Ten Most Underrated Countries in Western Europe

July 10, 2009
Here’s my list of the most underrated countries in Western Europe. Basically, I took away the largest, most well-known countries — England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc., and listed some of the ones that get less publicity.  Of course, no countries are “better” than any other countries – this is just a fun list, not meant to be taken too seriously.  In fact, I haven’t been to Portugal or Iceland.  I guess I just like making lists.  Also, even though I like Sweden and Scotland more than Belgium, for example, Belgium ranks higher because it’s more underrated.
  1. Norway
  2. Denmark
  3. Luxembourg
  4. Belgium
  5. Portugal
  6. Finland
  7. Holland
  8. Iceland
  9. Sweden
  10. Scotland

Customer Service: A Lost Art

July 10, 2009

Customer service from various places has been terrible lately.  Maybe it’s the economy.  Anyway, the representatives are just ruthless.  Here’s a random sampling of experiences.

DirecTV.  My DVR wasn’t working right so they said they could send a technician out.  They didn’t tell me until after they had fixed it that it would cost $49.99.  Also, the technician charged me $15 for an extra 1-foot cable, which is all he did, and he wouldn’t take a credit card, so I had to give him a $20 bill, and he didn’t have change so he wanted to just leave but I made him go and get change.  Then I called DirecTV and got transferred to about five different people and I told them they should have told me beforehand that there would be a charge.  Finally, after talking to about six people the first five of whom disagreed with me, they agreed that they should have informed me of the charge beforehand.  But what happens to people who aren’t persistent and don’t stay on the phone for a half hour?  In the past I’ve also had to repeat the same things over and over to them as if they never take notes on calls.  Also, when I first started, their reps were in the habit of promising things just to sign you up and then a different rep would deny that this ever happened.  Grade:  F

Comcast.  They insisted I had not returned a cable box and that I owed $50.  After many, many hours on the phone with them, they finally agreed that it was a mistake.  But after that, I still got bills for it.  Plus, even though the charge was eventually reversed, my phone bill was an extra $50 because of all the time I spent on the phone with them.   One other note – I’ve talked with two different people who don’t have TV set up because they had so many problems with Comcast.  Grade:  F

Carbonite.  I had a specific issue for which I wanted specific help, but after emailing them about 15 times and saying, “please don’t just cut and paste instructions for me,” they continued to just cut and paste standard instructions for me.  Also, at one point they asked me to send them specific files.  I did and they never responded.  Then they said they’d call me back and they never did.  Finally I asked again and they did call back to resolve it.  Grade:  D

Linksys.  They reset the settings on my router for a one-time charge and insisted that I wouldn’t need anything else for two years.  It didn’t help and the wireless access was actually slower so I asked if I could get a refund or have it credited toward a new router or a 6-month plan but they said no.  They said they’d call me back but never did.  I emailed them but they didn’t respond.  Usually they are pretty good on chat, though.  Grade:  D

Verizon.  When I was first getting my internet access set up, I remember the representative being unbelievably verbose and speaking in long, drawn out ways, almost as if she was reading a telemarketing script instead of just being concise and getting to the point.  A couple of other times they’ve been ok.  Grade:  C

Apple.  Generally, they’ve been pretty helpful.  Grade:  B

Best Buy Geek Squad.  I had a lot of problems with my PC and they weren’t helpful to say the least.  One of many examples:  I brought my laptop in because the touchpad, the left click button, whatever you call it, was always slightly depressed so that wherever the cursor, or the little hand, whatever you call it, was pointing on the web, it would occasionally just click on it without me touching it.  Example.  I’m writing an email and it’s halfway done.  The cursor is pointing over the “send” button but I’m not touching the computer at all.  The computer sends the email.  Best Buy insisted that there was nothing wrong with it because they supposedly couldn’t duplicate the problem even though this clicking when I wasn’t touching the pc happened about five times an hour every day for half a year.  You can see the left button is physically lower down by about a millimeter than it should be.  Grade:  F

Sirius Satellite Radio.  Keeping in mind that this would be easier than internet access or computers, generally, they’ve been good. Grade:  B

Southwest. I typed in my voucher code when I made a flight and it didn’t work.  I hope this isn’t a way for them to save money. But when I callled, they fixed the problem.  I guess there isn’t too much that can go wrong with airlines compared with technical companies, but if I list the bad ones I should also list the good ones.  Grade:  B

A Seller Tool.  They usually say, “just follow the instructions on the website.”  They aim to save time this way but they actually increase time spent because people have to keep calling back.  If they would just walk people through it a little bit, it would save time for everyone.  Grade:  D

A.C. Moore in Rockville, MD. This may not fit here, but I wanted to include it because I had a good experience there.  I bought 8 frames – of course they didn’t come with the brackets on the back.  I had to buy those separately, and they had those tiny nails that are impossible to use.  The guy at the counter agreed to do it right then and there for free.  I would have expected to have to wait and/or pay.  Grade:  A

Post Office, Bethesda, MD. I love the post office in Bethesda on Wisconsin Avenue.  It’s open 24 hours and they have one of those self-serve machines that you can use to send packages and other mail.  There is also one at the branch on Arlington Road but they close early.  The staff at both places are great.  Grade:  A

Ten Most Underrated Fruits

July 10, 2009
  1. Coconuts
  2. Pears
  3. Peaches
  4. Cranberries
  5. Kiwis
  6. Lingonberries
  7. Nectarines
  8. Figs
  9. Limes
  10. Pineapples
  11. Blackberries

Top 10 Frozen Yogurt Toppings at Yogiberry in Bethesda

July 10, 2009
  1. Raspberries
  2. Strawberries
  3. Coconut
  4. Chocolate
  5. Cranberries
  6. Blueberries
  7. Mangoes
  8. Blackberries
  9. Granola
  10. Walnuts

Chicago Bears QBs: Sid Luckman, Jim McMahon, Jim Miller, and Jay Cutler

July 10, 2009

I’m a little tired of sports media types and fans not being able to think for themselves and instead just repeating things over and over.  I gave an example the other day when I said that the whole sports media world says universally that Roger Federer was better than Pete Sampras just because he leads him in Grand Slam titles, 15-14.

Here’s another example.  Fans and sports media constantly say that the Chicago Bears haven’t had a great quarterback since Sid Luckman in the 1940s.  What about Jim McMahon?  All he did was win a Super Bowl, go 36-5 for the Bears from 1984-1988 and 67-30 overall for his career.  It’s pretty pathetic that people don’t care about results, about productivity, about winning.  It’s true that the Bears had a great defense then, but they had a pretty bad receiving corps.  He was also known as a good leader.  Remember too that McMahon was a first round pick, No. 5 overall in 1982.

McMahon’s career completion percentage was a very good 58%, and from 1984 to 1987, his TD to interception ratio was 40 to 29.  Pretty good for that era.  McMahon obviously wasn’t as good as Marino, Elway, Montana, Esiason or Moon, but four of them are in the Hall of Fame.  McMahon was great for a few years.

I don’t care about McMahon or the Bears but I do care when people (fans, sports media, news media) don’t think for themselves and just repeat back what others say.

I hate it when people like Jim Miller of Sirius NFL Radio agree with callers who say that the Bears haven’t had any great QBs.  Of course, Miller says a QB should have a ratio of 2 TDs for every interception.  He and others ignore the fact that passing stats were much less prolific 20 years ago than they are today.

In my article a year and a half ago advocating Art Monk to get into the NFL Hall of Fame (http://www.coachmike.net/artmonk.php), I talked about this (though Monk’s stats are unbelievable for any era):

If we look at the rise in offensive statistics in the Super Bowl era, we see three distinctly different eras. The first 14 years of the Super Bowl were characterized by run-first teams. The middle 14 years (Monk’s Redskins career) were dramatically different with the passing game opening up because of the rules changes in the late 70s. What some of the voters either fail to recognize or acknowledge is that the most recent 14 years have also had significant increases in passing and receiving numbers due to further changes including the west coast offense and other schemes in which passing is used to set up the run. See the table below.

NFL

1966-1979

1980-1993 (Monk’s era with the Redskins)

1994-2007

Number of individual 4,000 – yard passing seasons

2

19

46

Number of individual 100 – catch seasons

0

3

50

Number of 1500 – yard receiving seasons

0

5

15

McMahon played in the 1980s.  It wasn’t that long ago.  Of course, now everyone says that Jay Cutler is the first great quarterback to play for the Bears in 60 years.  What an insult.  Cutler is 17-20 overall for his career and hasn’t made the playoffs.  Cutler does have the stats, though, and that’s what people care about.

Federer the best ever? Not so fast.

July 7, 2009

Yesterday, Liz Clarke wrote an article in the Washington Post about Rod Laver’s opinion on whether Roger Federer is the greatest player of all time.  Laver was non-committal; saying just being the best in his era should be enough for Federer.  Nowhere in the 565-word article does Clarke even mention Pete Sampras’ name.  This is an egregious omission, even though in the main article about the Federer-Roddick match, she did mention Sampras as one of the greats.

She says, “Both names, Laver and Tilden, have long been bandied about in the debate over who is the greatest to play the game. And a third — that of Roger Federer — was listed alongside even before Sunday, when Federer raised the mark for excellence by winning a record 15th major title.”  Stating “a third” without mentioning Sampras, who won 14 major titles, is very misleading – it makes it seem like there are now three great ones on the Mount Rushmore of tennis.

I’m not saying Sampras was better than Federer, but I think it’s premature to say that Federer is undisputedly the greatest just because he has one more major than Pete.  I am saying that Sampras was equally as good as Federer.  Sampras had Andre Agassi as a rival while Federer had Rafael Nadal.  Sampras was 4-1 vs. Agassi in Grand Slam finals while Federer is 2-4 vs. Nadal.  Plus, Nadal has been great for only a few years while Agassi was a top contender for most of Sampras’ career.  Sampras also faced Jim Courier, who had four major wins, whereas during Federer’s era, no one other than Nadal (six) has more than two.

As for their strokes, they are about even.  Neither had a discernable weakness, while Pete’s serve was a little better than Federer’s.  True, Federer won the French Open and Sampras didn’t, but the surface and balls at the French Open have been changed to give non-clay court specialists a better chance to win.

I also take issue with the talking heads at ESPN who automatically agree that Federer is the best without even mentioning that there could be a debate.  Maybe after all is said and done, Federer will have close to 20 majors and it will be more clear, but not just yet.  Just because someone has more Grand Slam titles than another player doesn’t make him better.  Agassi won eight and John McEnroe won seven.  Agassi also won all four majors and Mac didn’t.  Does that alone make Agassi better than McEnroe?  Not necessarily.  For what it’s worth, McEnroe also won 9 doubles majors.  McEnroe was also much more dominant than Agassi. True, Fed has been more dominant than Sampras, but the field isn’t as good.

By the way, Bjorn Borg should also be in the discussion, though my personal opinion is that his game was too one-dimensional as a baseliner to be considered the best.  Still, he had 11 Grand Slam titles, and he won all of them on the two most diverse surfaces:  five on grass at Wimbledon, and six on clay at the French Open.  Plus, during Borg’s era he had to play against McEnroe, Connors (eight majors), and Guillermo Vilas (four).

A lot of people think Martina Navratilova was the best female player ever even though Steffi Graf had 22 Grand Slam wins and Navratilova had 18 and Chris Evert also had 18.  I personally believe Graf was the best, but the point is, why do people automatically assume that Federer is the best just because he has the most majors, while most media types would say Martina was the best female player, so they use different criteria for women?

Back to the talking heads – Today on Pardon the Interruption, Mike Wilbon said that there was absolutely no debate that Tiger Woods is a better athlete than Federer.  Really?  Tiger walks a course and hits a stationary ball.  Federer is constantly moving for hours at a time and he needs to make a lot of quick movements in a split second.  He faced serves against Andy Roddick at Wimbledon that were up to 140 miles per hour.

It’s not even a debate.  Tennis players are much better athletes than golfers.  Would Tiger be able to move on the court like Federer?  No way.  You can be out of shape and still succeed at golf, but you need to be fit to play tennis.  Tiger may be a great athlete, but don’t say he’s unquestionably a better athlete than Federer.

A Reason to Root Against Cleveland

June 25, 2009

I’m so sick of Shaquille O’Neal.  He is the most overrated NBA player of the last 15 years.  He has never won an NBA championship without an all-time great alongside him.  He got to play with Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, Steve Nash, and now LeBron James (not to mention Penny Hardaway in his prime). Last year Shaq went to a very good Suns team and led them to the lottery.  He wasn’t as good as Hakeem Olajuwon, who won two titles with a much worse supporting cast. If Shaq had had Patrick Ewing’s supporting cast, Shaq never would have won an NBA championship.  At least Ewing won an NCAA title.  Shaq never developed many offensive moves and he’s one of the worst free throw shooters in NBA history.

This is a panic move by Cleveland.  Shaq doesn’t work very hard, is often overweight, and like Brett Favre, his name is much bigger than his game. It’s so great that everyone thinks that 18 points and 11 rebound a game is so awesome.  Shaq did that last year for a running team that finished well above .500.  That’s really amazing – slightly better than an average NBA center.

Shaq benefitted from his size and athleticism for that size but has never been an overly skilled player.  The refs always allowed him to get away with too much.  The Cavs have put too much pressure on themselves to win it next year because Shaq is near the end.  They will certainly talk a big game and will be hyped up by the media.  Now the Suns can move on and they get a good young player in Sasha Pavlovic.

Mitch Kupchak and the 1978 Washington Bullets: NBA Champions

June 17, 2009

Monday on his ESPN show, Jim Rome pronounced L.A. Lakers General Manager Mitch Kupchak’s name wrong five times.  Rome pronounced it “Kupcheck” instead of “Kupchak.”  Rome should know better.  The worst thing about it is that Rome is based in L.A and Kupchak has been the GM of the Lakers for 9 seasons now. 

This is also Kupchak’s third NBA championship, winning the first two as a player, first with the Washington Bullets in 1978, and then with the Lakers in 1985.  (Kupchak was also on the 1982 Lakers who went on to win the title but only played in 27 games due to injuries).  

I know it’s easy to pick on sportscasters for individual mistakes, but this is a bad one.  Either Rome didn’t know how to pronounce Kupchak’s name or he read it off the teleprompter and didn’t correct the mistake of the writer.  And either way, it’s not too good. 

Kupchak averaged 16 points a game for the 1978 Bullets in just 26 minutes per game.  Kupchak was also an All-American in college, and won a gold medal for the U.S. in 1976.  He was a solid all-around player who worked hard and dove on the floor for loose balls.  

How about some respect for those Bullets, who had two of the greatest 50 players of all-time – Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld, plus Bobby Dandridge, a great small forward? 

Continuing on the subject of mistakes, the same day Sage Steele of ESPN said that the Lakers’ win was the first time an NBA team won the title after losing it the previous year.  Not true – in 1979, Seattle beat the Bullets after losing to them the previous season.  Part of the blame has to go to the writers on that one, though, if she didn’t write it.  

Contrary to popular belief, the NBA didn’t begin with Michael, Magic, and Larry.  Let’s get things right and also have some respect for the 1978 NBA champion Washington Bullets. 

Websites for Non-Profits

June 17, 2009

Websites For Non-Profits is a company that did a great job for me in improving search engine optimization for my websites, www.mikeneedsakidney.com and www.coachmike.net.  Their website is http://websitesfornonprofits.org/.  They asked all the right questions and then made behind the scenes changes to increase how searchable my sites are.  They specialize in doing websites, website makeovers, marketing assistance, and SEO for non-profits.  

Baby Strollers and Safety

June 17, 2009

People need to be more careful when they roll their babies in strollers crossing busy streets or in busy parking lots.  They should try to avoid these situations altogether because they are too dangerous.  It’s worse than riding a bike in heavy traffic.  Yes, you have the right of way, but is it really safe?