Leaf-blowing blows

The leaves, except for just a few stubborn ones, have fallen, now. They have fallen across the back and front yards, blanketing most of my property. Since we own over an acre and live on a heavily wooded lot, last year we decided that it was time to stop raking and get a leaf blower. This was, mostly, a good idea.

But leaf blowing still sucks.

It has consumed large fragments of my time for the last three weeks. An hour after work, 45 minutes on a Saturday morning, an hour and a half on a Sunday. This weekend, I probably spent about three hours in all blowing leaves into the woods, and I'm still not done.

I will admit that blowing the leaves is definitely easier than raking them. We have just too many to rake. A few weeks ago, though, when I was trying to start the leaf blower, I pulled the starter string too vigorously, I guess, and the string wouldn't recoil. Thus, I ended up raking the front yard. Now, after a $45 repair, the leaf blower is back in action.

We probably have another half day to clean the leaves up. Then, I get to mow the lawn one last time, vacuuming the remnants of autumn, before winter drops its own coating upon the lawn and the driveway.

What do I think of snowblowing, you ask? I will not get into that right now, but you can read an older post here.

Public radio fundraising and touchless paper towel dispensers

Two things that irritate me.

First, public radio fundraising drives. It's not that I wouldn't possibly give money to NPR or Connecticut Public Radio or public television. It's the approach that the broadcasters have during these annoying "pledge campaigns." - especially on TV, but on radio, too. They try to make you feel guilty if you don't give. Like you are actually stealing the content.

If public radio/TV wants to raise more money, they need to stop this approach. It's actually a negative campaign. Public radio, like all of radio, has advertising, but in the form of sponsors, grants, foundation support, and corporate donations. I have read recently that public media is doing well financially, although they claim to rely on money from private individuals to run their operations. If they want more people to consider giving, mail them some information. That's the only way I'd consider it. I'm not going to call in a pledge.

One trick that makes me feel better about this is when I know NPR is looking for money, I quickly switch the station just as the announcer comes on, cutting him off in mid-sentence. It is strangely satisfying.

Second thing: Touchless paper towel dispensers, now commonplace in restaurant bathrooms. In an effort to save paper (and money), these dispensers only give about 6inches of paper towel. Then you have to wave your hand in front of it to get more. This practice may actually be more annoying than public broadcasting fundraisers.

I don't know how much money this saves businesses, but I hate being restricted about how many paper towels I use. (I do tend to take a lot.) So, now, because I feel the restaurant is unnecessarily controlling me, I just hold my hand in front of the dispenser and take far more than I truly need.

When there are two dispensers side by side, I hold my hand in front of both of them. I suggest that you also do this, just to be a pain.

Sometimes, you need these little passive-aggressive behaviors to help you to cope with daily annoyances.

Pedro pitching still a spectacle

Now-Phillies pitcher Pedro Martinez, once a Cy Young-award winning pitcher for the Red Sox who struck out more than 300 batters twice in his career, took the loss last night, pitching against the Yankees in the World Series.

His line was: 6 innings pitched, 6 hits, 3 earned runs, 2 walks, 8 strikeouts.

Not bad for a 38-year-old who is about 8 years past his prime.

The Phillies lost 3-1 last night in Game 2 of the World Series, evening the series, 1to 1. It would have been sweet to see Pedro lead his team to a 2-0 series lead, but the Yankees had a bit too much power. The Phillies, meanwhile, could not hit AJ Burnett.

But Pedro still pitched really well. He gave up two home runs, but he had good command of his pitches, striking out 8 while walking 2.

One thing that's changed about Pedro over the years is his velocity. Last night, he topped out at 89 mph, from what I saw. In his heyday, Pedro routinely hit 93-95 mph. The speed decrease is a big difference because it affects his offspeed pitches. Pedro's changeups used to be 85 mph. Now, they're about 75 mph. Even Derek Jeter, who NEVER pulls the ball, last night smacked a double to left field. He was way out in front of the pitch, which is rare.

Pedro's pitches still have good movement, and because he's such a smart pitcher, he can accumulate strikeouts. He knows what to pitch when.

When he pitched for the Red Sox, he was magical. Dominant. Hitters could not successfully guess what he was throwing. They could not keep up with his fastball. And even if they could hit his fastball, it had such movement that it didn't seem fair. His placement of the ball, on the outside corner of the plate, was unbelievably accurate. For a period of years, he was in the zone. And the Red Sox were the lucky beneficiary of his superior performance.

Watching him last night brought back some memories from his mid-90s form. He fooled a bunch of batters throughout the night. He was in control. It was almost the Pedro of old. He hit the outside corner of the plate, granted at velocity in the uper 80s, regularly.

It was a shame that Pedro had to lose, but it was also a testament to the strength of the Yankees. The Phillies needed to get run support. And it didn't happen. I wonder if Pedro will get another chance this postseason.

Hope for a White-Collar Criminal

After a great hike today at Mt. Tom in Litchfield, we were famished and needed to eat. Since all we had were Twizzlers and kid fruit snacks, we stopped in the village and ate at a very good, very unpretentious little Italian joint, DiFranco's, on West Street.

(I do have to admit that I salivated while passing by the West Street Grill, one of Connecticut's finest and most critically acclaimed restaurants. I've had some of my best meals - although worst service - there.)

So we're set to leave, get the kids packed in the car and I notice a guy who looks familiar. Dressed in a blue Polo sweater, wearing sunglasses, the man had a recognizable profile. I turned to my wife and said, "Look, John Rowland."

He was going into the West Street Grill, for a late lunch.

He looked sharp. Well groomed. Cool as the days when he was governor.

Rowland resigned from office in 2004 in the midst of a corruption investigation and he later served 10 months in federal prison.

He has, however, returned to the public arena. In 2008, he was hired by Waterbury's mayor as the city's economic development coordinator. The position pays him $95,000.

I don't think about criminals much, and white-collar criminals obviously are different than violent criminals. They are more suave and savvy, more connected, and better educated. They're also generally nonviolent.

So it shouldn't have surprised me to see Rowland in Litchfield center, in front of a posh restaurant (while I was at the cheap place down the street!). But to see the man who had been through the ringer, prison time, and an intense media storm, resurface and succeed is pretty remarkable.

I mean, he served his time, and he's allegedly trying to counsel others and speak publicly of his failures in order to help others. There has been a mild uproar about the fact that he's a public employee again, and earning a generous salary, too.

But as much as I wanted to say, "Hey! This isn't right! Rowland's a criminal!", he doesn't deserve that. Although he was definitely shady in the way he conducted business as governor, awarding state contracts to friends, receiving free home improvements, including the infamous hot tub on Bantam Lake, which is in Litchfield, he's human. He seems to have realized and learned from his mistakes.

I would imagine that Rowland will one day rise up through the ranks again, and he at some point will earn more than $95,000. He will one day be bigger than Waterbury's economic development director.

But in the meantime, he seemed pretty content eating lunch on a sunny Sunday afternoon in Litchfield, earning a decent living, and perhaps pondering his next step.

Marathon Deaths

Officials claim it was a fluke that three people (a 26-year-old half-marathon runner, and a 36-year-old and 65-year-old) running in yesterday's Detroit Marathon died. All three people, all men, were reportedly experienced runners.

What doesn't seem to be in question is that running a marathon puts the heart in extreme stress and that research shows this can be the equivalent of having a mild heart attack.

Statistically, according to www.livescience.com, somewhere between 1-in-50,000 and 1-in-75,000 people who finish a marathon will die from it. So three deaths at an event with 19,000 registered runners is higher than normal but not considered off the charts.

But the event has spawned questions about how running such a long distance can affect the heart.

Running a marathon can trigger heart attacks because the increased exertion raises a person's heart rate, which boosts the heart's blood demand, according to livescience.com. If there is any blockage to the arteries, they can't accommodate this increase in blood flow, and the heart can't get enough blood, causing a heart attack.

Officials question whether those who die running a marathon may have an underlying heart condition.

The New York Times recently examined the subject of marathon running and its connection to an elevated heart risk. A number of studies showed that after running a marathon, blood markers of heart damage were elevated. In one study, runners who finished a marathon had blood profiles "similar to those in a very mild heart attack.”

It was noted that those who train properly for marathon running are less likely to have a heart problem, although one study contradicted that finding.

The idea, perhaps, is to use common sense.

"In the long run it's more dangerous to be sedentary than it is to be regularly physically active," a University of Minnesota doctor said. "It's people who don’t do anything except walk to the refrigerator who are the ones that are at the most risk [of heart disease]."

If you read message boards and blog posts, "health running" stops at 8 to 10k. After that, it's about "heart" and "ego", according to one blogger.

On the need for older actors

Once upon a time, older actors could get a job on television, and they played key roles in notable shows.

I'm thinking back to the 80s and 70s here, but shows such as "Newhart", featuring Bob Newhart, "All in the Family" (featuring Carroll O'Connor), "Sanford and Son", (Redd Foxx), and "St. Elsewhere" (a number of older actors, including Ed Flanders) are a few examples of shows that included actors older than 50, or in some cases, 60. "Coach" on "Cheers" was a senior citizen, the landlords on "Three's Company" (Mr. Roper and Furley) were both old men.

Even older women actresses were once almost en vogue. Consider "Maude", "The Golden Girls." I'm not saying either of these programs were very good, but at one time older actresses had a possibility of landing a job on a big network show.

Older actors don't seem to have as good as shot anymore. Many of today's primetime actors are not even actors - they're on reality shows, so they're amateurs. But even the real actors are mostly young. There are a few older actors on "The Office", which I like, but you would be hard-pressed to find actors over 50 on most shows. I think this is because the coveted demographics are young - from 25 to 44 years old. Trends, they say, start with the young. And young people are not thought to like watching older people. They want to watch people like themselves.

And when developing programs, it is all about ratings and advertising revenue. Not the quality of the writing, the actors, or the show itself.

Older actors can add an element of maturity and credibility, I believe. The world is not just young. Many older people, like my parents for instance, watch A LOT of TV, much more than me. It is often difficult to find a younger person who comes off as someone who you can learn something from. It is different with older actors. They've been around.

Older actors can also be funny, as in Ray Romano's parents in "Everybody Loves Raymond." I didn't like that show when it was on, I especially didn't like Ray Romano, but his parents were very funny. "Seinfeld", a great show regardless, also featured Jerry's and George's parents, which added a funny intergenerational dynamic.

Hospital shows, in particular, need older actors. In "House", though, House, the doctor is not old enough. I don't recall seeing a seasoned older doctor in Grey's Anatomy, or any of the new hospital dramas. In these hospitals, it seems, the only doctors are young, attractive, and struggling with self-identity. An exception was "Scrubs", which featured a few older docs, including Ken Jenkins who played Doctor Kelso hilariously.

With a lot of television programming in the toilet, network executives need to consider older actors. Plenty are out there, waiting for work. Older actors will make for better programming and add a much-needed ingredient to a program's plot, something that is sorely missing from most contemporary shows today.

Eating a real dinner

When you have kids who are four and two, you can try to eat what you once did, meals that are good and full of taste, food that you want to eat yourself and is not processed, but sometimes you fail.

Last night was one example. We picked up a sirloin steak and made broccoli rabe and stuffed clams, sort of like a surf and turf and vegetable. (And red wine.) A decent meal. I was personally looking forward to it, and so was Claudine. I seasoned the steak, grilled it, and everything came together quite well.

I cut the steak into tiny kid pieces, even chopped up the broccoli rabe so it wasn't too large. The stuffed clams, I thought, would go over well with the kids because it was mostly stuffing.

But they were having none of it. We ended up breaking out bread and butter and yogurt (always good to have on hand). We were nearly prepared to pour them a bowl of Froot Loops.

Feeding kids is a funny thing. You want them to eat what you're serving and not have to be a short order cook for them. But this was one case when the food that we thought was good was evidently not good in their minds.

Of course, after they picked at the dinner, ate bread and butter and yogurt, they still wanted dessert. We balked at that request until they ate more steak. Ten minutes after everyone had finished, our son returned to the table, asking for spicy mustard and barbeque sauce in which to dip his steak. He wanted brownies.

Tonight, interestingly, we had a crappy dinner. Claudine went out, so I threw together random foods from the freezer, cabinet, and refrigerator. We had: green beans (Whole Foods, organic, loaded with butter and salt), Stove Top stuffing, Crinkle Cut French Fries, and Boar's Hoad deli rosemary ham. It was edible, but not steak with broccoli rabe.

The kids' verdict on tonight's dinner? They cleared their plates.