Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Clarification

In the previous message, I did not intend to suggest that the e-mails I've been receiving about John McCain's age were coming from Ralph Nader supporters. Nader, by the way, is older than McCain.

• Posted at 6:26 PM · LINK

Today's Political Comment

I get a lot of political e-mails from all quarters, all mindsets. I think I've received more e-mails from Ralph Nader supporters than there are Ralph Nader supporters.

For some reason, most of the recent messages that say I shouldn't vote for John McCain are emphasizing his age and trying to get me to grasp how old 71 really is.

People, I get it. I know how old he is and I know how old 71 is. I don't need a factual comparison to the life span of the Galapagos Tortoise to understand the concept. No one does. Most of us have at some point in our lives encountered a human being who is in their seventies. I've even, you may find this hard to believe, met people in their eighties.

(Sarcasm aside: The oldest person I ever met was the great Broadway director, George Abbott. He was 102 at the time, confined to a wheelchair and unable to speak for more than a few minutes without gulping oxygen. I'd still vote for him for President before I'd vote for a lot of much younger individuals who may be on my ballot.)

In any case, no one needs to be reminded of McCain's age, nor do we have to hear suggestions that he may not live through the debates. Personally, I have plenty of other, more pressing reasons to not vote for the guy. There was a time when I might have, depending on who the Democrats nominated, but that was a different John McCain. That was the one who called guys like Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" and occasionally bucked the G.O.P. line on issues where his vote mattered. I have yet another reason today, having just read McCain's proposals for dealing with Climate Change. They pretty much come down to "Let's do something so we can say we're doing something but let's make sure it never costs any business a nickel."

My point is that I know the guy's 71 and I can look at him on TV and decide if that's too old. I'm also capable of figuring out that Barack Obama is black, that Hillary Clinton is a woman and that Bob Barr is going to get as many electoral votes as I am. Thank you.

• Posted at 9:25 AM · LINK

Telephone Tag

If I don't post a lot this week, it's because I'm busy with about nineteen things...mostly scripts that are due but also an enormous headache involving no less than three telephone companies. This means three different firms I must phone (repeatedly!) and wade through clumsy robotic operators who attempt to direct my call. The problem, of course, is that my problem doesn't fit any of the standard categories and departments...so the robots can't figure out where to direct me and, frankly, the occasional humans I reach aren't doing such a great job of it.

Let me see if I can explain this because it's a bit complicated. Both my mother and I, independent of one another, decided to transfer phone service from non-digital companies to the digital (and cheaper) phone service of Time-Warner Cable. Phone numbers did not change...just the companies supplying our service and, of course, what we were paying.

She went from Verizon to Time-Warner. I went from A.T. and T. to Time-Warner. In neither case has the Time-Warner option worked well for us. At her house, it would only work on one phone. The installer finally gave up on trying to get the extension in her bedroom to work and just said, "I can't do it." It seemed like a simple, garden-variety extension such as you find in 98% of the homes in this country but somehow, he couldn't get it connected.

Now, you might wonder why, at that point, we didn't just tell the guy to forget about it and stay with Verizon. Well, you really can't. It takes 6-10 days for a number to be transferred from one company to another. The day the installer arrived at my mother's house was the day Time-Warner got custody of her number. If we'd told him that day to not do the installation, the number would not have stayed with Verizon. It would have taken those 6-10 days to switch it back and then we would have had to get a Verizon installer out to reconnect it...and my mother would have been without a phone for all that time. So we kinda had to stay with Time-Warner, at least for a while, and she had to do without the extension in her bedroom.

Then a few days later, another problem was noticed. My mother has a personal alarm system — one of those little buttons that the elderly sometimes wear to summon help in an emergency. I call it her "I've fallen and I can't get up" button but it isn't from that company. (If you need to get one of those devices for someone, by the way, shop around. There are plenty of better, cheaper systems.)

The machine is supposed to interface with her phone system and it did when she had Verizon. Time-Warner assured us it would work fine with their lines and that turned out not to be so. So all of a sudden, my mother had this emergency distress alarm that wasn't connected to anything. Fat lot of good that would do her. I made the necessary calls to switch her back to Verizon and this involved more calls and explanations and being put on hold and/or routed about than you could imagine. I still can't get Time-Warner over there to rip out their lines but the Verizon service has been reconnected and everything works like it did before.

In the meantime, we were lucky that I'd already arranged to get her one of these. You may remember a little while ago that I asked here if someone could recommend a good emergency-type cell phone for seniors. Many of you suggested the Jitterbug and now she has one, thank you. Seems to work just as advertised...and I'm getting to be so glad and delightfully surprised when anything does.

My problem is a little easier to explain. As soon as my phone was shifted over to Time-Warner, it became incapable of calling her. I can call my mother on my cell phone. I can call her on another phone line I have that is still with A.T. and T. But I can't call her now on my main phone, which is Time-Warner digital. From my end, it just rings and rings and rings as if she's just not answering. On her end, it does not ring at all, and I have to assume this will be the case with others I phone. I mean, it can't be that by some fluke of electronics, my phone can only reach people who did not give birth to me.

Can this problem be fixed soon? I'm starting to think not. Time-Warner's technicians say they should be able to figure it out but they need me to get her phone company, Verizon, to run all sorts of tests and to supply all sorts of data. Verizon is saying, in effect, "Our lines work fine. The problem is on Time-Warner's end so don't bother us." Looks like a stalemate. I'm going to give them a few more days to solve it but I'm not optimistic. Again, it's going to take a while and be messy to switch back from Time-Warner digital to A.T. and T. (or someone else) non-digital.

Among the frustrating things is that digital phone service is cheaper and once they get the bugs out of it, I'm sure it'll be what everyone has. It just isn't working now for either me or my mother and the transfer process is clumsy and time-consuming. So consider this a cautionary note: If you're seeing those ads about unlimited local and long distance for under thirty bucks a month and saying "That's for me," well, it may not be as ideal as it sounds. Or as simple to undo if it doesn't work as advertised.

• Posted at 8:48 AM · LINK

Tony Noms

The Tony nominations are out and there are some surprises, not so much in what was nominated but in what wasn't. The folks behind Young Frankenstein are probably open-mouthed with amazement. The show got but three — one for scenic design, two for supporting actors. No nod for Best Musical or Best Score or Best Book or the leads...all those categories where the previous Mel Brooks musical swept. I didn't see most of the other contenders and it's quite possible they were all superior...but it also sounds like someone in the Broadway community felt Young Frankenstein deserved a public spanking instead of the possible box office assist.

Still, its three nominations were three more than the new revival of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof got...and The Little Mermaid didn't fare so well, either. The stage version of the Disney cartoon received only two — one for Best Score and one for lighting. I guess that means no number on the Tony telecast, just as there probably won't be one from Young Frankenstein.

November, which I saw and liked a lot, got a single nomination — for Laurie Metcalf's fine performance. That probably means it will close when Nathan Lane departs in July.

I'm pleased that Xanadu, which I saw and liked a lot, is up for Best Musical, as is its star Kerri Butler for Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Musical...and a little surprised that its fine supporting cast, especially Jackie Hoffman, was overlooked.

All in all, it's an odd list...and one that will probably make for an especially low-rated Tony Awards broadcast. I don't see a single category in which many people will have any sort of rooting interest or where, as sometimes happens, a certain "win" will represent some sort of important statement. The most interesting announcement was that a special Lifetime Achievement Tony will be presented to Stephen Sondheim, which will probably allow them to do some big, star-studded medley of important Sondheim numbers.

And I think that's all I have to say about the nominations. Just that it's an odd list.

• Posted at 7:43 AM · LINK