It's time to defend the (nearly) indefensible.
The annual holiday letter.
I know, I know. They are admittedly impersonal, since they are copied and sent out to a few dozen people. They take time to prepare, and some think they can't spare that time in the month of December.
The intent of the letter is great. I like to know what my friends are up to, and December is a great and traditional time of the year to catch up.
However. Most of them are simply awful. Part of the problem is that the people doing the writing only put pen to paper during the course of a year for a grocery list. It almost hurts to read those letters.
Even when they are in English, they are troublesome. The biggest problem, of course, is the issue of the kids. Let's face it, MY kids are all doing fascinating things that deserve to be mentioned to everyone. YOUR kids are doing things that no one cares about. It's not easy to turn such activities into general interest reading. I like to think of it as something like working with blasting caps -- leave it to the professionals.
We get a handful of letters every year. My favorite is from the wife of a college friend. She always writes it in the first person even though it's from the whole family, which hurts my sensibilities in such matters. But the "fun part" comes from the fact that my friend, the husband of the household, is barely mentioned in his own family newsletter. And when he is mentioned, it generally centers around the fact he works too much. Then the letter moves on. I'd kind of like to know what he's doing, how his golf game is, what he does in the workday world, how he liked the Red Sox' signing of Dice-K -- something.
In spite of this mountain of obstacles, I write a holiday letter that actually seems to be read and enjoyed. Granted, part of that is that some of the people on the mailing/e-mail list aren't members of the media, and aren't used to getting letters where most of the words are spelled correctly. But plenty of others write to say, "You have the only holiday newsletter I actually like to read."
Therefore, here are a few tips for the amateurs out there:
1. Don't have children. This may be difficult if they are already here, and they certainly have other advantages, but they don't do much for letters. If you do have kids, think of family activities rather than an individual's soccer award for perfect attendance.
2. Be positive. Had some bad news during the course of the year? Job still stink? Favorite baseball team lose five straight games to the Yankees in late August? Don't even think about mentioning it. (Exception: a death of a loved one deserves a note at the end.) No one wants to read about your problems, because they can probably top you.
3. Be funny. David Letterman's monologue doesn't get the care and attention I give to the holiday letter. I write a rough draft, and then try to sweeten the jokes. And then do it again. And again. I've even mailed out a few, thought of an improvement, and made new copies of the letter with the new joke. Mel Brooks I'm not, but people seem to laugh.
4. Keep it to one page. No one had THAT interesting of a year to expand to two pages. Well, maybe Donald Rumsfeld. But he has more time on his hands these days.
I try to keep up with my friends during the course of the year, and I'm pretty ruthless with my mailing list, so this isn't a case of a letter being the only piece of communication I have with people during 365 days. I'd like to think of it as a present, something personal that comes from me that can't be purchased at a store. It's worth my while to make time to send them a quality note.
In other words, I treasure my friendships, and this is a way of giving a piece of myself back to them on an annual basis.
Happy holidays.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Thursday, December 21, 2006
"I am not a crook" either
A while back, I wrote here about how I had discovered that someone had researched some of my family tree. It's time for an update, and the title gives you a clue about the outcome.
I have loaded the family tree into ancestry.com, which does a fine job of pointing you in other directions about distant relations. It's especially true for pre-1800 names, which have been researched, posted and shared by others. After a while, the family trees tend to intertwine.
I've got something like 450 names up now, including everyone, dating back to pre-1492. I have visions of my relatives standing on the docks, waving goodbye to Columbus, even though my relatives were in England, Scotland and Ireland while Columbus didn't start anywhere near there.
Just the other day, ancestry.com added a new feature: connections with celebrities. It looks over your tree and the trees of celebrities, and lists the results. It's not quite perfect yet and is in the Beta mode, since the computer takes in some information that is at best iffy. For example, in one of my connective charts, there's someone who allegedly had a child at age 12. That seemed a little difficult for me.
However, one name did jump off the chart for me -- Richard Nixon. Since much of my main branch had Quaker ties before 1860, I should have guessed that America's leading 20th-century Quaker might have a connection. Still, I looked over the names. I assumed that Nixon's line was pretty accurate, since Presidents usually get a thorough job of research in such matters. And while I haven't searched SE Pennsylvania cemeteries yet, the names on my list seem to be well-researched too. So, I think it's fair to guess that there is a very good chance that President Nixon and I had the same ancestor, Gayen Miller, around 1700.
I broke this news to some of my relatives, but they haven't checked back in yet. Maybe they are too stunned. Maybe they haven't opened their e-mail.
A couple of other celebrities on the list seem like a good connection too -- Shirley Temple, Raymond Massey, Mrs. Herbert Hoover. But Nixon is the one I'll remember.
I always wondered why I had such a heavy beard.
I have loaded the family tree into ancestry.com, which does a fine job of pointing you in other directions about distant relations. It's especially true for pre-1800 names, which have been researched, posted and shared by others. After a while, the family trees tend to intertwine.
I've got something like 450 names up now, including everyone, dating back to pre-1492. I have visions of my relatives standing on the docks, waving goodbye to Columbus, even though my relatives were in England, Scotland and Ireland while Columbus didn't start anywhere near there.
Just the other day, ancestry.com added a new feature: connections with celebrities. It looks over your tree and the trees of celebrities, and lists the results. It's not quite perfect yet and is in the Beta mode, since the computer takes in some information that is at best iffy. For example, in one of my connective charts, there's someone who allegedly had a child at age 12. That seemed a little difficult for me.
However, one name did jump off the chart for me -- Richard Nixon. Since much of my main branch had Quaker ties before 1860, I should have guessed that America's leading 20th-century Quaker might have a connection. Still, I looked over the names. I assumed that Nixon's line was pretty accurate, since Presidents usually get a thorough job of research in such matters. And while I haven't searched SE Pennsylvania cemeteries yet, the names on my list seem to be well-researched too. So, I think it's fair to guess that there is a very good chance that President Nixon and I had the same ancestor, Gayen Miller, around 1700.
I broke this news to some of my relatives, but they haven't checked back in yet. Maybe they are too stunned. Maybe they haven't opened their e-mail.
A couple of other celebrities on the list seem like a good connection too -- Shirley Temple, Raymond Massey, Mrs. Herbert Hoover. But Nixon is the one I'll remember.
I always wondered why I had such a heavy beard.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Ah-choo
I'm sick.
Not sick over world hunger and famine, or sick over a Yankees' free-agent acquisition. Sick as in cough cough, sneeze sneeze.
Luckily, I don't get sick very often. I attribute this to the fact that I don't work with many people, and I don't have any children. So I don't pick up any bugs from the office or Johnny's school very often. Teachers spend the winter sneezing; usually I'm the one usually dodging such problems.
This time, though, I wasn't so lucky. I came home from a Thanksgiving trip to Tampa with the chills -- I either blame Mom or the airplane, which is a great place to pass germs around -- and haven't felt great since. In fact, I've had three straight nights of waking up frequently with a coughing fit (which means a trip to the bathroom), to the point where I fled the bedroom for the sanctuary of a reclining chair in order to sit up while trying to sleep and letting my wife sleep in peace. I know, darn considerate of me.
Here's the tough part of about getting sick: What exactly are the rules anyway? They seem to be a little unclear, and I can't find them published anywhere.
Rule one is you don't miss work, at least in my circumstance. Some jobs have daily deadlines or no extra people, and I have one of those jobs. Which means that if there's a small doubt that you should go to work, you should still go to work. But where's the line? Of course it's better to miss a day or two rather than infect an entire building, but sometimes the only thing matters is that night. From that night's perspective.
Then again, no one likes to sit next to a sick person at work. You've done it. I've done it. I used to work with a person who, when sick, made all sorts of disgusting noises in the coughing/spitting family. It was torture to sit next to the person for eight hours. I don't want to have other people thinking those thoughts about me. Add in the threat of picking up or giving the bug to someone. But -- the night's work needs to be done. So, what to do?
Rule two is you don't call the doctor. Unless you're sure you have to do so. But when are you sure? Answer is, you usually aren't. So you don't. If you can physically call the doctor, you probably don't need to do so. With some exceptions.
Rule three is people who are sick always think they are bravely coping with the disease. Onlookers always consider that same behavior as evidence that a "big baby" has entered the room. It never fails. You answer the question "How are you?" honestly ("Mediocre"), and you're a big baby. The great thing is, people fall into those roles without any hesitation no matter how they act when they are on the other side of the fence.
I'd argue about where the rules should be, but I'm not in the mood.
After all, I'm sick.
Not sick over world hunger and famine, or sick over a Yankees' free-agent acquisition. Sick as in cough cough, sneeze sneeze.
Luckily, I don't get sick very often. I attribute this to the fact that I don't work with many people, and I don't have any children. So I don't pick up any bugs from the office or Johnny's school very often. Teachers spend the winter sneezing; usually I'm the one usually dodging such problems.
This time, though, I wasn't so lucky. I came home from a Thanksgiving trip to Tampa with the chills -- I either blame Mom or the airplane, which is a great place to pass germs around -- and haven't felt great since. In fact, I've had three straight nights of waking up frequently with a coughing fit (which means a trip to the bathroom), to the point where I fled the bedroom for the sanctuary of a reclining chair in order to sit up while trying to sleep and letting my wife sleep in peace. I know, darn considerate of me.
Here's the tough part of about getting sick: What exactly are the rules anyway? They seem to be a little unclear, and I can't find them published anywhere.
Rule one is you don't miss work, at least in my circumstance. Some jobs have daily deadlines or no extra people, and I have one of those jobs. Which means that if there's a small doubt that you should go to work, you should still go to work. But where's the line? Of course it's better to miss a day or two rather than infect an entire building, but sometimes the only thing matters is that night. From that night's perspective.
Then again, no one likes to sit next to a sick person at work. You've done it. I've done it. I used to work with a person who, when sick, made all sorts of disgusting noises in the coughing/spitting family. It was torture to sit next to the person for eight hours. I don't want to have other people thinking those thoughts about me. Add in the threat of picking up or giving the bug to someone. But -- the night's work needs to be done. So, what to do?
Rule two is you don't call the doctor. Unless you're sure you have to do so. But when are you sure? Answer is, you usually aren't. So you don't. If you can physically call the doctor, you probably don't need to do so. With some exceptions.
Rule three is people who are sick always think they are bravely coping with the disease. Onlookers always consider that same behavior as evidence that a "big baby" has entered the room. It never fails. You answer the question "How are you?" honestly ("Mediocre"), and you're a big baby. The great thing is, people fall into those roles without any hesitation no matter how they act when they are on the other side of the fence.
I'd argue about where the rules should be, but I'm not in the mood.
After all, I'm sick.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Past blast
The other night I was channel-surfing when I came upon one of the icons of my youth.
Jack La Lanne.
If you are 50 or over, the name might make you smile. La Lanne was something of a pioneer in the early days of television. In fact, I think he's about the only one from that era left.
He had a syndicated exercise program way back when in the 1950's and 60's. The show was something of a link to the days when sports magazines and comic books would have ads about how to stop bullies from kicking sand in weaklings' faces. I never knew anyone who actually bought that stuff, but somebody must have.
Exercise wasn't exactly popular back then, but La Lanne tried to get his audience in shape. Memory tells me that he often had his dog appear on the show as a guest star. What's more, he'd be happy to sell you some sort of product that would go along with the exercises. The instant breakfast comes to mind, but I'd bet there were others. In that sense too, La Lanne was ahead of his time.
Jack and wife Elaine appear on an infomercial selling their Juicer, which turns all sorts of stuff into a beverage. Jack's hair is, um, surprisingly dark for a man 92, but he still looks like he could kick sand in my face without any fear of a response.
As you might expect, La Lanne's Web site (http://www.jacklalanne.com) is filled with merchandise, including a link to the Juicer. If you are feeling nostaligic, some old shows are available on DVD.
I may have missed "Home Run Derby," but at least I got to see Jack now and then.
Jack La Lanne.
If you are 50 or over, the name might make you smile. La Lanne was something of a pioneer in the early days of television. In fact, I think he's about the only one from that era left.
He had a syndicated exercise program way back when in the 1950's and 60's. The show was something of a link to the days when sports magazines and comic books would have ads about how to stop bullies from kicking sand in weaklings' faces. I never knew anyone who actually bought that stuff, but somebody must have.
Exercise wasn't exactly popular back then, but La Lanne tried to get his audience in shape. Memory tells me that he often had his dog appear on the show as a guest star. What's more, he'd be happy to sell you some sort of product that would go along with the exercises. The instant breakfast comes to mind, but I'd bet there were others. In that sense too, La Lanne was ahead of his time.
Jack and wife Elaine appear on an infomercial selling their Juicer, which turns all sorts of stuff into a beverage. Jack's hair is, um, surprisingly dark for a man 92, but he still looks like he could kick sand in my face without any fear of a response.
As you might expect, La Lanne's Web site (http://www.jacklalanne.com) is filled with merchandise, including a link to the Juicer. If you are feeling nostaligic, some old shows are available on DVD.
I may have missed "Home Run Derby," but at least I got to see Jack now and then.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Quite a night
A few notes collected while looking back on Election Night and its coverage:
* Miss the political commercials that have disappeared? I didn't think so.
* It was surprising to see Keith Olbermann have a large role on the MSNBC broadcast, considering his strong anti-Bush commentaries in the past couple of months. That said, he seemed professional throughout his portions of the show. And who else would have thrown in a joke about Wisconsin Senator Bob La Follette (served from 1906 to 1925)?
* Speaking of anchors, Wolf Blitzer of CNN was given a large role in the broadcast, and he seemed a little rushed at times.
* It's a little sad to see the major networks give up the franchise, to a certain extent, when it comes to politics. CBS/NBC/ABC were on from 10 to 11 in the East; they may have done more programming at 11:35 that was preempted by local news in my neighborhood. I don't expect all of prime-time to be wiped out by a midterm election any more, but it would have been nice to compare how the various new anchors would do over a long night. Plus, Tim Russert could have used more face time.
* And speaking of giving up the franchise, my ABC affiliate did show election returns starting at 10. It also ran a crawl with the phone numbers so that people could vote for their favorites in "Dancing With the Stars." That's got to mean something, but I'm just not sure what.
* It's become pretty easy to know when to grab the remote control when watching political coverage. When someone pops on who isn't running for anything, it's time to switch stations. They aren't going to say anything but the party line. Come to think of it, most victory/concession speeches aren't too illuminating either, although everyone on TV was falling over Harold Ford's classy exit in Tennessee.
* Late on Election Night, I flipped on CNN Headline News for a moment. Nancy Grace's news judgment hasn't changed. She was talking about the "breaking developments" in a story about a pit-bull attack.
* Sometimes it's fun to watch these elections to see who pops up for interviews; it can be a sign of interest in the next Presidential election. On the Republican side, John McCain obviously qualifies, although to be fair the man is always willing to do an interview. The other GOP candidates were sprinting for cover, I guess.
* Pollster Charlie Cook was on C-SPAN on Wednesday, and he did a fine job of analysis. He said the independents essentially fired as many Republicans as they could, although there was a GOP firewall in place (gerrmandering of districts) to prevent more serious damage.
Then again, how much more damage could there be? Did they lose the town board of Harmony, NY, too?
* My nominee for best line of the night came from a co-worker, who said he watched a little of the Fox News Channel. He said it was like the Yankees' announcers describing Game Seven of the 2004 American League playoffs against the Red Sox.
* The most interesting election note I heard was from a New Yorker who moved to South Carolina. She said she had to vote early because the powers that be down there make it as difficult as possible to vote. There aren't many polling places, for example, and the lines are long. Having just watched part of "Eyes on the Prize" on PBS, it kind of makes you wonder if we're still fighting for universal voting rights in some ways.
* Miss the political commercials that have disappeared? I didn't think so.
* It was surprising to see Keith Olbermann have a large role on the MSNBC broadcast, considering his strong anti-Bush commentaries in the past couple of months. That said, he seemed professional throughout his portions of the show. And who else would have thrown in a joke about Wisconsin Senator Bob La Follette (served from 1906 to 1925)?
* Speaking of anchors, Wolf Blitzer of CNN was given a large role in the broadcast, and he seemed a little rushed at times.
* It's a little sad to see the major networks give up the franchise, to a certain extent, when it comes to politics. CBS/NBC/ABC were on from 10 to 11 in the East; they may have done more programming at 11:35 that was preempted by local news in my neighborhood. I don't expect all of prime-time to be wiped out by a midterm election any more, but it would have been nice to compare how the various new anchors would do over a long night. Plus, Tim Russert could have used more face time.
* And speaking of giving up the franchise, my ABC affiliate did show election returns starting at 10. It also ran a crawl with the phone numbers so that people could vote for their favorites in "Dancing With the Stars." That's got to mean something, but I'm just not sure what.
* It's become pretty easy to know when to grab the remote control when watching political coverage. When someone pops on who isn't running for anything, it's time to switch stations. They aren't going to say anything but the party line. Come to think of it, most victory/concession speeches aren't too illuminating either, although everyone on TV was falling over Harold Ford's classy exit in Tennessee.
* Late on Election Night, I flipped on CNN Headline News for a moment. Nancy Grace's news judgment hasn't changed. She was talking about the "breaking developments" in a story about a pit-bull attack.
* Sometimes it's fun to watch these elections to see who pops up for interviews; it can be a sign of interest in the next Presidential election. On the Republican side, John McCain obviously qualifies, although to be fair the man is always willing to do an interview. The other GOP candidates were sprinting for cover, I guess.
* Pollster Charlie Cook was on C-SPAN on Wednesday, and he did a fine job of analysis. He said the independents essentially fired as many Republicans as they could, although there was a GOP firewall in place (gerrmandering of districts) to prevent more serious damage.
Then again, how much more damage could there be? Did they lose the town board of Harmony, NY, too?
* My nominee for best line of the night came from a co-worker, who said he watched a little of the Fox News Channel. He said it was like the Yankees' announcers describing Game Seven of the 2004 American League playoffs against the Red Sox.
* The most interesting election note I heard was from a New Yorker who moved to South Carolina. She said she had to vote early because the powers that be down there make it as difficult as possible to vote. There aren't many polling places, for example, and the lines are long. Having just watched part of "Eyes on the Prize" on PBS, it kind of makes you wonder if we're still fighting for universal voting rights in some ways.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Are there any other kind?
It's easy to love Google, or as President Bush would call it, The Google.
Recently I responded to something in the office with the question, "Are there any other kind?" Someone said it sounded familiar, so I loaded the phrase into Google and waited for results.
Here are the best ones, creating an instant blog entry in the process:
Evil network executives
Top-secret military plans
Emotionally vulnerable high school girl
Plodding zombies
Liberal Democrats
Crooked lawyer
Psychotic killer
Temporary repairs
Group of wild teens
Bored and rich girl
Corrupt politicians and businessmen
None-too-bright rooster
Somber power officials
Evil pharmaceutical companies
Wicked stepsisters
Expensive riding boots
Self-aggrandizing district attorneys
Liberal media types
Billionaire tycoons
Desperate Ukrainians
Callow young men
Stupid lunch lady
Pro-evolution biologists
Horrid cover bands
A bad Saturday Night Live skit
And the one that hit home...
Anal copy editor
Recently I responded to something in the office with the question, "Are there any other kind?" Someone said it sounded familiar, so I loaded the phrase into Google and waited for results.
Here are the best ones, creating an instant blog entry in the process:
Evil network executives
Top-secret military plans
Emotionally vulnerable high school girl
Plodding zombies
Liberal Democrats
Crooked lawyer
Psychotic killer
Temporary repairs
Group of wild teens
Bored and rich girl
Corrupt politicians and businessmen
None-too-bright rooster
Somber power officials
Evil pharmaceutical companies
Wicked stepsisters
Expensive riding boots
Self-aggrandizing district attorneys
Liberal media types
Billionaire tycoons
Desperate Ukrainians
Callow young men
Stupid lunch lady
Pro-evolution biologists
Horrid cover bands
A bad Saturday Night Live skit
And the one that hit home...
Anal copy editor
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Through the looking glass
It's October. And you know what that means.
It means the World Series. The start of hockey's regular season and pro basketball's training camps. The changing of the leaves in certain parts of the country. Classic rock radio stations using the word "Rock-tober" whenever possible.
And political ads appearing on television.
Arrgh.
Is there anything more misleading on television than a political spot? Well, outside of the Fox News Channel's "fair and balanced" claim?
There is much that is distasteful about the political process in the United States, but television commercials top the list. The political ads seem to ooze out of the ground in the fall. Pictures of opponents are always done in grainy black and white, usually featuring a frown. The shots of the candidates themselves are in color, and they usually feature children -- even if the kids are borrowed from someone else's family.
What's more, the text is always a bit disturbing. Let's say someone has proposed a bill that would increase police funding by 15 percent, not expecting to get that number passed. The office-holder winds up voting for a slightly smaller number, say 10 percent, as part of the negotiation process. Only in the world of television ads would that be an example of the opposing candidate voting to cut police funding.
Then there's the matter of ads sponsored by national political action committees. When my district had a closely contested race two years ago, the out-of-town money came flooding in. You would have thought that Tom DeLay was somehow running in the district, considering how much his name came up in the ads. It looks as if the out-of-towners are responsible for the really nasty ads, although we're merely talking a matter of degree here.
Now, I realize that an incumbant is allowed to take credit for everything that's been done in office while he was there, while the challenger is allowed to attack that same office-holder for everything that didn't happen. I'm not sure how a freshman legislator can be blamed for all of the delays in state governmenet, let alone the lack of action in Congress, but that's the way it sounds. Of course, that same freshman probably didn't lower the tax rate by himself, either.
Here's the problem with all of this: if someone is willing to distort the truth in order to get elected, what will they be like once they get in office?
Makes me want to watch PBS until the first Wednesday after the first Monday.
It means the World Series. The start of hockey's regular season and pro basketball's training camps. The changing of the leaves in certain parts of the country. Classic rock radio stations using the word "Rock-tober" whenever possible.
And political ads appearing on television.
Arrgh.
Is there anything more misleading on television than a political spot? Well, outside of the Fox News Channel's "fair and balanced" claim?
There is much that is distasteful about the political process in the United States, but television commercials top the list. The political ads seem to ooze out of the ground in the fall. Pictures of opponents are always done in grainy black and white, usually featuring a frown. The shots of the candidates themselves are in color, and they usually feature children -- even if the kids are borrowed from someone else's family.
What's more, the text is always a bit disturbing. Let's say someone has proposed a bill that would increase police funding by 15 percent, not expecting to get that number passed. The office-holder winds up voting for a slightly smaller number, say 10 percent, as part of the negotiation process. Only in the world of television ads would that be an example of the opposing candidate voting to cut police funding.
Then there's the matter of ads sponsored by national political action committees. When my district had a closely contested race two years ago, the out-of-town money came flooding in. You would have thought that Tom DeLay was somehow running in the district, considering how much his name came up in the ads. It looks as if the out-of-towners are responsible for the really nasty ads, although we're merely talking a matter of degree here.
Now, I realize that an incumbant is allowed to take credit for everything that's been done in office while he was there, while the challenger is allowed to attack that same office-holder for everything that didn't happen. I'm not sure how a freshman legislator can be blamed for all of the delays in state governmenet, let alone the lack of action in Congress, but that's the way it sounds. Of course, that same freshman probably didn't lower the tax rate by himself, either.
Here's the problem with all of this: if someone is willing to distort the truth in order to get elected, what will they be like once they get in office?
Makes me want to watch PBS until the first Wednesday after the first Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)