I'm trying to remember the last time I heard someone referred to a phone as 'the' phone, as opposed to 'my' phone or 'your' phone or 'his/her' phone. Now that everybody has one in their pocket, 'the' has been replaced by a personal pronoun.
That's a small shame. I liked 'the phone.' Even though telephones, like everything else in the home, were personal property, I think it was neat that they were referred to more as community property. Even people who lived alone would say 'the' phone.
"I'm sorry I missed your call, I couldn't get to the phone in time."
The telephone was a link to the outside world and was treated with respect. I can almost imagine the 'T' capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence. "Please answer The Phone."
Now The Phone is everywhere. It goes where we go. We are the phone and the phone is us. Well, not me. I sometimes turn my phone off and then forget to turn it back on for a day or two. No biggie. I've never yet missed an important call.
See? Having one around all the time, I've lost all respect for The Phone. 10 years ago I never would have dreamed of unplugging my phone for 2 days, just because. Now I turn it off all the time.
Here's a conversation I had not too long ago.
Other Person: (incredulous)You turn your phone off?
Me: Sure.
OP: But what if someone needs to get hold of you?
Me: I have voicemail.
OP: What if it's an emergency?
Me: Like what?
OP: An accident, or somebody in the emergency room or something.
Me: In that case, 911 is a better option. I'm not trained.
She couldn't fathom how I survive with the phone off. How can I cut myself off from Important News that I might need immediately?
I explained, or tried to explain, that I do it the same way everybody did it prior to a few short years ago. If I miss the important news now, I'll hear it later. If not, then it probably wasn't that important in the first place.
And I seriously dislike text messages. They are too intrusive. Questions, comments, opinions, demands on my time can now all be sent without a filter, straight to me. I don't like it.
Calls can be filtered, which I like. I can choose not to answer. Or if I do answer I can somewhat guide the conversation. Before the demanding question can be asked I can help set the tone.
So don't text me.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Acting on Brian's tip about Blockbuster's going-out-of-business sale, I bought "Anchorman" and seasons 1 and 3 of "30 Rock." Great haul. I'd have bought season 2 as well if it was in stock. Love that show, and I feel quite sure I'll watch "Anchorman" repeatedly.Another stop on my Sunday shopping spree netted me the newest Jasper Fforde book, "One of Our Thursdays is Missing." I've been looking forward to it for ages and ages, knew late last year it was finally due out early this year, and yet missed the release date. I was surprised and delighted to see it on the shelf.
It's the sixth in his "Thursday Next" series. The first five were wonderfully entertaining.
I was going to start reading it last night but decided I'll finish my Huck Finn re-read first. But I did read through the first few pages and it was enough to remind me of everything I like about Fforde's novels: fun plots, zany characters, snide jokes, corny jokes, great literary references, and combinations such as fun snide corny literary jokes.
I'm only 5 pages in and already there's a marvelous gag about how hard it is to remember character names in "Crime and Punishment." What more could I ask for?
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Literature And the Person Who Listens To It
I recently discovered Librivox.org. It's a fantastic site with lots of public domain audio books. I've made extensive use of it over the last month or so.
Previously, the only audio book I'd ever made it all the way through was a biography of Alexander Hamilton. And, at the time I listened to it, the only reason I made it through was because we lived in Somerset and I drove frequently back and forth between there and Louisville. Other than that, I could not handle audio books.
I find I still have some trouble with them. I listen at work, and try as I might to appropriately prioritize, I find that my work crowds out my pleasure listening and I frequently can't adequately follow the story. No matter, though, as the work day is long and I can just back up and try again.
As keeping track of the story is especially difficult when there is something else I'm supposed to be doing, I've found that the audio is terrific for my long list of wished-for re-reads. Since I'm familiar with the plot, missing a minute or five doesn't bother me.
When I first found the site I listened to Treasure Island, which was somehow new to me. I knew the story, had seeen movies, plus various other stories stolen from it, but somehow I had never read it. It was terrific.
Another new one for me is Rudyard Kipling's Kim, which I have not quite finished, but I am close. Very entertaining. I've also listened to quite a few Wodehouse stories, which are especially good as most last between 20 and 45 minutes so I can select one of those late in the day and hear the whole thing.
The re-reads have been the best, though, since my attention can wander. I've listened to Hamlet, A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court, Julius Caesar, and various Sherlock Holmes stories. I also listend to Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, which is one of my favorite books. I have intended to re-read it for ages, but I hadn't touched it in almost twenty years.
_______________________________________________________________
As for reading the old fashioned way, I've had some difficulty lately in finding a really good book.
I read Graham Swift's Out of This World. Pretty good, but no Waterland. Waterland was outstanding, but I've now read three others by him and none were even remotely close to as good.
I have a very thin book of essays by Christopher Hitchens which I picked up on the Barnes and Noble bargain shelf. It's slow going, though. He's a talented writer and I really appreciate his arguments, but he's just not very likeable. I can certainly understand why he gets under conservatives' skins, since I'm an ultra-liberal and generally agree with him but even I think he's a pompous ass.
I'm also re-reading Huckleberry Finn. I'm about half-finished. Brian mentioned he bought it at Borders and I thought "hmm, I should probably give that another look." So I am doing so.
Previously, the only audio book I'd ever made it all the way through was a biography of Alexander Hamilton. And, at the time I listened to it, the only reason I made it through was because we lived in Somerset and I drove frequently back and forth between there and Louisville. Other than that, I could not handle audio books.
I find I still have some trouble with them. I listen at work, and try as I might to appropriately prioritize, I find that my work crowds out my pleasure listening and I frequently can't adequately follow the story. No matter, though, as the work day is long and I can just back up and try again.
As keeping track of the story is especially difficult when there is something else I'm supposed to be doing, I've found that the audio is terrific for my long list of wished-for re-reads. Since I'm familiar with the plot, missing a minute or five doesn't bother me.
When I first found the site I listened to Treasure Island, which was somehow new to me. I knew the story, had seeen movies, plus various other stories stolen from it, but somehow I had never read it. It was terrific.
Another new one for me is Rudyard Kipling's Kim, which I have not quite finished, but I am close. Very entertaining. I've also listened to quite a few Wodehouse stories, which are especially good as most last between 20 and 45 minutes so I can select one of those late in the day and hear the whole thing.
The re-reads have been the best, though, since my attention can wander. I've listened to Hamlet, A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court, Julius Caesar, and various Sherlock Holmes stories. I also listend to Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, which is one of my favorite books. I have intended to re-read it for ages, but I hadn't touched it in almost twenty years.
_______________________________________________________________
As for reading the old fashioned way, I've had some difficulty lately in finding a really good book.
I read Graham Swift's Out of This World. Pretty good, but no Waterland. Waterland was outstanding, but I've now read three others by him and none were even remotely close to as good.
I have a very thin book of essays by Christopher Hitchens which I picked up on the Barnes and Noble bargain shelf. It's slow going, though. He's a talented writer and I really appreciate his arguments, but he's just not very likeable. I can certainly understand why he gets under conservatives' skins, since I'm an ultra-liberal and generally agree with him but even I think he's a pompous ass.
I'm also re-reading Huckleberry Finn. I'm about half-finished. Brian mentioned he bought it at Borders and I thought "hmm, I should probably give that another look." So I am doing so.
Friday, April 1, 2011
For years I read the Courier-Journal every day. I hated missing a day. The paper has gone steadily downhill for the same reason all of them have: reduced revenue caused cutbacks which reduced quality which reduced revenue which caused cutbacks which reduced quality which reduced revenue which... well you get the idea.
Suffice it to say that the quality sunk low enough that I no longer minded missing a day, and now I rarely see it.
Today, though, someone showed me an article about a local employers' summit meeting/symposium on health care costs and health in the workplace.
Featured prominently were quotes from my company's CEO. His point was that the workplace health iniatives instituted at the same time as our high deductible health care plans have made employees healthier. His 'proof' was our lowered BMI, a reduction in our number of medical claims, and a reduction in the monetary amount of our monthy health care claims.
So I was forced to send an email to the writer of the piece of ____ article, asking if he'd bothered to ask any of the likely follow-up questions, such as
1) How do you know employees' BMI have dropped? Where could you possibly have attained this information, other than pulling it straight out of your ___?
or
2) Is it possible that reduced claims are not the result of better health, but rather the result of the fact that employees have instead chosen to forego proper medical care because they CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE HIGH DEDUCTIBLE?
____________________________________________
Why, you may ask, did I 'bury the lead' on this post? Why start a rant about my employer with comments about the newspaper?
Because it's not a rant about the employer. It's a rant about shoddy reporting. A CEO's job is basically to get as much out of his workers for as little cost as possible, while spinning it with positive publicity. So our CEO did a stellar job, ____ though he may be.
The reporter's job is not to just print whatever self-serving load of ____ the CEO hands out. He's supposed to actually verify it.
Suffice it to say that the quality sunk low enough that I no longer minded missing a day, and now I rarely see it.
Today, though, someone showed me an article about a local employers' summit meeting/symposium on health care costs and health in the workplace.
Featured prominently were quotes from my company's CEO. His point was that the workplace health iniatives instituted at the same time as our high deductible health care plans have made employees healthier. His 'proof' was our lowered BMI, a reduction in our number of medical claims, and a reduction in the monetary amount of our monthy health care claims.
So I was forced to send an email to the writer of the piece of ____ article, asking if he'd bothered to ask any of the likely follow-up questions, such as
1) How do you know employees' BMI have dropped? Where could you possibly have attained this information, other than pulling it straight out of your ___?
or
2) Is it possible that reduced claims are not the result of better health, but rather the result of the fact that employees have instead chosen to forego proper medical care because they CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE HIGH DEDUCTIBLE?
____________________________________________
Why, you may ask, did I 'bury the lead' on this post? Why start a rant about my employer with comments about the newspaper?
Because it's not a rant about the employer. It's a rant about shoddy reporting. A CEO's job is basically to get as much out of his workers for as little cost as possible, while spinning it with positive publicity. So our CEO did a stellar job, ____ though he may be.
The reporter's job is not to just print whatever self-serving load of ____ the CEO hands out. He's supposed to actually verify it.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Inspired By Leonard's Losers
The Final Four for the Anti-National Championship is now set. Only one team can be the anti-national champion. Only one team can ultimately be the first in a chain of losses all the way to the title game.
Lots of teams (32, to be exact) lose in the round of 64. At that point all 32 still have dreams of becoming the anti-national champion. But sixteen of those teams are eliminated the opening weekend, as the team that beat them wins another game. For the other sixteen, the ones whose conquerors are immediately conquered in turn, the dream stays alive.
It's a longshot for even the worst of tournament teams. To lose to a team that then loses to a team that then loses to another, which then loses in the elite eight to a team that loses in the semi-finals to a team which loses in the national championship... well, it can only be done by one team.
But now we are down to four. And WHAT A FOUR they are. Who could have predicted that not a single 11 seed (the most likely, statistically) would remain. The 11 seeds have the easy path to reach the Anti-Final Four- all they have to do is lose to a 6, who loses to a 3, who loses to a 2, who loses to a 1. No upsets required.
But one by one, the 11's slipped up and refused to go down in flames. Marquette and Gonzaga bowed out of the anti-tournament early, winning convincingly in the first round. VCU, who was perhaps the favorite to win the anti-tournament, not only didn't lose in the first round, they also didn't lose in the next round, or the sweet sixteen. Then they even didn't lose in the regional finals.
That left Missouri alone among the 11's; they alone stood up tall to be knocked down by Cincinnati in the first round. They still looked appropriately weak as Cincy fell to UConn. But their dreams were dashed as UConn refused to fall to San Diego State, leaving the anti-tournamet wide open.
So who remains?
* Indiana State would seem, at first glance, to be the favorite. They fell handily to Syracuse, who immediately lost to that stubborn refuse-to-be-a-loser Marquette, who then finally fell flat on their face against North Carolina, who promptly lost to Kentucky.
The Sycamores have a solid shot at losing it all. However, they must hope that the suddenly red-hot Kentucky Wildcats cool off enough to lose to UConn, who most in turn lose to either Butler or the seriously under-overachieving (over-underachieving?) Virginia Commonwealth.
*The unmighty Tennessee Vols still have a legitimate shot. They seemed poised for an early exit from the anti-tournament, but their program fell into disarray at just the right time, losing to Michigan, who lost to Duke, who scored a spectacular failure against Arizona, who then fell against the UConn Huskies. But for the Vols to lose it all the path runs through Kentucky and then either Butler or VCU.
*The St. John's Red Storm failed impressively in the opening round, routed by Gonzaga. They then took advantage of their position, which was in effect the taking over of Gonzaga's original 11 seed, as the Zags lost to 3 BYU who lost to 2 Florida, who then pulled off the anti-upset by losing to 8 seed Butler, securing St. John's a place in the unvaunted anti four.
From here the Red Storm's path is bright, as all they need is a Butler loss to a hot VCU squad, and then a VCU loss to either of the top remaining seeds, UConn or Kentucky.
*Finally, we have perhaps the most unlikey contender for ultimate loser, the Louisville Cardinals. Unlikely, but convincing. The Cards scored an upset flame-out against lowly Morehead State, who then fell in a route to the Richmond Spiders, who were then destroyed by Kansas. Kansas then came through with a meltdown of massive proportions against VCU.
Now all that stands in the Cards' way is the possibility of VCU knocking off Butler, or of Butler winning two more times.
It can certainly happen, but the Ville (note: that is local vernacular for a school in the city of Louisville whose players are unaware that more than one town name ends in the letters v-i-l-l-e) is now a prohibitive favorite.
Go Cards! If they lose I think we should get Rick a trophy.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Various Unimportant Things
Last weekend Ron had us over to grill and play some cornhole.
When I arrived he and Jim were standing by the grill. Jim was munching on a bag of carrots and sharing them with Ron. I deposited my cooler and joined them, and accepted a carrot, too, when it was offered. We talked, ate carrots, talked some more... and suddenly I thought, and said aloud "Hey, didn't these carrots used to be beers? When did we grow so tame that we actually stand around a grill munching carrots?"
But they were good carrots.
_____________________________________
There should be a law against having to clear snow off the car in late March.
_____________________________________
Early this afternoon and again tonight I was cleaning up a little bit. I threw out some things, too. It started small- old magazines, a couple of boxes I decided I didn't need to hold on to. Then old phone books- turns out I had 9 old phone books. Amazing. Then an old comforter that I haven't used for a couple of years and finally decided was not quite good enough to keep. Then a very old sweatshirt, a very old pair of tennis shoes, a whole armful of ratty tee shirts and shorts. Then a couple more boxes. Then the sheets and pillow cases right off my bed, as I had decided when I put them on the bed last week that they were on their last cycle and not to be washed again.
As I tossed the sheets I noticed the dumpster had really filled up with all my waste. How had I managed to accumulate all that crap? I haven't even lived here that all that long.
But tonight I'm sleeping on brand new sheets. Always a good feeling. Like being in a nice hotel, except without all the disgusting invisible stuff.
_____________________________________
A basketball officiating call I've never understood: Why is a foul on an alley-oop dunk attempt called a shooting foul? Why is it two shots? If the offensive player is fouled before he's even got the ball in his hands, how can he possibly be 'in the act of shooting?'
_____________________________________
Early in the basketball season I really liked Kentucky's team. They were fun to watch and seemed like they'd become pretty good. Then from November to February they didn't seem to improve at all. They were hard to watch. I often turned off the television (or computer) and turned on the radio, since I wanted to follow the games but they were so ugly I couldn't bare to see them.
Then suddenly they got quite a bit better for about 4 or 5 games. Then suddenly they got a lot better than that. Baffling. But I love it. The whole team's playing great defense and they're taking turns being The Man on offense.
And Josh Harrellson has become my favorite UK player ever. He was already close, but now he's tops. It must be an every 15 year thing, because Kyle Macy was my favorite from the late 70's until Tony Delk arrived mid-90's, now Jorts has passed him up on my list.
When I arrived he and Jim were standing by the grill. Jim was munching on a bag of carrots and sharing them with Ron. I deposited my cooler and joined them, and accepted a carrot, too, when it was offered. We talked, ate carrots, talked some more... and suddenly I thought, and said aloud "Hey, didn't these carrots used to be beers? When did we grow so tame that we actually stand around a grill munching carrots?"
But they were good carrots.
_____________________________________
There should be a law against having to clear snow off the car in late March.
_____________________________________
Early this afternoon and again tonight I was cleaning up a little bit. I threw out some things, too. It started small- old magazines, a couple of boxes I decided I didn't need to hold on to. Then old phone books- turns out I had 9 old phone books. Amazing. Then an old comforter that I haven't used for a couple of years and finally decided was not quite good enough to keep. Then a very old sweatshirt, a very old pair of tennis shoes, a whole armful of ratty tee shirts and shorts. Then a couple more boxes. Then the sheets and pillow cases right off my bed, as I had decided when I put them on the bed last week that they were on their last cycle and not to be washed again.
As I tossed the sheets I noticed the dumpster had really filled up with all my waste. How had I managed to accumulate all that crap? I haven't even lived here that all that long.
But tonight I'm sleeping on brand new sheets. Always a good feeling. Like being in a nice hotel, except without all the disgusting invisible stuff.
_____________________________________
A basketball officiating call I've never understood: Why is a foul on an alley-oop dunk attempt called a shooting foul? Why is it two shots? If the offensive player is fouled before he's even got the ball in his hands, how can he possibly be 'in the act of shooting?'
_____________________________________
Early in the basketball season I really liked Kentucky's team. They were fun to watch and seemed like they'd become pretty good. Then from November to February they didn't seem to improve at all. They were hard to watch. I often turned off the television (or computer) and turned on the radio, since I wanted to follow the games but they were so ugly I couldn't bare to see them.
Then suddenly they got quite a bit better for about 4 or 5 games. Then suddenly they got a lot better than that. Baffling. But I love it. The whole team's playing great defense and they're taking turns being The Man on offense.
And Josh Harrellson has become my favorite UK player ever. He was already close, but now he's tops. It must be an every 15 year thing, because Kyle Macy was my favorite from the late 70's until Tony Delk arrived mid-90's, now Jorts has passed him up on my list.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Just watched the end of Georgetown's 1984 Final Four win over Kentucky. Much like recently when Brian said he worried about Travis Ford's hamstring injury of 15 years ago, I found myself quickly invested in the game.
In my case I was wishing Master or Blackmon or Harden would hit a 3-pointer and get a comeback started. Then I realized there were no 3-pointers for three more years.
Billy Packer was intolerable, I thought. But I watched him broadcast games for another 25 years, so I guess I could tolerate him. Barely.
If I was a whatever kind of scientist/psychologist/something technical that studies brains, I believe this type of thing would be interesting to study. Why do sports fans get anxious watching a rerun of a game when they already know the outcome? Why do the suspenseful aspects of some movies or books still work even if I've seen them before and know how they end?
And yet some movies are incredibly suspenseful the first time but don't work for repeated viewings. The Exorcist is still scary to me, though I know what's going to happen. However, I find a second viewing of The Sixth Sense to be very pedestrian. It worked great the first time, but not the second.
What's the difference? Somebody needs to get a federal grant, spend a few hundred thousand dollars hooking electrodes up to college students, and make them watch old playoff games and thriller movies, and then explain it to me. Maybe they can tell me why I get anxious about whether the Allies can halt the German advance during the Battle of the Bulge.
At least now that VCRs are out-dated I no longer have to worry about the weather warnings. Now that I don't watch those old tapes I no longer fall for the two-year old tornado warnings or blizzards.
In my case I was wishing Master or Blackmon or Harden would hit a 3-pointer and get a comeback started. Then I realized there were no 3-pointers for three more years.
Billy Packer was intolerable, I thought. But I watched him broadcast games for another 25 years, so I guess I could tolerate him. Barely.
If I was a whatever kind of scientist/psychologist/something technical that studies brains, I believe this type of thing would be interesting to study. Why do sports fans get anxious watching a rerun of a game when they already know the outcome? Why do the suspenseful aspects of some movies or books still work even if I've seen them before and know how they end?
And yet some movies are incredibly suspenseful the first time but don't work for repeated viewings. The Exorcist is still scary to me, though I know what's going to happen. However, I find a second viewing of The Sixth Sense to be very pedestrian. It worked great the first time, but not the second.
What's the difference? Somebody needs to get a federal grant, spend a few hundred thousand dollars hooking electrodes up to college students, and make them watch old playoff games and thriller movies, and then explain it to me. Maybe they can tell me why I get anxious about whether the Allies can halt the German advance during the Battle of the Bulge.
At least now that VCRs are out-dated I no longer have to worry about the weather warnings. Now that I don't watch those old tapes I no longer fall for the two-year old tornado warnings or blizzards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)