Endgadget has an interesting Q&A interview with Steve Wozniak, one of the founders of Apple.  I prefer Windows, so I don't agree with all his preferences, though I've used enough Apple products to accept some of his answers.  Though a few of his responses get a bit techie, overall it's an enjoyable, easily accessible piece, done from the perspective of "What gadgets do you use?  What bugs you and what features do you like?  It's interest to note his love for the transistor radio and that like everyone he has problems with battery life.  I was also glad to see that he thinks moving so much to the cloud is not a wise thing, since the technology is not mature enough yet.

Mainly, the interview is worth checking out since you can see that many of your own tech concerns (and likes) match those of one of the tech world's gurus...though in fairness, his reasoning is generally operating at a far higher level than yours or most normal humans.  Still, even he says that he doesn't use his phone or iPad or such to stay all that connected with friends, preferring to leave his "computer time for his computer."  Though I suspect his definition of "all that connected" is different from others.

The Toronto Blue Jays had a big rally in the ninth inning on Sunday, and came from three runs behind to win in their final at bat with four runs.  Afterwards was the traditional post-game interview on the field -- though it turned out to be anything but traditional.

The player in question is shortstop Munenori Kawasaki.  As the Toronto Star wrote about him, "Kawasaki, a 31-year-old native of Aira, Kagoshima, Japan, did the improbable, and everyone in the park new it couldn’t have happened to a nicer person."  Later, in referencing the post-game interview, they added, "It was incredibly cute, not something sports fans see every day."

No, it certainly wasn't.  "Incredibly cute" is not the typical description of anything for professional sports.

By the way, for all the understandable attention that the enthusiastic, joyful Kawasaki has been getting (they've played this tape on ESPN for two days...), I think what's largely gone overlooked deserves notice is the other player.

So, to give him his due, it's Mark DeRosa, who became my favorite player when he was on the Chicago Cubs a few years ago.  I said at the time that he was the best interview in sports.  This video shows that he's the best interview even when he's not being interviewed.  You'll notice that he does something rare for a sports interview -- or any interview.  He's talking to the reporter, but then stops and says that they should be talking to Kawasaki instead, not him, and then goes and specifically pulls him in, on camera.  And then after Kawasaki starts in on his roll, DeRosa cuts his own interview short and leaves Kawasaki alone to have the spotlight.  Just part of the reason that the gracious Mark DeRosa, whose sense of perspective and awareness is part of what made him my fave, deserves mention, as well.

But it's Munenori Kawasaki who's the reason this video has gotten all the attention.  It's worth noting too that TV sports reporters are trained to never give up the microphone.  If they do, they know that they might never get it back, as the interviewee may well go off on a filibuster.  Though as an ESPN anchor said, "Maybe they do things differently in Canada," known for its niceness.  But then, who knows, maybe it's just Munenori Kawasaki who does things differently.

It's not a Major Interview.  Fairly short.  Just...well, incredibly cute.  No wonder he's a fan and player favorite.

The Los Angeles Times had a terrifying news story on Saturday.  George Bush is running for public office in Texas. 

Seriously.

No, not that George Bush, but it's the same family.  George P. Bush is the son of the former president's brother, Jeb.  And he seems to be handling his potential career in a very smart manner.  He's starting small.  While some people suggested a run for Congress, or high state office, like Attorney General, instead he's running to be commissioner of the General Land Office.  It's a race he's expected to win -- not just because the job is low-enough down the ladder, but he's already raised more money than his expected opponent (the current commissioner) has spent in his two previous races, and there's still expected to be millions more to be raised before the election.  He's being very circumspect and literally politically correct, talking only about his interest in this one job, nothing higher.  But only a fool expects this to be his ultimate interest in public service.

When it comes to later races, he's positioning himself well.  He not only will have this one elected office under his belt, but his background is solid.  He went to college in state, at Houston, attending Rice University and went to the University of Texas law school.  He also taught school in the inner-city and even served in Afghanistan in Navy intelligence (under an assumed name for security.)  He owns an energy consulting firm in Fort Worth, where he and his wife are expecting their first child.  He also was an early supporter of Ted Cruz, who is growing in big popularity in the state.

Given that his mother is Mexican, and Texas has a significantly growing Hispanic population, it's hard to imagine that, most especially with the Bush name (which actually means a lot in Texas, even if in much of the rest of the country polls show that it still provides shivers), George P. has a serious career ahead of him in Texas politics that could lead to the governorship or the Senate, or both, and a place on the national stage.  And at that point, especially given the possibility of short-term memory loss, all is fair game, and it's even harder to imagine that there aren't advisers already grooming him to be a third George Bush sitting the Oval Office.

The body convulses at the thought.

Now, obviously we're getting ahead of ourselves here.  He still has to win his first election that's against an incumbent.  And as much as there is a growing base of Hispanics in Texas, that base appears to be trending towards Democrats.  Also, Ted Cruz has the very real potential to crash and burn, which could backfire on his supporters.  And ultimately, any run on the national stage with the name "George Bush" also holds the potential that memories will be very long, and deservedly so.  No, he's not his uncle, but if he's not running on that legacy, then he loses a lot of support.  And if he is running on that legacy (and he is -- signs in crowds where he is campaigning read, "Welcome to Bush Country!"), then as his namesake said, "Fool me, once, shame on me.  Fool me twice...you can't, you aren't gonna fool me again."  To which you then have to add getting fooled for a third time.

There's also the question on whether he'll be a good politicians and campaigner.  Early reports are that he's a poor public speaker.  But he's young, and that will no doubt be improved over time, with an army of consultants. 

"I know the backbone of the family," policeman Ken Brown told the paper.  That's what will likely hold the third George Bush in very good stead in Texas. 

The thing is, I know the backbone of the family, too, and it gives me the creeps.  At the moment, it gives most Americans the creeps, as well.  But moments pass, so it's good to keep an open, wary eye.

Me, I've had enough of being Bushed, by George.

A while back, I was talking with a friend of mine named Amy. I offhandedly mentioned how I was sure that throughout her life she's probably been inundated by people singing "Once in Love with Amy" to her. "You have no idea," she said with a laugh, but added that one of her happiest memories was her father singing it to her regularly at bedtime.

But to my surprise, despite her lifelong, non-stop awareness of the song, she didn't know the song's history. Didn't know that it was actually from a Broadway musical. Didn't know that it was written by a renowned songwriter. Didn't know that it was introduced by a beloved performer. And didn't know that the original performance is one of the great "lost song" stories in Broadway history.

With a twist.

Actually, a couple of them.

I told the story on the Huffington Post, but it's a tale worth repeating.

The song -- long thought to be just one of those obscurities from the mythical "Great American Songbook" -- is actually from a 1948 Broadway musical, Where's Charley?, which is based on the classic play, Charley's Aunt. (Jack Benny starred in the 1941 movie version, which is fairly well-regarded.) The music score was written by Frank Loesser, who also wrote the classic musicals Guys & Dolls and How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, as well as the wonderful songs in the movie Hans Christian Anderson.

When the musical of Where's Charley? opened on Broadway, its star -- whose character in the show is the one who gets to sing The Song -- was an actor adored the world 'round for playing the 'Scarecrow' in The Wizard of Oz, Ray Bolger.

The musical did quite well on Broadway, running almost two years for 792 performances, which made it a solid, respectable hit for its day. It has a nice score, not one of Loesser's strongest though with several memorable numbers -- but by far the huge, breakout hit was the song, "Once in Love with Amy." It was particularly made famous when Ray Bolger (in his character's love-struck enthusiasm) would turn to the audience every night and get them to sing along with him, in an extremely long, show-stopping production number that lasted almost six minutes.

After the show closed, Warner Bros. made a movie of the musical in 1952, using most the main stars from the original cast. But -- and here's where the story takes its first twist -- for reasons no one quite knows for absolute certain, the movie never got released. Part of the reason may be because it was made on a low budget, and the studio may have thought the quality wasn't up to the level they wanted. But even after its initial release passed, it still was never put out, except (oddly) an occasional airing on television, which eventually stopped. When videocassettes came out, even then it didn't get a VHS release. And when DVDs arrived and it became commonplace to start releasing old material, there was hope in the theater community for Where's Charley? to finally make it. But -- no go. Apparently the studio wanted to, but (again for reasons unexplained) it was always blocked by Jo Sullivan Loesser, the widow of Frank Loesser, who had partial rights. The explanation seems to be along the lines of "Frank didn't like the movie, and this doesn't present his work in the proper light," or something like that. It's never been completely clear.

Making things more odd, there was never an original Broadway cast album made. At the time an album would normally have been made, there was a recording industry strike in New York. And the window passed, and it didn't get done. Why it never got recorded later is another of those "It's not clear" situations. But the result is that the show and Ray Bolger's famous performance of The Song, was lost, as well. The only recording of the stage musical is the British version, which starred a popular British comedian, Norman Wisdom. It's nice to listen to, though not particularly dynamic, nor is it Ray Bolger.

But due to there being no Broadway cast album and no movie release of the completed film, Where's Charley? has largely become obscure in the annals of musicals.

Over the years, when he'd appear on TV variety shows, Ray Bolger would often perform "Once in Love with Amy." But it was always out of context of the show, and he was at least 20-30 years older than when he first did it on Broadway, a song sung by a much younger man. So, there's really never been a proper recording of Ray Bolger performing "Once in Love with Amy."

Until now.

With introductory dialogue leading into the song to set the scene properly, the full, seven-minute version of Ray Bolger singing "Once in Love with Amy," from the movie of Where's Charley? has finally entered the world. (Along with Allyn Ann McLerie reprising her original role of 'Amy.')

And so, for the first time, most of the world gets to see "Once in Love with Amy" as it was meant to be performed by its original star -

And there's a yet another P.S. twist on top of all this -- within the past few months, Jo Sullivan Loesser has said she's finally given permission to have the movie released. From reports, there is a restoration being done of the negative, and maybe, possibly it could be out sometime soon.  Perhaps. I'm not holding my breath, so we'll see.  But until then, this will have to suffice.

Its style is dated. The production values are thin. The quality is scratchy.

And it's an exuberant joy.

At last.

I've had this problem for a while when I go out of town.  I put in my Vacation Hold form, and...well, the post office tends to ignore it about 20-30 percent of the time.  I'd come back from a trip, and my mailbox would be jammed to the gills with mail.  Worse, one time it was so full that the postal carrier started just dumping mail on top of the mailbox.  This is known as a Really Bad Thing. 

By the way, when I say that I've had this problem for a while, "a while" is about 20 years. 

Boy, when the Postal Service Credo says that they'll deliver the mail no matter what, they weren't kidding.  But c'mon, folks, this is taking it to a ridiculous level.

I can't explain why this keeps happening, and it really pisses me off.  Not just because it keeps happening and is potentially seriously problematic, but more so because there's nothing I can do about it.  I complain to the supervisor, Miss Connelly, but what can she say but, "This isn't supposed to happen" and "I'll let them know."  I mean, I can't take my business elsewhere.

Over the past years, I figured that the best i can do is stop my mail a day early, so that at least I can generally if mail is still arriving, and I can then call Miss Connelly from out-of-town, at which point she says, "This isn't supposed to happen" and "I'll let them know," and the mail is stopped.  But if it happens to be one of those days when I just didn't happen to get mail, then I'm out of luck, leaving town with a false sense of security.

Instead, I occasionally now stop the mail two days early.  But I hate doing this because I actually like to get my mail before I go out of town.  Go figure, it's the gypsy in me.  But I think I might just have to do that.

On this trip, again, mail showed up the day before I left.  I called Miss Connelly -- but the number isn't working.  It's an instant busy signal all the time, the kind that suggests the number isn't working.  I've called the number listed online for my local post office, but no one answers.  Same with the main post office for the area.

What I think I may do when I get back is go in, talk person-to-person to dear Miss Connelly, and get her phone number and call before I leave town, to give her a heads-up.  And still stop the mail two days early.  I obviously shouldn't have to do that, but it beats not having my mail stopped.

(By the way, I've also had problems on the reverse end.  When I've returned, signed to get my mail, but they still don't deliver it!  But that's only happened once.)

I've been given an explanation why this happens, but it's a poor excuse.  It has something to do with the form being place in my cubbyhole at the post office, and if the regular postal carrier is off that day, and mail gets put on top of it, the fill-in carrier won't ever see it.  Seriously, that can't be an excuse.  I don't mean it's not what's happening, but that it can't allowed to happen.  It's too incompetent.

The thing is, I can't be the only person in Los Angeles that this is happening to.  So, why they haven't figured out a way to do this properly is beyond me.

Fortunately, this is a fairly short trip, so I'm not too annoyed this time.  But...geez, guys, you're better than this.  I think.

A third grader at Columbus Manor Elementary in Oak Lawn, just west of Chicago, had a math exam on Wednesday, testing their nines. It was appropriate since Maggie Ciara had just turned nine a few days earlier.  And one of the questions was all nines.  But it was the young girl's answer to it that stood out.

It helps to be from Chicago, and a fan of the Chicago Black Hawks.  Marian Hossa is one of the stars of the hockey team, and one of the girl's favorite players.  And his number is, not suprsingly, 81.  The teacher, Christine Mech, it turns out, is also a big fan of the Black Hawks and knew what was going on, but wanted to hear the explanation.  When she got it, Maggie (who had all her other answers right) got her A+. 

"I just thought it would be funny to do," she told Justin Breen of DNAinfo Chicago.  How big a hockey fan is Maggie?  For her recent ninth birthday last month, she went to a Black Hawks game.  She also just wrote a letter to the club hoping it would bring them luck in the current Stanley Cup playoffs.  Her mother posted a photo of the exam, which caught the attention of the team, who even put it on their official Facebook page.

Teacher Mech said that "Maggie is a very clever little girl.  I love the way Maggie has a sense of humor."  However, the girl insists that she is a "very serious" student most of the time and that's she's never done something "silly" like this before with an exam.

That lead to my favorite part of the story, though, which put everything in its proper perspective.  It came when reporter Breen mentioned to her that she might have to do it again when she gets the question of what's "8x11," since her favorite player of all is Patrick Kane, who wears number 88.  Her reply was:  "We haven't learned our 11s