Buzz Blog

I experienced a moment of deja vu involving dinosaurs.

As part of my gig at Northstate Public Radio, I read public-service announcements of upcoming events. One of the ongoing events is for the "A T-Rex Named Sue" exhibit at the Turtle Bay Exploration Park in Redding.

This is going to be a weird post because it's about a liquor law from my homestate of Utah that I never really ran into, but I could have -- before today. In the past, bars were "private clubs" where customers had to buy a "membership" before you could enter and buy a drink (or else be a guest of a member). It was an interesting hurdle for people who are used to something different (or normal).

The private club memberships went away at midnight MDT, and with them went my last chance to become a "member" under this unusual law.

In the end, I kinda wanted to get a private membership. Yes, it's weird that I would want to get a private membership for the sake of getting one. Did I ever mention to you that I wanted to visit a Quizno's in Seattle?

Don't get me wrong, being a member of a private club in Utah was probably less cool than becoming a member of the National Geographic Society or Consumers Union, or wearing a Members Only jacket. It never came up when I was growing up (because I was obviously a minor). I've only been back a few times since turning 21.

When I visited Salt Lake City in July 2008, I thought I might need to buy a membership when tagging along with a friend who now lives in the city. Alas, the opportunity never came up in three chances.

1. An evening concert in the park had a beer garden. They checked ID, but there was no membership requirement.
2. On a separate day, we went to a brewery in Trolley Square. No membership was needed -- apparently breweries could sell their wares without them.
   
3. The last chance came when we went to get brunch on a Sunday. It's a nice restaurant with a bar area. Surely, I would need to pay for a membership here. No dice, my friend knew a member on staff and we were admitted as guests.
   

While I may have missed my chance to become a "member," it's still not too late for me to become utterly confused by Utah's new liquor laws. The private clubs are essentially gone, but will be replaced with "social clubs" and "dining clubs," each with different, yet similar rules. On top of that are full-service restaurants and beer taverns which can serve alcohol but follow another set of rules. A short rundown is here.

These changes only address clubs. If you wanted to buy a six-pack of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale to enjoy in the comfort of your home, you still need to go to a state liquor store.

Photo: The photo behind the "Lost Spike" at the California State Railroad Museum shows the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad at Promontory Summit, Utah in 1869. Here's a better look. I saw the workers holding up champagne and was intrigued that alcohol was used to commemorate this landmark event that happened in Utah.

I don't fly the major air carriers very often. An experience with onerous fees during a recent trip makes it even less likely that I'll choose to fly them again in the future.

At issue is the fact that airlines are seeking new ways to charge passengers more for services that have been included in the standard service for decades.

It's been a gradual process that slowly removed in-flight meals and other amenities from the standard fare. Now, it's come down to checked baggage -- last summer they were charging for two or more bags. This year, they're charging for the first checked bag and may have gone too far for my taste.

Charging for the first bag is a major hassle and an inconvenience heaped upon a stack of flying inconveniences that have increased since 2001. Checking a bag is the easiest option if you want to fly without making sure your liquids aren't carefully rationed out and bagged.

In some ways, checking bags makes it a lot easier for passengers boarding and deplaning. I'm never one of those people you might see taking five minutes trying to cram a steamer trunk into the cramped overhead bin.

Earlier this month, I was traveling to the Midwest for a wedding. Because I was taking an extended trip and anticipated bringing some Michigan goodies back with me, I brought my larger suitcase to the airport.

Facing an early-morning departure and a desire not to park my car for $9/day at Sacramento for more than a week, I opted to fly out of San Francisco International Airport.

Getting there about eight hours before the flight, I hoped to check my bag in before heading into the city for some entertainment. No dice -- the agent said rules prohibit checking in baggage that early. Given the post-2001 rules, I acquiesced and ended up lugging this big bag through the streets of San Francisco. I only got a few weird looks at the karaoke bar.

When the ticket counter opened in the morning, I was ready to check my bag and ran into another roadblock. For the convenience of checking a bag, Northwest (which is being absorbed into Delta) wanted to charge me $15.

Prompted to pay this new fee, I was a little testy when I told the agent that I was extremely unhappy. She noted it's a fee that nearly all the airlines are now charging.

"Southwest is the only airline that doesn't charge for the first bag," the agent said.

"Exactly. That's why I'm going to fly with them from now on," I replied.

After clearing through security, I was still miffed by the fee. I called Northwest reservations to complain. They helpfully gave me the number of customer relations, but the call center wasn't going to open for another hour.

For a few minutes, I delighted in thinking about what I was going to tell Northwest. I fantasized telling them that I would rather fly Southwest to Chicago and then take a 10-hour bus ride to my destination rather than giving Northwest/Delta another dollar of my business.

Eventually, I realized it was all a little silly and waited bleary eyed to board my flight.

The incident started to fade my memory after a couple of weeks and a relaxing train trip home without extra fees. I was content to let the matter drop until I read this quote in an article about fees:

"They're going to keep nudging them up until they run into market resistance," said Ed Perkins, a contributing editor at the Web site Smarter Travel.

If that's the case, then it's almost my duty to complain. After all, I wouldn't like to see airlines continue to nickel and dime the passengers they rely on.

Now, it's just a matter of waiting for that call center to open.

I want to check out some winners and losers with the recent switch to digital TV over-the-air signals. Depending on where you live or what you like to watch, the switch had some pretty interesting outcomes.

Here's a quick look at the scorecard:

Winner -- The National Football League. The original conversion date was set in mid-February. Lawmakers took pains to avoid making the switch around the Super Bowl. Even the summer switch doesn't affect the NFL.
Losers -- The National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League. It's pretty clear that Congress _didn't_ consider these two when setting the new date of June 12. Both the NBA and NHL were the midst of their league finals. For the NHL, a pivotal Game 7 took place on the day itself.

Winners -- Big cities. When I visited Salt Lake City in March, I checked the DTV set-up at several relatives' houses. Not only was the set-up fairly easy with indoor antennas and strong local signals, the number of channels available was amazing -- upwards of 20+. Of course, SLC has 3 public TV stations so it's not a huge surprise (those three stations are responsible for about 12 channels alone).
Losers -- Small cities. It's more of a crapshoot pulling in DTV signals from more distant locations (such as trying to view Redding stations from Chico). My neighbor has been on the roof at least four times adjusting an antenna to pull in Redding's PBS station, KIXE 9.

Tonight is the night where there is supposed to be some sort of pay off for months of hype regarding Jon and Kate Gosselin. The couple will make a "major announcement" on their show tonight (airing at 9 p.m. ET).

For those needing a refresher, the Gosselins have managed to parlay their ability to have many, many children into the reality show "Jon & Kate Plus 8" on a network that used to be called "The Learning Channel."

Oh, the things that we have learned! Not necessarily on TLC or the show itself, but elsewhere in the infosphere--the tabloids, the ceaseless entertainment Web sites and TV shows and their ilk. Depending on where you look either Jon cheated on Kate or vice versa (the couple has denied both rumors).

Regardless of what happens tonight, I'm sure the headline writers of the world are preparing to chronicle the announcement with no shortage of plays on the show's title. For example, we're all bracing for the headline, "Jon and Kate separate."

While a separation is possible, here are some other possible outcomes from Monday's announcement:

• "Jon, Kate, Octomom set playdate" -- think of the ratings if these two child-making dynamos get together.
  
• "Jon & Kate to legislate" -- if they choose to announce a joint run for elected office.
• "Jon & Kate to sell plates" -- they're taking their show to QVC.
  
• "Jon & Kate EXTERMINATE!" -- the couple announces they've become Daleks of "Doctor Who" fame with the sole goal of exterminating inferior life in the universe.
• "Jon & Kate kids to emancipate" -- Sure the sextuplets are just 5 years old, but they're probably old enough to know when to pull the plug.
• "Jon & Kate fail to placate" -- the likeliest headline if the announcement turns out to be nothing but fluff.
  

Photo credit: AP Photo/TLC, Karen Alquist, File

Tonight is the last "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno. Although he's not leaving our screens forever -- he'll be on in a new show at 10 p.m. this fall -- I thought I would watch the finale and write a mini-review.

It won't be available until early Saturday, but if you have any thoughts, please feel free to leave them here.

Personally, this will be the first Jay Leno show I've watched all the way through in about five years (I last watched all the way through when the Watersmeet Nimrod basketball team was on -- in 1994). I just never thought "Tonight Show" was appointment viewing (especially when I have primetime shows stacked up on my TiVo).

What do you think?

In what is probably one of the year's biggest headscratchers, I've noticed a number of bloggers writing about the failed 1970s NBC TV series called "Supertrain."

Haven't heard of this "Love Boat" on rails? Neither did I, until I stumbled upon a post from sitcom writer Ken Levine. Here's how he described it:

Television at its worst but cheese at its very best.

This landmark example of how not to create a TV show was also mentioned by prominent blogger Jason Kotke and The Infrastructurist.

I've seen the first 10 minutes of the pilot and it's pretty bad. I broke out laughing during the teaser with the train company's leader launching the Supertrain concept. It wasn't the line that the train would be powered by an "atom powered steam turbine machine" that cracked me up. It was the leader's "reassuring" response to a critic's charge that the train was a huge gamble that could ruin the company.

"So you think it's a gamble, do you? Well, gentlemen ... Since I can count my remaining years on the fingers of one hand, from my point of view, it's not much of a gamble at all."

How is that supposed to be reassuring in any way?

Other than the fact that the pilot is exquisitely cringeworthy (Steve Lawrence gets top billing), I have no idea why it's still getting mentioned 30 years after the show went off the rails. Perhaps discussions of creating regional high-speed rail networks has sparked some fond memories of bad television. It also might be better than most of NBC's fall schedule, but I'm hoping not.

Here's the first 10 minutes of the pilot. The remaining nine segments are on the Infrastructurist blog.



Photo: NBC publicity still originally provided to J. Morrissey and hosted on the NBC Supertrain Web site.

I enjoy the Barenaked Ladies song "If I Had a Million Dollars." This week, I'm singing about having a $1,000 to take a train ride. Not just any train ride — for a special excursion aboard a train pulled by a 65-year-old steam engine.

According to the Mercury-Register article, the engine is steam locomotive No. 844 — the last steam locomotive built for Union Pacific. The excursion was organized by the Western Pacific Railroad Museum in Portola for the 100th anniversary of the Western Pacific Railroad (since acquired by Union Pacific).

To ride the train this week, it will cost $1,000 to go from Oroville to Portola or $500 to go from Portola to Winnemucca, Nev. The money goes to a good cause — it's a fundraiser for the Feather River Rail Society.

For people who don't have a hole burning in their wallets, the train will be arriving in Oroville Thursday, spend the day there Friday for viewing near Mitchell Avenue and depart on Saturday morning.

It would be fun to go on the excursion, but it will be exciting to see a piece of history this week. It's not just the train, the Feather River Canyon route was one of the scenic highlights for passenger rail travel for years.

Chico State's entry on the party school list. This is a simulation of my surfing a potentially "Not Safe For Work" site while at work.

I was interested to see the new list of top 10 party schools from Playboy magazine, especially how Chico State would measure up. Chico State was first and second on the first two lists, but disappeared from the third list in 2006.

As I reported in today's Enterprise-Record, Chico State didn't make the top 10, but managed to eke its way on to an expanded list of 25 campuses at number 20. The whole thing is fascinating, especially Playboy's description of Chico's "scene."

I was pleasantly surprised to see Chico on the extended list. While the list could either be a badge of honor or mark of shame, I was just glad to see CSUC on the list after it was absent three years ago.

I almost missed it just looking at the top 10. I was interested in learning more about the list so I dug a little deeper on Playboy's Web sites ... while at work.

I was worried there would be images of naked ladies on the screen jeopardizing my professionalism and potentially my career. I shrunk the size of my Web browser window so I could navigate past any ... obstacles. Thankfully, the specific pages the magazine referred to were devoid of nudity and I was able to quickly find the information.

So, until Playboy ranks the schools again next year, Chico State will be nestled between Michigan State University, a prominent Big 10 school, and Hampshire College, a school I had to Google to learn more about.

The magazine's description of Chico State seemed a little off, at least in my eye. Here's what they wrote:

Legendary party scene despite the fact that the student body is not made up of stereotypical meat-head party boys and Stepford sorority girls. Think green—and not the stoner green, the environmental awareness green.

While many Chico State students have helped promote increased awareness of environmental sustainability, I reckon it's a stretch to say the campus is devoid of "party boys" and "Stepford sorority girls." Just walking around Chico's downtown core on a Friday or Saturday will uncover a decent number from both groups of people — and environmentalists too.

I couldn't comment on the specific ratio of party boys to green sceners, but Playboy might. They developed a matrix of five categories (including a "bikini" composite category that looked at factors such as boy-girl ratio, the weather, etc.). It rated the schools in each of them and combined that information with input from students and others.

Having Playboy use algorithms to pick the top party school reminded me of the system the BCS uses to find the top football team in the country. I wonder if Playboy's system is more worthwhile than the heavily criticized BCS.

My third editorial cartoon was published in today's Enterprise-Record and Mercury-Register. I call them "cartoons," but they're really more like photo-montages and computer illustrations to illustrate my thoughts.

In this case, I used Photoshop to modify an image from NASA's Visible Earth site. That image was then imported into Freehand, where I added the ribbon of text.

These cartoons are unusual for me because I don't divulge my opinion in such a permanent way very often. I don't feel my opinions have any part of the reporting I do. I strive to make sure I cover people and issues as fairly and accurately as possible given deadlines and other constraints.

As further separation, I don't report or cover the subjects of my cartoons (disc golf and the Earth, I suppose).

I'm curious about what you think when you saw this cartoon. I think it can be viewed in several different ways given our perspectives on the environment and the economy.

I think this is a modern version of an exercise I took part in growing up. I recall teachers in English classes asking me and others about what the author was "thinking" when he or she wrote the story we just read. The exercises were interesting and probably helped with critical thinking. On the other hand, I always thought part of it was silly -- how do we _really_ know what the author thought especially when we're looking back over decades of time and space?

Anyway, I've got a gallery of my other cartoons. The Enterprise-Record also keeps a small gallery of recent cartoons it has run on its ChicoER.com opinion section.

I'm curious about what you think about the cartoon. If you wish, please leave me a comment.