Don't Back Down

Posted by Chad Everett on March 11, 2005

Curacao Day Two »

After our first day on Curacao, we decided we were ready to do some exploring. So the next day we wandered the market, which ran along the river. A huge number of boats simply pulled up and unloaded their wares. We had some fresh pineapple, as well as a sort of cashew paste, bought from a street vendor. Both were excellent. We also visited the indoor market on our way to the bus station, but the place was somewhat empty. Not sure if this was because of the day or because everyone had simply moved out. Still, we did get some nice beef patties there.

Read "Curacao Day Two" »

Posted by Chad Everett on March 11, 2005

The Street that Charlotte Rebuilt »

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I just don't get it. Maybe I should just have it tatooed on my forehead. It would save me some breath.

Today, I was riding down Independence Boulevard on my way to visit a customer, when I saw - or rather, noticed - that they had built up a cement divider in the portion of the road that's currently undergoing renovation. Makes sense.

Read "The Street that Charlotte Rebuilt" »

Posted by Chad Everett on March 11, 2005

Indecent, Tasteless or Brilliant? »

I recently discovered the blog of Bob Parsons, founder of GoDaddy. He doesn't blog often, but when he does, he writes a pretty good bit. I think he might be a bit long-winded, but generally I find Bob to be a pretty decent writer.

So while reading through his archives, I noticed this entry on the GoDaddy super bowl ad. If you haven't seen the ad, or even if you have only seen the one aired during the game, I'd highly recommend you watch the extended version, available at GoDaddy.

I personally thought that the ad that aired during the game was great. I had no problem with it. Yes, even though I, like Bob, consider myself a Christian. What exactly was the problem with roasting the government? I do think that the extended version was better, as it provided more insight into the ad. The aired version was just too short. As such, it allowed people to focus on the wardrobe malfunction rather than the point of the ad.

But in the end, I think there was no indecency. There was no nudity. No crass words. Only a humorous look at how our government overreacts sometimes. I also don't think it was tasteless. They simply couldn't do the same ad without the wardrobe malfunction. And according to Bob, the numbers after the ad certainly appear to have justified the expense. I, for one, would say it was brilliant.