve seen other conferences where this would be considered a bargain.

As of this writing, I haven’t fixed the numerous broken links in that 2004 post. I wanted to leave it the way it was a little longer. Maybe I’ll just keep it broken on purpose to point out that sometimes the people who give advice for the future will have changed paths. 

Example: The Church of The Customer blog by Ben McConnell. In 2004 they said about Mr. McConnell’s session: "Learn the fundamentals to launching a blog that supports your marketing goals, tool terminology, key players, strategic uses and the unwritten rules of the blogosphere."

Where is The Church of Customer blog in 2008? Dead. Kaput. Gone. Maybe the blog has changed domains, I didn’t research it further, maybe Ben McConnell has moved on and written other books? Hopefully for his sake they have more longevity.

Update 12/5/2008 8:51pm PST: Well give me an F for having Ben’s domain right the last four years, as well as his status. My apologies, the correct domain link should have been 4 years ago and still is today: http://www.churchofthecustomer.com — I will fix the link right away on the old post. My bad.

Anyway, if you visit that post four years ago and think I’m some kind of jerk for what was said then, hopefully you’ll look past the words and see at least some of these concerns were valid. It isn’t just about the message people lecturing in a session delivers. I’ve seen masterful speakers that were great at speaking and good at writing, but when it came to their ideas actually working? Meh.

Disclaimer: this event isn’t costing me anything except gas, parking and time this year thanks to Toby Bloomberg who so graciously comped my registration. I didn’t write that post four years ago with the intention of getting a free pass to that event and am not writing this one in exchange for today’s comp. And Toby nor the AMA nor anybody asked me to say or do anything for this event (good, bad or indifferent), which means that I’m going to take the initiative to do more than I probably would if asked or expected something in return.

Lesson learned?

Be kind, gracious, and you shouldn’t have to ask. Interesting sidenote: Toby didn’t send me an email or call with her invite. She used a Twitter direct message. How’s that for using digital media!

Toby has written several times over the last four years about this incident with me which she described in her recent post Digital Relationships:

We were taught our first lessons in blogger relations by TDavid. What begin as a rather sticky situation ended up in a better program and a new friend. I’m thrilled that TDavid will be joining us on Friday

Toby made the same offer in the comments area four years ago. She didn’t take my post wrong, it wasn’t meant to be some businessowner in his basement blogging in his underwear crying poverty. For the record, I don’t have a basement and can safely say in the thousands of blog posts I’ve written have never blogged in my underwear. Pajamas yes, underwear no.

That was yesterday

My ears were ringing during the event 2004 as I’m sure my name must have come up in a conversation or two. Wish I could have found a way to get there but had other things scheduled by the time the offer came through just to see if the event was as bad as I wrote that it might be. My guess is it wasn’t. Toby seemed to indicate that my post helped make the event better, but I doubt that it did.

From a personal standpoint, I feel somewhat embarrassed looking back over what I wrote about Toby four years ago in light of how she reacted to my post. I didn’t know this lady from a rock buried in the desert and yet I was judging what she might be like by visiting her website and what the event description said about her.

From a professional standpoint though, we do measure value in an event based upon what we think is going to happen and think my perspective was fair. Is the event going to be worth our time and money? That was an important question four years ago and remains one today. We should ask ourselves that about every meeting, appointment or event we are attending.

There is also something about effort on the part of the attendee. It’s not completely the AMA’s fault or the people putting on the event if the attendee doesn’t find value. You have to go with an open, pliable mind. That’s what I’m doing today.

As today’s AMA Hot Topic event kicks off, I’m going to be watching, listening, taking notes and looking for the value.

The topic isn’t blog-centric like it was last time. This is what the overview is saying about the 2008 event with the title Moving Your Marketing Into The Digital Future:

This Digital-Centered Marketing program will explore the changing landscape of marketing that is no longer about exposure but rather engagement in digital relationships through digital media founded on the intelligent use of digital data and CRM.

That description is buzzwordy to me. Engagement in digital relationships is something I get, but in a more every day man kind of way. Why should I have a blog for my business or should I have one? Can Twitter or FriendFeed help me be more interactive with both existing and prospective clients? What about social networks should I be adopting rather than casting aside in 2009 and beyond?

As for the "intelligent use of digital data and CRM" — what does this mean? Obviously, I have questions, but again my mind is going to be pliable. I certainly don’t have all the answers in either of our two small businesses and I plan to go through this marketing event today and see what can be applied.

I’ll share my notes on each of the five scheduled events by separate post(s). I hope there are power outlets. Too many events I’ve been to don’t have any power strips. Bloggers can only last so long on battery power.

The registration has started, I need to get rolling and connecting. See you soon.

Who would have thought the biggest import car lots in 2008 would be the ports? Import cars stuck at the port with nowhere to go. The screencap from CNN below is like a daylight graveyard.

With the current state of the economy, it’s no surprise people aren’t buying new cars. The car you’re already driving can probably make it another year or two. Buying a new car is usually a luxury purchase versus buying a good used car, unless you can find a really good deal like we did last year. In times like these, luxury purchases are ill-advised.

Here’s a radical thought instead of bailing out the big three automakers, maybe it’s time to send some/most/all of these imports back and for americans to buy primarily American made cars?

Fox News:

What we do know is that, without a bailout, GM will in all likelihood head in to Chapter 11. As with many other large companies before them, that entails restructuring and an actual hardnosed effort to return the company to profitability by making hard choices and changes. Easy? Painless? Absolutely not and no one should underestimate that.

We’re at the turn-in phase for our 4-year lease with our Saturn Relay. Most likely we’ll be paying the $400 drop-off fee and moving quickly for the exit, but if some insanely good deal is thrown our direction we’ll stop and listen. Adding into this round of buying criteria will be: is it American made.

Question for American readers, for your next car will you buy an American-made car? If not, why not?

Unless you’ve been living on another planet, you’ve probably heard something about UFOs, aliens and Roswell at least once in your lifetime. The year was 1947, some 21 years before I entered this earth and would not hear about Roswell for a good 10 more years or so.

The facts 

In years since I knew something happened, there was some kind of crash, on a farm Northwest of Roswell. A rancher by the name of "Mac" Brazel stumbled upon the wreckage and was worried about having it on his property because his sheep would not cross past it.

He gathered samples and took them into town to the sheriff. His story in the beginning was that he didn’t know what the material was and took it into town, wondering if it might be the wreckage of a flying saucer.

The sheriff phoned the local 509th bomber group and was routed to military intelligence officer Jesse Marcel Sr. who went out to the sheriff’s office to review the strange material. Marcel wanted to see where it came from and Brazel led him out to the spot where the wreckage was on his property.

Marcel took more samples of the material in his car. He stopped home and after swearing them to secrecy, showed his wife and his son what was discovered. He told his son — according to his son, Jesse Marcel Jr. — that it wasn’t anything he’d ever seen before. They touched the material which was like aluminum foil, only lighter and without one side being paper-like. They handled it carefully, not wanting to damage it.

Marcel took the material back to the base and after showing his superior, General Ramsey, the general checked  around with other military bases to see if it might be part of an experiment, a sensational press release was made that was retracted later. What was described as debris from a flying saucer was quickly amended to a misunderstanding: it was just a weather balloon.

This is where the story twists, depending on who or what you want — or are willing — to believe.

Common sense and Hollywood

It’s important to note that neither Marcel or son has ever claimed to have seen any aliens. They both only claimed to have seen material they hadn’t ever seen before. I was unclear on this until I read Marcel Jr.’s book, The Roswell Legacy, pictured above. This is the only book I’ve ever read on the subject, but I believe almost everything happened as Marcel’s son described.

The book isn’t laid out in story format. Instead it’s told in first person with little narrative and mostly descriptions of what Marcel’s son had witnessed firsthand and/or been told by his father of what really happened in 1947. It isn’t filled with a bunch of grandiose hypothesis about what might have happened, as I’ve seen to be the case with the Roswell incident over the years. It’s a mere 174 pages, including appendix.

The book also goes into a little bit of who his father was, his military credentials and what happened to him after Roswell. There was a TV movie in 1994 called Roswell starring Martin Sheen which takes some poetic license with the story, but remains somewhat faithful to what Marcel Jr. says really happened to him.

There are other stories portrayed in that TV movie which get much more difficult to believe — like there was a second crash site Marcel didn’t see that had the aliens, one of which was still alive. Don’t get derailed there though yet, let’s stay with Marcel who only said he saw material not of this world, later rebuffed by the government to be common material he should have been able to identify.

Marcel Jr. a surgeon has also been a career military man like his father and the only reasons he claims (and I believe) he wrote this story were:

1. to keep a promise to his father over getting the truth out about what really happened in 1947
2. to defend his father’s honor that was besmirched over mis-indentifying the Roswell crash debris as something other worldly instead of a weather balloon.

Marcel Jr. has served in Iraq as recently as 2005. He a credible source to me.

Marcel being part of the elite 509th bomber group, the unit behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have been able to easily identify the wreckage if it came from some known material. That only makes sense. Especially if it was a weather balloon, which was the government’s official story shortly after the first report put out by the 509th.

A weather balloon.  They’ve stuck by that story for the most part. Amending it later after reopening the investigation to a mogul balloon.

In the book, Marcel Jr. provides a scan of his father’s diploma from radar school dated September 8, 1945. He also lists his various military awards and despite his alleged gaffe identifying the debris, he was later promoted to lieutenant colonel in the reserves.

This doesn’t sound like the type of guy who would go out to a local ranch, bring back some material, show his boss the general the material, and then be part of putting out a press release that said it could be from a "flying saucer."

I did some internet fact checking to see if a copy of the original press release could be found online. Wikipedia, in fact, has a scan of the story in the Roswell Daily Record dated Tuesday July 8, 1943

 
Source: Wikipedia

So was there really a UFO crash in 1947 or not?

At least for this post I’m going to steer away from the hard to believe claims about seeing actual aliens at the second site, that one of them might have been kept alive for five years. Or that the government actually had an exchange program called Project Serpo from 1965-1978 where military personnel visited the planet Zeta Reticuli (and later allegedly died from "excess radiation"). You can visit YouTube, type in "Roswell" as the query and be treated to a bunch of clearly fake alien autopsy videos or use your favorite search engine for any of these terms to learn more if so inclined.

(But hey, if you want a good laugh then check out Dan Aykroyd Unplugged on UFOs — lol! Don’t you dig it when people try to be serious and it’s funny instead?)

Mea culpa: I wrote back in August 2006 that I believe aliens have visited earth and that the U.S government has proof of it. I’m not sure if this first happening was Roswell in 1947 and the book being reviewed here doesn’t try to answer that (and if it does, then it fails to be very compelling in that regard). What it does try to answer was if there was a crash of something not from earth. If you can’t go as far as me and believe in E.T then at least see if you can go as far as believing something crashed here not of this earth.

I am ready to believe the wreckage Marcel and his son touched wasn’t from earth. There are simply too many holes in the government’s response to believe otherwise. Weather balloon? Come on.

Where it came from, I don’t know, but if we knew it came from somewhere on earth what would be the harm in the government declassifying this information 60+ years later? Since the declassification hasn’t happened, one of the following possibilities must be true (pick your poison):

1. the government knows where it came from and doesn’t want to tell us
2. the government does not know where it came from and doesn’t want to admit this to us
3. the government knows where it came from on earth, and doesn’t want to tell us
4. the government does not know where it came from on earth and doesn’t want to admit this to us (yeah, similar to #2)

I was glad to be able to solve the lingering riddle in my mind about what happened in 1947 just outside Roswell. For that reason I give this book the highest Hmm Reviews grade possible. The book doesn’t get all "tinfoil-hat" to use the author’s own description of the fringe UFO crowd — and don’t worry readers, I’m not joining that crowd either. In fact, until the last chapter it doesn’t get too far afield of what the author and his father witnessed. That type of non-fiction works great for me.

In the last chapter the author explains why he thinks we’re not alone in the universe. I agree with much of his thinking there too. We can’t be alone and it’s arrogant to think we are. The universe is much too big and there are too many parts we know absolutely nothing about.

He thinks the aliens that have contacted us have been benign and that they might have some Star Trek like prime directive. That would make some sense as to why we don’t see aliens everywhere but they might have been in contact with the government.

The Russians have acknowledged crashed debris as being not of this earth while the U.S government has done so to date. I think before my death, assuming living out a ripe old age, I’ll see this happen.

I think it’s well past time for the government to declassify the material in 1947 that’s sitting on a base somewhere, waiting for further critical study and research. Why not?

Conspiracy theorist or realist

Now if I’m to be labeled conspiracy theorist for believing the government has botched up the Roswell cover-up, so be it. I put this one with the JFK assassination as far as believing the government lied to us. I’d also add in the more recent Bush administration lying about the whole weapons of mass destructions.

I think it’s harder to believe that the government has never lied to us, don’t you?

Conspiracy theorist or realist? I’ll take the latter. If you are looking for a story about what really happened in 1947 in Roswell, run, don’t walk, to the bookstore and get The Roswell Legacy. It feels about as close to the truth as we can get until the government declassifies what they are secreting away from us for our own [snicker] protection. Grade: A+

If you’re thinking with the current state of the economy that the timing couldn’t be worse for opening a brand new casino along the interstate in Washington state outside Seattle, you wouldn’t know it by the size of the opening weekend crowd at Snoqualmie Casino (warning: sound onload).

Let’s skip over the fact that the website just linked has one of the most annoying navigation schemes ever. You move your cursor down and the page jerks down and up and it jumps in reverse. Why?! You hover over something and it expands and plays a mini-movie. Congrats to some Flash designer who likely got paid a bunch of dough to frustrate site visitors.

Stay with me, this trend continues offline as well.

Via Seattle PI:

A modest roadside casino — instead of a lavish, multimillion-dollar facility — would not have worked, [tribal administrator Matt Mattson] said.

"Given the socioeconomic status, the sophistication of the people who live there, we think that doing more and starting out with a high-level property instead of a roadside casino gives us a better opportunity to succeed.

Kara and I hopped in the car and drove 43 miles to check it out last night. As the PI article indicates, you can’t see any neon sign or hulking structure from the interstate.

The first thing that struck me as we pulled around the stylish looking casino and drove downhill to self parking in the back and underneath the casino was the lack of sidewalks. $375 million and no sidewalks from the rear parking to the front? Nope, your choice is to wait among the crowd for the elevators or make a perilous uphill walk on a narrow road not intended for pedestrians.

Seeing sandbagging around the drains is an odd sight. The landscaping behind the casino looks a bit like an ice cream cone in 130 degree weather.

Of the many terrestrial casinos visited over the years I’ve never seen such a poor design from parking lot to casino. Sure, it’s great if there aren’t tons of people waiting for an elevator (which on opening weekend there were). It’s just … strange.

It caused confusion with others too, and there was nobody around to explain how or why the only way into the casino from the self-parking was through a bank of three elevators servicing 5+ levels of garage parking plus a huge rear self parking lot. When saw people coming down the parking garage stairs complaining that there was no way to get into the casino from the stairs. The stairs just go up and down to the parking lot.

We were joined by others who said screw it to waiting for the elevators and took our chances walking up the road — and being honked at by a few cars.

So if you’re planning on going this weekend then don’t do what we did, use the valet parking around the front at the top of the hill. Valet is the only way to fly.

The casino has a pleasant look to it around the front but when you walk in you get the immediate feeling you’re in a sardine can. There isn’t nearly enough space in the aisles to walk and slot machines and gaming tables are way too closely spaced. We were thirsty for some kind of soft drink and were surprised there wasn’t any serve yourself drink stations.

There are several bars, including a big luxurious one in the center of the casino. There were long waiting lines at the restaurants. There wasn’t an overly casino smoky air to it which was a positive. Another positive: you can use cash in the machines and they have ticket redemption machines so you aren’t forced to go to the cashier or wait in line to buy tickets to use in the machines.

But what about the gambling

We retreated to the least busiest area of the casino toward the end near the ballroom. Kara stuck $20 in some Egyptian slot and I stuck $10 into something with 7s and a bonus game. My machine quickly swallowed the $10 of which I stuck another $20 … and then another $20. Meanwhile Kara got into a bonus game and cashed out with $70.

As I was about to see my $50 disappear, I hit five symbols which paid $40. Then I upped the bet to the maximum $2.50 per digital spin. About five or six spins later I got 15 free bonus games. At the end of the bonus round my $50 had been turned into $150. I added Kara’s ticket to mine and cashed out.

Went to the nearest cashier station and the cashier informed me that she didn’t have enough twenties and could only pay us in big bills. The big cage in the center of the casino could help us. No thanks, we went to the machine thinking that might give us twenties. Nope, it spit out big bills too. Good thing these machines double as bill breakers so we just slid a $100 bill back in and got five crisp twenties.

Getting out easier than getting in

We’d had enough.

We exited via the elevators. Surprisingly, only one single guy was leaving at the same time as us. The elevator waiting area was eerily quiet. The elevator indicator lights turned red and door opened. After a full elevator of new arrivals passed by we entered, pressed ‘5′ for the level of the parking garage and in seconds were whisked back to the parking garage. We exited, got in our car and snaked our way out of the parking garage.

Of all the casinos we’ve seen, I’m sure it’s well over 100, we’ve never seen a casino that was designed to be easier to leave than to enter but hey, maybe this strategy will work for them. Add to the fact that they didn’t seem to have any of the machines we like to play: Keno or Bingo. I didn’t even see any video poker machines. They have 1,700 slot machines, mostly the ones with five symbols and dozens of winning combinations, so if that’s your thing you might dig it. They also have a bunch of table games. I enjoy craps but the tables were hopelessly crammed.

Hey, it’s opening weekend, not taking away any points in this review for them being busy. More power to them for being busy. I don’t know if it was in anticipation of Jessica Simpson playing, that it was less than 24 hours after they opened, it was a Friday night, that it was new and other gamblers were curious or some combination thereof.

I do know the experience wasn’t for us.

We enjoy visiting new casinos but doubt we’ll be back to this one any time soon. It’s not often we can say that about a casino where we spend 30 minutes there and leave first visit winners. If you’re going to enter and exit a casino, leaving a winner is always a good thing. I’d sooner recommend Emerald Queen which is off I-5 or if you’re taking the ferry over the sound, try Clearwater Casino. Clearwater in particular is a good example of a smaller casino geared for big crowds. Both those casinos offer bigger aisles and can better handle large crowds.

Grade: C-

This past weekend we were in Newport, Oregon and toured a wax museum. It sported this creepy realistic wax figure of Johnny Depp:

Johnny Depp weirds me out in real life but in wax he’s even more spooky. I had to do a double-take to make sure this was really wax and not some actor ready to lurch and cry: "boo!"

We also spotted DB Cooper’s parachute and Bigfoot next each other in the Ripley’s Believe it or Not exhibit.

Somebody get the SquatchDetective on this case. And even at the beach there’s no escape from politics. Check out the Newport, Oregon beach support for Obama by this homeowner:

 

Obama may need all the help he can get if faulty voting problems like this continue:

Among the list of bands I’d like to see get completely back together, Dennis DeYoung with Styx is near the top. He might be 61 but there is no reason — other than personality conflicts — I can tell anyway that he couldn’t and shouldn’t still be singing with Styx. I saw DeYoung perform for the first time at the Rockin’ The Rivers concert in Montana earlier this month and they rocked the place. His voice is in great shape.

Rockin’ The Rivers is billed as the biggest rock concert event in Montana of the year and this was the 10th time they’ve had the concert. It’s three days of bands that play from noon until 2am. People camp overnight, drink (lots) of beer and have a great time. At $120 for three days or $50 for one day this is among the best value concerts out there. Here’s what the official concert guide looks like:

The Van Halen cover band Hot For Teacher was impressive as well as Fran Cosmo singing Boston Songs. Wasn’t as impressed with Manny Charlton with Nazareth. We didn’t attend day 1 or day 3. That’s the only bummer I can think of regarding this concert: it’s like 650 miles from here. We’re planning on going again next year and maybe doing the camp out thing. Lots of fun.

Dennis DeYoung Rockin’ The Rivers 8/9/2008 Setlist
The Grand Illusion
Lady
Loralei
Don’t Let It End
Castle Walls
Light Up
Mr Roboto
Desert Moon
100 Years From Now
Rocking The Paradise
Sweet Madam Blue
Babe
Best Of Times
(encore) Come Sail Away

When I saw Matt Wardlaw post the House of Blues 8/24/2008 setlist from the band Styx including members Tommy Shaw, James “J.Y.” Young and Chuck Panozzo I was reminded to get this post out of the draft bin. Check out the same songs played by both bands, marked with asterisk, as well as the order:

House of Blues 8/24/2008 Setlist
Blue Collar Man
* The Grand Illusion
* Loralei
One With Everything
* Lady
Too Much Time On My Hands
Snowblind
I Am The Walrus
Boat On The River
Man In The Wilderness (Shaw acoustic)
Crystal Ball (beginning acoustic w/ Shaw only)
* Suite Madame Blue
Fooling Yourself (The Angry Young Man) (Chuck Panozzo on bass)
Miss America
* Come Sail Away (Panozzo on bass)

Interesting to note that both bands closed with Come Sail Away and The Grand Illusion was Dennis DeYoung’s opener and the second song Styx played. Must admit I missed Tommy Shaw singing "Snowblind" and "Crystal Ball" and would have liked hearing Blue Collar Man in the Dennis DeYoung line-up. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing the extended guitar solo version of Desert Moon and wouldn’t have wanted that axed in favor of Styx doing a Beatles cover.

I realize Styx sans DeYoung had a bit of success with their covers album but I don’t go to a concert with a band the calibur of Styx and want to hear songs they covered by The Beatles when that is in place of other, better songs like "Castle Walls" which DeYoung said Styx never played when he was with them.

What a haunting, beautiful song from the same album as "Come Sail Away."

The YouTube video of Desert Moon shown above (taken from the Arlington Heights show on July 6, 2008) and the one of Castle Walls (Chicago Ridge, Illinois on July 25, 2008) don’t do the live performances justice but are included here to give you a sampling of what it was like.

DeYoung played the title song from his new album 100 Years From Now that’s out in Canada and available via his website. He said it will be coming out in the states in January 2008. My wife didn’t care for the song, but I liked it. I’ll be buying this one when it comes out in the states, if not sooner.

A sweet moment in the DeYoung concert was when he dedicated "Babe" to his wife of 38 years Suzanne and she came out on stage and danced with him. Come on Dennis and Styx, mend those ties and get back together already!