Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Book Club Rewrites
Carol Shields's The Box Garden (pp. 4-5)
"You really ought to get into junior high school boys," the Morrises suggested as we waited for the waiter to take our order. It was a regrettable coincidence that my husband and my two oldest friends shared the same name.
"Why?" I asked.
They exchanged exasperated looks. Carrie nodded to Walter.
"For true piece of mind, Kristen," he said. "For release."
"Look," I said, "who says I need piece of mind? Or release. I have a subscription to Entertainment Weekly."
"We're talking about serenity," Carried leaned in over the candle. The lines in her face deepened. "Ir's really far more than serenity. It's an answer, a comprehensive answer, to fragmentation. Isn't that right, Walter? Fragmentation? I mean, it gives you a sense of..." she looked ready to cry. "...defragmentation."
"What Carrie means is that it frees you from trivia. The Sports and Leisure category. The little colored wedges that won't come out of those god-damned pie things. You need to get rid of it."
The Morrises were in the early forties. Where do hippies go in a bull market? Where do depraved perverts go when they get old? They get richer, tubbier, more strident, harder of hearing, like the Morrises. They look even more menacing in their underwear and pulleys. They become more impotent, more routine, more available emotionally.
The Morrieses, of course, were never more than weekend depraved perverts. Walter was an academic, an ethnologist; in fact, he was an ethnologist with an enviable reputation, employed by a reputable university. They lived comfortably, if a trifle luxuriously, on an acre of lawn at the edge of the foothills.
They fussed in an almost parental way about their younger friends, of which I was one. Having only grown-up children from previous marriages, they adopted their friends. I am perhaps their favorite child. Sometimes I wished Walter would just drop Carrie, remarry, and start a new family. That's one way of bridging the generation gap.
They had even offered to look after Dylan while I am in San Francisco next week. They were disturbingly fond of him and worried about the lack of a dominatrix influence in his life. Carrie was concerned about Dylan's natural ease with people and his ability to quickly strike up new friendships and even Walter maintained that there's such a thing as being too well adjusted.
"You don't want him falling into the middle-class-morality trap with nothing but straight teeth and perfect SAT scores to recommend him. Some of these high school teachers have never been out of Irvine and have doctorate degrees for Christ's sake. The only reason they're teaching is for the tenure."
"You have tenure, too," I reminded him.
"Yes, and I take full advantage of it," he replied, his eye momentarily tracking a passing young busboy.
Carol Shields's The Box Garden (pp. 4-5)
"You really ought to get into junior high school boys," the Morrises suggested as we waited for the waiter to take our order. It was a regrettable coincidence that my husband and my two oldest friends shared the same name.
"Why?" I asked.
They exchanged exasperated looks. Carrie nodded to Walter.
"For true piece of mind, Kristen," he said. "For release."
"Look," I said, "who says I need piece of mind? Or release. I have a subscription to Entertainment Weekly."
"We're talking about serenity," Carried leaned in over the candle. The lines in her face deepened. "Ir's really far more than serenity. It's an answer, a comprehensive answer, to fragmentation. Isn't that right, Walter? Fragmentation? I mean, it gives you a sense of..." she looked ready to cry. "...defragmentation."
"What Carrie means is that it frees you from trivia. The Sports and Leisure category. The little colored wedges that won't come out of those god-damned pie things. You need to get rid of it."
The Morrises were in the early forties. Where do hippies go in a bull market? Where do depraved perverts go when they get old? They get richer, tubbier, more strident, harder of hearing, like the Morrises. They look even more menacing in their underwear and pulleys. They become more impotent, more routine, more available emotionally.
The Morrieses, of course, were never more than weekend depraved perverts. Walter was an academic, an ethnologist; in fact, he was an ethnologist with an enviable reputation, employed by a reputable university. They lived comfortably, if a trifle luxuriously, on an acre of lawn at the edge of the foothills.
They fussed in an almost parental way about their younger friends, of which I was one. Having only grown-up children from previous marriages, they adopted their friends. I am perhaps their favorite child. Sometimes I wished Walter would just drop Carrie, remarry, and start a new family. That's one way of bridging the generation gap.
They had even offered to look after Dylan while I am in San Francisco next week. They were disturbingly fond of him and worried about the lack of a dominatrix influence in his life. Carrie was concerned about Dylan's natural ease with people and his ability to quickly strike up new friendships and even Walter maintained that there's such a thing as being too well adjusted.
"You don't want him falling into the middle-class-morality trap with nothing but straight teeth and perfect SAT scores to recommend him. Some of these high school teachers have never been out of Irvine and have doctorate degrees for Christ's sake. The only reason they're teaching is for the tenure."
"You have tenure, too," I reminded him.
"Yes, and I take full advantage of it," he replied, his eye momentarily tracking a passing young busboy.
My sister's cat, Miao Miao, ran away from home yesterday. Sister quite torn up about it as Miao Miao has never run away from home and we figure her prospects up in the coyote and racoon-filled hills where they live aren't good.
Meanwhile, her disappearance has revived an intense debate among family members regarding her breed. Dad and brother of the opinion that she was (is) at least part "honeybear." Research into the honeybear line turns up some interesting, scary stuff.
The honeybear is a descendant of the "IRCA Ragdoll," a breed developed out of one woman's slightly loopy mission to produce an affectionate cat. For some reason, the Old Dominion School of Nursing has a page on the honeybear, on which it notes, "IRCA have claimed that Honeybears were created by genetic manipulation of skunk genes, which were "injected" into the bloodstream of the parent Honeybear (unsound genetics)."
Unsound genetics, indeed. The founder of the IRCA, Ann Baker, sounds like the Dr. Moureaux of cats, and another site, presenting the history of the ragdoll, notes, "The original breeder and creator of the Ragdoll claims that the cat is a phenomenon created by an automobile accident to an alleycat, that her kittens were subsequently 'a different animal in a cat's body,' and that the original Ragdolls, and her subsequent breeds, Honeybears and Miracle Ragdolls, are not of the species felis cattus, but what she calls 'Cherubim Cats' [felis cherubinus?]. "
The authority cited on this page goes on to explain, "Our personal and careful investigation has shown that the parent cat was herself most likely a mutation and that the accident, if it occurred, had nothing whatsoever to do with the behavior of the kittens. The radical behavior pattern evidenced in the kittens and subsequent cats probably did not show up in the mother because of recessive polygene masking inherent in the original mutation, which was 'washed out' by mating with normal toms. We have been led to the conclusion that the original mutation probably involved a change in the response of those nerve cells concerned with esthesia (the sensations of feeling and pain), probably a simple thickening or extension of the myelin sheaths that surround the nerve cells, thus producing a cat that is effectively mildly anesthetized: if it can't feel it, it won't object to it."
Which would probably explain why the alleycat was able to survive the automobile accident.
Anyway, if Miao Miao wasn't eaten, she simply may have moved in with one of the neighbors.
Meanwhile, her disappearance has revived an intense debate among family members regarding her breed. Dad and brother of the opinion that she was (is) at least part "honeybear." Research into the honeybear line turns up some interesting, scary stuff.
The honeybear is a descendant of the "IRCA Ragdoll," a breed developed out of one woman's slightly loopy mission to produce an affectionate cat. For some reason, the Old Dominion School of Nursing has a page on the honeybear, on which it notes, "IRCA have claimed that Honeybears were created by genetic manipulation of skunk genes, which were "injected" into the bloodstream of the parent Honeybear (unsound genetics)."
Unsound genetics, indeed. The founder of the IRCA, Ann Baker, sounds like the Dr. Moureaux of cats, and another site, presenting the history of the ragdoll, notes, "The original breeder and creator of the Ragdoll claims that the cat is a phenomenon created by an automobile accident to an alleycat, that her kittens were subsequently 'a different animal in a cat's body,' and that the original Ragdolls, and her subsequent breeds, Honeybears and Miracle Ragdolls, are not of the species felis cattus, but what she calls 'Cherubim Cats' [felis cherubinus?]. "
The authority cited on this page goes on to explain, "Our personal and careful investigation has shown that the parent cat was herself most likely a mutation and that the accident, if it occurred, had nothing whatsoever to do with the behavior of the kittens. The radical behavior pattern evidenced in the kittens and subsequent cats probably did not show up in the mother because of recessive polygene masking inherent in the original mutation, which was 'washed out' by mating with normal toms. We have been led to the conclusion that the original mutation probably involved a change in the response of those nerve cells concerned with esthesia (the sensations of feeling and pain), probably a simple thickening or extension of the myelin sheaths that surround the nerve cells, thus producing a cat that is effectively mildly anesthetized: if it can't feel it, it won't object to it."
Which would probably explain why the alleycat was able to survive the automobile accident.
Anyway, if Miao Miao wasn't eaten, she simply may have moved in with one of the neighbors.
Monday, December 29, 2003
Dreamed I was buttfucking Will Ferrell last night. Not sure what it means, but I still don't find him very funny.
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
I have nothing against weeds. But I've started a garden, so they go on the shit list. I don't do this with malice. It's not personal. They do what they were meant to do. But as Oscar Wilde says, the only link between art and nature is a well-made buttonhole. And no one has ever put groundsel in a buttonhole.
The author of one garden book said that her father wouldn't let her pick a weed as a child until she could name it. In the spirit of genocidal sportsmanship, I've adopted the same rule.
Weeds picked today: sowthistle, oxalis.
The author of one garden book said that her father wouldn't let her pick a weed as a child until she could name it. In the spirit of genocidal sportsmanship, I've adopted the same rule.
Weeds picked today: sowthistle, oxalis.
Monday, December 22, 2003
Ever since the first publication of the collected works of Aristotle, the whole enterprise of philosophy has been overshadowed by a grave mistake. For over 2300 years, philosophers and scholars have used the term metaphysics, or metaphysical, when in fact what they really were referring to was fishotrographics. The mistake was natural as metaphysics and fishotrographics are very nearly identical. Fishotrographics does everything metaphysics does, except with a fishy smell. Nevertheless, it is remarkable to consider that on every occasion, without exception, up until the present, philosophers have used the word metaphysics when they really meant to use the word fishotrographics. The whole course of philosophy has been changed by this error. The question is whether this error can be corrected, and if so, will it at this point really make any difference, fishotrographically speaking?
Well, I'll be damned. Phone company makes good:
SBC comes off the shit list. Happy holidays!
Dear Mr. Idokoro,
Thank you for your recent email. After investigating the items on
your bill, we have given you a one-time courtesy adjustment for the
return check fee. The total of the adjustment is $6.65, which leaves
a credit balance of $6.65. Please be advised, no additional late
payment charges were applied to your account. If you need further
assistance, please contact us via email or call our Customer Sales
and Service Center at 1-800-310-2355.
Thank you for choosing SBC California.
Laura
SBC California Customer Service
Thank you for your recent email. After investigating the items on
your bill, we have given you a one-time courtesy adjustment for the
return check fee. The total of the adjustment is $6.65, which leaves
a credit balance of $6.65. Please be advised, no additional late
payment charges were applied to your account. If you need further
assistance, please contact us via email or call our Customer Sales
and Service Center at 1-800-310-2355.
Thank you for choosing SBC California.
Laura
SBC California Customer Service
SBC comes off the shit list. Happy holidays!
Friday, December 19, 2003
Back to basics : dealing with the phone company. Does it get any more primal?
Is "Bonnie" a codename for an automatic response generator? If not, my message might have been as effectively answered by a machine. There is no indication in the response that she actually read my message.
I had contacted my bank before originally phoning SBC. As a result of the incident, I closed my account with the bank. My point in contacting you is: when I originally contacted you after speaking with my back, I was informed by your cs rep that, without the proper account no., my check would not be able to be applied. I was told that my check couldn't even be tracked, so I should put a stop payment on it. That was apparently incorrect information, because the check was applied, but weeks after it had originally been sent and after I had put the stop payment on it. That is why I requested a reversal of the fee.
Obviously, I've already wasted more than $7 of my time in contesting this. It would be satisfying nevertheless to see that something there is capable of an unmechanical act.
One other note: contacting you by email is unnecessarily difficult, perhaps deliberately so. Still, it would be a bit less insulting if one were able to reply to an email from your cs directly, rather than having to navigate back to this form and refill in all the information.
Thanks,
Tomo
________________
Dear Mr. Idokoro,
Thank you for your recent email. You would need to check with your
bank regarding in errors that might have been made with their
automatic payment service. We did however, receive this payment of
$18.95 and then payment was rejected, just like a returned check.
When a payment is returned or debited, a $6.65 fee does apply.
If you need any further assistance, please send us an email by using
the form located at:
http://sbc.com/erms/ca/res/email-us/, or you can contact our Customer
Sales and Service Center at (800) 310-2355.
Thank you for choosing SBC California. We appreciate your business
and continued loyalty.
Sincerely,
Bonnie
SBC California Customer Service
http://sbc.com/erms/ca/res/home/
NOTICE
We've done our best to answer your questions based on the information
you provided, our understanding of your request, and current
information we have (which is subject to change). Also, please note
that prices, terms, and conditions are subject to change, and in the
event of a discrepancy, prices, terms and conditions in any
applicable tariffs govern. This message contains information which
may be confidential. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to
receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or
disclose to anyone this message or any information contained therein.
If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender
by reply e-mail ONLINECA@sbc.com, and delete the message. Thank you
very much.
--
On Tue Dec 16 17:19:13 PST 2003, Tomohiro Idokoro wrote:
> To: ONLINECA@txmail.sbc.com
> Customer Name: Tomohiro Idokoro
> Email Address: tidokoro@hotmail.com
> Street: No Street
> City: No City
> State: --
> Zip: -----
>
> Message:
> Hi,
>
> I notice my current online bill includes a Return Payment charge of
$18.95 and a Return Check fee of $6.95, both dated 10/26. I believe
this is related to a screw-up by my former online bank (NetBank). I
had tried to pay on-line using their service, but they had listed the
wrong account number in posting the check to you. The payment had
not been posted on the date it was supposed to have been. After I
tracked down the error and talked to Netbank's customer service, I
called your customer service and was advised by a rep to stop payment
on the check as it could not be applied without the proper account
number listed with it. I followed this advice and on 16 Oct sent in
a paper check for $39.97 covering the month in error as well as the
bill for the month then current (October).
>
> I don't understand why the original payment was even applied, much
less applied then reversed with a $6 penalty to me. Perhaps the
misdirected check subsequently was applied and then reversed,
resulting in the charges above?
>
> I have paid the full amount on my current bill, but I have the
following requests:
>
> 1) Please reverse the $6.65 return check fee as this check should
never have been applied in the first place.
>
> 2) Please reverse any other penalties, such as late fees, resulting
from this Return Payment as the matter should have been resolved when
I stopped payment on the original Netbank check and sent in the paper
check from my Washington Mutual account
>
> 3) Please review my account to insure that all charges and payments
have been reconciled and that I have not been doubled bill for any
months.
>
> I have tried to do this last item myself online, but it is
difficult to find a clear history of my account history on your
website.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Tomohiro Idokoro
I had contacted my bank before originally phoning SBC. As a result of the incident, I closed my account with the bank. My point in contacting you is: when I originally contacted you after speaking with my back, I was informed by your cs rep that, without the proper account no., my check would not be able to be applied. I was told that my check couldn't even be tracked, so I should put a stop payment on it. That was apparently incorrect information, because the check was applied, but weeks after it had originally been sent and after I had put the stop payment on it. That is why I requested a reversal of the fee.
Obviously, I've already wasted more than $7 of my time in contesting this. It would be satisfying nevertheless to see that something there is capable of an unmechanical act.
One other note: contacting you by email is unnecessarily difficult, perhaps deliberately so. Still, it would be a bit less insulting if one were able to reply to an email from your cs directly, rather than having to navigate back to this form and refill in all the information.
Thanks,
Tomo
________________
Dear Mr. Idokoro,
Thank you for your recent email. You would need to check with your
bank regarding in errors that might have been made with their
automatic payment service. We did however, receive this payment of
$18.95 and then payment was rejected, just like a returned check.
When a payment is returned or debited, a $6.65 fee does apply.
If you need any further assistance, please send us an email by using
the form located at:
http://sbc.com/erms/ca/res/email-us/, or you can contact our Customer
Sales and Service Center at (800) 310-2355.
Thank you for choosing SBC California. We appreciate your business
and continued loyalty.
Sincerely,
Bonnie
SBC California Customer Service
http://sbc.com/erms/ca/res/home/
NOTICE
We've done our best to answer your questions based on the information
you provided, our understanding of your request, and current
information we have (which is subject to change). Also, please note
that prices, terms, and conditions are subject to change, and in the
event of a discrepancy, prices, terms and conditions in any
applicable tariffs govern. This message contains information which
may be confidential. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to
receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or
disclose to anyone this message or any information contained therein.
If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender
by reply e-mail ONLINECA@sbc.com, and delete the message. Thank you
very much.
--
On Tue Dec 16 17:19:13 PST 2003, Tomohiro Idokoro wrote:
> To: ONLINECA@txmail.sbc.com
> Customer Name: Tomohiro Idokoro
> Email Address: tidokoro@hotmail.com
> Street: No Street
> City: No City
> State: --
> Zip: -----
>
> Message:
> Hi,
>
> I notice my current online bill includes a Return Payment charge of
$18.95 and a Return Check fee of $6.95, both dated 10/26. I believe
this is related to a screw-up by my former online bank (NetBank). I
had tried to pay on-line using their service, but they had listed the
wrong account number in posting the check to you. The payment had
not been posted on the date it was supposed to have been. After I
tracked down the error and talked to Netbank's customer service, I
called your customer service and was advised by a rep to stop payment
on the check as it could not be applied without the proper account
number listed with it. I followed this advice and on 16 Oct sent in
a paper check for $39.97 covering the month in error as well as the
bill for the month then current (October).
>
> I don't understand why the original payment was even applied, much
less applied then reversed with a $6 penalty to me. Perhaps the
misdirected check subsequently was applied and then reversed,
resulting in the charges above?
>
> I have paid the full amount on my current bill, but I have the
following requests:
>
> 1) Please reverse the $6.65 return check fee as this check should
never have been applied in the first place.
>
> 2) Please reverse any other penalties, such as late fees, resulting
from this Return Payment as the matter should have been resolved when
I stopped payment on the original Netbank check and sent in the paper
check from my Washington Mutual account
>
> 3) Please review my account to insure that all charges and payments
have been reconciled and that I have not been doubled bill for any
months.
>
> I have tried to do this last item myself online, but it is
difficult to find a clear history of my account history on your
website.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Tomohiro Idokoro
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Well, what in effect turns out to be a tax on the disadvantaged -- and honors students -- Gov. Shwarzenegger took decisive action today on the municipal crises precipitated by rollback of vehicle registration fees. The mayors seemed relieved to know that they will be able to pay police and firemen.
Story :: Schwarezenegger Declares Fiscal Crisis
Story :: Schwarezenegger Declares Fiscal Crisis
Saturday, December 06, 2003
Bloody, bawdy villain! Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain! O, vengeance!
Someone stole the year tag off my license plate. (As well as the other ten I had collected underneath it!) Suspiciously, I noticed the car parked next to me had one just like it.
I'm off to the Auto Club to get a new one (which will cost me $7.) If I ever find the bastard who stole it, he owes me a super-sized value meal at McDonald's.
More info :: Scam Alert: Tripled vehicle fees expected to draw tag thieves
Didn't the shithead who stole my tag hear that Shwarzeneggar had rolled back the vehicle fee?
Someone stole the year tag off my license plate. (As well as the other ten I had collected underneath it!) Suspiciously, I noticed the car parked next to me had one just like it.
I'm off to the Auto Club to get a new one (which will cost me $7.) If I ever find the bastard who stole it, he owes me a super-sized value meal at McDonald's.
More info :: Scam Alert: Tripled vehicle fees expected to draw tag thieves
Didn't the shithead who stole my tag hear that Shwarzeneggar had rolled back the vehicle fee?
