It doesn't have the same ring, does it?
The reality is that most of what people think is Las Vegas is in fact not the case at all.
One of most common misconceptions about Las Vegas is that The Strip is within the City Of Las Vegas. The reality is that The Strip is actually within two townships called Paradise and Winchester. What is considered to be The Strip ends once you cross Sahara Avenue on Las Vegas Blvd. So many visitors to the Las Vegas area never even set foot in Las Vegas proper yet think they went to Las Vegas. This is a misconception that has gotten folks for years; even casino operators have fallen into this trap. Back in the early 1970s when Bob Stupak bought the property that currently is the site of the Stratosphere, he tried to claim his casino (Bob Stupak's Million Dollar Gambling Museum & Casino) was on the Strip because it was on Las Vegas Blvd.
Paradise and Winchester have their origins in an attempt by the City Of Las Vegas in 1950 to annex The Strip in order to expand the tax base for the city in order to help fund some projects as well as to pay down debt. Not surprisingly, the casino owners on the then-fledgling Strip (At the time, the Strip consisted of The Flamingo, the El Rancho Vegas, the Thunderbird, the Hotel Last Frontier, the Silver Slipper and the Desert Inn.) were none too happy of the city trying to muscle in on them. So a group of casino executives (led by Gus Greenbaum of the Flamingo) went to the Clark County Commission and lobbied for them to grant the area township status so the the City Of Las Vegas would have to get approval from the commission to annex the land. The commission approved this in December of 1950 setting the stage for the creation of "Paradise City" and setting a precedence for other similar unincorporated townships within Clark County as a way to prevent the City of Las Vegas, the City Of North Las Vegas and the City Of Henderson from annexing land and affecting the county's tax base.
So if The Strip is not within the City Of Las Vegas, why do they have Las Vegas mailing addresses?
I think that it boils down to marketing the region as a tourist destination. For example, if you were taking the family to Disney World, you'd say you're taking the family to Orlando and not Lake Buena Vista or Bay Lake (Which are the "towns" in which the Walt Disney World Resort lie within, and are the ultimate description of a "company town" since Disney effectively controls those towns.). The entire region is marketed to tourists as "Orlando" even though the main attraction for the region (Walt Disney World) is over 20 miles from Orlando. Even Walt Disney World even uses Orlando as their location.
So the marketers in Las Vegas have done pretty much the same way by referring to the entire area as Las Vegas (The entire region is often referred to as the "Las Vegas Valley" or "Vegas Valley".) even though the primary tourist corridor is not located within the City Of Las Vegas. Even the USPS has helped to maintain this illusion (Isn't that what Vegas is about, creating and maintaining illusions?)by not having a Paradise, NV or Winchester, NV ZIP Code.
I'm sure the fact that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police patrol The Strip adds to confusion as well since the majority of visitors have no idea that the LVMPD is actually a joint police force of the City of Las Vegas PD and the Clark County Sheriff's Department that has been in existence since 1973 (The creation of Metro was a pretty contentious issue back then and it's early years were pretty rough. A lot of this is covered in the book, "The Battle For Las Vegas. The Law VS. The Mob" by Dennis N. Griffin, as a lot of the internal conflicts within Metro factored into the Mob activities of the era.). Tourists see Las Vegas on the badge and on the shoulder patch on the uniforms and that probably adds to the confusion as well.
Well in the end, it's still Las Vegas regardless of whether you're hanging our on Fremont Street or kicking it on The Strip.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Vegas Notes 6/27/2012
1. Possible new names for the Imperial Palace uncovered?
Neon Dice posted a piece a few days ago regarding two trademarks recently registered by Caesars Entertainment, one for "The Quad" and another for "3535" (which happens to be the street address for the Imperial Palace. A quick check on the US Patent & Trademark Office's database confirms these registrations. Here's my thoughts on this:
I don't see these as being possible new names for the Imperial Palace. I see them as names of bars within whatever Caesars Entertainment will be renaming the property. The Quad sounds like the name of a sports bar sort of place and 3535 sounds like the name of a higher end sort of lounge. Renaming the Imperial Palace the 3535 Hotel & Casino just sounds like a.) The Borg Collective that is Caesars Entertainment can't come up with a name. b.) 3535 sounds more like the name of a boutique hotel property or hotel within a hotel (Like Hotel32 at Monte Carlo)and that really doesn't sound like something Caesars Entertainment would operate themselves (Case in point, the upcoming Nobu Hotel at Caesars Palace.). c.) Sounds more like a name one might have for an operating company (3535 LLC or something to that effect).
Speculation ever since the Linq project was announced was that the Imperial Palace was going to get the Horseshoe name put on it, but this seems to run counter to how Caesars markets their Horseshoe brand, putting it as one of their higher brands (Several years ago the rumors were that they would rebrand Bally's as a Horseshoe and do a major overhaul of the property.). I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to call it "The Carnaval Hotel & Casino" and tie it in closer with Carnaval Court at Harrah's.
2. A new restaurant from Gordon Bleeping Ramsay to replace Bradley Ogden at Caesars Palace.
It's been one of the worst-kept secrets in Vegas since word got out last year that Bradley Ogden was going to close (Rumors were it was supposed to close late last yeat and never did.) and with the praise heaped upon Gordon Bleeping Ramsay Steak at Paris, it probably put the wheels in motion to hasten the closure of Bradley Ogden (Somewhere I never ate at by the way, as I typically hadn't give the restaurants at Caesars Palace much of a thought.), which comes on August 5th.
I'm sure Bradley Ogden will resurface at another Las Vegas property not too long after his namesake restaurant closes. Perhaps he'll pop up over at Encore, as Switch will be closing on July 22, with an unnamed new restaurant to replace it come December.
3. Terminal 3 at McCarran opens today (6/27/12).
It doesn't affect me much, as Delta will still be at the D Gates and their ticketing and baggage will remain at Terminal 1 (United and Hawaiian will have their ticketing and baggage at T-3 but will operate out of the D Gates (United is still where they were on D and Hawaiian will be moving to D in August after a brief stay on the A gates along with Omni Air International, whose flights will move to B.). If you fly to Vegas on JetBlue, Frontier, Sun Country or Virgin America, those airlines will continue to operate from their current gates until July 31st, when they move to Terminal 3.
Some folks questioned whether they needed to build Terminal 3, especially after US Airways gutted their former hub operations there and the drop in travel in the wake of the ongoing economic situation. It was needed, as while the economy and travel are down, that's when it's best to build projects like this to meet expected demand down the road plus material costs and labor costs are lower as well. It gives a better first impression to international travelers than the old Terminal 2.
With several airlines that currently operate out of the D Gates moving to Terminal 3, there is likely to be some gate changes on D. United should be able to consolidate their operations in the wake of their merger with Continental. AirTran has already relocated to the B Gates with corporate sibling Southwest as they are slowly integrated into Southwest. There have been reports of US Airways moving to the D Gates as well and the A Gates being shuttered. If the A Gates do in fact get shuttered, and with Terminal 2 slated for demolition, perhaps that part of the airport gets a new A Gates facility five to ten years down the road. The proposed second Vegas Valley passenger airport at Ivanpah is probably shelved for at least another 20 years or more.
Neon Dice posted a piece a few days ago regarding two trademarks recently registered by Caesars Entertainment, one for "The Quad" and another for "3535" (which happens to be the street address for the Imperial Palace. A quick check on the US Patent & Trademark Office's database confirms these registrations. Here's my thoughts on this:
I don't see these as being possible new names for the Imperial Palace. I see them as names of bars within whatever Caesars Entertainment will be renaming the property. The Quad sounds like the name of a sports bar sort of place and 3535 sounds like the name of a higher end sort of lounge. Renaming the Imperial Palace the 3535 Hotel & Casino just sounds like a.) The Borg Collective that is Caesars Entertainment can't come up with a name. b.) 3535 sounds more like the name of a boutique hotel property or hotel within a hotel (Like Hotel32 at Monte Carlo)and that really doesn't sound like something Caesars Entertainment would operate themselves (Case in point, the upcoming Nobu Hotel at Caesars Palace.). c.) Sounds more like a name one might have for an operating company (3535 LLC or something to that effect).
Speculation ever since the Linq project was announced was that the Imperial Palace was going to get the Horseshoe name put on it, but this seems to run counter to how Caesars markets their Horseshoe brand, putting it as one of their higher brands (Several years ago the rumors were that they would rebrand Bally's as a Horseshoe and do a major overhaul of the property.). I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to call it "The Carnaval Hotel & Casino" and tie it in closer with Carnaval Court at Harrah's.
2. A new restaurant from Gordon Bleeping Ramsay to replace Bradley Ogden at Caesars Palace.
It's been one of the worst-kept secrets in Vegas since word got out last year that Bradley Ogden was going to close (Rumors were it was supposed to close late last yeat and never did.) and with the praise heaped upon Gordon Bleeping Ramsay Steak at Paris, it probably put the wheels in motion to hasten the closure of Bradley Ogden (Somewhere I never ate at by the way, as I typically hadn't give the restaurants at Caesars Palace much of a thought.), which comes on August 5th.
I'm sure Bradley Ogden will resurface at another Las Vegas property not too long after his namesake restaurant closes. Perhaps he'll pop up over at Encore, as Switch will be closing on July 22, with an unnamed new restaurant to replace it come December.
3. Terminal 3 at McCarran opens today (6/27/12).
It doesn't affect me much, as Delta will still be at the D Gates and their ticketing and baggage will remain at Terminal 1 (United and Hawaiian will have their ticketing and baggage at T-3 but will operate out of the D Gates (United is still where they were on D and Hawaiian will be moving to D in August after a brief stay on the A gates along with Omni Air International, whose flights will move to B.). If you fly to Vegas on JetBlue, Frontier, Sun Country or Virgin America, those airlines will continue to operate from their current gates until July 31st, when they move to Terminal 3.
Some folks questioned whether they needed to build Terminal 3, especially after US Airways gutted their former hub operations there and the drop in travel in the wake of the ongoing economic situation. It was needed, as while the economy and travel are down, that's when it's best to build projects like this to meet expected demand down the road plus material costs and labor costs are lower as well. It gives a better first impression to international travelers than the old Terminal 2.
With several airlines that currently operate out of the D Gates moving to Terminal 3, there is likely to be some gate changes on D. United should be able to consolidate their operations in the wake of their merger with Continental. AirTran has already relocated to the B Gates with corporate sibling Southwest as they are slowly integrated into Southwest. There have been reports of US Airways moving to the D Gates as well and the A Gates being shuttered. If the A Gates do in fact get shuttered, and with Terminal 2 slated for demolition, perhaps that part of the airport gets a new A Gates facility five to ten years down the road. The proposed second Vegas Valley passenger airport at Ivanpah is probably shelved for at least another 20 years or more.
I'm A Lazy Sod......
I've never really been that good about blogging. I get some ideas for one yet never put digital pen to digital paper to do so. But I'm now planning to make a concerted effort to be a bit more productive in regards to this blog.
I've decided to jump feet first into the Vegas Blogosphere so to speak and while I'm not planning on being a breaking news blog or a source for such news, I do intend to give my own opinions on what's happening out there even though I'm nearly 1800 miles away.
I'm going to try to do at least one entry a week, possibly two; but my track record doesn't support that idea. I post a lot of my thoughts and opinions on Vegas topics on a daily basis on a few sites and what I post will not be a cut and paste of that content posted elsewhere.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Airport Insecurity
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin's statement, first published in 1759, is one that is used by some as a rallying cry against the Transportation Security Agency and its' passenger screening policies. In the wake of the recent attempt to blow up two cargo planes, they've intensified the passenger screening process even further than in the wake of the failed bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 last Christmas. After that failed attack, the full body scanners were fast-tracked into airport service.
While I am not a fan of the TSA (they are marginally better than the contractors that previously manned the security checkpoints), the whole idea of the National Opt-Out Day is short-sighted and a bit of a knee-jerk reaction against the increased security. The fact that the organizers of this act of civil disobedience have chosen one of the busiest travel days of the year (The day before Thanksgiving.) shows little regards towards their fellow passengers. Backing up the security lines and causing folks to miss flights is not a good way to make your point. Getting passengers upset because they missed their flight and the airline is unable to get them onto another flight until Thanksgiving Day all because you dislike airport security risks some blow-back from passengers.
The fact that airline unions are encouraging their members to opt-out as well is a bit selfish and egotistical. There's already one airline pilot whose flying career may be over due to refusing not only a full-body scan, but also a pat-down. Is losing your job over airport security really worth it? There are plenty of pilots that have been laid off that would probably be more than willing to fill that seat on the flight deck.
People seem to treat flying as an inalienable right when in fact, it is a privilege. If you can afford to buy a ticket, you can fly wherever you want to. However, in order to gain access to the gate areas, one must pass through security screening. Most people have to endure this on a daily basis in their jobs, as nearly all government buildings (Federal, State, & Local) require one to pass through a metal detector and have their belongings inspected in order to gain access to the building. Having to be screened in order to access a courthouse and having to be screened in order to access the gate area at an airport are very similar in nature. In both cases, it is to prevent people from smuggling items that could potentially kill or maim others. You wouldn't want someone smuggling a gun into a courtroom, and you wouldn't want someone smuggling one onto your airplane.
The four hijackings on 9/11/01 were the result of terrorists using the loopholes that were available to them (At the time knives under a certain length were allowed to be brought onboard an aircraft.). Pretty much every terrorist act involving commercial aircraft was the result of the terrorists taking advantage of a hole in the fence so to speak. The rash of hijackings in the 1960s and 1970s in the US involving attempts to send the plane to Cuba pretty much came to an end once passengers were required to pass through a metal detector. Same was true at many airports in Europe and in the Middle East during this same time period and allowed terrorists to hijack aircraft. The shoe bomber used a hole in the fence by have the bomb hidden in his shoe and thankfully he didn't have a lighter or a box of wooden matches or he would have succeeded in blowing up American Airlines flight 63. The underwear bomber last Christmas also used a hole in the fence and managed to get explosives onboard an aircraft. The failed Transatlantic aircraft plot in the summer of 2006 was also trying to exploit a hole in the fence, and as a result, we all have to deal with the rather silly 3 Ounce Rule (Well I can't take anything in a bottle bigger than three ounces, but I can take the same amount in a number of three ounce bottles.).
The TSA is trying to plug up all of the holes in the fence and people don't like it. How many more innocent people have to die before people understand that extremists who seek to destroy our way of life must be stopped before another drop of blood is spilled. If having to take off my shoes, my belt, my hat, my jacket, empty my pockets, pull out my laptop, and then be subject to a full body scan is what I have to do in order to get on a plane, I'll take the few minutes of inconvenience as I bought the ticket and going through the smoke and mirror-filled dog and pony show that is airport (in)security. While subjecting myself to this runs counter to some of my libertarian beliefs, sometimes we have to do things we do not like.
So to those of you who want to make the security lines even more screwed up during a busy holiday travel season, show some respect to your fellow passengers and just suck it up. The scanners are not going away and if you don't want to be subjected to them, either accept the pat-down that is the alternative or have the website for Greyhound or AMTRAK bookmarked, as a bus, a train or a car is the only option you have if you don't want to be subjected to airport screening. If you want to fly and not be subject to the screening process, become wealthy enough to be able to own or charter a private a/c.
Ben Franklin's statement, first published in 1759, is one that is used by some as a rallying cry against the Transportation Security Agency and its' passenger screening policies. In the wake of the recent attempt to blow up two cargo planes, they've intensified the passenger screening process even further than in the wake of the failed bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 last Christmas. After that failed attack, the full body scanners were fast-tracked into airport service.
While I am not a fan of the TSA (they are marginally better than the contractors that previously manned the security checkpoints), the whole idea of the National Opt-Out Day is short-sighted and a bit of a knee-jerk reaction against the increased security. The fact that the organizers of this act of civil disobedience have chosen one of the busiest travel days of the year (The day before Thanksgiving.) shows little regards towards their fellow passengers. Backing up the security lines and causing folks to miss flights is not a good way to make your point. Getting passengers upset because they missed their flight and the airline is unable to get them onto another flight until Thanksgiving Day all because you dislike airport security risks some blow-back from passengers.
The fact that airline unions are encouraging their members to opt-out as well is a bit selfish and egotistical. There's already one airline pilot whose flying career may be over due to refusing not only a full-body scan, but also a pat-down. Is losing your job over airport security really worth it? There are plenty of pilots that have been laid off that would probably be more than willing to fill that seat on the flight deck.
People seem to treat flying as an inalienable right when in fact, it is a privilege. If you can afford to buy a ticket, you can fly wherever you want to. However, in order to gain access to the gate areas, one must pass through security screening. Most people have to endure this on a daily basis in their jobs, as nearly all government buildings (Federal, State, & Local) require one to pass through a metal detector and have their belongings inspected in order to gain access to the building. Having to be screened in order to access a courthouse and having to be screened in order to access the gate area at an airport are very similar in nature. In both cases, it is to prevent people from smuggling items that could potentially kill or maim others. You wouldn't want someone smuggling a gun into a courtroom, and you wouldn't want someone smuggling one onto your airplane.
The four hijackings on 9/11/01 were the result of terrorists using the loopholes that were available to them (At the time knives under a certain length were allowed to be brought onboard an aircraft.). Pretty much every terrorist act involving commercial aircraft was the result of the terrorists taking advantage of a hole in the fence so to speak. The rash of hijackings in the 1960s and 1970s in the US involving attempts to send the plane to Cuba pretty much came to an end once passengers were required to pass through a metal detector. Same was true at many airports in Europe and in the Middle East during this same time period and allowed terrorists to hijack aircraft. The shoe bomber used a hole in the fence by have the bomb hidden in his shoe and thankfully he didn't have a lighter or a box of wooden matches or he would have succeeded in blowing up American Airlines flight 63. The underwear bomber last Christmas also used a hole in the fence and managed to get explosives onboard an aircraft. The failed Transatlantic aircraft plot in the summer of 2006 was also trying to exploit a hole in the fence, and as a result, we all have to deal with the rather silly 3 Ounce Rule (Well I can't take anything in a bottle bigger than three ounces, but I can take the same amount in a number of three ounce bottles.).
The TSA is trying to plug up all of the holes in the fence and people don't like it. How many more innocent people have to die before people understand that extremists who seek to destroy our way of life must be stopped before another drop of blood is spilled. If having to take off my shoes, my belt, my hat, my jacket, empty my pockets, pull out my laptop, and then be subject to a full body scan is what I have to do in order to get on a plane, I'll take the few minutes of inconvenience as I bought the ticket and going through the smoke and mirror-filled dog and pony show that is airport (in)security. While subjecting myself to this runs counter to some of my libertarian beliefs, sometimes we have to do things we do not like.
So to those of you who want to make the security lines even more screwed up during a busy holiday travel season, show some respect to your fellow passengers and just suck it up. The scanners are not going away and if you don't want to be subjected to them, either accept the pat-down that is the alternative or have the website for Greyhound or AMTRAK bookmarked, as a bus, a train or a car is the only option you have if you don't want to be subjected to airport screening. If you want to fly and not be subject to the screening process, become wealthy enough to be able to own or charter a private a/c.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
An observation about online reviews.
I was just looking at some hotel ratings on Yelp and Trip Advisor of a hotel I recently stayed at in Las Vegas and got a chuckle at folks complaining about slow check-in service late at night (The hotel in question is a nice hotel, not some no-tell motel.). Let's see, the majority of guests show up in the afternoon and early evening, so hotels will have more clerks during those times. So if you're showing up at 1 am to check-in, don't be surprised if the hotel only has one or two desk clerks working at that time. If you're expecting five star service at a three or four star hotel, you're going to be disappointed. If you're expecting it at a two star hotel, you're going to be in for a rude awakening. If you want five star service, you've got to spend the $$$ for a place that is a five star establishment. Don't book at a Holiday Inn Express and expect the Mandarin Oriental. If you don't want to have to wait in a line to check-in, plan your arrival time better.
I've walked past my fair share of front desks in the middle of the night while out in Las Vegas (either coming in for the night or hitting the desk to check out and head to the airport for a 6 am flight) and the most desk clerks I've seen working is two, even at major hotels on the Strip. In some cases, it's just one person. I've stayed at hotels that seemed to never have more than one person working the check-in desk, even in the middle of the afternoon.
Personally, I don't take a lot of stock in user reviews on sites like Yelp, Trip Advisor, etc., unless there is a definite pattern in the reviews. If the recent reviews (within the last 60-90 days) tend to skew a certain way, I'd tend to believe them, especially if it's a swing from earlier reviews. If there's a overly glowing review in a sea of average or below average reviews, or a savagely negative one in a sea of above average or average reviews, I tend to look at them as either planted reviews or we're not getting the entire story (Folks will tend to leave out details, especially when said details makes them look bad.). As the saying goes, "your mileage may vary".
I've walked past my fair share of front desks in the middle of the night while out in Las Vegas (either coming in for the night or hitting the desk to check out and head to the airport for a 6 am flight) and the most desk clerks I've seen working is two, even at major hotels on the Strip. In some cases, it's just one person. I've stayed at hotels that seemed to never have more than one person working the check-in desk, even in the middle of the afternoon.
Personally, I don't take a lot of stock in user reviews on sites like Yelp, Trip Advisor, etc., unless there is a definite pattern in the reviews. If the recent reviews (within the last 60-90 days) tend to skew a certain way, I'd tend to believe them, especially if it's a swing from earlier reviews. If there's a overly glowing review in a sea of average or below average reviews, or a savagely negative one in a sea of above average or average reviews, I tend to look at them as either planted reviews or we're not getting the entire story (Folks will tend to leave out details, especially when said details makes them look bad.). As the saying goes, "your mileage may vary".
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Not fade away....
I saw something the other day that made me think about things that used to be commonplace that are either on their way out or practically gone. Some I thought about in no particular order:
Home newspaper boxes. You know what they used to put your newspaper in instead of throwing it willy-nilly in the driveway, front yard, etc. You can still see them in some areas, just not like you used to.
Newspaper vending boxes. The victim of newspaper cutbacks. I also never got the whole concept that some newspapers did by having an empty vending box outside of a store with a sign in it saying that newspapers were sold inside the store. Did these "signs" really generate sales, or would they have made more money selling the boxes for scrap?
Pay phones. Two words: cell phones. What probably was the ultimate blow to the pay phone was the prepaid cell phone.
VCRs. I'm actually surprised you can still buy them in stores (usually packaged as a DVD/VCR combo), seeing that DVDs have supplanted them in stores and in retail sales.
Pagers. Yes there are folks who still have pagers. In fact, the company I work for actually used them up until a few years ago (they didn't want to have to pay a termination fee). With cell phones and plans being so inexpensive (especially with a prepaid plan), owning a pager makes no sense at all.
Portable CD players. Thank goodness for MP3 players, as you can fit that CD collection you used to lug around with you into a device smaller than a deck of playing cards. The portable CD player is definitely a 90s thing, like the Walkman/portable cassette player was in the 80s.
That's just a few that come to mind. I wonder if in the next 5-10+ years, folks will be talking about when the Ipod was the size of a deck of cards and only had 160 GB of space on it. Or when folks actually had to go get a newspaper/magazine/book instead of merely downloading the latest edition (We're almost to that point anyway, but it really wouldn't surprise me if eventually the days of washing the newsprint off of our hands are in the past.). I can actually remember when vinyl became a niche item, when record stores quit carrying cassette tapes, and even going as far back as 8-track tapes. I remember both VHS and Betamax, the various early generation video game systems that competed with the Atari 2600. We've already had this decade's versions with the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray battle, and PS3 vs. XBox360 vs. Wii battle. 15-20 years from now, they'll be folks in their 30s and 40s reminiscing about those being the "good old days". By then, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, et. al, will probably be something looked at as a fad of the late 00s.......
Home newspaper boxes. You know what they used to put your newspaper in instead of throwing it willy-nilly in the driveway, front yard, etc. You can still see them in some areas, just not like you used to.
Newspaper vending boxes. The victim of newspaper cutbacks. I also never got the whole concept that some newspapers did by having an empty vending box outside of a store with a sign in it saying that newspapers were sold inside the store. Did these "signs" really generate sales, or would they have made more money selling the boxes for scrap?
Pay phones. Two words: cell phones. What probably was the ultimate blow to the pay phone was the prepaid cell phone.
VCRs. I'm actually surprised you can still buy them in stores (usually packaged as a DVD/VCR combo), seeing that DVDs have supplanted them in stores and in retail sales.
Pagers. Yes there are folks who still have pagers. In fact, the company I work for actually used them up until a few years ago (they didn't want to have to pay a termination fee). With cell phones and plans being so inexpensive (especially with a prepaid plan), owning a pager makes no sense at all.
Portable CD players. Thank goodness for MP3 players, as you can fit that CD collection you used to lug around with you into a device smaller than a deck of playing cards. The portable CD player is definitely a 90s thing, like the Walkman/portable cassette player was in the 80s.
That's just a few that come to mind. I wonder if in the next 5-10+ years, folks will be talking about when the Ipod was the size of a deck of cards and only had 160 GB of space on it. Or when folks actually had to go get a newspaper/magazine/book instead of merely downloading the latest edition (We're almost to that point anyway, but it really wouldn't surprise me if eventually the days of washing the newsprint off of our hands are in the past.). I can actually remember when vinyl became a niche item, when record stores quit carrying cassette tapes, and even going as far back as 8-track tapes. I remember both VHS and Betamax, the various early generation video game systems that competed with the Atari 2600. We've already had this decade's versions with the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray battle, and PS3 vs. XBox360 vs. Wii battle. 15-20 years from now, they'll be folks in their 30s and 40s reminiscing about those being the "good old days". By then, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, et. al, will probably be something looked at as a fad of the late 00s.......
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Vegas Is For Douchebags.
By now (unless you've just come out of a 10-year coma), we're all familiar with the Vegas tagline of "What Happens In Vegas....." At this point it has gotten way past the point of being hip and trendy to becoming a tired phrase. Even the classic quote from Swingers of "Vegas Baby! Vegas!" has jumped the shark. The Las Vegas Convention And Visitors Authority has tried some other taglines that involve the "Only Vegas" wordmark. Perhaps they ought to really revolve their marketing around the fact that Las Vegas has become the playground for the vapid L.A. celebutard scenesters (And their hangers on) whose only contributions to society are vapid souless reality TV shows and fodder for the bottom feeding tabloid TV shows. On that note, I propose usurping the long used tourism and travel slogan of the Commonwealth of Virginia and rewording it to best describe what has taken over Las Vegas in the last five years:
Vegas Is For Douchebags.
It seems that along the bulk of The Strip, we've now got Douchebag Central. Hip and "trendy" nightclubs where the door fee could fill up the gas tank in your SUV, where bottle service means you'll be paying many times more than the retail price just for the privilege of not having to stand in line with the unwashed masses who luckily got into the club. I'm tired of getting emails from the various casinos (and casino operators) regarding parties at these douchebag clubs being hosted by some vapid celebutard whose claim to fame is being a vagina on a stick or the village bicycle. Attention casino companies, the vast majority of the people that subscribe to your email services do it so they can get special room rate offers, not to find out that Paris Hilton is hosting a party at the hip and trendy club that replaced a club that was hip and trendy 6 months prior that replaced a bar or lounge that was a good place to meet up with your friends to begin a night out in Vegas.
The only way I might even consider attending such an affair would be if they guaranteed me a blow job from Paris Hilton (Although considering the walking petri dish that she is, I'd have to request she do it covered.), and even then, I might decide I'd rather go watch the newest Viva Vision show (Have they scraped the bottom of the barrel yet? Getting KISS to approve a Viva Vision show is not that big of deal considering Gene Simmons will slap the KISS name on anything you throw his way if the price is right.) on Fremont Street (Which thankfully is a douchebag free zone most of the time because Downtown isn't hip and trendy with the celebutard scenester crowd.).
While some may argue that the celebrities have made Vegas their playground for many years, there's a huge difference between the celebrities of the past who made their bones by actually contributing to society instead of being part of the downfall of society. The celebrities in the past actually put on shows where they actually sang to a live band and even did two and sometime three shows a night. Not to mention they would go to other shows and sometimes perform in them. Hell, Frank, Dino, Sammy, Joey, and Peter were shooting Ocean's Eleven by day, performing in the Copa Room at the Sands at night, and then sometimes shooting scenes after the show with a little carousing in between. You think the hotels on the Strip will dim their lights in honor of Britney Spears or Lindsey Lohan when they die? Will the cast of "The Hills" be talked about in the same reverent tones as the Rat Pack or Elvis? Hell no. Even if they were to shuffle off of this mortal coil while still somewhat relevant, life will go on in Sin City. The hotels reserve dimming their lights in honor of those who really made an impact on Las Vegas. The only impact these celebutard douchebags have made is trying to turn the Strip into a playground for the rich and priviledged.
Vegas Is For Douchebags.
It seems that along the bulk of The Strip, we've now got Douchebag Central. Hip and "trendy" nightclubs where the door fee could fill up the gas tank in your SUV, where bottle service means you'll be paying many times more than the retail price just for the privilege of not having to stand in line with the unwashed masses who luckily got into the club. I'm tired of getting emails from the various casinos (and casino operators) regarding parties at these douchebag clubs being hosted by some vapid celebutard whose claim to fame is being a vagina on a stick or the village bicycle. Attention casino companies, the vast majority of the people that subscribe to your email services do it so they can get special room rate offers, not to find out that Paris Hilton is hosting a party at the hip and trendy club that replaced a club that was hip and trendy 6 months prior that replaced a bar or lounge that was a good place to meet up with your friends to begin a night out in Vegas.
The only way I might even consider attending such an affair would be if they guaranteed me a blow job from Paris Hilton (Although considering the walking petri dish that she is, I'd have to request she do it covered.), and even then, I might decide I'd rather go watch the newest Viva Vision show (Have they scraped the bottom of the barrel yet? Getting KISS to approve a Viva Vision show is not that big of deal considering Gene Simmons will slap the KISS name on anything you throw his way if the price is right.) on Fremont Street (Which thankfully is a douchebag free zone most of the time because Downtown isn't hip and trendy with the celebutard scenester crowd.).
While some may argue that the celebrities have made Vegas their playground for many years, there's a huge difference between the celebrities of the past who made their bones by actually contributing to society instead of being part of the downfall of society. The celebrities in the past actually put on shows where they actually sang to a live band and even did two and sometime three shows a night. Not to mention they would go to other shows and sometimes perform in them. Hell, Frank, Dino, Sammy, Joey, and Peter were shooting Ocean's Eleven by day, performing in the Copa Room at the Sands at night, and then sometimes shooting scenes after the show with a little carousing in between. You think the hotels on the Strip will dim their lights in honor of Britney Spears or Lindsey Lohan when they die? Will the cast of "The Hills" be talked about in the same reverent tones as the Rat Pack or Elvis? Hell no. Even if they were to shuffle off of this mortal coil while still somewhat relevant, life will go on in Sin City. The hotels reserve dimming their lights in honor of those who really made an impact on Las Vegas. The only impact these celebutard douchebags have made is trying to turn the Strip into a playground for the rich and priviledged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
