I can’t let November end without mention of a grim anniversary.

It was April, 1901 when a woman named Auguste Deter was brought by her husband to a German psychiatric hospital presenting strange symptoms which included memory loss, unusual mood changes ranging from paranoia to hostility, and the loss of ability to use words in normal speech. Her doctor hadn’t seen anything quite like it, and treated her until her death at age 55 five years later, in November of 1906, when he made a startling discovery about structural deterioration in her brain and first reported his findings the global medical community.

The doctor was Alois Alzheimer. The condition he described would carry his name.

Millions have been affected by Alzheimer’s Disease in one way or another since the doctor’s discovery. My last grandparent died from it. And no where is there a more poignant story of dealing with a family member who suffers from it than Mary Louise’s blog, Watching My Sister…Disappear.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the next Alzheimer’s-related anniversary we celebrate is anniversary of a cure’s discovery? We can all hope.

The last Patrick’s Place Poll asked how much you trust voting machines. Just more than a quarter gave electronic voting their blessing: 27% feel that they can trust them “a lot.”

Thirty-six percent said that they trust them “somewhat,” but remain unsure that errors couldn’t happen, but they are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Another thirty-six percent say that they don’t trust them much, wondering how easy it would be for hackers to alter the results.

The question is, what would you prefer? Do we go back to paper ballots with ball-point pens so people can check on paper what they want and then have humans count manually? Is that better? Is that more efficient? And would you be satisfied waiting for days to get the results of every single race?

Meanwhile, the new poll is asking about the “N-word” in light of Michael Richards’ profane rant and subsequent apology to the black community, and that community’s leaders urging artists and the media to stop all use of the word: good idea or bad idea?

One of the nice things about building relationships with fellow bloggers is the notion of blogroll links, those listings of other blogs down the sidebars of other people’s blogs. Each time you stumble upon a new blog, if you like it, you might tend to enjoy some of the blogs that writer visits regularly.

There’s the potential, in blogrolls, to point your readers to blogs you feel are also deserving of their attention; and there’s the potential to get your writing more exposure.

Unfortunately, there’s also the potential for hackers to gain access to blogs that have either been shut down or had their security compromised and delete all content in favor of explicit content.

Shelly of The View from Here alerted me to the fact that one of the blogs I had in my sidebar over at A Stop at Willoughby had suffered such a fate. When I clicked that link, I was met with a variety of explicit photos of various body parts and sex acts. I’ve heard from the blogger who owned that URL — at least until hackers commandeered it — and he has given me an updated address, and the link has been updated.

The moral of this story, which I’m cross-posting at ‘Willoughby,’ is to check your sidebar links to make sure that they are still pointing to the blogs you think they are. You might have an unpleasant surprise waiting for a reader that you wouldn’t want them to see!

And thanks to Shelly for making us all aware of this unfortunate new hacker villainy.

“I know I’ve hurt [the black community] very, very deeply. Now I can say I’m deeply sorry for this and proceed to go to healing.”

–Michael Richards

“We might turn this minus into a plus.”

— Jesse Jackson

Days after comedian Michael Richards appeared on Keep Hope Alive, Jesse Jackson’s nationally-syndicated radio program to deliver yet another apology for his racial slur-filled tirade, during which he seemed to express sincere regret and indicated that he is ready to go into therapy to figure out where the rage within him came from, it appears that Jackson is neither ready to keep the hope of healing alive or turn a minus into a plus…just yet.

He has now called for the boycott of the new Seinfeld DVD boxed set, Season 7, that has just been released.

I’m not a fan of Seinfeld. In fact, I’m probably one of the few people who has never watched an episode. I just have never been into the show. But if I was into the show, and wanted to collect it and watch those presumably-entertaining reruns, I certainly wouldn’t not buy it because of an inappropriate rant that occurred eight years after the show left the air. What does that sitcom have to do with Richards’ own feelings, whatever they are? What do the rest of the cast, the producers and the others who stand to make money on the continued sales of the show have to do with Richards’ personal views that apparently spilled over in a moment of rage?

Nothing.

Understand that I’m not trying to defend Richards. There’s no defense for a tirade like the one he delivered. But at the same time, I can’t see the logic in inviting someone to your show so that they can apologize, then continuing to kick him while he’s down by trying to hurt him financially — and one might wonder how much of a cut Richards himself would get from the sale of a DVD set — when you’re a preacher talking about “turning a minus into a plus.”

What, exactly, is the “plus” in this situation that Jackson was speaking of? Revenge?

I just don’t see it.

It has all the makings of a nightmare.

Stormtroopers invade neighborhood after neighborhood, making noise in the night, luring family pets to bark, alerting their owners to potential danger. Except that the only danger is to the dogs themselves, who are tracked down by their bark and slaughtered in front of their horrified owners.

Tragically, it’s no Orwellian short story: it has happened in China, where 50,000 dogs have been killed in one of the world’s most outrageous over-reactions in history. Granted, China had the second-highest number of rabies deaths last year — 2,375, according to the Chinese Health Ministry — and only a 3% immunization rate among rural families.

But you can’t rid yourself of rabies by wiping out the dog population: you have to vaccinate. Dogs are far from the only animals that can contract the disease, and you can’t wipe out all wildlife, no matter how hard you try. Wild animals can get protected by food laced with the vaccine that can be left in lures. Dogs can be vaccinated even easier, and if they are indoor pets, their chances of contracting rabies are fairly remote.

Given a choice, I’m sure most residents would rather spend the money for the vaccine, or would bring their pets to be vaccinated if the government would provide it at a reduced cost. Unfortunately, the only choice families seem to have is whether they kill their own pets or whether their government comes in and does it for them. If they kill their own dog, they get a whopping 63¢ for their effort. If the government does it, they’ll club the animal to death, far from a humane treatment. (CBS and ABC both have photos showing a dog lying prone on a street as officials club it, so I am not linking to either of those sites. The NBC site I linked to above contains a link to a second story in which the same picture also appears, so be warned.)

I assume that there are no animal cruelty laws in China, because I can’t think of a more cruel way to treat an animal than to take it from a loving family and beat it to death. If there are animal cruelty laws there, the government needs to lock itself up until it comes to its senses.

There are many people who don’t “get” dog ownership. They don’t understand the bond that people form with their dogs (or cats, for that matter). Some of them, unfortunately, are parents who think that they’re better than people who aren’t parents, who know more about everything, and because they are parents, experience the greatest emotional bond one can have: the bond between parent and child. I’ll give them that last one, but not the other two. But for people who don’t have children, their relationship with their pets is similar. Not the same, of course, but as close as a childless person can get. There’s nothing wrong with that, no intent to slight parenthood implied in that sentiment. It’s just reality.

Dogs don’t hold grudges; they’re always happy to see you, whether you’ve been gone for an eight-hour workday or a ten-minute trip to the grocery store. They, unlike people, don’t put conditions on loving their owners. They aren’t petty. They don’t look for arguments. In short, they’re better than most people.

If this government ever gets some hairbrained idea about ridding itself of rabies by exterminating dogs, I’ll take my vaccinated pets and move somewhere else.

There most definitely is a better way.

In the past, I’d waltz into a book store, explore for a while, then approach the cashier with an armful of books: hardcover, paperback and audio. Sometimes, it was all fiction; sometimes I’d mix in a little non-fiction or reference. Very often, I’d go wild in the “bargain books” section.

A few years back, book stores started selling their customers those little membership cards. Like grocery stores, they give additional discounts to customers who have the card. Unlike most grocery stores, you have to pay for their membership cards.

Books-A-Million and Barnes & Noble are the main “major” book stores I visit, so in the past, theirs were the membership cards I kept up to date. Most other big book stores have their membership options, and I suspect that most others charge book lovers as well.

Books-A-Million’s membership card costs $10 per year. That, in my opinion, is still ten too much, but I’m sure that by saving from 10-30% per title, I can make back that ten dollars easily enough.

Barnes & Noble’s card costs $25, for what seems like the same discounts. The only real difference between the two chains seems to be that Barnes & Noble stores look a little nicer on the inside. But otherwise, they both have pretty much the same selection, the same kinds of books on the bargain tables, and both even have similar coffee shops. Is the decor in one worth an extra $15 per year? I guess it is, if you’re into paying admission fees to go shop in a book store.

I’m not.

If I’m at either store and I find a book I like, I take a moment to remember which store I’m in. If I want the book quickly, and I’m at Books-A-Million, I’ll buy it. If I’m in Barnes & Noble, I’ll go to Books-A-Million and buy it.

If I want the book but don’t have to have it that moment, I’ll jot down the title and author, go home, and order it from Amazon.com, where I can get a discount without having to pay to join a “club.”

I don’t mind it when grocery stores require you to join their membership club to get extra discounts, because even though they keep track of what you buy — who cares! — they sometimes give you additional coupons for the very items they already know you like.

These book stores generally don’t send many coupons, at least not for the kind of books they know you buy. Sometimes they’ll send you a postcard for additional discounts, but ironically, I notice this much more from Books-A-Million (the $10 membership) than from Barnes & Noble (the $25 membership).

My problem is that I really like Barnes & Noble. I just don’t like them enough to pay an extra fifteen bucks just to get the same prices I can get a little further down the street.

Maybe if book stores operated more like grocery stores, more people would read.

Well, at least I’m consistent.

I avoided retail stores like the plague last Friday, the so-called “Black Friday,” one of the biggest Christmas shopping days of the year. Similarly, I didn’t buy a thing online this past “Cyber Monday,” the online shopping equivalent.

I’m not ready to do my Christmas shopping, just yet, so there’s not much point in browsing because I’ll end up buying stuff I don’t need, and I’m trying to stop that.

On CBS’s The Early Show, they mentioned that the big retailers are feeling the bite of Cyber Monday and are trying to make sure they have a major web presence to take advantage of cyber shoppers. But many retailers are missing the point: I’d rather buy in person, not online. I’d rather get in my car, go to the store and return home with the item I wanted, not sit at home order something, pay shipping fees then wait for days (or weeks) for it to arrive. I’ll take the instant gratification anytime I can, thank you.

If I go shopping at Best Buy for a DVD set I want, and find it for $49.95, then I discover that I can get it on Amazon.com for $39.95, which is often likely, chances are really good that I’m going to buy it from Amazon.com. If the Best Buy store has a higher price, I’m not even going to give BestBuy.com a chance: if their website can offer a better price, so can their store. Likewise, if Best Buy undercuts, say, Circuit City, I’m not going to go online to Circuit City’s website to look for a lower price.

On the other hand, if I find low prices in the store, I might visit those glitzy websites to do additional shopping. But I’ve got to see the proof in person before I’ll add more stops along the information superhighway. Why would anyone expect shoppers to do otherwise?

Click on the graphic to see where your blog ranks:

So I’m a C-List Blogger. What does it say about yours?

Via Aurora Walking Vacation.

Since Michael Richards’ mind-bogglingly-stupid racist rant at a comedy club recently, he has been meeting with prominent black leaders in an effort to assure them that there isn’t a racist bone in his body. That may be true. But those words came from somewhere, didn’t they?

Now, Jesse Jackson is urging artists and the media to refrain from using the “n-word.” What a great idea!

Some time ago, I watched a documentary about the use of the “n-word” — I believe it was called “The N-Word” — in America. Some people — black and white — said the word is reprehensible, and should never be used. Others — mostly black — felt the word should be used by blacks about blacks because it takes away the “power” the word has had for so many years.

But after all these years, every time a white person uses the word, it seems as painful as it ever was. So I’m quick to argue that these efforts to strip the “n-word” of its power have not been successful, and likely never will be. To remove the hate from a word used in hate as deep and cruel as this particular word has been, might seem as likely as ending terror. It’s just not going to happen.

There are two big problems with the “noble” effort of making the “n-word” anything less than hurtful.

First, to remove its meaning is to begin to forget the cruelty forced upon people for no other reason than the fact that their skin was of a different color. A favorite Twilight Zone episode of mine, “Deathshead Revisited,” tells the story of a former Nazi officer who returns to his old haunts at Dachau, and while visiting the buildings of the former concentration camp, he encounters a ghost from the past who ultimately exacts justice upon the tormentor. In the closing monologue, after one of the characters asks why they keep the camp standing, Rod Serling utters these lines:

“They must remain standing because they are monuments to a time when some men decided to turn the earth into a graveyard. Into it they shovelled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge and worst of all, their conscience. And the moment we forget this, the moment we cease to be haunted by its remembrance, we become the gravediggers.”

We shouldn’t forget that people have been killed because of the differences among us, whether those difference were based on religion, skin color or orientation. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to forget the hate that we’ve tried — some more than others, no doubt — to erase and prevent. We certainly shouldn’t celebrate it, but we shouldn’t pretend that it never happened. And we shouldn’t forget that in many ways, it still happens.

But then there’s the simpler reason that the “n-word” shouldn’t be used: It doesn’t come with a disclaimer. We’re too stupid a people to go through life without being reminded of the obvious, and without constant reminders of things we should already know, we make stupid decisions.

Consider all of those toys parents will buy this holiday season. How many of them will say, “batteries not included,” as if anyone expects things to come with batteries nowadays? How many pieces of furniture, shipped in small boxes, don’t carry the message, “Some assembly required,” as if there was any doubt from the size of the packaging alone? How many DVD cabinet boxes come with the warning, “DVDs sold separately,” as if anyone really expects to buy a $29 DVD storage cabinet and open it up to find hundreds of dollars worth of free movies? Or there’s the famous alert on coffee cups: “Danger! Hot liquid.”

Could anyone really need to have these things pointed out? Yep. We’re really that stupid.

When a black person uses that “n-word” in jest among his peers, no disclaimer floats through the air for observers or listeners, reminding them, “This word only allowed from black people.” When they laugh and joke about its use, the rest of us don’t see words hanging over our heads as we see in so many commercials that point out, “This joke should only amuse people of color.”

Some of the less-bright among us, without those magical disclaimers, come to think that it’s okay to throw the word out there at times, when the reality is that it almost never is anything remotely near “okay.” And when some of those less-tolerant, less-educated among us use that word, the pain others experience upon hearing it is but the latest reminder that you can’t remove the pain from a word imbued by decades of hate.

The same goes for that three-letter “f-word” that some gays use among themselves. And I’m sure there are countless other words, originally designed to be words that hurt, now hoped to be words that no longer hurt, that always will.

How long will we pretend that we can forget the past? And how long will we hope that we’re not doomed to repeat it?

So that one legal pad still hasn’t turned up, but that’s all right. Really.

Over the weekend, as my folks and I drove about an hour and a half north to meet up with my best friend and his family for a holiday get-together, I sat in the backseat with my laptop and rewrote Chapter 42 of the work-in-progress, one of the chapters I had finished most recently. It was one of those chapters that had started bothering me, the first in a series that takes the main characters in a direction I have come to believe they shouldn’t go just yet. So I need to update my word count on the sidebar, which I’ll get to eventually.

It was nice to get back to the writing. Because of the move to South Carolina, November Sweeps, and a nasty bacterial infection all going at the same time, this was the first real writing I had been able to do in a while. Guess what: you don’t forget how. Nice.

TVSquad reports on the joint effort by Sony and Ericsson to get more people to watch television on their “mobile devices.” (In the old days, it would have been mobile phones, but now even a mobile phone isn’t enough.)

I left the following comment:

“Sorry to disappoint them — and any other telecommunications company with similar goals — but I refuse to watch television on a cell phone…or an Ipod…or by email…or any other unnecessary high-tech alternative to television itself.

I don’t wish to make telephone calls with my microwave oven, and I don’t wish to wash dishes with my toaster.

My television works quite well, and on those rare occasions I’m not in front of one, for work or for pleasure, I think I will survive until I’m near one again.”

And believe me: those rare occasions are quite rare.

I worked for a few hours and didn’t have time to eat earlier, so I thought I’d stop by Burger King for a late dinner…which should give you some idea of how well my diet’s going at this point.

In any case, I drove up to the order board in the drive-thru and was told this: “Good evening, thanks for choosing Burger King. Just to let you know, we are not serving Whoppers this evening.”

What? The Home of the Whopper isn’t serving Whoppers?

There comes a point at which a restaurant just needs to close for the night. Damn the policy, damn the posted hours, just use common sense and shut down.

What good is a Kentucky Fried Chicken, for example, if it runs out of chicken? What good is an Outback if it runs out of red meat? And what good is a Burger King if they’re not selling hamburgers?

Not much.

Rosie O’Donnell says Kelly Ripa is a homophobe.

Recently, singer Clay Aiken substituted for host Regis Philbin, co-hosting with Ripa on Live with Regis & Kelly, a show I don’t watch. At some point during an interview, Aiken apparently felt that Ripa was monopolizing the interview, and he put his hand over her mouth so he could attempt to get a word in edgewise.

Ripa, apparently, was not as amused as the audience. She chastised him for the gesture, saying that you just don’t do that, and adding that she didn’t know where that hand has been.

That’s all it took for O’Donnell to accuse Ripa of being a homophobe on The View, another show I do not watch.

Ripa, it turns out, was no more amused at O’Donnell’s statement than she was at Aiken’s gesture, so she called in to throw out her two cents. She claimed that her remark about not knowing where Aiken’s hand had been referred to the fact that it was flu season and that he spent time shaking hands with the audience, and possibly picking up loads of germs.

O’Donnell, who long ago acknowledged that she is a homosexual, said that to her, Ripa could only have been homophobic, since she obviously thinks Aiken, who refuses to answer questions about his sexual orientation, must be gay. Regardless of what Ripa meant, O’Donnell interpreted it one way and one way only, and before bothering to ask, she decided to go on national television and make her point.

Of the three primary players in this little drama, O’Donnell, when she isn’t being so militant, is by far my favorite. But her interpretation of Kelly’s remarks here reminds me of several racial controversies, in which someone of a different race hears something and assumes it must be about race, whether it is or isn’t.

An example would be the subject of the “Old South” I mentioned recently. If someone who is white has anything remotely positive to say about something dating back before the civil rights movement, some blacks are quick to assume that those whites must be in favor of slavery. One can only mean the other. No other interpretations seem possible.

I’ve seen plenty of stories about the germs people pick up on a daily basis, even when they’re not shaking hands with 300 strangers. One can only imagine what a hand-shaker might pick up from hundreds of people in an audience. Then again, that’s not the point.

The point is that someone who is gay, made an assumption that someone who isn’t gay must be a homophobe because she didn’t want the hand of someone who might be gay covering her mouth.

So I have to wonder what it might take for Kelly to redeem herself for people who agree with Rosie. If she brings in a line of gay guys who are willing to acknowledge that they are gay, give each one a nice dousing with that waterless antibacterial soap, and then let each one take turns covering her mouth with their hands for thirty seconds each, would that do it?

There was a contestant on Deal or No Deal a while back who acted as if he might be gay. Host Howie Mandell, who is an admitted heterosexual germophobe, didn’t shake hands with him. Even though he doesn’t shake hands with anyone else, choosing instead to do that annoying knuckle-touching thing, is the fact that he didn’t make a greater effort with the possibly-gay guy a sign that he’s a homophobe?

Some of you might say that it would be wrong to assume that a man who behaves somewhat effiminately could even possibly be homosexual, since some homosexuals don’t “act gay” at all. And you’d be 100% correct. Then again, the basis of Rosie’s accusations against Kelly are based on her assumption that Aiken must be gay. And unless he told her something he isn’t telling anyone else, she’s basing that assumption on his demeanor.

There’s something wrong with this picture.

This past Friday was the infamous “Black Friday,” the day that millions head out to the malls to buy, buy, buy. Tomorrow is “Cyber Monday,” the day on which millions are expected to converge online for the same purpose. With all that Christmas shopping, there’s got to be a new question in there somehow.

But first, Redsneakz, of “Separation Anxiety” was first to play last week! Congratulations, Red!

On to this week’s question!

THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
Name the top seven gifts on your Christmas list this year. (They must be tangible gifts that one could buy for you; items like “Peace on Earth,” while a beautiful sentiment, are not allowed on this particular question.)

Either answer the question in a comment or answer it in your journal and include the link in a comment. (To be considered “first to play,” a link must be to the specific entry in which you answered the question.)

My answers:
1. Giant Plasma TV - About the only way I’ll get one is if someone buys one for me.
2. New Mac Laptop - For writing, etc.
3. PT Cruiser - Hey, I can dream, can’t I?
4. Dean Koontz’s new book, Brother Odd - Not everything on my list has to be ultra expensive, right?
5. Round-trip Airfare to Los Angeles - Gotta see “The Price is Right” one more time before Barker retires
6. Cruise to Alaska - It’d be nice to see all that ice before it melts.
7. New Baker’s Rack/Microwave Cabinet - The new apartment has far too little counter space.

The Gamecocks pulled it off last night, in the Tigers’ own Death Valley:

31 USC
28 Clemson

It’s the end of a four-year losing streak for USC. I’ll take the little victories wherever they come!