Allstate will replace Nokia as the sponsor of the Sugar Bowl. The new deal makes me wonder just how sweet the Sugar Bowl will remain. Will it cease being the Suger Bowl and become the You're in Good Hands with All-State Insurance Bowl?

It wouldn't be the first time that bowls have dumped their historical roots in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Starting this year, the Chick-fil-a Peach Bowl will no longer be Peachy. Chick-fil-a, who still won't open their restaurants on Sundays, decided that the 'Peach' moniker is not too sacred to remove from the 9th oldest bowl in the history of college football. From now on, I'll just call it the Fried Chicken Sammich Bowl.

I love capitalism, but I detest the overkill of corporate sponsorships. For one thing, other than raise brand identity it does nothing to make me want to buy their products. Furthermore they rotate the sponsorships so much, it makes it harder to keep track of the bowls. Should Nokia sponsor another bowl, would people confuse it with the Sugar Bowl? And what happens if Chick-fil-a loses the contract with the Peach Bowl? Will it just be 'Bowl'?

And some sponsorships are just embarassing. In 1993, Virginia Tech started their modern bowl run in the Poulan Weed-eater Independence Bowl. As a student there I was proud that we were going to a bowl, while at the same time ashamed to admit it was the "Weed-whacker Bowl". And where do we draw the line? Suppose Pfizer wants to sponsor a bowl and call it the Viagra Bowl.

The crooks that manage Atlanta's airport have spent years debating on whether or not to auction the names to the airport concourses. Imagine getting your plane ticket and being told to go to gate 35 on the "Home Depot Concourse". Where does it end?

UPDATE: Oh God. The Chicken Sammich Bowl has second pick in the ACC now.

Heh. A conservative dating service. What a novel idea.

For those that are asking, no I'm not back. Not in full capacity anyway, and I may never be. Posting to this blog will be strictly random and VERY light.

I'll be kinda like an ex-smoker who sneaks a puff in every now and then.

Why I quit

I used to work for several hours each evening updating this site. It became more than a hobby; it was a chore. I cannot go back to this being a daily chore. I need to concentrate on the more serious things in life. My family. My girlfriend. My job. I hope you can understand that.

Also, keeping myself mired in politics on a daily basis was depressing. My outlook on life is so much better now. Fresher. Renewed. I want to keep it that way.

There is still a lot out there that makes me shake my head, and I'll occasionally post about it here. But I'm tired of being a curmudgeon all of the time. I want to smile more. And I want to have a life that's not tied to the interweb.

And once again, I want to offer a big 'thank you' to all my loyal readers over the years. It's really the readers who make the blog.

Heh.

"A small Easter display was removed from the City Hall lobby on Wednesday out of concern that it would offend non-Christians," the Associated Press reports from St. Paul, Minn.:

The display--a cloth Easter bunny, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter"--was put up by a City Council secretary. They were not purchased with city money.

Tyrone Terrill, the city's human rights director, asked that the decorations be removed.

Well, this certainly makes sense. After all, everyone knows the Easter Bunny is a Christian symbol, which has no place in the public square in St. Paul, a city named after--uh, we've forgotten. Does anyone know where St. Paul got its name.

Fairfax Virginia tried this a few years ago. Basically the cops are saying that being drunk is still a crime and there's no place better to catch a drunk than at a bar. Of course it's all done in the name of safety.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, [Alcoholic Beverage Commission Carolyn] Beck said.

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

Pre-emptive arrests; such a novel idea. I'm no legal scholar, but isn't driving a fundamental component of DWI? As long as people have a sober ride home, and aren't getting rowdy, what is the problem?