Burl Burlingame has just filed the above photo from his hotel room window with the caption, “Why I Will Never Live in Las Vegas.”
Burl’s there for the Radford High School Class of 1971 Reunion, which is this weekend. I am a member of that class, but I am not there.
The reason I’m not there is that I haven’t made up my mind whether to go, and it seems I’m out of time. This is where procrastination gets you.
Seriously, I just ended up deciding not to spend the money. I’d rather save it for when we get to take another trip like the one we took to England back right after Christmas.
Now if the reunion had been in Hawaii, where we actually graduated, I might have looked for a way to swing it. I could have checked to see whether credit really has eased appreciably since 2008. But my classmates who organized it decided Vegas was cheaper for all of us former military brats who are scattered across the country. Which I appreciate. (Although, ironically, Burl had to travel FROM Hawaii to get to Vegas.) But I’ve never particularly wanted to go to Vegas.
It’s just never had much appeal to me. I quit gambling in college, when I was disabused of the notion that I was a nine-ball master one day when my opponent drove in the nine ball on the break several games in a row. Money was on the line. That, and a poker hand at about that same time — a game in which I was cleaned out by a ridiculous stroke of “luck” by one of the other guys in the game — convinced me that gambling was not for me.
My one motivation in going to Las Vegas would be to say, “Vegas, baby, Vegas” as I arrived. And that wasn’t worth the money. At one point I did consider it. I mean, for a moment I entertained the idea that when the casino owners saw Burl and me walk in, they’d give us the Rain Man suite. But I wasn’t positive that plan would work, so I didn’t go.
My regret, of course, is that I don’t get to see Burl, and Steve Clark, and Priscilla Gummerson, and Doug Capozzalo, and Joann Vavrik, and others.
But hey, maybe we’ll have our 50th in Hawaii…
Related Posts
You know, now that they’re there and I’m here, I don’t feel as money as I thought I would staying home…
Speaking of Vegas, not much has been said about the boisterous GOP debate there Tuesday night. For a time it seemed to be more of a brawl than a serious presidential debate. As I briefly mentioned in another post I would have to give the victory to Newt Gingrich. He came across as the most knowledgeable and generally stayed above the fray. He has a knack for going after the press which seems to hold a great deal of value to conservative voters. Not sure why that is but it does seem to be that way.
The storyline for Michele Bachmann wasn’t here debate performance but that creepy joint interview afterwards with Wayne Newton on Greta Van Sustern’s show. The two nuzzled up to each other like two drunken teenagers on prom night. Not sure if that was very presidential.
Cain now seems to be on the way down with his bumbling attempts to defend his overly simplified 9-9-9 plan. And today he’s changed it to allow those below the poverty line to go un-taxed. The whole thing is unraveling pretty fast now.
But the big story was the Romney/Perry brawl. Romney seemed to lose his cool and Perry got some much needed attention. All in all Romney had an ok night but that one image of him practically shoving the Texas governor probably cost him some of his lead.
As for Santorum and Paul. Nothing new there. Just the same piety and anti-government blathering that we’ve come to expect from those two. And where was Mr. Huntsman? Is his race for the White House over? Seems like a debate in neighboring Nevada would have been his best opportunity.
Odds:
Romney – Even
Perry – 3-1
Cain – 5-1
Newt – 5-1
Bachmann – 15-1
Paul – 20-1
Santorum – 50-1
Huntsman – 75-1
Thanks for the report, Bud. I missed the debate.
It seems that SOME people are still thinking about SERIOUS things, while others are only thinking about having a GOOD TIME.
Harrumph.
Although, I should note, Bud did phrase his political commentary in gambling terms…
Bud,
You will probably need to re-evaluate Mr. Cain’s chances. They will soon be 999-1. He just announced his 9-9-9 plan just became a 9-0-9 plan for some. In two weeks it will be an “Apply paddles. Push the Button. 3-2-1 Clear” Plan, followed shortly by “Time to Call 9-1-1” plan. Rest assured, it has now ceased to be a plan and is now most assuredly a punch line. Shortly, we will be watching comedic clips from Citizen Cane and some lovely reminders of the old Kung Fu series.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123893-503544/under-fire-herman-cain-tweaks-9-9-9-plan/
Ah, and Mr. Cain now is pro-choice, or anti-choice, or anti-government being pro-choice, or something. Santorum, steps out of the shadows, flicks open his switchblade and moves in, even as the driver’s open up the ambulance doors. Once done, back to the shadows for Rick.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/20/herman-cain-2012-abortion-comments-defy-pro-life-history.html
Went to a conference at the Venetian a few years ago. Very impressive. What was more impressive was the fact that when we arrived, the manager upgraded us to the next to the top level accomodations – no extra charge. Have never understood the whole Vegas thing. Oh well, different strokes and all that.
Yeah bud, those nasty ol’ Republicans were at it again, wasting the viewers time and acting in much the same manner as those damnable reality shows that are a blight on television. Vegas was the right location for the debate.
What are the odds of Romney winning over Obama?
Tim, The only reason I didn’t have Cain’s odd lower is that he’s still polling very well. That will probably change soon though.
Bart, you must look like a high-roller.
As for the odds of Romney over Obama? I think it will be close, but no cigar. So how do you state that? I don’t get odds. 2-1 against overstates Obama’s slight advantage. It’s more like, I don’t know, 5-4 against.
No, that doesn’t work. That sounds more like I’m calculating their shares of the vote — in which case I’m not stating it close enough.
Anyway, I don’t believe in odds. Candidate A is either going to win or he is not (meaning that the chance of his winning or not is either 100 or zero percent), and it’s IMPOSSIBLE to foresee the factors that will bear on the matter by the time we get there. That’s why I consider numerical statements of probability rather pointless.
Based on what I know now, I think the way it works out is that Obama squeaks by. I think that’s what’s going to happen, but I know that billions of things will happen between now and then, any one of which, or any thousand of which, could turn that slight advantage the other way.
In fact, every single one of those billions of things (and by saying “billions,” I’m understating something that is truly innumerable, yet probably finite) will affect the likelihood one way or another, and in the end, the sum of all those positive and negative factors (from the perspective of a particular candidate’s chances) will end up being one side or the other of zero.
There’s no way to put a numerical value on the chances. I think Obama’s going to win, just barely, but I wouldn’t put money on it. Because, as I said above, one of the things I learned in school was not to gamble.
@Brad, apparently we did look like high rollers when we registered.
I think Obama will probably win again. Why, I don’t know, just a gut feeling. It is over a year before the election and anything can happen. Historically, with the unemployment figures remaining over 9%, economy definitely not recovering, and all of the unrest and dissatifaction with Obama by his the left side of his party, he should be defeated easily but won’t be.
Judging the merits of living in Vegas from the Strip is like saying you wouldn’t live in Orlando because you don’t like Disney World.
The town is much more, and its best features are the local spots off the beaten path and the outdoor activities around the valley. For all its flaws, we had a fabulous time living there.
Indeed presidential politics is very complicated and it’s mostly guesswork to put odds on it. But everything in life can be boiled down to odds. Let me explain odds using a simple example. If you flip a coin what are the odds of the coin landing on heads? You could get all anal about and say one side is every so slightly heavier or less flat or some such thing as that. But essentially the odds of it landing on heads are even, or 1-1.
Same thing with a perfectly balance die. Odds of hitting a 6 are 6-1, a 5 or 6, 3-1 and so on. So even though presidential politics is complicated it’s theoretically possible to calculate or at least estimate the odds based on polls and other intangible factors that should be factored in. The problem is giving all these factors the proper weight. That’s tough.
Send pictures! I’d especially like pictures of the following: Priscilla Gummerson, Doug Capozzalo, Joann Vavrik, Steve Clark…
And say hey for me… see if any of them even remember me… on second thought, don’t… well, go ahead…
See why I didn’t come?
I feel like Martin Blank. What would I say to those people: “Hi, how are you… I killed the president of Paraguay with a fork…”
I didn’t realize that “The Strip” meant strip-mining.
It says it’s “currently not available.”
Here’s a start:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2039753082768&set=a.2039752962765.2091810.1512511008&type=1&theater
You might need to “friend” Sharon Prihoda. I made this shared via my FB sign-in, so that might help.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2039752962765.2091810.1512511008&type=3