Friday, April 01, 2011

Random Unhelpfulness

The other day I was reminded of a sign that used to be on a door at a past place of employment:

OPEN CAREFULLY, AS IF YOU WERE ON OTHER SIDE!

What idiotic advice. If I were on the other side, I wouldn’t need to open the door! 



When I was a kid, you used to see little cards and tokens and whatnot that Catholics were encouraged to carry on them in case they were involved in a serious accident. My dad used to have one that sounded like the set=up for a bad joke:

I AM A CATHOLIC. PLEASE CALL ME A PRIEST.

Okay, you're a priest!



Filling out some forms, I came to this question:

NUMBER TO CALL IN CASE OF EMERGENCY

Well, 911, of course!


Saturday, March 26, 2011

What He Said

    Previous visitors will know that I collect quotations from here and there in my travels. Some I disperse via Facebook and Twitter (too many quotations require more than 140 characters!); most I amass and then gang up here. Herewith, the latest batch:


“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” —Susan B. Anthony

“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.” Oscar Levant

“An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching.” —Mohandas Gandhi

“Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.” —George Bernard Shaw

“Isn’t it ironic that in the continuing Atheist/Religious war the only side to have tortured and killed is the religious side.” —Baron von Knifty

“Several excuses are always less convincing than one.” —Aldous Huxley

“Words do two major things: They provide food for the mind and create light for understanding and awareness.” —Jim Rohn

“Life is partly what we make it, and partly what it is made by the friends we choose.” —Tennessee Williams

“The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.” —Friedrich Nietzsche

“We ... must have a period in which we lie fallow, and restore our souls.” —Wayne Muller

“I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I’m frightened of the old ones.” —John Cage

“It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little.” —Sydney Smith


Catching My Eye

A few recent things from the inbox that caught my eye. Click on the pictures for larger views.


It’s not just me: Thanksgiving does come earlier every year.






Is “No-Charge Shipping” different than “Free Shipping”? If so, how? If not, why not call it “Free Shipping”?




Sure, I’ve heard of ham steak. But ham from Omaha Steaks? That’s just wrong.

 



It’s good to have choices. Even when one of them kind of freaks me out.





USA Today’s Tech Briefing has been running this item for weeks now. Wish I had been keeping track from the beginning. The word “prurient” comes to mind.


Saturday, March 19, 2011

Maybe It’s Not God’s Fault

Yesterday on Facebook, Cathy Lynn Grossman posted an interesting little item from her Faith & Reason column at USA Today, “Japan’s suffering raises eternal question: Where’s God?”  Many of the early comments (I haven’t looked at them since yesterday afternoon) were fairly predictable—from “Man let evil into the world, that’s why bad things happen” to “Well, that just proves there is no God”—but in instances such as this I’m always a little surprised that there seems to be nobody putting forward a third possibility: Maybe our expectations are wrong.

Well, nobody but me, at least.

Here was my comment on the Facebook post:

    Or it could be that our notion of the nature of God and the role he may or may not play is mistaken.

(It came in the middle of a string of other comments, thus the “or.”)

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is indeed a entity behind creation—“God,” for simplicity’s sake—it seems to me that we have to ask ourselves what we know of the entity’s personality and behavior, and where we come by that knowledge. Most people will immediately point to the Bible. But of course the Bible is a human invention, and it hardly portrays a single cohesive portrait of God. I would not be the first to point out that the God of the Old Testament seems to be a completely different entity than the God of the New Testament. Some have put forward the idea that the former is a vengeful, ill-tempered God who ultimately was defeated by a loving, nurturing God.

It’s an interesting notion, and only serves to underscore my belief that what we profess to “know” about God has been invented by human beings—ourselves, and our ancient ancestors—and so when God fails to live up to our expectations, is it not in fact our fault and not God’s?

Perhaps—and again I acknowledge that I am hardly the first to come up with the idea—God’s role is to create a then step back and see what happens. In that context, the answer to the question of why bad things happen in the world is simply, That’s just how it goes. Storms roll in. Earthquakes occur. Trains derail. Illnesses take hold. People get hit by buses.

In short: Shit happens.

And we, in our hubris (and, I suspect, fear) say with unfounded certainty, “God is X, Y, and Z.” And when God instead seems to be Q or even M, we wring our hands and moan and wonder why God has “failed.” Why God has failed? Seriously?

Seems to me we have spent thousands of years setting God up to fail.

I know that scholars and theologians will object, and talk about that which has been “revealed” in texts and traditions. Maybe so. But it’s always looked like these “revelations” are the product of human endeavors. And humans get things wrong, humans have ulterior motives, humans are hidebound by their traditions and superstitions, humans are, well, only human.

All I’m saying is, maybe it’s time for God’s people to cut him a little slack.


Saturday, March 12, 2011

Guesswork

I don’t know about anyone else, but whenever I have taken out a loan or made any kind of major purchase, I have been required to provide name, rank, and serial number; thirty-two forms of identification; references from priests, pastors, rabbis, and a Scoutmaster; a pint of blood; and copies of my income-tax returns dating back to three years before I was born. All of which have left me with the distinct impression that any attempt on my part to skip out on payments will decidedly fall under the category You Can Run but You Can’t Hide. They have more than enough information to track me down no matter where I may flee.

But I wonder if I haven’t been giving The Establishment too much credit.

Off and on for the past two or three years, I have received letters and phone calls from various sources—collection agencies, mostly, several of whom work awfully hard to appear to be anything but a collection agency—looking for a Wendy J. Reynolds. It’s pretty apparent from the letters, many of which are conveying the “good” news that this or that creditor is willing to settle for a lesser amount if she steps up immediately, that Wendy owes a lot of people a lot of money.

And they’ve lost her.

Cast your memory back to my first paragraph, where I express all of the various hoops one traditionally must leap through in order to qualify for car loans, mortgages, etc. At the very least, every loan application I have ever made requires my Social Security Number, and triggers a credit check. You would think that between those two, no one could long elude The Establishment as it seeks repayment.

But you would, apparently, be mistaken.

Not only does it seem that this Wendy person has skipped, it also seems that her creditors and their minions have no idea at all where she’s gone to...nor where she’s come from. As I have explained multiple times (as recently as 20 minutes ago: read on), there is no such person at my address or phone number. Nor has there ever been. There is no member of my family named Wendy, and outside of my nuclear family there is no other Reynolds in town—or indeed the entire state—to whom I am related.

Leaving us with the question: Why are they bothering me?

And the answer: They’re guessing.

Having completely lost track of their quarry, they have in effect picked up the phone book and stuck a pin in the R section.

“Hey, Murray, this guy has the same initials as that dame we’re looking for!”

“Great Scott, Clarence, you’re right! Why, this has to be her hiding place!”

And so on.

And obviously as soon as one bright bulb came up with that idea, my address went into The System and—presto!—became Wendy’s address, an error that perpetuates itself ad infinitum.

For a brief interval, after a long run of letters and phone calls for Wendy, I thought I had perhaps made my case. I spoke with a nice woman who claimed that her company helped people locate missing money or some silliness, and implied that they were looking for Wendy in order to reunite her with long-lost funds. (It was, no doubt, a fun-house mirror version of the actual story. They undoubtedly do help people locate missing money, viz., they help their clients find debtors who’ve skipped. And they wanted to find Wendy in oder to reunite her with her creditors.) Anyhow, I explained the whole business to this nice woman, after which it seemed we were getting no more mail or calls for Wendy. I allowed myself to think that maybe the word had gone out on collection agencies’ network that my tree was not the right one to be barking up.

Hahahaha!

The other day as I left the house, I noted a small bit of yellow paper in a puddle on the sidewalk. Picked it up and read that some unnamed someone had “an URGENT delivery”—yes, that’s right, so urgent that “urgent“ was rendered in caps and boldface and was underscored—“for ___________________”—on which line was written a name that was scratched out and “Wendy Reynolds” inserted. It asked that one “please call” a number “as soon as possible for prompt delivery.” Yep, I thought, prompt delivery of a summons, and shoved the paper in my pocket, muttering a mild curse.

Well, another one appeared on the doorstep this afternoon, so I spent a couple of minutes with Google and to my complete lack of surprise discovered that the number belongs to a local process server.

So I called, and in what I hope was a polite but firm voice explained—yet again!—that there is no such person at my address, in my family, or anywhere at all in my orbit, and that I have grown mighty tired of constantly being harassed by the various entities looking for this woman. She is gone, friends, gone; she has eluded you completely; somehow she has gone so far off the grid that not even having her Social Security Number is of any use to you. It is as if she never existed at all. Time to admit defeat and stop hassling innocent bystanders.

Or maybe it’s time to call my own lawyer. Certainly that’s looking like the next step.


Saturday, March 05, 2011

Education Is the Future

I took a few moments yesterday to dash off notes to the Governor of South Dakota and my elected representatives from District 13. The governor, to address a budget crisis that, as a candidate while still lieutenant governor, he told us did not exist, has proposed a ten-percent across-the-board cut in the state budget. This would have the effect of eviscerating public education, in a state that already ranks at or near dead last in what it invests in its students. (And a state where one hears much wailing and gnashing of teeth because a great many of its young people pack up and leave to seek opportunity elsewhere. The two are not unconnected.)

Although probably a waste of time, there are instances in which it is good to be on the record on a given topic, and this is one of them. Here's what I sent to the governor; the sentiment if not the phrasing, was the same in the messages I sent to my legislators.

    Dear Governor Daugaard,
    I am writing to urge you to support and invest in the future of our state by working with the legislature to avoid crippling cuts to K-12 education that are under consideration in Pierre.
      My fear is that in haste to balance the books we lose track of the inarguable fact that the future progress and prosperity of South Dakota depends on its children receiving a top-notch education, and that deep cuts today will have a negative effect on the quality of education for years into the future. I am sure you will agree that sacrifice the future of our state -- and of our children -- on the altar of austerity is false economy.
        For the record, the proposed cuts would have virtually no effect on my family, since our youngest is only a year away from high-school graduation. My concern is for the generations of South Dakota children who follow, and for the continued advancement of our state into the future.
          Thank you for supporting the future of South Dakota.
            Sincerely,
              William J Reynolds


            One seriously doubts that even these glittering and well-reasoned sentences will change anyone's mind. But at least, in years to come, I can say with honesty that I did not sit silently while a Republican governor and Republican legislators gutted public education.

            Thursday, March 03, 2011

            Buy Some Insurance, You Lowlife!

            This fax arrived at the office yesterday morning, proving once again that word placement does matter, and it’s always a good idea to have someone else read yoaur stuff over before you unleash it upon a world full of sarcastic editors:


            Which is not to say that lowlifes don’t need insurance. In fact, they may need insurance more than anyone else.


            Saturday, January 29, 2011

            A Brief Update from Egypt

            Here’s the latest we have from Egypt:

            1. At 2:30 this morning (U.S. Central Time), we received a text message from Meredith informing us that texting, at least, was working again. She said everyone there is well and safe, and advised against putting too much stock in TV news reports. Apparently things there are indeed bad, but not as bad nor as widespread as the news makes it seem.

            2. She texted again around 7:30 a.m. with this bulletin:
            “Dude, they have Justice League in Arabic on TV!”
            3. Cheered by this good news, we then inquired about her well-being, and she replied: "Good. Just chilling for the time being. They’re keeping us within the hotel/airport/airport mall complex until midnight, when my group will be bused to the international terminal.”

            (Midnight in Cairo is 4:00 p.m. U.S. Central Time.)

            So far, so good. More news as there is news.

            Friday, January 28, 2011

            Update to "Is LinkedIn Blocking References to Egypt? And Why?"

            After three attempts, LinkedIn accepted my posting of my previous blog entry, “Is LinkedIn Blocking References to Egypt? And Why?” But it still will not allow me to post the link to the original newspaper article. Curious.


            Is LinkedIn Blocking References to Egypt? And Why?

            This is interesting: My daughter is quoted in an article that appeared in this morning’s local paper, “Augustana College band plays on amid turmoil in Egypt,” which, naturally enough, I decided to share with various friends and acquaintances. I posted a link to the article on Facebook and on Twitter with no problem, but when I attempted to share it on LinkedIn, I got this message—repeatedly, on several attempts over the course of a half-hour or so:



            So I went on about my business, and later returned to LinkedIn. Same results. But in reading articles online about the Egyptian government’s cutting off internet and cellphone service (which our daughter notified us about this morning, calling from a pay phone in Cairo), something suddenly crossed my suspicious little mind. 

            I went back to LinkedIn and tried the post again. Same “something unexpected happened” non-result.

            Then I attempted to post a link to a New York Times editorial about the curious case of the Arthur Conan Doyle estate authorizing a new Sherlock Holmes novel (“The Authorized Sleuth,” if you must know;), and seconds later there was the link, in all its glory, on my LinkedIn page or wall or feed or whatever they want to call it.

            So I tried the Augustana Band link again...and “something unexpected happened” again. Only by now it wasn’t unexpected, at least not by me.

            One hates to be the Boy Who Cried “Censorship!”—but one does come away with the distinct impression that the minds behind LinkedIn have decided to block the posting of items that pertain to or even merely mention Egypt, regardless of said items’ content. Since I habitually cross-post these little blog items to LinkedIn, it will be interesting to see if that link is allowed.

            I may or may not try the Augie Band link again, omitting “Egypt” from the headline, and see if that passes LinkedIn’s watchdogs.

            If indeed LinkedIn is practicing this sort of mindless, blanket censoring of its members’ posts, I predict I will be utilizing it a great deal less than has been my habit in the recent past. Which I’m sure must strike fear into its corporate heart. But if in fact that’s what’s going on here, it points to a corporate culture that I find completely odious, not to mention stupid, and one with which I would chose not to associate.

            Stay tuned.


            Thursday, January 13, 2011

            Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign


            What I don’t know about the zodiac is only slightly less than how much I care about the zodiac, but this makes no sense to me.

            According to Gawker.com, citing the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune, astronomers have divined how the ancient Babylonians intended the zodiac to be “by recalculating the dates that correspond with each sign to accommodate millennia of subtle shifts in the Earth’s axis.” So far so good. But here is that “corrected” zodiac, “with the dates corresponding to the times of the year that the sun is actually in each constellation’s ‘house’”—whatever that means—“according to the Minnesota Planetarium Society’s Parke Kunkle”:
              Capricorn: Jan. 20-Feb. 16.
              Aquarius: Feb. 16-March 11.
              Pisces: March 11-April 18.
              Aries: April 18-May 13.
              Taurus: May 13-June 21.
              Gemini: June 21-July 20.
              Cancer: July 20-Aug. 10.
              Leo: Aug. 10-Sept. 16.
              Virgo: Sept. 16-Oct. 30.
              Libra: Oct. 30-Nov. 23.
              Scorpio: Nov. 23-29.
              Ophiuchus:* Nov. 29-Dec. 17.
              Sagittarius: Dec. 17-Jan. 20.
              * Discarded by the Babylonians because they wanted 12 signs per year.

            Fine by me, but here’s the deal: I was born on December 17; used to be I was a Sagittarius. And maybe I still am...it’s hard to tell, since the list says Ophiuchus covers November 29-December 17, and Sagittarius covers December 17-January 20. (Indeed, all of the signs overlap on dates that way.) Is that a misprint, or is there a particular time of day at work here? Born before noon, you’re an Ophiuchus, born after noon, you’re a Sagittarius...something like that? Some astrological type help me out here.

            I see that Ophiuchus means “serpent-bearer,” which is cool enough, but it would be good to know which “house” or lean-to or whatever I was born in. Yes, it’s been a good 30 years since anyone began a conversation by asking me what my sign is. But you never know, and a guy likes to be prepared.

            Meanwhile, there's this from Five Man Electrical Band, which asks if I can’t read the sign. Which, obviously, I can't.

            Friday, December 31, 2010

            Whose Crimes?

            I’m guessing that ABC News means that Gov. Richardson cited the crimes of Billy the Kid and not any that the governor himself may have committed...but that’s not in fact what the blurb says:


            Looks like your sixth-grade English teacher was right: Modifiers do matter.


            Wednesday, December 22, 2010

            They Do Understand it's Just a Comic Book, Right?

            Although I read Marvel Comics’ Thor comic book back in the day—the heyday, I should say, the late 1960s and early 1970s when it was being rendered with a good deal of over-the-top pseudo-mythological seriousness by the great team of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and the often-maligned Vince Coletta—I wasn’t that big a fan. (Big enough to note that the actual title of the book was The Mighty Thor, since in those days nearly all Marvel heroes had an official adjective: The Amazing Spider-Man; The Incredible Hulk; The Invincible Iron Man. And a big enough fan to note that, early on, the book was titled Journey into Mystery, and so by the time I came along the cover line was, confusingly, Journey into Mystery with The Mighty Thor. So maybe I was a biggish fan.)


            Anyhow, I have noted with some interest the development of a Major Motion Picture based on Marvel’s Thor...including this interesting tidbit from from Right Wing Watch:


            Well, of course. Who wouldn’t?

            Naturally, having never heard of the Council of Conservative Citizens before, I hied on over to the right-wingnut organization’s website to see what it was that had them so worked up. And, well, who could blame them? It seems that Marvel Comics—my beloved Marvel Comics of old—has declared war on the gods of Asgard! By Odin’s beard!

            From the Council’s website:


              Norse mythology gets a multi-cultural remake in the upcoming movie titled “Thor,” by Marvel studios. It’s not enough that Marvel attacks conservative values and promotes the left-wing, now mythological Gods must be re-invented with black skin.
              It seems that Marvel Studios believes that white people should have nothing that is unique to themselves. An upcoming movie, based on the comic book Thor, will give Norse mythology an insulting multi-cultural make-over. One of the Gods will be played by Hip Hop DJ Idris Elba.

            Setting aside for the moment the interesting fact that the Council chooses to capitalize “God” in reference to mythological gods—a practice that I would expect Conservative Citizens to decry, leading me to conclude they must of course be anti-Christian Conservative Citizens, since they obviously uphold other gods besides the God of Abraham—I’m left with one single burning question:

            Don’t they know that Thor is a movie based on a comic book?

            Which is to say, it is not a movie about Norse mythology. The producers have not gone to ancient source materials for a rollicking retelling of the legends of Odin, Thor, Baldr, Heimdall, and the rest of that jolly crew. It’s a movie based on a comic book that pulls some characters, places, and themes from the mythos and recasts them in a superhero mold. (Indeed, in the early days Thor had a secret identity and everything—including an interesting slant on the old Clark Kent-Lois Lane-Superman triangle, in which Thor’s love interest thought that his human alter-ego, Donald Blake, was a dreamboat and didn’t really seem to give two hoots about Thor.)

            Given that, the moronic objection to Heimdall being portrayed by a black actor obviously isn’t so much about protecting Norse mythology as it is complaining about the casting of an actor who is...well, not white.

            Racist claptrap, in other words. These clowns are “insulted” because a movie studio cast a black man to play-act in a flick based on a comic book.

            As my wife commented when I shared this, The Most Idiotic Thing I’ve Read all Week, with her: “Some people need to get jobs.”

            Naturally, the wingnuts have begun a campaign to boycott the movie. I wasn’t too sure I’d bother to see Thor in a theatre—you know how it is: sometimes you just wait for the DVD to appear—but now I’m pretty sure I’ll spring for a ticket, just on principle.



            Sunday, December 19, 2010

            Should Have Consulted a Nerd

            This from today's Salon.com e-mail:


            One doesn't need to be much of a science fiction nerd to know that the character in question is Mister Spock, not Doctor Spock. I haven't heard him misidentified in that fashion since, probably, the early 1970s. Is it possible that my father has been reincarnated and is working at Salon.com?


            Tuesday, December 14, 2010

            What to Get for the Man Who's always Offended?

            This started out as a letter to the editor of my local rag, in response to a spectacularly idiotic letter published in the edition of 12/12/10. The letter went like this:

              “Happy holidays” is offensive 
              It’s “Merry Christmas” - not “Happy holidays” - and yes, it’s a religious holiday. 
              Some undoubtedly will argue that there are people who don’t celebrate Christmas, which is absolutely fine. Yet they take the holiday pay and the time off from work. 
              If you are that opposed to Christmas, then volunteer to work in place of those who do celebrate it and turn down the holiday pay universally associated with Christmas. 
              In a world of withering political correctness, “Happy holidays” is an offensive phrase to those of us who celebrate Christmas. 
              So “Merry Christmas” to all of you.

            Usually such inanity merely makes me chuckle and/or shake my head in wonderment, not so much at people’s boundless bone-headedness but also at their willingness, nay, eagerness to put said bone-headedness on public display.

            But this time around, rather than just move on to the next page, I found myself musing on the reason (if “reason” is the right word) someone would take offense at being greeted with “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” And so it was that I drafted a quick letter to the editor...which turned out to be about twice as long as the paper claims to want them to be (although I note that they violate their guidelines pretty frequently), and which I decided not to cleave to the bone to satisfy somebody’s arbitrary word count. So here’s my take, in all its verbose glory:

              I had a nice little chuckle from the letter titled “‘Happy holidays’ is offensive” in Sunday’s Argus Leader. It’s always amusing at this time of year when people decide to be “offended” if they are not greeted the “right” way, or if they see “Xmas” instead of “Christmas” (ignorant, perhaps purposely, of the fact that since the earliest days of the church X—the Greek letter chi, from the Greek word for Christ—has been used to represent Jesus, and thus as an abbreviation is no more disrespectful than, say, WWJD), or when they see themselves as soldiers in the nonexistent “war on Christmas.” Oh, what fun it is to see people tie themselves into knots of indignation for no reason at all.
              But I find myself wondering why someone would be offended by receiving the “wrong” greeting. Seems to me that it’s nice to be greeted at all, and nice that the person doing the greeting seems to understand that there are many holidays at this time of year, not just Christmas, and that the real offense would be to presume that the person being greeted celebrates a particular one of them.
              So why take offense at what is obviously such an innocent greeting?
              The answer, I think, is simple: Selfishness. Sheer childish self-centeredness. If you don’t greet ME the “right” way, the way I want to be greeted, then I take offense! I am indignant! I instantly recognize you as someone who is “opposed to Christmas” (as the recent letter has it)—that is, you are my enemy, and you must be crushed!
              As a fan of irony, I enjoy how this “I am offended” mentality is so completely at odds with the message of Christmas—peace, goodwill, that sort of thing—and indeed so contrary to the teachings of him who the “offended” profess to follow—you know, the fellow who proposed people turn the other cheek, love their neighbor, forgive their brother “until seventy times seven,” etc. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus admonish his followers to take up arms if our neighbor wishes us “Happy Holidays” or a local ad touts its “Xmas” sale.
              My advice to the “offended": Get over yourselves. We are told that this season all about Jesus (I refuse to repeat the gratingly idiotic rhyme that we see see all over the place at this time of year)—which is another way of saying that it’s not all about you! The coming of the Savior does not depend on other people greeting you with the exact phrase you wish to hear when you wish to hear it.
              Relax, for goodness’ sake. Enjoy the holidays a little!

            Friday, December 10, 2010

            Yes, By All Means, Be Specific!

            A screenshot from a survey I took awhile back. Still trying to figure out how I could not have been specific, given the instructions.


            Sunday, November 14, 2010

            Advertising...What, Exactly?

            The column "Q. and A. with Stuart Elliott" in the New York Times this week featured a question from a reader who wondered what the theme music from Magnum, P.I. was doing in a make-up commercial--specifically, a spot for Maybelline's oddly named Falsies mascara.

            Elliott quotes a spokeswoman for Maybelline's ad agency saying that the spot features three "women on a mission" a la Charlie's Angels, but the theme from that show didn't "feel right with the flow of the spot," so they went with the Magnum, P.I. theme instead. (The column is online here.)

            That's all well and good, I guess, but I know that back in my ad-agency days I'd have never taken such an idea to a client, and if the client came up with it on his own I'd've strongly argued against it. Why? Because iconic music such as the Magnum, P.I. theme or (even more inexplicably) the theme from The Andy Griffith Show, which has been used in a recent minivan commercial, or the theme from Bewitched, used in commercials for a brand of kitchen appliances, has the effect of distracting the viewer from the product being advertised and pulling his or her attention to the familiar music and the TV series with which it's associated. All of a sudden I'm thinking about Darrin and Samantha Stevens, Endora, Dr. Bombay, and the Kravitzes--notthe fabulous kitchen appliances I'm supposed to be thinking about.

            No doubt advertising has changed a great deal these past 20-odd years (we were shocked back then when a rival agency put together a spot for a local video-store chain titled--on screen, no less!--"Video Junkies," since any reference to addiction in such contexts was considered taboo; now it's commonplace, to the point where the local cable company built a whole campaign around urging people to "Get Hooked"), but I can hardly believe that its central objective is no longer to sell product.

            Sunday, November 07, 2010

            Seven Years On

            Seven years ago this morning, my dad called me in a panic because he couldn’t wake Mom. We had had a similar episode a couple of months earlier (as if she was in a very deep slumber from which she could not be awoken, for reasons no one ever was able to explain), and I expected it to be a repeat. But by the time I alerted the kids to what was up (they were still abed, having no school that way) and got over to my folks’, it was all done. “She’s gone, Bill,” my father said, and that was that.

            As I said to my wife this morning, in some ways it seems impossible that it’s already been seven years since Mom died, but in other ways it seems impossible that it’s been only seven years. That is, I guess, the nature of things.

            Here’s a great snapshot that I scanned some time back. I suspect it’s from my parents’ dating days, putting it around 1953 or so.



            Back row, from left: Mom’s brother, my uncle Tom Bosco; Mom’s father, Carmine Caliendo; Sarah Bosco, Tom’s wife; Mom’s sister, Joan Caliendo; my cousin Connie Bosco, Tom and Sarah’s daughter.

            Front row, from left: My cousin Freddy Bosco, Tom and Sarah’s son; Mom and Dad; unknown (I think her name was Sharon); Mom’s brother, Martin Caliendo; Mom’s sister, my aunt Tina Bosco.





            Sunday, October 31, 2010

            Halloween 2003

            It was on this date seven years ago that I saw my mother alive for the last time.


            We had taken the kids trick-or-treating around our neighborhood and, as was our custom, then piled into the car to trick-or-treat at Grandma and Grandpa's house. Mom had had a rough summer and autumn: An aortic aneurysm (her second) had been detected in July, and she was flown to Mayo for emergency surgery; the surgery went well, but seemed to trigger respiratory problems that saw her in and out of the hospital for the rest of the summer, culminating with a month's stay at a nursing home for respiratory therapy that didn't seem to accomplish much. Still, she had been home for about a week when Halloween rolled around, and in fact was feeling, looking, and sounding much better. We would later say that we thought she had turned a corner, but didn't realize which corner; one week later she died.

            Here is one of my favorite photos of my parents, from their dating days, which would make it around 1953. It always makes me smile.



            Thursday, October 28, 2010

            Just Open the Attachment!

            It's been awhile since I've received any good spam. (Regular readers will know that I am always appreciative of well-done, thoughtful spamming, spoofing, or phishing, and disdainful of the slapdash, half-hearted efforts that seem to clog my inbox these days. Does no one take pride in his work anymore? See here and here for past expositions on the subject.)

            What came today isn't especially good, spam-wise, but it earns points in the Chutzpah category, for coming right out and suggesting I download an attachment to the e-mail. ("Hey, you know all that stuff about never downloading anything from someone you don't know? Nevermind.")

            Anyhow, here's the missive, carrying the provocative subject line "Your account was accesed by a third party" and purportedly coming from HSBC Bank plc. (alert@hsbc-online.co.uk) (one of my numerous European bank accounts, no doubt. So numerous that I lose track of them all the time):


              Dear Customer,

              We detected irregular activity on your HSBC
              Internet banking account on 26/10/2010.

              For your protection, you must verify this
              activity before you can continue using your
              account.

              Please download the document attached to this
              email to review your account activity.

              We will review the activity on your account
              with you and upon verification,

              and we will remove any restrictions placed on
              your account.


              If you choose to ignore our request, you leave us no choise
              but to temporaly suspend your account.

              We ask that you allow at least 72 hours for the case to be
              investigated and we strongly recommend to verefy (sic) your
              account in that time.

              Best Regards,
              Colette Nugent
              Head of Customer Communications

              © Copyright HSBC Holdings plc 2010 - All rights reserved


            The attachment (which I somehow have not gotten around to downloading) is cleverly called "Verify.html." Seems a little odd to me that an alleged review of my account activity would be in an html document. But then it seems a little odd that they would e-mail me such a thing in the first place. Considering I'm not a customer or anything.

            Another oddity: The (sic) in the above message, after the misspelled "verefy"? They put that there! I have no idea why. Nor do I know why they failed to add (sic) after the equally misspelled "choise."

            In general, however, this is a pretty average bit of flummery...no graphics, no seemingly legit links, nothing really of interest at all except the damn-the-torpedoes suggestion that I just go right ahead and click on that attachment right there. Hey, what's the worst that can happen, right?