CALL ME SNAKE

I never met Red Auerbach and, if truth be told, never spent that much time thinking about him. But now that he's gone, and I've read all the stories, it's clear to me that we've lost a unique individual whose death may signal the end of an era. My sense is that true "characters" like Red are few and far between. Moreoever, they may be the product of a previous generation, as I don't think that characters like Red are likely to emerge from my peers--a group sometimes referred to as "boomers." Why is that? I don't know. Maybe every generation romanticizes the past. And to some extent, that may be true. But I also think part of the explanation lies in the fact that the post-World War II crowd has, for the most part, had it too easy. You've got to be tough to be a true character--seen some really hard times--and most of us these days just aren't tough enough.

Plus the times have changed as well. After drafting Kevin McHale, Red picked him up from the airport, drove him to the Celtics' office, and gave him a couple of minutes to sign his contract so that he would not be late for practice. McHale signed as told, without taking time to read the fineprint. For better or worse, that would never happen today.

So goodbye Red. It's a shame I never got to know you. And perhaps an even greater shame that there may not be another one like you.

There's an intriguing headline today on the front page of Metro, "The world's largest global newspaper," that reads: "Man may have cut up father." To my (admittedly simpleminded) way of thinking, that headline raises more questions than answers. Did the reporter not bother to find out whether the man in question did, in fact, cut up his father? Or did the suspect simply not remember, which is the kind of thing that could easily happen when it comes to dismembering family members: "I might have cut him up. Or maybe not... What day we talkin' ?" That's not a direct transcript, of course, but you could see how confusion could arise in a case like this, especially on a busy weekend with lots going on. Stayed tuned. We'll have more to say on this incisive topic as news reports, and body parts, trickle in.

I whined about it last night, fearing the worst. So just how badly did it go? Everyone says this annual ritual--evidently a tremendous boon to agriculture--is great cause you get "an extra hour of sleep." Too bad they didn't tell my cat that, because she woke me up at 4 a.m. rather than at 5 a.m. Ditto with my daughter, who woke me at 6 a.m. rather than at 7 a.m. So much for that much ballyhooed extra hour of sleep. The defense rests (if only I could, if only I could...).

In about half an hour, we--as dutiful citizens--are supposed to turn our clocks back one hour. (While you're at it, why not replace the batteries on your smoke detectors?) This time around, we gain an hour. It's often described as some great gift, but to me it's almost a burden. Because unless you're doing something really memorable, this great gift that only comes around once a year is going to waste. You're not supposed to spend it catching up on your work and on your blog, as I did. You're supposed to do something special, something really grand. But I couldn't think of anything special to do, and have never thought of anything "really grand," so here I am wasting my time and yours complaining about that extra hour, granted by the powers that be, which was, once again, put to no good use.

But an hour goes by pretty quick, and before we know it, it will all be over. We'll just pick up our dreary lives, or spectacular lives, at the moment we left off, carrying on as if it never happened.

In an interview earlier this week, Dick Cheney admitted that "for a while there, I was criticized for being the vice president of torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in." Perhaps he was responding to a post that appeared in Call Me Snake on October 15, 2005 entitled "Vice President of Torture." Former CIA director Stansfield Turner called Cheney "vice president for torture" in an interview two days later (October 17, 2005) and a week after that, the Washington Post ran an editorial entitled "Vice President for Torture." So it appears, in refering to the "vice president OF torture" label (as opposed to the "vice president FOR torture" label), Cheney was responding to, and denying, the most serious charge of all--that leveled against him here at Call Me Snake.

With mid-term elections fast approaching, beleaguered Republicans are getting the kind of help you can't pay for, the kind of help you might just as soon do without: The charismatic Dick Cheney, the embodiment of all that is good and pure, is hitting the stump on their behalf. These are dark times--Cheney says, in so many words--and we need evil people in office. These people, I can personally attest, are evil.

Meanwhile, the Prince of Darkness is also spreading the usual allotment of fear and loathing. If Republicans lose control of Congress, Cheney warns, folks like Barney Frank will soon head powerful committees, "and I don't need to tell you what kind of legislation would come." Sorry Dick, what exactly are you saying here? Do you mean "gay legislation"?

This just found its way to my desk. Now I'm trying to help it find its way to yours: A study by Purdue civil engineer Fred Mannering indicates that auto safety, paradoxically, declined from 1992 to 1996 during the same period that airbags and antilock braking systems were introduced. The reason, Mannering claims, is the "offset hypothesis"--namely that when people feel like their car is safer, they'll drive in a riskier manner. Mannering not only supports this hypothesis through his academic writings and statistical analyses, he also supports it in his daily life: "When I'm driving the MG," he says, "I definitely make a special effort not to tailgate or accelerate quickly when roads are slick because I don't have the antilock brakes, traction control and the other advanced safety features of my newer car."

The latest issue of the Annals of Improbable Research (September-October 2006 edition) features an article entitled "Chicken Chicken Chicken" that is, I'm sure, unlike any other you've read. The only words in the entire article are "chicken" and "chickens," though the text also has numbers, charts, graphs, and equations. The inspired piece, written by Doug Zongker (formerly at the University of Washington), has already won two awards--"Best Paper" and "Best Paper on Chickens"--at the prestigious 2002 Potentially Computer Science Conference held in Seattle. If you have a chance to peruse the article, which is also available on Zongker's website, you'll see the awards are well deserved.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: In anticipation of my erstwhile favorite holiday, I dashed off this little ditty, which aired (in edited form) on a California, NPR-affiliate radio station...] Lobbing eggs has long been considered an innocent pastime--a Halloween tradition that ranks right up there with the pie-in-your-face of TV’s Golden Era. But wait, cautions J. M. Durnian of the Royal Liverpool University Hospital in England. An egg is about the size of a squash ball and packs considerably more heft, meaning that this seemingly harmless prank could result in serious eye damage. Indeed, between November 2004 and December 2005, Durnian and colleagues at the hospital’s eye unit identified 13 patients with “ocular injuries” due to “assault with a raw egg.” In all cases, the eggs were thrown by strangers. Twelve of these hapless patients suffered at least temporary declines in vision. Eight sustained significant injuries--including tears and bruising of the retina--and one required major surgery to recover.

The problem, alas, is not confined to England. Ocular trauma as a result of airborne eggs has also been reported in Ireland, Scotland, and the United States. Egg-in-the-eye attacks may be underreported, the Liverpool researchers claim, as their unit does not handle childhood injuries. “We expect the younger members of our community to do much of the egg throwing,” they write, “but their targets may be the older population.” Regardless of who’s at the receiving end, the message is clear. If you see an egg sailing towards you, calmly, coolly, keep three words in mind: Duck and cover.

With Barack Obama's recent admission that he is contemplating a run for the presidency in 2008, several questions come to mind: Is America ready for an African-American president? (I hope so.) Is Obama ready for that exalted office after less than two years in the U.S. Senate? Is America ready for a candidate who has not even completed a single term in the Senate? And more importantly, is America ready for a president who is several years my junior?