A faster horse

I’ve been reading Steve Jobs’s biography. I’m only about halfway through it, but learning things about him that many people probably already know—that he was adopted, that he dropped acid, was a rabble rouser, did Zen, had strange dietary habits that included going for a week or more eating only one item, like carrots or apples (really). He abandoned a daughter who was born outside of marriage and was given to outbursts of tears and anger.

Steve was filled with contradictions. He was a counterculture rebel who eschewed material objects, yet made things of desire for the masses and became a billionaire doing it.

Isaacson, his biographer, calls him a genius, and I hope the second half of the book gives us more insight into what this means. Did he live as he did because he was a genius? Was he a genius because he lived this way? Or are his genius and his lifestyle unrelated? Did he have a bigger brain? A smaller brain? Different wiring? (Where are the wires? Can they be manipulated?)

One quote that seems to characterize Jobs and his genius is attributed (with much debate) to Henry Ford. (I’m not sure why Henry Ford keeps creeping into my blogs lately, but here it is.)

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said ‘faster horses.’

Some have interpreted this to mean “don’t pay attention to the market.” Writers hear this a lot, too. “Write from your heart, the book that is your passion,” we’re told. [But then, hey, why do my legion of rejection letters over the years always tell me that my book is "not right for the market?"] [Sorry for the digression.]

But I can still use the quote—if I’m at a sticky point in a plot, for example, I try to look beyond the obvious to an unexpected action or turn of events.

I take Ford’s quote to apply to Steve Jobs in the sense that Jobs (and Ford) provided things the market didn’t know it wanted.

As I look around at my iThings, and think of the possibilities for communication alone, I have to say that wasn’t a bad way to spend a life.

And the Oscar goes to — Speechless!

It’s Award season: Peoples’ Choice, SAG, Golden Globes. I love them all. And now that we have the Oscar nominations, I can plan my party.

My Oscar party has its roots in a conversation I had more than 30 years ago. I went into work the day after the show and engaged in animated discussion with the women in my group—we talked about the movies, the fashions, the speeches, who arrived with whom. Once we realized we’d all watched the show alone, our male partners refusing to participate, we knew we had to get together for the following year’s gala. We did, and have been gathering ever since, except that now males are also welcome and attend the party in almost equal numbers.

One of the consistent features of the shows through the years has been the lame acceptance speeches by otherwise extraordinarily talented performers.

If you do the math, it makes no sense: if you are 1 of 5 people on the planet who have been nominated for a category, how can you be stunned when you win? Happy, yes. A tad surprised that you beat out the other 4, yes. But stunned? I don’t think so.

So why don’t the winners have an acceptance speech ready?

Here’s a group who can memorize a whole movie script; you’d think they’d be able to handle a list of names of people to thank. Makes you wonder how many takes each of those movie scenes required.

Maybe they’re going for spontaneity, you say. Hello, they’re ACTORS. They can fake spontaneity with a well-written script.

If they can’t write a speech, they can hire someone. (I’m raising my hand here.) They hire experts to take care of hair, nails, make-up, jewelry, shoes, gowns and tuxes. They can hire an expert to write a little speech. How much could it cost? I’d do it for free if I could sit in the audience.

But most likely I’ll be in my own home that night, with other fans, making our own choices, choosing the best and worst outfits.

Not to mention names, but a recent Golden Globe winner, one of my favorite actresses, wore a dress that looked like it had been cut from one of my old habits. And she pretty much blew the “well done speech” thing.

As you see, I’m getting ready for the party! If you’re close, come on by!

Be kind to animals

“Never argue about religion or politics” was a watchword in my youth.

But there’s a third topic that brings out even more of an emotional response around the dinner table—pets!

Nevertheless, I’m going to take it on and boldly state: I love animals.

Here’s how I show it:

1. I do not own an animal. If I had my way, they would all run (or fly) freely through the planet without the limitations of leashes, cages, store-bought chemically enhanced food, and often silly outfits for holidays.

2. I never bother an animal or use them for my own personal comfort because there’s no acceptable human nearby. I don’t pet them when I feel like it, ignore them when I’m busy.

3. I don’t eat them, or any part of them—not pork chops, not hamburger, not chicken wings.

4. I don’t transport them. This means no needles to tranquilize them into boarding a trailer.

5. I don’t patronize zoos, which essentially support the exploitation of animals, removing them from their habitat (I don’t care how big the park is) and sometimes subjecting their backs to unruly kids for rides around a park.

Recently an owner of two dogs, who keeps the animals in cages in the house while she and her husband are at work all day, told me that dogs actually like cages. “They like to nest and be cozy,” she told me.

Really? I find that confusing, since they have twice as many legs as we do, and we don’t like to be in cages.

But if that’s true, then those yapping dogs in little cages on my recent red-eye flight to Boston were full of joy and contentment? To me, it sounded more like “Get me out of here!” or “Someone save me from pet owners.”

Election 2012, here at last

I’m a huge fan of debates, especially political debates. Right now, the Republican candidates are offering us a great opportunity to hear them and evaluate them. I wish the Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, Greens . . . would do the same.

6.25 million people watched the Republican debate on Saturday, January 7.

Twice that many – 12.9 million – watched New Year’s Rocking Eve the week before.

And more than four times that many –  27.6 million –  watched the Giants-Cowboys football game on the following Sunday.

I find it hard to believe that a sports event commands more attention than an event featuring our choices in the next election. I guess it’s because those who don’t watch the debates are busy attending town meetings, meeting the candidates on tour, and reading every article in the major news outlets, in print and online.

I admit, I go overboard on the debates, watching each one more than once, then browsing for the post-debate analysts. I often hear how useless it is to watch debates since they’re so “staged.” True, but you can still learn a lot.

I learn from the content, the candidates’ positions on issues, their values, information. I also learn from how they respond—Knowledgeable or working with charm only? Quick thinking or stumbling? Answering the question or dodging it?

Sometimes I feel that the whole election process is so out of our hands, why bother? But then I ask, what if it’s the other way around? What if it’s out of our hands because we don’t bother?


Stop to chop the wood?

Over on The Ladykillers this week, the topic is Carpe Diem, which I’ve always translated as Seize the Day. Make the most of every moment, take every opportunity each day offers, and so on.

But Susan Shea gave it a new twist with her post, from a Buddhist saying: Chop Wood, Carry Water.

I take this advice to mean stay focused, no matter what the task. Admirable. But —

Does this mean I have to give up multitasking? Turn off the TV in my office? Stop ironing while I’m on the phone? Leave my cellphone off? Or even in a different room?

Any hour of the day might find me at my computer, writing, while I’m 1) monitoring a load of clothes in the washer and another in the dryer; 2) on hold with an office in India; 3) paying a fraction of attention to a movie on Lifetime or a politician on CNN; 4) checking email every time I get a ping; 5) adding and subtracting from a to-do list on my stickie notes; 6) checking FB for Likes; and 7) cooking a pot of beans. Of course, coffee and a snack will be in easy reach.

If you set me on an island with just paper and pen and asked me to write, I’m not sure I could do it.

Probably the other end of the spectrum from Buddha on this is Henry Ford: It has been my observation that most people get ahead during the time that others waste.

This lady makes me feel like a lazy slug.

Are you able to just chop wood or carry water? Are you on Buddha’s end of the spectrum or Henry Ford’s?

I resolve . . .

New Year’s resolutions? The surest way for me to kill a plan is to make a resolution about it. It works better for me if change sneaks up on me. Or surprises me. So when anyone asks me, I won’t be able to do better than this:

Do you hear what I hear?

Here’s an audio message from me and the Cable Guy:

You can scan the image with a QR code reader, or go to www.rrufer.com/X2011.mp3 or simply have a very happy holiday season!

Ho, Ho, Higgs

Where The God Particle lives.

It’s mid-December and it’s hard to think of anything but holiday preparations and the search for the Higgs boson.

I’ll leave the holly and the tinsel for next week and focus on Higgs today. After a search of nearly fifty years, on Tuesday 12/13 physicists from CERN reported on their progress.

The LHC — Large Hadron Collider — is the center of the excitement. Physicists working at the world’s largest accelerator “caught a glimpse” of the Higgs boson, perhaps the most fundamental of fundamental particles, the key to understanding the universe. Why else would we call it The God Particle?

The two principal investigators announced that they’d found “subtle hints” of the Higgs.

Let’s not go out on a limb here, scientists!

One thing that’s different now is that 2 independent teams came up with the data.

But the experimental results are far from conclusive. One physicist gave this analogy:

Suppose you take the bus every day at the same time with roughly the same number of other riders. Today you get on the bus and it’s very crowded, maybe twice as many people as usual.

How come?

It could be a random occurrence; for no other reason, twice as many people got on your bus today. Or maybe there’s a big event nearby—a concert, a game, a new mall opening. Most people are likely to make the second assumption—that it’s not random, that something’s going on.

From the new data, physicists think the Higgs is going on.

I do plan to celebrate, but I wish we had more. I wish we had the Higgs.

I won’t be happy until I have one to hang on my Christmas tree.

Murder, Dark and Light

The good guy?

One of my favorite guys, Showtime’s DEXTER MORGAN, came up for discussion on a mystery list last week.

In case you’ve missed him: Dexter is by day a blood splatter analyst for the Miami PD, by night a serial killer. Not just any serial killer, however: You need not worry; Dexter kills only serial killers. A square root of serial killers, you might say, rooting out the problem and making us all feel safe.

Most interesting were the list posters, some mystery writers, who said of Dexter: “He revolts me.” “I don’t do gruesome,” said many crime readers and writers.

These are people who read and write about murder on a daily basis, boast about how many crime fiction and nonfiction books they own, and enjoy the hobby/business enough to join discussion groups. Yet they express disgust at books or television programs that are too “gruesome.” As if all the other stories about murder are beautiful, pleasant, pretty (listed in my online thesaurus as the opposite of gruesome).

Far from a mad or cult-driven serial killer, Dexter researches his victims meticulously. Only when he believes his prey is truly evil—a pedophile killer of children, for example—does he spring into action.

The grisly moments on Dexter are few; most of the time we’re focused on the wonderfully drawn characters, especially his law enforcement colleagues—smart women and men working side by side with him, but (for most of them) with no clue about Dexter’s true nature.

The question is not why would we watch a “grisly” show but why we watch/read about murder in such large numbers at all.

The funny guys.

Murder is murder. It’s gruesome, grisly, revolting, whether we’re watching a funny takeoff like Castle or Psych, or a more realistic portrayal like Dexter.

Last year Sisters in Crime released the results of a survey: The Mystery Book Consumer in the Digital Age. Click on the link for the full report. http://www.sistersincrime.org/associations/10614/files/ConsumerBuyingBookReport.pdf

One interesting fact—68% of crime fiction readers are women over 45. Not exactly the serial killer profile.

Watch your back!

Still, it makes me wonder if there’s a serial killer among those who are watching the shows that portray murder in a light, humorous way.

Not your mother’s Hallmark

It's a girl!

Showing up here a little early since Thanksgiving weekend is over and it’s officially the Christmas season for me.

Last week, a friend told me I was too liberal, or words to that effect.

The context: my Christmas cards, which she called inappropriate.

I’ve been making my own Christmas cards for as long as I can remember. I don’t think of them as liberal or conservative, but as contemporary and relevant, with a modern spiritual message. Uh-oh, is that liberal already?

Here are samples from the last few years — the first is above, center, with two more below. See what you think.

"My only concern was to get home after a hard day's work" .. Rosa Parks (1913 - 2005)

"They always say time changes things, but actually you have to change them yourself." - Andy Warhol

Are they too liberal? Inappropriate? Do you want to be on the list for this year’s?