Kasey puts up with our whimsy and shenanigans, just like we put up with hers. It’s part of the dog-human bargain.
We learned some things so long ago that we have no recollection of the process. The words “Mom” and “Dad” and the names of our siblings. That you don’t stick your hand into an open flame or onto a glowing red burner. Simple temporal concepts, like “today” and “yesterday” and “tomorrow” and “later.”
And basic words. Anybody who has children knows that kids typically learn the words “yes” and “no” some time before the age of two and then stubbornly and infuriatingly speak, shout, or scream the word “no” exclusively for the next 12 months.
But counting comes later, along with learning your ABCs. Counting is a building block for math, just like learning the alphabet is a building block for reading and spelling. When you think about it, counting is a fairly sophisticated concept. First you grasp the difference between none, one, and many — and then you learn that specific words and symbols represent precise numbers of, say, the little meatballs in the Chef Boyardee spaghetti that your Mom served for lunch.
One of the challenges of counting, of course, is that the words that represent the numbers, and their progression, aren’t intuitive. I thought of counting and its challenges when I stumbled across this article about the words “eleven” and “twelve” and their history. For many kids, the numbers between 10 and 20 are the big challenge because they’re weird and not consistent with the concepts that come before (between 1 and 10) or after (for 20 and up). To this day, I think the only reason I know the world “delve” is because of the rhyme I learned about counting as a kid. (“Eleven, twelve, dig and delve.”)
So where did eleven and twelve come from? According to etymologists, both come from the root word “lif,” which apparently meant “to leave” — the concept being that 11 would mean one left after 10, and 12 would mean two left after 10. It’s weird, and something that would forever after cause kids learning to count to stumble and hesitate after then got to 10, but it’s not unique to English — when you learn how to count in French, at least, you encounter the same issue and strange words just after “dix”.
That suggests that, in the early days among the common folk, most people didn’t need to routinely count up to 573, or for that matter much past ten. That makes sense, because we’ve got ten fingers and kids learning to count often do so using their fingers. Our ancestors created special words for the numbers just past ten, but at a certain point they probably just shrugged and settled for “many” rather than going for precision.
Lots of kids learning to count would like to have taken the same approach.
There are lots of parks tucked here and there in downtown Columbus. One of the least visited ones is the Ohio Police & Fire Memorial Park, located at the corner of South Third and East Town streets. That’s a shame, because it’s a nice little park, with a small memorial square and statue, lots of shade trees, and blooming shrubs that, come springtime, look like someone draped a bright purple carpet of flowers on the bushes.
What are the costs of eating fast food? Of course, one cost is the simple consumption of an unsatisfying, typically over-salted meal in either a car seat or a sticky and garish fast-food environment, rather than sitting down to a leisurely meal with family or friends. That’s a given. Then there’s the weight gain that tends to result from slamming down high-calorie processed foods. But now research is indicating there’s even more to it.
The Washington Post recently published an article about the curious association between fast-food consumption and phthalates. (Yes, “phthalate” is a real word, and no, I have no idea how it is pronounced.) The study tracked fast-food intake by 9,000 research subjects — fast-food was defined as any food served at a restaurant without waiters or waitresses — and took urine samples from them. Analysis of the urine samples showed that people who had eaten any fast food in the last 24 hours had higher phthalate levels than people who had not eaten any fast food during that same period, and the larger your fast food intake, the higher your phthalate levels tended to be.
The results are troubling because phthalates are industrial chemicals used to soften plastic and vinyl and make it more flexible, and the Post reports that they have been associated with a number of adverse health effects. Male infertility is one of them, and another is diabetes. Why do people who consume fast food have higher phthalate levels? Researchers don’t know for sure, but they suspect it is because the processed nature of fast food means that the food tends to touch a lot more machines, conveyor belts, plastic wrapping, other packaging materials, and other potential sources of phthalates before it gets onto your plate — I mean, your cheap cardboard box, paper bag or foam container.
But here’s the most troubling part of the Post story from my standpoint: the research revealed, and other government studies confirm, that one-third of the participants eat some form of fast food every day. That includes one-third of kids and adolescents.
A diet that includes fast food every day. Just the thought of it makes my mouth feel dry and briny from anticipation of the salt intake. It’s no wonder that we’ve got some serious health and obesity problems in the U.S. of A. We’ve got to start taking better care of ourselves, and it starts with eating better food.
This morning finds me at the Hilton hotel at the Chicago O’Hare Airport. And when I say “at the airport,” I mean at the airport — as in, right on the airport grounds, so that you see the Hilton sign dead ahead when your plane pulls into its gate at Concourse G.
How many thousands of people have been to meetings at the venerable O’Hare Hilton and roamed its sprawling, gently curving, utterly generic hallways? It’s the perfect spot for business meetings of people from diverse locations, at one of our busiest airports, with great connections, smack dab in the middle of the country. For that same reason, a visit to the O’Hare Hilton is the ultimate in transitory experiences.
Last night I flew into O’Hare, walked to the Hilton, and had dinner in one of its restaurants. Today I’ll go to a meeting in one of its conference rooms, eat the conference room breakfast and lunch offerings, and fly out tonight — all without ever setting foot outside the airport grounds.
When I get back to Columbus and someone asks how my trip to Chicago was, I’ll say I didn’t go there– I just went to the O’Hare Hilton.
The Cleveland Browns seem to at least have a strategy for the upcoming NFL draft. That’s a change from past years when the Browns clearly didn’t know what the hell they were doing and appeared to be just winging it on draft day.
The Browns had the number 2 pick in this year’s draft — no surprise there; given their record of failure, the Browns always have a pick in the top ten — but they traded down with the Eagles to try to accumulate picks. That took the Browns out of contention for the two hot quarterbacks in the draft, but it left them with the eighth pick and gave them 12 picks overall and six in the first 100, in a draft that’s supposed to be a deep one. That’s a smart play in my book, because the Browns’ roster is starved of talent. In fact, it’s so bad that Las Vegas oddsmakers currently have the Browns as underdogs in every game of the 2016 season. 0-16, here we come!
I’m leery of drafting a QB in the first round, too. First-round quarterbacks often are busts. That’s been true for the Browns, starting with Tim Couch and including Brady Quinn, Brandon Weeden and Johnny Manziel. All were dismal failures. And you can’t blame the quarterbacks exclusively for the failures, either, if there’s no offensive line or surrounding talent. Rather than spend a high pick on the quarterback of the moment, I’d rather build the talent level. The best picks the Browns made after coming back into the NFL — Joe Thomas and Joe Haden — were bread-and-butter players you could build a team around. Unfortunately, the Browns didn’t have the eye for talent that let them complete the team-building process. That doesn’t mean the model is wrong, it just means that the Browns need somebody who can distinguish a stud from a dud.
This year, the Browns have a new team of people to try to accomplish that. They have a new head coach, a new front office and a new approach: analytics, a la Moneyball. The Browns hired Paul DePodesta away from the New York Mets and put him in place as Chief Strategy Officer. It’s weird to think that an NFL team needs somebody to set a “strategy” — how about, “Just win, baby!” — but maybe a clearly delineated strategy will help the rudderless Browns. I’m hesitant to buy into generic “analytics” as a panacea, too, but I think taking a more structured approach to evaluating players is bound to help. No one using analytics would have drafted Johnny Manziel. (Of course, the Browns being the Browns, some fans of analytics in the NFL are afraid that having Cleveland lead the way inevitably means that analytics in the NFL are doomed, and one commented that they thought DePodesta was a genius until he decided to work for the Browns.)
So we’ve got a new set of decision-makers, and a new strategy and approach. Now comes the hard part — actually picking players, both in the draft and via free agency. Browns Backers the world over are holding their breath, hoping that maybe, just maybe, this group will actually show that it knows what it’s doing. Why not? We’ve been holding our breath for so long it’s become second nature.