This has happened twice in the last couple-three weeks. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly, or maybe I'm expecting too much of e-mail.
It goes like this:
I e-mail a given corporate entity with a fairly specific inquiry, and they promptly e-mail me back with a reply that almost does what I asked.
For instance: A couple of weeks ago, confronted with a massive cell-phone bill, I e-mailed Sprint to see what we could do to get it to quit competing with the house payment. I told them what we wanted in the way of calls, texting, etc., and for how many lines, and, in effect, asked for a quote.
(This was after some time banging around on their web site trying to figure out their Simply Everything plan, but the site is simply nothing on details.)
Well, I get back a very nice, very prompt reply from a customer service woman who is very much on board with the idea of trying to save me money...and if I just let her know what plan I want, she'll get me set up with it. Well, yes, thanks, but I had rather hoped that she would put the plan together and tell me about it. Helpful...but not quite.
And then yesterday I e-mailed a bank in Omaha in re a little mystery my brother and I have encountered regarding safe-deposit box keys that seem to belong to nothing. It dawned on me that my folks had done business with a particular bank when they lived in Omaha (through the mid-sixties) and wondered if they had somehow forgotten about a deposit box there. Unlikely, but possible. So I went online, found the successor to that long-ago bank, and e-mailed their customer service department with all the information I have: my parents' names, the number written on the case containing the keys, my parents' home address in Omaha, etc.
And this morning I log on to a very nice, very prompt reply from a customer service woman who provides me with the bank's phone number so I can call and talk to someone about it. Uh-huh, okay, but isn't it safe to assume that I could have found the phone number easily myself and that since I went to the trouble to find their email address and compose a message to them, perhaps I had a reason for not calling in the first place? ("Your call is important to us. That's why you're on hold. Please stay on hold, and enjoy the music we keep interrupting to tell you how important your call is to us...")
Again, almost helpful.
I recognize that there might be practical reasons for these and other entities to shy away from conducting certain aspects of business via e-mail. If the bank had said, "For security purposes, please call a personal banker," I probably would have thought it bogus, but at least I'd have had a reason of sorts. But in Sprint's case, wouldn't it have been better for them to have replied with, "Based on what you tell me your best bet would be Plan 9 from Outer Space, which would cost you 600 bazillion dollars a month for three lines"?
Especially since just last week I signed our daughter up for a really nice Verizon plan, and as long as we were in the store I asked the sales associate to give me some info on putting the whole household on the same plan.
Which he was more than happy to put together for me.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Sunday, May 04, 2008
No Worries! AOL Is Watching Out for You!
Well, they're at it again.
A couple-three years ago, my e-mail to friends and relatives who are still benightedly using AOL as their internet provider began to bounce. After some detective work, I deduced that AOL didn't like one or more of the links I include in my outgoing-mail signature. These included my e-mail address, my personal web page at Geocities (which they seem to hate), my genealogical page at FortuneCity (that seems to be the one they really hate), and gifs that link to Thunderbird and Firefox.
For a time, I gamely deleted the signature from AOL-bound e-mail, but never without a feeling of resentment. What business is it of AOL's if I want to put a link in, say, my correspondence with my cousin? Seems to me that that's between him and me, and AOL's paternalistic "at least one domain in your email that is generating substantial complaints from AOL members" is neither here nor there: I'm not e-mailing those whiners, I'm e-mailing my cousin!
And of course there would be those instances where I'd forget to delete the signature, and the e-mail would bounce back, and my resentment would increase, etc.
But then one day it seemed that there was no problem anymore, and my e-mail was making its way past the Moral Guardians of AOL Customers with no untoward difficulty, and life was good, or at least not too crappy.
Until this weekend. AOL is back to "protecting" my cousin--who is well into his adulthood, mind--from receiving any seditious materials from me. My cousin doesn't have any say in the matter. I don't have any say in the matter. AOL makes the decision for us, pre-emptorily, supposedly because of "substantial complaints" from members about other communication, having nothing to do with me or my cousin, they appear to have received from "one or more" of the domains referred to in my e-mail.
Get that: I'm not SENDING from a blacklisted domain. I'm merely referencing an address they don't like in my e-mail to ONE person who, foolishly, is a customer of theirs.
Yes, I'm working on the cousin to dump AOL. But of course it's a hassle to change ISPs, and I can't blame a guy for being unenthusiastic about it.
In the meantime, though, I find myself pretty peeved at the high-handedness of AOL.
But that is nothing knew. I recall a certain brouhaha some years ago when the media caught wind of AOL's having dumped a customer because she began some kind of online support or information group for survivors of breast cancer--and had had the nerve to use the B-word in the group's name, and in referencing the disease, and so on! Everyone knows that br**st is a dirty word, and so AOL, in its best Big Brother mode, blocked her from their network for the benefit of all. Until, that is, it hit the media, and AOL looked both stupid and paternalistic.
Obviously, the corporation learned nothing from that episode, and is once again setting itself up as the arbiter of what people may or may not read, and the Great and Wise Protector of All who might be exposed to such atrocities as
wjreynolds@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/wjreynolds
http://wjra1.fortunecity.com
http://williamjreynolds.blogspot.com/
Oh no! Your eyes, your eyes!!
A couple-three years ago, my e-mail to friends and relatives who are still benightedly using AOL as their internet provider began to bounce. After some detective work, I deduced that AOL didn't like one or more of the links I include in my outgoing-mail signature. These included my e-mail address, my personal web page at Geocities (which they seem to hate), my genealogical page at FortuneCity (that seems to be the one they really hate), and gifs that link to Thunderbird and Firefox.
For a time, I gamely deleted the signature from AOL-bound e-mail, but never without a feeling of resentment. What business is it of AOL's if I want to put a link in, say, my correspondence with my cousin? Seems to me that that's between him and me, and AOL's paternalistic "at least one domain in your email that is generating substantial complaints from AOL members" is neither here nor there: I'm not e-mailing those whiners, I'm e-mailing my cousin!
And of course there would be those instances where I'd forget to delete the signature, and the e-mail would bounce back, and my resentment would increase, etc.
But then one day it seemed that there was no problem anymore, and my e-mail was making its way past the Moral Guardians of AOL Customers with no untoward difficulty, and life was good, or at least not too crappy.
Until this weekend. AOL is back to "protecting" my cousin--who is well into his adulthood, mind--from receiving any seditious materials from me. My cousin doesn't have any say in the matter. I don't have any say in the matter. AOL makes the decision for us, pre-emptorily, supposedly because of "substantial complaints" from members about other communication, having nothing to do with me or my cousin, they appear to have received from "one or more" of the domains referred to in my e-mail.
Get that: I'm not SENDING from a blacklisted domain. I'm merely referencing an address they don't like in my e-mail to ONE person who, foolishly, is a customer of theirs.
Yes, I'm working on the cousin to dump AOL. But of course it's a hassle to change ISPs, and I can't blame a guy for being unenthusiastic about it.
In the meantime, though, I find myself pretty peeved at the high-handedness of AOL.
But that is nothing knew. I recall a certain brouhaha some years ago when the media caught wind of AOL's having dumped a customer because she began some kind of online support or information group for survivors of breast cancer--and had had the nerve to use the B-word in the group's name, and in referencing the disease, and so on! Everyone knows that br**st is a dirty word, and so AOL, in its best Big Brother mode, blocked her from their network for the benefit of all. Until, that is, it hit the media, and AOL looked both stupid and paternalistic.
Obviously, the corporation learned nothing from that episode, and is once again setting itself up as the arbiter of what people may or may not read, and the Great and Wise Protector of All who might be exposed to such atrocities as
wjreynolds@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/wjreynolds
http://wjra1.fortunecity.com
http://williamjreynolds.blogspot.com/
Oh no! Your eyes, your eyes!!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Visible Man
Colson Whitehead, in today's New York Times:
This is excellent satire--biting, funny, true, ridiculous, and acid all at once. Read the whole thing at the Times or via Whitehead's blog.
- "Most folks don’t know much about me, apart from the feeling of injustice that hits when I walk into the room with my easy charisma and air of entitlement. I understand. It’s weird when your government passes legislation, like equal opportunity laws, that benefits one single person in the country — me, The Guy Who Got Where He Is Only Because He’s Black."
- "Frankly it’s a lot better than my last two gigs, The Guy Who Left the Seat Up and The Guy Who Took the Last Beer, although I do suffer from a lot of work-related injuries, as you can imagine. For all this jibber-jabber about how I don’t understand a working man’s problems, you should take a look at my medical chart. I have carpal tunnel, tennis elbow, miner’s lung, scapegoat rash and vintner’s dropsy, and just last week I burned my thumb making horseshoes. The funny thing is, I didn’t want to be a blacksmith. But I heard they had an opening and I couldn’t help myself."
This is excellent satire--biting, funny, true, ridiculous, and acid all at once. Read the whole thing at the Times or via Whitehead's blog.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Conservative Hypocrisy Revisited
Speaking of that post from AlterNet (as I was below), "Anti-Choicers Are Communists!," posted by Amanda Marcotte, raises an interesting point, one on which I've reflected myself on occasion, viz., how does a group of people who claim to prize independence and individuality, whose very mantra is "Get government off our backs!," who insist it's every dog for itself out there (no "nanny society," thank you!) justify its constant harangue for government to step in and tell women what they may and may not and must and must not do with their own bodies? How do they justify their slavering desire to have government tell women's doctors how to practice medicine? How do they square their disdain for anything that smacks of helping anybody with their insistence that having the government forbid women from making their own health-care decisions is in fact "protecting" women (from, apparently, themselves)?
Nanny society, indeed.
But the Marcotte post takes things further. She writes:
Nanny society, indeed.
But the Marcotte post takes things further. She writes:
- Now there [Romania] was a state that Leslee Unruh, Phill Kline and the whole cast of panty-sniffing misogynists could really get behind. Modern American anti-choicers make the same argument used in communist Romania to deprive women of basic rights: We aren't having enough babies to sustain the economy! Under Nicolae Ceausescu, contraception and abortion were strictly banned unless you had already had four children and done your biological duty to the state. In a strong echo of our modern anti-choice community's disconnect between what they actually think and what they say they think, it was widely believed that the contraception and abortion ban of Romania mostly functioned as a way for men in power to get off on controlling women. It certainly didn't do anything to lower the abortion rate -- under this regime, they had one of the highest abortion rates in Europe. Highest maternal mortality, too, which was a direct result of the high illegal abortion rate.
That's the utopia they're looking at with their communist-borrowing strategies. A world where a misogynist's nose is in every panty drawer, and women who run the risk of dying every time they have sex.
You should read the post for yourself. It's short, but it links to other posts from which Marcotte draws and which buttress her point, viz., the we'll-do-your-thinking-for-you crowd borrow pretty heavily from the very type of totalitarian Communists regimes that they have always professed to despise.
Might they protest too much?
Too Much for Coincidence?
A brace of eerily similar occurrence in the past couple of days deies coincidence.
First: I received notification the other day that Mail.com, whose remailing services I have found to be handy on a couple of occasions when I've needed to switch mail accounts, had tried to renew my subscription via a credit card that had expired, and to I would need to go online and give them new info. (Actually, I just needed to tell them when the card would next expire, but either way...) Okay, I follow the instructions helpfully laid out in the e-mail...well, they would have been helpful if they worked. They took me right where they said they would, but there was nothing there in the way of updating billing information, as had been promised. Being fairly independent, I tried "My Account" and the online Help file, but no luck. Indeed, the Help file repeated precisely the same instructions that didn't work. (This is not the first time I have detected irony in the sobriquet "help" file.)
In the interests of completeness, I tried the procedure on both a PC running Windows XP and my new iMac running Leopard, with identical results. On the Windows machine I even logged in with Internet Exploder, in case it was a Firefox issue. But no.
So I dashed off a few lines to Customer Service, which this morning replied with instructions that sounded suspiciously like the old instructions. But I can be a sport, occasionally, so I went through the exercise again...and, interestingly there now were a couple of clickable buttons next to my "service options," buttons that were not there yesterday. (And I know this for a fact, since I took a screenshot to send along to Mail.com for reference. Also, I clicked around on the page on a couple of my expeditions yesterday, just in case I was overlooking something. I wasn't.)
Bottom line, as near as I can conclude: Something got changed between yesterday and today, even though there was nothing in Mail.com's e-mail to indicate they had found a problem on their end and fixed it.
Whatever.
But now here comes that Eerily Similar experience I mentioned above.
Last evening I came upon an item in the New York Times that I decided to submit to Digg. So I click the link and all the usual stuff, and--also as usual--get the screen that says they think it might duplicate an essay already submitted. (Anyone else notice that when Digg says that, it's almost invariably wrong?) But the part of the screen that usually lists the other stories, and gives you the button with which you swear your contribution is original, was blank except for a couple of lines indicating an "unknown fatal exception." I tried a couple of other stories, tried the Windows/iMac bit again, and kept getting the same results.
Sort of forgot about it till this morning, when the same thing happened, so I clicked the ink to report the issue to Customer Service. This evening they replied, suggesting I wipe out associated cookies and I forget what-all else.
Which I didn't do. So imagine my surprise a few minutes ago when I clicked to send a story to Digg ("Anti-Choicers Are Communists!," on AlterNet)...and it worked!
Oh, sure, I had to go through all the usual we-think-this-might-be-a-duplicate balderdash (as usual, it wasn't) but otherwise everything was up and at-'em again. Without my having done a blessed thing.
Bottom line, as near as I can conclude: Again something got changed between yesterday and today, without any indication to me from the party in question that they were doing anything to fix anything. Weird, huh?
Well, okay, it could all be coincidental, especially the Digg case. Stuff happens and unhappens all the time in the computer world: How many times has rebooting the computer solved the problem? But the Mail.com instance smells a lot like someone fixing a problem and then not admitting that there ever was a problem to be fixed in the first place!
I have to say, I've been tempted along those lines--as recently as yesterday--but have always resisted. The case yesterday had to do with someone rather hotly insisting that they had made repeated requests for an update to a web site I handle. A search through back e-mail--going back some five or six months--revealed no such thing. It was indeed tempting to make the update, backdate the page, and then strongly suggest that the complainant see an optometrist. But I like to think I'm bigger than that. (I'm not, but I like to think so). I made the change, then e-mailed the Offended Party that the change had been made.
And, yes, I do think I'm a better person for it.
First: I received notification the other day that Mail.com, whose remailing services I have found to be handy on a couple of occasions when I've needed to switch mail accounts, had tried to renew my subscription via a credit card that had expired, and to I would need to go online and give them new info. (Actually, I just needed to tell them when the card would next expire, but either way...) Okay, I follow the instructions helpfully laid out in the e-mail...well, they would have been helpful if they worked. They took me right where they said they would, but there was nothing there in the way of updating billing information, as had been promised. Being fairly independent, I tried "My Account" and the online Help file, but no luck. Indeed, the Help file repeated precisely the same instructions that didn't work. (This is not the first time I have detected irony in the sobriquet "help" file.)
In the interests of completeness, I tried the procedure on both a PC running Windows XP and my new iMac running Leopard, with identical results. On the Windows machine I even logged in with Internet Exploder, in case it was a Firefox issue. But no.
So I dashed off a few lines to Customer Service, which this morning replied with instructions that sounded suspiciously like the old instructions. But I can be a sport, occasionally, so I went through the exercise again...and, interestingly there now were a couple of clickable buttons next to my "service options," buttons that were not there yesterday. (And I know this for a fact, since I took a screenshot to send along to Mail.com for reference. Also, I clicked around on the page on a couple of my expeditions yesterday, just in case I was overlooking something. I wasn't.)
Bottom line, as near as I can conclude: Something got changed between yesterday and today, even though there was nothing in Mail.com's e-mail to indicate they had found a problem on their end and fixed it.
Whatever.
But now here comes that Eerily Similar experience I mentioned above.
Last evening I came upon an item in the New York Times that I decided to submit to Digg. So I click the link and all the usual stuff, and--also as usual--get the screen that says they think it might duplicate an essay already submitted. (Anyone else notice that when Digg says that, it's almost invariably wrong?) But the part of the screen that usually lists the other stories, and gives you the button with which you swear your contribution is original, was blank except for a couple of lines indicating an "unknown fatal exception." I tried a couple of other stories, tried the Windows/iMac bit again, and kept getting the same results.
Sort of forgot about it till this morning, when the same thing happened, so I clicked the ink to report the issue to Customer Service. This evening they replied, suggesting I wipe out associated cookies and I forget what-all else.
Which I didn't do. So imagine my surprise a few minutes ago when I clicked to send a story to Digg ("Anti-Choicers Are Communists!," on AlterNet)...and it worked!
Oh, sure, I had to go through all the usual we-think-this-might-be-a-duplicate balderdash (as usual, it wasn't) but otherwise everything was up and at-'em again. Without my having done a blessed thing.
Bottom line, as near as I can conclude: Again something got changed between yesterday and today, without any indication to me from the party in question that they were doing anything to fix anything. Weird, huh?
Well, okay, it could all be coincidental, especially the Digg case. Stuff happens and unhappens all the time in the computer world: How many times has rebooting the computer solved the problem? But the Mail.com instance smells a lot like someone fixing a problem and then not admitting that there ever was a problem to be fixed in the first place!
I have to say, I've been tempted along those lines--as recently as yesterday--but have always resisted. The case yesterday had to do with someone rather hotly insisting that they had made repeated requests for an update to a web site I handle. A search through back e-mail--going back some five or six months--revealed no such thing. It was indeed tempting to make the update, backdate the page, and then strongly suggest that the complainant see an optometrist. But I like to think I'm bigger than that. (I'm not, but I like to think so). I made the change, then e-mailed the Offended Party that the change had been made.
And, yes, I do think I'm a better person for it.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Made With Macintosh
On March 12, I acquired my latest Macintosh, the new iMac, with a ginormous screen that I feel I am sitting too close to. Quite a far cry from my first Mac, which was the first Mac, the original, adjectiveless, numeralless plain ol' Macintosh computer, which looked like this:
It is hard to imagine now how thrilling that little Mac, with its monochrome nine-inch screen and its Imagewriter tractor-feed dot printer was back in 1984. To put it in context: I was working for a magazine-publishing company that had recently installed a very expensive computerized editing system, giving us all big green-screen terminals on which to compose or edit manuscripts. We had to insert various codes in order to use the correct typefaces, point sizes, column widths, etc., for our publications. Likewise, we needed codes before and after words we wanted italicized, boldfaced, SMALL-CAPPED, etc....and if we forgot the end code, well, then, everything was bold/italic/small caps up until the next time we inserted a code. If we put something in bold, the plain green lettering on the terminal monitor showed up somewhat brighter, giving us some kind of visual clue, at least; but there were no such clues for italic, small caps, etc.--or for the wrong typeface. Characters appeared onscreen sans descenders, so a g looked a lot like an s, and a lowercase p looked a lot like an uppercase P, since they both sat on the baseline. Not idea...but a heckuva lot better than the typewriters and paper we had used up till then!
Personal computers, such as they were, were much the same--green on dark-green, or amber on dark-amber, or white on black...no such thing as a Graphical User Interface--with all sorts of command codes and break codes and who knows what else. And the dot printers of the day were nothing to dream about, certainly not for someone interested in producing professional-quality manuscripts.
And then came the Macintosh. If you wanted something underlined, you underlined it. Bold? You made it bold. Change the font? Hey, shows up right here on the screen...in black, on a pleasantly bluish background. And when it came time to print, the serviceable Imagewriter (my recollection is that the W became uppercase with the later introduction of the ImageWriter II) printed pretty much what you saw on the screen!
Sold!
Coincidentally, at about the time the Mac came on the market I had just sold my first novel, The Nebraska Quotient, upon the conclusion of which I vowed I would never write another book on a typewriter. There was a small Apple Computer store just around the corner from my wife's workplace in St. Paul, Minnesota, and so I left to pick her up a bit early one day in order to look at the Mac in person. They were so new, and so much in demand, that the man had only a single demo model in the shop. No matter, my mind was made up. The proprietor tried to convince me that the Mac was a fad and that for "real" computing I needed one of the Apple II computers that would soon be gathering dust on his shelves (did he really believe the Apple II to be a superior machine? Or was he trying to unload them before the Mac overtook them? We'll never know...but even then I had my suspicions!), but I was unconvinced. WYSIWYG was a term that had not yet reached my ears, but I know it when I saw it, and I saw it, and I wanted it.
It so happened that a friend of mine was still in college and thus able to score the coveted Mac package with a student discount, and so I placed the order via his good offices, and waited. Indeed, I had begun my second book on a typewriter when finally the Mac arrived one October afternoon in 1984. I taught myself to use the enclosed MacWrite software by retyping the two or three chapters of Moving Targets that I had already pounded out on the Smith-Corona. The Mac boasted 128 kilobytes of RAM, no hard drive--to my knowledge, they didn't yet exist--and a built-in microfloppy drive that read and wrote 400 kilobyte disks. MacWrite had a memory-use issue that slowed everything to a crawl after about 14 pages, but that was okay: I soon learned to break chapters up into smaller chunks, stretching them out across a couple of floppy disks. To avoid the risk of damaging the printer heads on the Imagewriter, Apple recommended letting it cool down after an hour or so of use, which meant--dot printers not being noted for speediness--that it took two solid days to print a book-length manuscript. This involved a certain amount of "babysitting the printer," since you never knew when the tractor-feed paper was going to go off-track, and it was pretty frustrating to wander into the office to see how things were progressing only to discover that the Imagewriter had been overprinting the same line for the past half-hour. Since you could do nothing else on the Mac while printing was in process, I quickly learned to drag the rocking chair into the office and kill time with a book whilst "babysitting."
By today's standards, primitive. By the standards of the day, The Jetsons!
A year or two later, Apple introduced the Macintosh Plus, the so-called Fat Mac, pretty much the same machine but with with 512K of RAM and a double-sided floppy-disk drive. I bought a kit from a mail-order house (this was pre-online retailing, mind), cracked open the Mac's clamshell drive (which required special tools, for the Mac was not designed to ever be opened by the user), popped in the green board with extra RAM, popped out the old floppy drive, slid in the new one, put everything back together...and held my breath when I plugged it back into the wall and booted it up.
Not much later I would add a LaCie hard drive and a LaserWriter II, and worked happily with that configuration on into the early 1990s--I'm thinking 1991, but maybe 1992--when I invested in a Mac IIsi:
One of my everlasting regrets is that, when I bought the IIsi, I traded off the original Mac in return for some extra RAM. I wish I had saved it and turned it into an aquarium or something. Alas.
The IIsi was a nice machine, certainly faster than the Mac, and with the added bonus of color, but it was hardly a standout computer. Indeed, I don't remember that much about it. So I assume it was neither especially fabulous nor especially terrible. I worked with the IIsi until about 1996, when I invested in one of the Mac clones, from the time of that short, ill-starred experiment that Apple Computer undertook. Mine was a PowerComputing PowerCenter Pro IINT, which looked like this one:
The PowerCenter Pro was a lovely computer, and I eventually replaced it only because I had bumped my head against the upgrade ceiling...Mac OS 9 was as good as the PowerCenter got. But it was a fun, speedy, and trouble-free computer for a lot of years, and I was sorry when Apple discontinued its clone program, for that seemed to be the end of PowerComputing. I still have the PowerCenter Pro, on a card table in a corner of my office. As far as I know it still works...tough to judge, though, since the last time I powered it up the monitor refused to cooperate. Might have to fuss with it some one of these days.
The next Mac was a used Blue and White G3, code-named Yosemite, which I bought via eBay perhaps five years ago.
It too was a useful and enjoyable--and pretty!--computer, right up until January of this year when it started running...dreadfully...slow. My attempts to fix it were unsuccessful, and I sometimes wonder if I made it worse. (Hard to see how; I suspect that it was simply failing--perhaps a hard-drive issue--and would have conked out no matter what I did/didn't do.) One fine day last month the silly thing quit booting at all--I'd get the start-up "spinning gear" for, literally, hours on end, and then--perhaps--my desktop pattern, followed by hours of the spinning beachball, followed--perhaps!--by a log-in screen, followed by more beach ball. That is, up until the time it started to refuse my log in. Which is about when I decided it was time to go shopping again.
Odd thing about the G3 purchase: It came as a package, CPU, monitor, keyboard...and no mouse. Why no mouse? I mean, no big deal--I went to Best Buy and bought a USB mouse--but I wish I had asked the seller what the story was with the mouse. Did it fail and he just decided not to replace it when he sold the G3? Or did he have a mouse that he really, really liked and didn't want to sell? Whatever, I guess.
Earlier this month I went online to the Apple Store and ordered up the latest iMac:
This a simply a grand computer, fast, quiet (hell: silent), simple, and a pleasure to work with. I could have stepped down to the next smallest monitor, but what the heck. I do have to reorganize my office to accommodate it--I currently have to peer around the edge of my desk lamp in order to see the extreme left side of the screen--but it seems worth it. Of course, my old scanner, my old LaserWriter II (still works, though hasn't been used in a year or more), my old Zip Drive, my old CD burner (which I don't need, thanks to the iMac's built-in CD/DVD burner), and that old, old LaCie hard drive are now completely obsolete. No idea what to do with them, so I suppose they'll head up to the attic to be dealt with "another day." That's progress, I guess.
Upon learning of my recent purchase, a family member commented, "So you decided to get another Macintosh, huh?"
What a question!
It is hard to imagine now how thrilling that little Mac, with its monochrome nine-inch screen and its Imagewriter tractor-feed dot printer was back in 1984. To put it in context: I was working for a magazine-publishing company that had recently installed a very expensive computerized editing system, giving us all big green-screen terminals on which to compose or edit manuscripts. We had to insert various codes in order to use the correct typefaces, point sizes, column widths, etc., for our publications. Likewise, we needed codes before and after words we wanted italicized, boldfaced, SMALL-CAPPED, etc....and if we forgot the end code, well, then, everything was bold/italic/small caps up until the next time we inserted a code. If we put something in bold, the plain green lettering on the terminal monitor showed up somewhat brighter, giving us some kind of visual clue, at least; but there were no such clues for italic, small caps, etc.--or for the wrong typeface. Characters appeared onscreen sans descenders, so a g looked a lot like an s, and a lowercase p looked a lot like an uppercase P, since they both sat on the baseline. Not idea...but a heckuva lot better than the typewriters and paper we had used up till then!
Personal computers, such as they were, were much the same--green on dark-green, or amber on dark-amber, or white on black...no such thing as a Graphical User Interface--with all sorts of command codes and break codes and who knows what else. And the dot printers of the day were nothing to dream about, certainly not for someone interested in producing professional-quality manuscripts.
And then came the Macintosh. If you wanted something underlined, you underlined it. Bold? You made it bold. Change the font? Hey, shows up right here on the screen...in black, on a pleasantly bluish background. And when it came time to print, the serviceable Imagewriter (my recollection is that the W became uppercase with the later introduction of the ImageWriter II) printed pretty much what you saw on the screen!
Sold!
Coincidentally, at about the time the Mac came on the market I had just sold my first novel, The Nebraska Quotient, upon the conclusion of which I vowed I would never write another book on a typewriter. There was a small Apple Computer store just around the corner from my wife's workplace in St. Paul, Minnesota, and so I left to pick her up a bit early one day in order to look at the Mac in person. They were so new, and so much in demand, that the man had only a single demo model in the shop. No matter, my mind was made up. The proprietor tried to convince me that the Mac was a fad and that for "real" computing I needed one of the Apple II computers that would soon be gathering dust on his shelves (did he really believe the Apple II to be a superior machine? Or was he trying to unload them before the Mac overtook them? We'll never know...but even then I had my suspicions!), but I was unconvinced. WYSIWYG was a term that had not yet reached my ears, but I know it when I saw it, and I saw it, and I wanted it.
It so happened that a friend of mine was still in college and thus able to score the coveted Mac package with a student discount, and so I placed the order via his good offices, and waited. Indeed, I had begun my second book on a typewriter when finally the Mac arrived one October afternoon in 1984. I taught myself to use the enclosed MacWrite software by retyping the two or three chapters of Moving Targets that I had already pounded out on the Smith-Corona. The Mac boasted 128 kilobytes of RAM, no hard drive--to my knowledge, they didn't yet exist--and a built-in microfloppy drive that read and wrote 400 kilobyte disks. MacWrite had a memory-use issue that slowed everything to a crawl after about 14 pages, but that was okay: I soon learned to break chapters up into smaller chunks, stretching them out across a couple of floppy disks. To avoid the risk of damaging the printer heads on the Imagewriter, Apple recommended letting it cool down after an hour or so of use, which meant--dot printers not being noted for speediness--that it took two solid days to print a book-length manuscript. This involved a certain amount of "babysitting the printer," since you never knew when the tractor-feed paper was going to go off-track, and it was pretty frustrating to wander into the office to see how things were progressing only to discover that the Imagewriter had been overprinting the same line for the past half-hour. Since you could do nothing else on the Mac while printing was in process, I quickly learned to drag the rocking chair into the office and kill time with a book whilst "babysitting."
By today's standards, primitive. By the standards of the day, The Jetsons!
A year or two later, Apple introduced the Macintosh Plus, the so-called Fat Mac, pretty much the same machine but with with 512K of RAM and a double-sided floppy-disk drive. I bought a kit from a mail-order house (this was pre-online retailing, mind), cracked open the Mac's clamshell drive (which required special tools, for the Mac was not designed to ever be opened by the user), popped in the green board with extra RAM, popped out the old floppy drive, slid in the new one, put everything back together...and held my breath when I plugged it back into the wall and booted it up.
Not much later I would add a LaCie hard drive and a LaserWriter II, and worked happily with that configuration on into the early 1990s--I'm thinking 1991, but maybe 1992--when I invested in a Mac IIsi:
One of my everlasting regrets is that, when I bought the IIsi, I traded off the original Mac in return for some extra RAM. I wish I had saved it and turned it into an aquarium or something. Alas.The IIsi was a nice machine, certainly faster than the Mac, and with the added bonus of color, but it was hardly a standout computer. Indeed, I don't remember that much about it. So I assume it was neither especially fabulous nor especially terrible. I worked with the IIsi until about 1996, when I invested in one of the Mac clones, from the time of that short, ill-starred experiment that Apple Computer undertook. Mine was a PowerComputing PowerCenter Pro IINT, which looked like this one:
The PowerCenter Pro was a lovely computer, and I eventually replaced it only because I had bumped my head against the upgrade ceiling...Mac OS 9 was as good as the PowerCenter got. But it was a fun, speedy, and trouble-free computer for a lot of years, and I was sorry when Apple discontinued its clone program, for that seemed to be the end of PowerComputing. I still have the PowerCenter Pro, on a card table in a corner of my office. As far as I know it still works...tough to judge, though, since the last time I powered it up the monitor refused to cooperate. Might have to fuss with it some one of these days.
The next Mac was a used Blue and White G3, code-named Yosemite, which I bought via eBay perhaps five years ago.
It too was a useful and enjoyable--and pretty!--computer, right up until January of this year when it started running...dreadfully...slow. My attempts to fix it were unsuccessful, and I sometimes wonder if I made it worse. (Hard to see how; I suspect that it was simply failing--perhaps a hard-drive issue--and would have conked out no matter what I did/didn't do.) One fine day last month the silly thing quit booting at all--I'd get the start-up "spinning gear" for, literally, hours on end, and then--perhaps--my desktop pattern, followed by hours of the spinning beachball, followed--perhaps!--by a log-in screen, followed by more beach ball. That is, up until the time it started to refuse my log in. Which is about when I decided it was time to go shopping again.
Odd thing about the G3 purchase: It came as a package, CPU, monitor, keyboard...and no mouse. Why no mouse? I mean, no big deal--I went to Best Buy and bought a USB mouse--but I wish I had asked the seller what the story was with the mouse. Did it fail and he just decided not to replace it when he sold the G3? Or did he have a mouse that he really, really liked and didn't want to sell? Whatever, I guess.
Earlier this month I went online to the Apple Store and ordered up the latest iMac:
This a simply a grand computer, fast, quiet (hell: silent), simple, and a pleasure to work with. I could have stepped down to the next smallest monitor, but what the heck. I do have to reorganize my office to accommodate it--I currently have to peer around the edge of my desk lamp in order to see the extreme left side of the screen--but it seems worth it. Of course, my old scanner, my old LaserWriter II (still works, though hasn't been used in a year or more), my old Zip Drive, my old CD burner (which I don't need, thanks to the iMac's built-in CD/DVD burner), and that old, old LaCie hard drive are now completely obsolete. No idea what to do with them, so I suppose they'll head up to the attic to be dealt with "another day." That's progress, I guess.
Upon learning of my recent purchase, a family member commented, "So you decided to get another Macintosh, huh?"
What a question!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Keep it to Yourself!
What in the world would give DeepDiscount.com the idea that I upon visiting their web site, would want to be startled, by George Strait's voice suddenly and uninvitedly "welcoming" me and asking me to buy his new CD?
I have whined about this in the past, but apparently my wisdom has gone unheeded.
And it isn't just me. Ken Magill, writing in the latest issue of Direct magazine, hilariously details his experience with "one of the most ignorant e-mail campaigns in the short history of the medium":
I have whined about this in the past, but apparently my wisdom has gone unheeded.
And it isn't just me. Ken Magill, writing in the latest issue of Direct magazine, hilariously details his experience with "one of the most ignorant e-mail campaigns in the short history of the medium":
- It came in the form of spam from Bing energy drinks, pitching delivery service to offices in Denver.
It's bad enough that the receiving e-mail address is not used for commercial purposes — so the address was clearly harvested — and that Direct's offices are in New York.
Clicking on the unsubscribe button spawned a pop-up window that had audio.
A friggin' surprise talking pop-up window in my cubicle.
"Hey, this is Jeremy from the Dom and Jane morning show and I want to tell you about a product I've been using for a little while," said my computer out of the blue. "It's called Bing. It's a brand-new energy drink that's out there, and it's made from black bing cherries, hence the name."
Magill concludes:
- Message to marketers: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If you want to make a sales pitch on my computer, especially the one at work, please shut up unless I indicate it's cool for you to talk.
I would extend that advice to webmasters as well.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
...Only Pilots Will Have Guns
A far-flung correspondent sends a link to the following report:
Take a look at the McClatchy report again: The pilot was packing heat "as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program run by the federal Transportation Security Administration"...that is, it was okay for him to have the weapon on board with him. Luckily no one was injured, or worse. But I can't help but think the scenario might be different if, say, a firearm "goes off" in a college classroom, or dormitory, or cafeteria. For one thing, there are more people there than in an airplane cockpit, so it seems to me that the chance of injury or death is that much greater. Moreover, if--as proponents of armed campuses seem to hope--many if not most if not all of the other denizens of the classroom/dorm/cafeteria are also carrying, are not the odds pretty good that some if not many if not most of them, upon hearing a gunshot (and perhaps witnessing the collapse of an injured person), will draw and start returning fire?
Since, after all, that is the point of allowing them to carry weapons, no? To shoot back at some deranged someone who opens fire? Well, what if the someone is not deranged, but rather careless or clumsy?
The other problem, overlooked by those who favor totin' guns, is that it's difficult to tell by looking who the badguys are. The idea seems to be that we can tell the badguy because he's armed. But if we're all armed...well, since no one is in uniform, how are we to know whom to shoot? Seems to me that, rather than averting tragedies on campus, arming college communities is invited more, and more frequent, tragedy.
Meanwhile, I would be in favor of revisiting that Federal Flight Deck Officer program, too. It's good to know that "most planes can withstand such a breach [a bullet piercing the fuselage] and continue flying normally"...but human beings are somewhat less resilient where bullets are concerned, and the next time it might not just be metal that's in the way.
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Wed, Mar. 26, 2008US Airways pilot's gun went off as he was stowing weapon
Jefferson George and Lisa Zagaroli | Charlotte Observer
last updated: March 26, 2008 11:52:32 AMAccording to a report by Charlotte airport police, a bullet that passed through the fuselage of US Airways Flight 1536 from Denver on Saturday was fired by the aircraft's captain as he “was stowing his weapon.” The captain was carrying a 13-shot Heckler & Koch USP .40-caliber pistol as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program run by the federal Transportation Security Administration.
That program has very detailed procedures for handling and transporting firearms, said Richard Bloom, a professor who teaches aviation security at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Although he didn’t know the details of Saturday’s incident, Bloom said there are a few possible explanations for gun being fired accidentally: impairment by alcohol, drugs or medication, some kind of distraction, or “somebody was just messing around.” “There’s extremely little room for misunderstanding,” he said. “The procedures and so clear and so specifically described.”
TSA officials and US Airways continued to withhold the pilot’s name Tuesday, citing the investigation. The airline has grounded the pilot without pay. The aircraft remained out of service. The bullet, the police report revealed, penetrated the left side of the cockpit and went through the A319's fuselage. Air safety experts said most planes can withstand such a breach and continue flying normally.
Read the full story at Charlotte.com.
Of course, David Letterman had some fun with it last night:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well, fun's fun and all, but it occurs to me that this episode points to an issue that those who favor allowing students, faculty, and everybody else to carry concealed weapons on college campuses has conveniently overlooked: Accidents happen.
Take a look at the McClatchy report again: The pilot was packing heat "as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program run by the federal Transportation Security Administration"...that is, it was okay for him to have the weapon on board with him. Luckily no one was injured, or worse. But I can't help but think the scenario might be different if, say, a firearm "goes off" in a college classroom, or dormitory, or cafeteria. For one thing, there are more people there than in an airplane cockpit, so it seems to me that the chance of injury or death is that much greater. Moreover, if--as proponents of armed campuses seem to hope--many if not most if not all of the other denizens of the classroom/dorm/cafeteria are also carrying, are not the odds pretty good that some if not many if not most of them, upon hearing a gunshot (and perhaps witnessing the collapse of an injured person), will draw and start returning fire?
Since, after all, that is the point of allowing them to carry weapons, no? To shoot back at some deranged someone who opens fire? Well, what if the someone is not deranged, but rather careless or clumsy?
The other problem, overlooked by those who favor totin' guns, is that it's difficult to tell by looking who the badguys are. The idea seems to be that we can tell the badguy because he's armed. But if we're all armed...well, since no one is in uniform, how are we to know whom to shoot? Seems to me that, rather than averting tragedies on campus, arming college communities is invited more, and more frequent, tragedy.
Meanwhile, I would be in favor of revisiting that Federal Flight Deck Officer program, too. It's good to know that "most planes can withstand such a breach [a bullet piercing the fuselage] and continue flying normally"...but human beings are somewhat less resilient where bullets are concerned, and the next time it might not just be metal that's in the way.
And Some Have Greatness Thrust Upon Them
Well, I must say, I am both surprised and deeply, deeply humble. Surprised because my inbox this afternoon contains this notification: "Congratulations! joining the eBay Silver PowerSeller Program!" Despite the dubious English, I plunged on ahead to the message itself. It seems I am now a Silver PowerSeller, apparently because I've "been on a super sales streak" for some little time now. Among the perquisites and honorifics that now ascend to me are the right to have the "PowerSeller icon" (
) next to my User ID, not unlike badge of honor. I am also now entitled to "PowerSeller Priority Support via email webform and phone support at Silver level and above," which I'm pretty sure is good, and I shall be able to hobnob with my fellow PowerSellers via a "Discussion Board"--a proper noun, no less, so you know it's important--where I have no doubt we shall indulge in the cyber equivalent of sitting in gree-leather wingback chairs smoking cigars and drinking brandy.
And yet, despite this towering achievement, I feel a sense of humility, a small still voice that says perhaps--just perhaps--I am not worthing of such a distinction. Why, you ask. Why, as I stand at this pinnacle of greatness, do I hesitate, why does my Mighty Mouse not jump immediately to "Go to the PowerSellers Portal"? Can it be a deep-seated fear of success? Can it be insecurity to associate with other, possibly greater PowerSellers? Can it be feelings of guilt at pole-vaulting over other, lesser mortals whom I would now leave behind?
Or could it b that I've never sold a damn thing on eBay?
) next to my User ID, not unlike badge of honor. I am also now entitled to "PowerSeller Priority Support via email webform and phone support at Silver level and above," which I'm pretty sure is good, and I shall be able to hobnob with my fellow PowerSellers via a "Discussion Board"--a proper noun, no less, so you know it's important--where I have no doubt we shall indulge in the cyber equivalent of sitting in gree-leather wingback chairs smoking cigars and drinking brandy.And yet, despite this towering achievement, I feel a sense of humility, a small still voice that says perhaps--just perhaps--I am not worthing of such a distinction. Why, you ask. Why, as I stand at this pinnacle of greatness, do I hesitate, why does my Mighty Mouse not jump immediately to "Go to the PowerSellers Portal"? Can it be a deep-seated fear of success? Can it be insecurity to associate with other, possibly greater PowerSellers? Can it be feelings of guilt at pole-vaulting over other, lesser mortals whom I would now leave behind?
Or could it b that I've never sold a damn thing on eBay?
Sunday, March 23, 2008
What Works, What Doesn't
That Worked!
It is a sign of our times--and not a good one--that one finds himself amazed and gratified when something actually works as it's supposed to.
A recent case in point: Last week I acquired a new iMac, and am in the process of porting files, adding software, etc. One of the pieces that was missing was an infrequently but well-liked application called RadioLover, which allows one to record internet radio for later listening.
Miraculously, I had the order confirmation from when I had purchased the software in 2003, which included re-downloading instructions. I followed them, installed the software, entered my ancient registration number...and say presto! it was up and running! Strange but true!
That Worked...Eventually
Meanwhile, I spent the better part of two days horsing around with the Apple AirPort Express that arrived in Friday's mail. Not quite the plug-and-play exercise that Apple would have you believe. First, Airport Utility refused to "find" the AirPort Express, which was plugged in some three feet distance. Well, plugged and unplugged, and the iMac was restarted and restarted. Finally I had the bright idea of running the Ethernet cable not from the DSL router to the unfound AirPort Express, but rather from the AirPort Express to the iMac, and, behold, they began to communicate! Thus able to configure the AirPort Express, it was on to creating the wireless network.
That proved more problematic. Actually, creating the silly thing was easy enough...as I discovered while doing it over and over and over again. Getting the network to stick around so that I could instruct AirPort to use it was the tricky part. Many attempts, re-attempts, restarts, and words that are inappropriate to the Easter season. By late Friday, I had about decided to pack everything up and ship it back to Apple.
Saturday morning I dinked around with it some more, did a "factory reset" of the AirPort Express, and for no reason that I can think of managed to create yet another network that, this time, appeared in the AirPort menu and seemed inclined to last awhile. Indeed, I was able to get the iMac online wirelessly, even though the AirPort Express stubbornly continued to display a blinking amber light instead of a steady green light. Eventually I got tired of looking at the blinking light, ran AirPort Utility for the 10,000th time, and managed to correct whatever problems it was having.
All seems to be working well now, and the wireless network seems to be working well on my daughter's MacBook Pro as well as the Dell Inspiron laptop I have on loan from my workplace. But what a colossal pain! Occasionally one wonders about Apple's much-vaunted reputation for simplicity!
It is a sign of our times--and not a good one--that one finds himself amazed and gratified when something actually works as it's supposed to.
A recent case in point: Last week I acquired a new iMac, and am in the process of porting files, adding software, etc. One of the pieces that was missing was an infrequently but well-liked application called RadioLover, which allows one to record internet radio for later listening.
Miraculously, I had the order confirmation from when I had purchased the software in 2003, which included re-downloading instructions. I followed them, installed the software, entered my ancient registration number...and say presto! it was up and running! Strange but true!
That Worked...Eventually
Meanwhile, I spent the better part of two days horsing around with the Apple AirPort Express that arrived in Friday's mail. Not quite the plug-and-play exercise that Apple would have you believe. First, Airport Utility refused to "find" the AirPort Express, which was plugged in some three feet distance. Well, plugged and unplugged, and the iMac was restarted and restarted. Finally I had the bright idea of running the Ethernet cable not from the DSL router to the unfound AirPort Express, but rather from the AirPort Express to the iMac, and, behold, they began to communicate! Thus able to configure the AirPort Express, it was on to creating the wireless network.
That proved more problematic. Actually, creating the silly thing was easy enough...as I discovered while doing it over and over and over again. Getting the network to stick around so that I could instruct AirPort to use it was the tricky part. Many attempts, re-attempts, restarts, and words that are inappropriate to the Easter season. By late Friday, I had about decided to pack everything up and ship it back to Apple.
Saturday morning I dinked around with it some more, did a "factory reset" of the AirPort Express, and for no reason that I can think of managed to create yet another network that, this time, appeared in the AirPort menu and seemed inclined to last awhile. Indeed, I was able to get the iMac online wirelessly, even though the AirPort Express stubbornly continued to display a blinking amber light instead of a steady green light. Eventually I got tired of looking at the blinking light, ran AirPort Utility for the 10,000th time, and managed to correct whatever problems it was having.
All seems to be working well now, and the wireless network seems to be working well on my daughter's MacBook Pro as well as the Dell Inspiron laptop I have on loan from my workplace. But what a colossal pain! Occasionally one wonders about Apple's much-vaunted reputation for simplicity!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
As We Say
Time for another batch of quotations, drawn from the daily e-mail A Word a Day. Sign up for this excellent service at http://wordsmith.org/.
I need someone to protect me from all the measures they take in order to protect me. -Banksy, street artist (b. 1974)
The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human. -Aldous Huxley, novelist (1894-1963)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)
Words are the small change of thought. -Jules Renard, writer (1864-1910)
We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it -- and stop there -- lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again, and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one any more. -Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)
Society is composed of two great classes: those who have more dinners than appetite, and those who have more appetite than dinners. -Sebastien-Roch-Nicolas de Chamfort, writer (1741-1794)
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. -Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate (1879-1955)
If a man would register all his opinions upon love, politics, religion, learning, etc., beginning from his youth and so go on to old age, what a bundle of inconsistencies and contradictions would appear at last! -Jonathan Swift, satirist (1667-1745)
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith. -Miguel de Unamuno, philosopher and writer (1864-1936)
The door of a bigoted mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly. -Ogden Nash, author (1902-1971)
Life consists in what a man is thinking of all day. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
It is not life and wealth and power that enslave men, but the cleaving to life and wealth and power. -Buddha (c. 563-483 BCE)
It is not how old you are, but how you are old. -Jules Renard, writer (1864-1910)
Our heads are round so that thoughts can change direction. -Francis Picabia, painter and poet (1879-1953)
Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up you get a lot of scum on the top. -Edward Abbey, naturalist and author (1927-1989)
Like cars in amusement parks, our direction is often determined through collisions. -Yahia Lababidi, writer (b. 1973)
He who postpones the hour of living is like the rustic who waits for the river to run out before he crosses. -Horace, poet and satirist (65-8 BCE)
I need someone to protect me from all the measures they take in order to protect me. -Banksy, street artist (b. 1974)
The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human. -Aldous Huxley, novelist (1894-1963)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)
Words are the small change of thought. -Jules Renard, writer (1864-1910)
We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it -- and stop there -- lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again, and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one any more. -Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)
Society is composed of two great classes: those who have more dinners than appetite, and those who have more appetite than dinners. -Sebastien-Roch-Nicolas de Chamfort, writer (1741-1794)
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. -Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate (1879-1955)
If a man would register all his opinions upon love, politics, religion, learning, etc., beginning from his youth and so go on to old age, what a bundle of inconsistencies and contradictions would appear at last! -Jonathan Swift, satirist (1667-1745)
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith. -Miguel de Unamuno, philosopher and writer (1864-1936)
The door of a bigoted mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly. -Ogden Nash, author (1902-1971)
Life consists in what a man is thinking of all day. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
It is not life and wealth and power that enslave men, but the cleaving to life and wealth and power. -Buddha (c. 563-483 BCE)
It is not how old you are, but how you are old. -Jules Renard, writer (1864-1910)
Our heads are round so that thoughts can change direction. -Francis Picabia, painter and poet (1879-1953)
Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up you get a lot of scum on the top. -Edward Abbey, naturalist and author (1927-1989)
Like cars in amusement parks, our direction is often determined through collisions. -Yahia Lababidi, writer (b. 1973)
He who postpones the hour of living is like the rustic who waits for the river to run out before he crosses. -Horace, poet and satirist (65-8 BCE)
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Love-Hate?
It's not often I find myself agreeing with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. In fact, I think this is the first time he and I have been anywhere near the same wavelength. But life is strange, and outrageous events may create outrageous alliances. Here, via Catholic Online, is what Donohue has to say about John McCain's thrilled acceptance of the endorsement of notorious anti-Catholic bigot John Hagee:
Catholic League: McCain's Next Move
3/7/2008
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
“So no one should take from my criticism of McCain on this issue that I in any way think he is anti-Catholic."
NEW YORK, N.Y. (Catholic League) - Catholic League president Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today regarding Sen. John McCain’s ties to Pastor John Hagee:
“Now that he has secured the Republican nomination for president, and has received the endorsement of President Bush, McCain will now embark on a series of fundraising events.
When he meets with Catholics, he is going to be asked about his ties to Hagee. He should also be asked whether he approves of comments like this: ‘A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate.’
“That quote is proudly cited by David Brog in his recent book, Standing with Israel. Both Brog and Hagee clearly identify the Roman Catholic Church as spawning a ‘theology of hate.’
“This is nothing if not hate speech. There are so many good evangelical leaders in this country—Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Richard Land, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Dr. Al Mohler, Chuck Colson—and none has ever insulted Catholicism. To be sure, they have expressed theological differences, and that is to be expected; that is all fine and good. But they have never sought to denigrate Catholicism.
That’s what makes this situation so outrageous. Of all the great evangelical leaders, the one McCain cites as ‘the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement’ just happens to be a Catholic basher.
“In 2005, when I was fighting with those senators who were making it all but impossible for pro-life Catholics to get on the federal bench, I said the following: ‘So as not to be misunderstood, let me repeat what I’ve said before: the Catholic League believes there are no anti-Catholic senators.’ That remains true.
“So no one should take from my criticism of McCain on this issue that I in any way think he is anti-Catholic. If anything, John McCain has been a good friend to Catholics. But he and his staff have thus far grossly mishandled this issue. We await their next move.”
In case you're unaware, here's the deal: Televangelist Hagee, who has charmingly referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “the Great Whore,” an “apostate church,” the “anti-Christ,” and “a false cult system” (indeed, he cites the Catholic Church as Hitler's inspiration for the Holocaust), last week endorsed McCain, who said he was "very proud" to receive the hatemonger's blessing.
At the time I had this thought: More than once, I have been informed by someone whose opinion I did not solicit that I could not "call myself a Catholic" and a member of the Democratic Party. The flip side of this would be that "good" Catholics can only be Republicans. Well, now they have a Republican presidential candidate--all but nominated--who has enthusiastically accepted, after prolonged wooing, the endorsement of a Catholic-hating bigot.
Leaving me to wonder what "good" Catholics will now do. Do they vote for a godless baby-killing Democratic candidate (whoever that may be) who does not cleave to the church's party line? Or do they vote for the GOP candidate who embraces a Catholic-hating TV preacher but who spouts the right kind of rhetoric?
I'm only kidding--I knew all along that they'd come up with some way of lamely justifying McCain's buddy-buddyness with Hagee, and now the McCain camp
Now the McCain camp has thrown them just the sort of bone they'll need to pretend they're not doing what they're doing, viz., backing a candidate who in turn is backed by someone who would just as soon see them dead. Here's what's come out of the Not-So-Straight-Talk-Express in light of the Hagee scandal, per the Associated Press:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month "if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics."
If. If? Has there ever been a better non-repudiation? Can it really be that Senator McCain, who is quick to point out that he sent a couple of kids to Catholic school, really not see that Hagee and his comments are offensive, are incendiary, are hate-filled? Note too that he doesn't repudiate Hagee--and he certainly doesn't reject Hagee's endorsement--but rather falls limply back on stating that he doesn't agree with everyone who endorses him.
But he doesn't do very much to distance himself from Hagee...or, more to the point, the equally hate-filled voters who agree with Hagee's bigotry. Rather, he's trying to win votes from both Catholic and Catholic-bashers.
Once upon a time I had a fair amount of respect for the Arizona Senator, and was one of those who thought it would interesting if he ran as John Kerry's VP back in 2004.
Now he's emerged as just another politician who will do anything, say anything, roll in any mudhole with any pig, just as long as it translates into votes.
|
|
Catholic League: McCain's Next Move
3/7/2008
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
“So no one should take from my criticism of McCain on this issue that I in any way think he is anti-Catholic."
NEW YORK, N.Y. (Catholic League) - Catholic League president Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today regarding Sen. John McCain’s ties to Pastor John Hagee:
“Now that he has secured the Republican nomination for president, and has received the endorsement of President Bush, McCain will now embark on a series of fundraising events.
When he meets with Catholics, he is going to be asked about his ties to Hagee. He should also be asked whether he approves of comments like this: ‘A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate.’
“That quote is proudly cited by David Brog in his recent book, Standing with Israel. Both Brog and Hagee clearly identify the Roman Catholic Church as spawning a ‘theology of hate.’
“This is nothing if not hate speech. There are so many good evangelical leaders in this country—Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Richard Land, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Dr. Al Mohler, Chuck Colson—and none has ever insulted Catholicism. To be sure, they have expressed theological differences, and that is to be expected; that is all fine and good. But they have never sought to denigrate Catholicism.
That’s what makes this situation so outrageous. Of all the great evangelical leaders, the one McCain cites as ‘the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement’ just happens to be a Catholic basher.
“In 2005, when I was fighting with those senators who were making it all but impossible for pro-life Catholics to get on the federal bench, I said the following: ‘So as not to be misunderstood, let me repeat what I’ve said before: the Catholic League believes there are no anti-Catholic senators.’ That remains true.
“So no one should take from my criticism of McCain on this issue that I in any way think he is anti-Catholic. If anything, John McCain has been a good friend to Catholics. But he and his staff have thus far grossly mishandled this issue. We await their next move.”
In case you're unaware, here's the deal: Televangelist Hagee, who has charmingly referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “the Great Whore,” an “apostate church,” the “anti-Christ,” and “a false cult system” (indeed, he cites the Catholic Church as Hitler's inspiration for the Holocaust), last week endorsed McCain, who said he was "very proud" to receive the hatemonger's blessing.
At the time I had this thought: More than once, I have been informed by someone whose opinion I did not solicit that I could not "call myself a Catholic" and a member of the Democratic Party. The flip side of this would be that "good" Catholics can only be Republicans. Well, now they have a Republican presidential candidate--all but nominated--who has enthusiastically accepted, after prolonged wooing, the endorsement of a Catholic-hating bigot.
Leaving me to wonder what "good" Catholics will now do. Do they vote for a godless baby-killing Democratic candidate (whoever that may be) who does not cleave to the church's party line? Or do they vote for the GOP candidate who embraces a Catholic-hating TV preacher but who spouts the right kind of rhetoric?
I'm only kidding--I knew all along that they'd come up with some way of lamely justifying McCain's buddy-buddyness with Hagee, and now the McCain camp
Now the McCain camp has thrown them just the sort of bone they'll need to pretend they're not doing what they're doing, viz., backing a candidate who in turn is backed by someone who would just as soon see them dead. Here's what's come out of the Not-So-Straight-Talk-Express in light of the Hagee scandal, per the Associated Press:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month "if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics."
If. If? Has there ever been a better non-repudiation? Can it really be that Senator McCain, who is quick to point out that he sent a couple of kids to Catholic school, really not see that Hagee and his comments are offensive, are incendiary, are hate-filled? Note too that he doesn't repudiate Hagee--and he certainly doesn't reject Hagee's endorsement--but rather falls limply back on stating that he doesn't agree with everyone who endorses him.
But he doesn't do very much to distance himself from Hagee...or, more to the point, the equally hate-filled voters who agree with Hagee's bigotry. Rather, he's trying to win votes from both Catholic and Catholic-bashers.
Once upon a time I had a fair amount of respect for the Arizona Senator, and was one of those who thought it would interesting if he ran as John Kerry's VP back in 2004.
Now he's emerged as just another politician who will do anything, say anything, roll in any mudhole with any pig, just as long as it translates into votes.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Passages
I started to write this almost a week ago, but have been too busy and too interrupted to complete it. So here you have it "as is," unfinished, unpolished, and with no warranty expressed or implied.
It's funny how similar events can strike you differently.
Three weeks ago today, on February 1, 2008, my dad failed to show up for our standing lunch date, and I subsequently found him in his bed, so peaceful-looking that I half-expected him to start awake, as he would when I was a kid and would creep into his room while he slept.
And I find only now can I write about it--and him--a little. When my mom died in 2003, it seemed I needed to write about it right away. Indeed, I was a little annoyed that there was so much "stuff" to deal with that I had scant time to do so.
Then, too, when Mom died, most of my writing was personal, for my own therapy or shared with, primarily, family. I don't recall having written anything here, though I haven't gone back to check.
Anyhow, it's funny.
And I don't know why it's been hard to write about it this time and not the previous time. Maybe because my mom had been ailing, and in fact had passed a couple of points earlier in the year where we, or at least I, thought she was done for. So it was still a shock, but not so much of a surprise. In Dad's case, it was both. He had been fighting some bronchitis-like symptoms for some weeks, but there was nothing that would cause one to think that any crisis point was looming. Even his doctor, who is also my doctor, was stunned by the turn of events.
My dad's death serves to underscore for me something that I have felt for some time: I don't understand death. I don't get it at all. This is nothing new: Even as a kid, it made no sense to me that a person could one minute be up and about, hale and hearty, and then the next minute be dead. Certainly, it makes sense that a bad accident would kill someone, or that an overdose of druges would do someone in, or drowning--extreme stuff like that. But the thought that a person can go to bed and not get up in the morning (as was the case, in the end, with both my parents), or, as has happened with a couple of friends over the years, get up out of a chair to go do something and keel over dead--well, that's just ludicrous. That makes no sense. "Oh, he had a heart attack"; "Well, he had a stroke"; "It was an aneurysm"--this is supposed to make sense? Well, it doesn't! I know that people drop dead all the time...but it just doesn't seem that they should. You might just as well say, "Oh, well, buildings fall down all the time." NO, THEY DON'T! Buildings stay up, barring disaster. Why shouldn't we?
It appears now too that I am past the time when Society thinks I should still be reeling from the loss of my last parent. Well, Society can go to hell, as far as that goes. I think it's pretty damn inconsiderate for the world to keep turning at a time like this, if you must know. There's so much to be done--a thousand details, ten thousand moving parts--and yet my whopping great three days' Bereavement Leave are all gone, and I am expected to pretend that the crap that piled up on my desk while I was burying my father has any significance. As was the case when Mom died--and when I had a LOT less to do, since my Dad was, naturally, point man on all her affairs, and nor was there an estate to settle--it seems to me that Bereavement Leave would best come right about now, when the funeral hubbub has died down (bad choice of words, that) and a guy could use some time to process, let alone mourn. But Society seems to think that three days should about do the job, and how come you're still not all caught up from that week you were gone to lay your father to rest? (I took some vacation days, too. Three days--bah!)
I am quite astonished by the number of times these past three weeks that something amusing, aggravating, or just plain strange has occurred, and I have found myself mentally filing it away for recounting to Dad at our next luncheon. That, I presume, will be some time in the future. I also presume he will, as usual, insist on picking up the tab.
Not surprisingly, I think, and not for the first time, I find I have spent a goodly amount of hours lately contemplating life, death, and eternity. I am no theologian, of course, and indeed a great many of my views border on heresy. But for the most part I do believe in some kind of Creator, and I usually believe that there is some kind of continuation past this life. Heaven? Maybe--I have absolutely no idea, and I think anyone who says otherwise is delusional. But while I freely, even cheerfully acknowledge the possibility that this mortal coil is all there is, and that when we leave it we simply blink out of existence, that strikes me as wasteful. And I consider the universe to be a pretty frugal place. So the waste of our lives, ideas, experience simply CEASING when we die is counterintuitive. Makes more sense to me to think that SOMETHING happens after death...floating among the clouds strumming lyres, if you like, but SOMETHING. Something has to happen to that energy that is US. We continue in another form. We continue without form. We integrate into some cosmic wholeness. Whatever. That seems less a leap than to think it all just evaporates.
On the other hand, if it all does just evaporate--if we live and then we die and there is no more after that--well, that doesn't strike me as the worst thing, either. And how would we ever know the difference?
Of course, it is very comforting to think that my parents are now reunited in some otherly plane of existence...that they are there with their own parents, and with friends and loved ones who have gone before. Just as it is pleasant to think that I too will someday join them. But "pleasant" and "fact" are not synonyms, just as "belief" and "fact" are not.
This much I do know: If the measure of our "success" as human beings is in the impact we have made on the people we encounter in our lives (as I believe it is), then my father was a very successful man indeed. There is no way I could begin to keep track of the number of people--many of them known to me, many not--who have stopped me these past three weeks to tell me how much they'll miss my dad, how important he was to them, how helpful and supportive. It's certainly not hard for me to believe, for those sentiments sum up my father pretty completely. But I'm not sure I fully appreciated the scope of his impact on others' lives. It's really quite impressive.
It's funny how similar events can strike you differently.
Three weeks ago today, on February 1, 2008, my dad failed to show up for our standing lunch date, and I subsequently found him in his bed, so peaceful-looking that I half-expected him to start awake, as he would when I was a kid and would creep into his room while he slept.
And I find only now can I write about it--and him--a little. When my mom died in 2003, it seemed I needed to write about it right away. Indeed, I was a little annoyed that there was so much "stuff" to deal with that I had scant time to do so.
Then, too, when Mom died, most of my writing was personal, for my own therapy or shared with, primarily, family. I don't recall having written anything here, though I haven't gone back to check.
Anyhow, it's funny.
And I don't know why it's been hard to write about it this time and not the previous time. Maybe because my mom had been ailing, and in fact had passed a couple of points earlier in the year where we, or at least I, thought she was done for. So it was still a shock, but not so much of a surprise. In Dad's case, it was both. He had been fighting some bronchitis-like symptoms for some weeks, but there was nothing that would cause one to think that any crisis point was looming. Even his doctor, who is also my doctor, was stunned by the turn of events.
My dad's death serves to underscore for me something that I have felt for some time: I don't understand death. I don't get it at all. This is nothing new: Even as a kid, it made no sense to me that a person could one minute be up and about, hale and hearty, and then the next minute be dead. Certainly, it makes sense that a bad accident would kill someone, or that an overdose of druges would do someone in, or drowning--extreme stuff like that. But the thought that a person can go to bed and not get up in the morning (as was the case, in the end, with both my parents), or, as has happened with a couple of friends over the years, get up out of a chair to go do something and keel over dead--well, that's just ludicrous. That makes no sense. "Oh, he had a heart attack"; "Well, he had a stroke"; "It was an aneurysm"--this is supposed to make sense? Well, it doesn't! I know that people drop dead all the time...but it just doesn't seem that they should. You might just as well say, "Oh, well, buildings fall down all the time." NO, THEY DON'T! Buildings stay up, barring disaster. Why shouldn't we?
It appears now too that I am past the time when Society thinks I should still be reeling from the loss of my last parent. Well, Society can go to hell, as far as that goes. I think it's pretty damn inconsiderate for the world to keep turning at a time like this, if you must know. There's so much to be done--a thousand details, ten thousand moving parts--and yet my whopping great three days' Bereavement Leave are all gone, and I am expected to pretend that the crap that piled up on my desk while I was burying my father has any significance. As was the case when Mom died--and when I had a LOT less to do, since my Dad was, naturally, point man on all her affairs, and nor was there an estate to settle--it seems to me that Bereavement Leave would best come right about now, when the funeral hubbub has died down (bad choice of words, that) and a guy could use some time to process, let alone mourn. But Society seems to think that three days should about do the job, and how come you're still not all caught up from that week you were gone to lay your father to rest? (I took some vacation days, too. Three days--bah!)
I am quite astonished by the number of times these past three weeks that something amusing, aggravating, or just plain strange has occurred, and I have found myself mentally filing it away for recounting to Dad at our next luncheon. That, I presume, will be some time in the future. I also presume he will, as usual, insist on picking up the tab.
Not surprisingly, I think, and not for the first time, I find I have spent a goodly amount of hours lately contemplating life, death, and eternity. I am no theologian, of course, and indeed a great many of my views border on heresy. But for the most part I do believe in some kind of Creator, and I usually believe that there is some kind of continuation past this life. Heaven? Maybe--I have absolutely no idea, and I think anyone who says otherwise is delusional. But while I freely, even cheerfully acknowledge the possibility that this mortal coil is all there is, and that when we leave it we simply blink out of existence, that strikes me as wasteful. And I consider the universe to be a pretty frugal place. So the waste of our lives, ideas, experience simply CEASING when we die is counterintuitive. Makes more sense to me to think that SOMETHING happens after death...floating among the clouds strumming lyres, if you like, but SOMETHING. Something has to happen to that energy that is US. We continue in another form. We continue without form. We integrate into some cosmic wholeness. Whatever. That seems less a leap than to think it all just evaporates.
On the other hand, if it all does just evaporate--if we live and then we die and there is no more after that--well, that doesn't strike me as the worst thing, either. And how would we ever know the difference?
Of course, it is very comforting to think that my parents are now reunited in some otherly plane of existence...that they are there with their own parents, and with friends and loved ones who have gone before. Just as it is pleasant to think that I too will someday join them. But "pleasant" and "fact" are not synonyms, just as "belief" and "fact" are not.
This much I do know: If the measure of our "success" as human beings is in the impact we have made on the people we encounter in our lives (as I believe it is), then my father was a very successful man indeed. There is no way I could begin to keep track of the number of people--many of them known to me, many not--who have stopped me these past three weeks to tell me how much they'll miss my dad, how important he was to them, how helpful and supportive. It's certainly not hard for me to believe, for those sentiments sum up my father pretty completely. But I'm not sure I fully appreciated the scope of his impact on others' lives. It's really quite impressive.
Friday, January 18, 2008
One Damn Thing After Another!
Well, first it turns out that I owe $35 on my "dues" to the IRS...now I'm being kicked out of World of Warcraft! This distressing news came the other day, from WoWAccountReview :
Greetings,
Greetings,
We are writing to inform you that, unfortunately, we have had to temporarily suspend your World of Warcraft account and place a final warning on it.
We have had a problem in our database, it is possible that it is an error, in this case enter in the following link and follow the form:
https://www.wow-europe.com/account/?ticket=WB-532580-JHfvy5yMPThayjPYmoyR
Investigation Concluded: 09/01/2008
Type of Violation: Involvement in online trading activities
Consequences for Account: Account suspended for 72 hours, Password Reset and Final Warning issued.
It is with regret that we take this type of action, but it is in the best interests of the World of Warcraft community as a whole, and for the integrity of the game. After your suspension has expired, you will be able to access the World of Warcraft servers again.
To protect the account security, we have also reset your password and issued you with a computer generated one, which you will receive in a separate e-mail. You will be able to change this password at your leisure, using the Account Management feature on our web site, located at: http://www.wow-europe.com/en/
Your password will be sent from noreplyeu@blizzard.com. If you do not receive it after one hour, please add this address to your email address list so that it is not rejected by any spam filter you are using, and reply to wowaccountrevieweu@blizzard.com informing us that you have not received the password.
Please do not disclose your new password to anyone, including Blizzard staff, or change it back to one of your previous passwords as this could result in your account becoming compromised.
Please note that should any further violations of our Rules and Policies occur, this will almost certainly lead to the permanent closure of your account.
We strongly suggest you review our current Rules and Policies to avoid further action in the future, they can be found at:
http://www.wow-europe.com/en/policy/
Regards,
Account Administration Team
Blizzard Entertainment Europe
A Handful of Words
Another batch of quotations I have been saving up, from the never-disappointing A Word a Day:
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does the truth become error because nobody will see it. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
What the mind doesn't understand, it worships or fears. -Alice Walker, author (b. 1944)
The man who can make others laugh secures more votes for a measure than the man who forces them to think. -Malcolm De Chazal, writer and painter (1902-1981)
I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it. -Benjamin Franklin, statesman, author, and inventor (1706-1790)
How can we expect another to keep our secret if we have been unable to keep it ourselves. -Francois de La Rochefoucauld, writer (1613-1680)
A sect or party is an elegant incognito devised to save a man from the vexation of thinking. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
Sunshine is delicious, rain is refreshing, wind braces us up, snow is exhilarating; there is really no such thing as bad weather, only different kinds of good weather. -John Ruskin, author, art critic, and social reformer (1819-1900)
Be regular and orderly in your life so that you may be violent and original in your work. -Gustave Flaubert, novelist (1821-1880)
A speech belongs half to the speaker and half to the listener. -Michel de Montaigne, essayist (1533-1592)
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does the truth become error because nobody will see it. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
What the mind doesn't understand, it worships or fears. -Alice Walker, author (b. 1944)
The man who can make others laugh secures more votes for a measure than the man who forces them to think. -Malcolm De Chazal, writer and painter (1902-1981)
I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it. -Benjamin Franklin, statesman, author, and inventor (1706-1790)
How can we expect another to keep our secret if we have been unable to keep it ourselves. -Francois de La Rochefoucauld, writer (1613-1680)
A sect or party is an elegant incognito devised to save a man from the vexation of thinking. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
Sunshine is delicious, rain is refreshing, wind braces us up, snow is exhilarating; there is really no such thing as bad weather, only different kinds of good weather. -John Ruskin, author, art critic, and social reformer (1819-1900)
Be regular and orderly in your life so that you may be violent and original in your work. -Gustave Flaubert, novelist (1821-1880)
A speech belongs half to the speaker and half to the listener. -Michel de Montaigne, essayist (1533-1592)
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Could This Be Spam?
So here in the old inbox is a message, purportedly from "Internal Revenue Service ," withe the intriguing subject line "Irs.gov - Pay your dues."
My dues?!
Odd, no, that the senders of this interesting mangling of English (even more interesting than the usual mangling of English one encounters in government contexts) seem to know enough about the United States revenue system that they give the false address tax@irs.gov, but then tell me I owe another 35 dollars on my dues? Never mind the typos and grammatical giveaways--"Either you REPLY this e-mail and automaticaly receive a special document to complete, either you enter the usual online payment site"--the simple fact that the spammers could not be bothered to even make a stab at the right lingo makes me think that they're not even trying. If you're going to do something, guys, do it well. Take some pride in your work, for crying out loud!
I feel insulted.
My dues?!
| | After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you did not pay all your dues and still have $35.25 residue. In order to complete the payment to the state, you can choose one of two payment methods. Either you REPLY this e-mail and automaticaly receive a special document to complete, either you enter the usual online payment site. To access the online payment site, please click here Regards, | |||
| © Copyright 2008, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.. |
Odd, no, that the senders of this interesting mangling of English (even more interesting than the usual mangling of English one encounters in government contexts) seem to know enough about the United States revenue system that they give the false address tax@irs.gov, but then tell me I owe another 35 dollars on my dues? Never mind the typos and grammatical giveaways--"Either you REPLY this e-mail and automaticaly receive a special document to complete, either you enter the usual online payment site"--the simple fact that the spammers could not be bothered to even make a stab at the right lingo makes me think that they're not even trying. If you're going to do something, guys, do it well. Take some pride in your work, for crying out loud!
I feel insulted.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
New for the New Year!
It appears that that which, in my youth, were known as "blaxploitation films" now have a new, less provocative, but easier-to-spell name. Witness this, from "The Lion's Roar," e-mail newsletter (well, okay, ad flyer) from MGM Studios:
It's important that the Marketing Department doesn't run out of things to do...
It's important that the Marketing Department doesn't run out of things to do...
Friday, January 04, 2008
How Far They've Fallen
I have had occasion in the past to comment on how Headline News is now nothing more than a pale, and fading, shadow of the excellent service it once was. Here's more proof, as if more proof is needed. Last night, in the wake of the Iowa Caucuses, I was hopping amongst various channels, and here is what I discovered, at about 10:00 p.m. Central Time:
'Nuff, I think, said.
- CNN - Barack Obama's victory speech
MSNBC - Barack Obama's victory speech
BBC World News - Barack Obama's victory speech
Faux News - Barack Obama's victory speech
C-SPAN - Hillary Clinton's defeat-is-victory speech
Headline News - Britney Spears's latest foible
'Nuff, I think, said.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Word on the Street
- Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right. -Laurens van der Post, explorer and writer (1906-1996)
Here are a few others that caught my eye:
- Perfect order is the forerunner of perfect horror. -Carlos Fuentes (b. 1928)
To suffering there is a limit; to fearing, none. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
A belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness. -Joseph Conrad, novelist (1857-1924)
As a well spent day brings happy sleep, so life well used brings happy death. -Leonardo da Vinci, painter, engineer, musician, and scientist (1452-1519)
Friendship, like credit, is highest where it is not used. -Elbert Hubbard, author, editor, printer (1856-1915)
The most civilized people are as near to barbarism as the most polished steel is to rust. Nations, like metals, have only a superficial brilliancy. -Antoine de Rivarol, epigrammatist (1753-1801)
Love involves a peculiar, unfathomable combination of understanding and misunderstanding. -Diane Arbus, photographer (1923-1971)
I had a lover's quarrel with the world. -Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963)
Friday, December 28, 2007
"Fair and Balanced," Tee-Hee
In case there's anyone who actually believes that Faux News is really "news" and not just the propaganda arm of the GOP, here's this:
Your job now is this: 'Splain to me about "Fair and Balanced," and 'splain to me about the "liberal bias" in the media.
"LATEST NEWS" item on FoxNews.com front page linked not to news story, but to Republican blog post
Read the whole report at Media Matters for America here.Summary: The front page of FoxNews.com contained a headline under the "LATEST NEWS" tab that read "Report: Over 400 Scientists Dispute Man-Made Warming," the link to which led to a post on the blog of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) -- not a news report.
On December 21, the front page of FoxNews.com contained a headline under the "LATEST NEWS" tab that read "Report: Over 400 Scientists Dispute Man-Made Warming." However, the purported "LATEST NEWS" item did not link to a news report but, rather, to a post on "The Inhofe EPW Press Blog," the blog of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking minority member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. (emphasis added)
Your job now is this: 'Splain to me about "Fair and Balanced," and 'splain to me about the "liberal bias" in the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)