When I came into Knoxville, Tennessee on October 11, I had no idea where anything was, other than the hotel I was staying at and the home of the friends we were visiting. The problem that I have about the Knoxville street plan is that the roads are named and not numbered. This makes finding any address difficult, to say the least (unless you’ve lived there a while).
I have usually lived in places (South Florida and Gainesville) that used a numbered street plan. If I needed to find any place, I could locate it easily from its address and had no problem getting there. Hollywood, Florida, has an interesting twist: although their “east-west” streets are named, most of them are named after former U.S. Presidents (in chronological order). So, Hollywood has an historical theme to its street layout.
This isn’t to say that there haven’t been some glitches to the street-plans in my hometowns. If you go eastward in Hollywood toward the ocean, the avenues go down in number until you hit the Atlantic Ocean itself. At about where 5th Avenue would be is where you start to wade to the seaweed-saturated sea! Apparently, the Hollywood coastline has eroded quite a bit over the past several decades!
Gainesville has its own peculiarities. If you go west on NW 16 Avenue, you’ll find that it changes to NW 23 Avenue. And if you go west on NW 23 Avenue from the center of the city, you’ll find that it changes to NW 31 Boulevard! There is the heavily-traveled NW 53 Avenue that I drive down to go to my Publix grocery store. Along a stretch of this road, I can look off to my left and see another, completely different, residential road running parallel to it. Its name? NW 53 Avenue! And driving north on NW 34 Street, there is a side road turning off to the left. Its name? NW 34 Street!
But in Knoxville, they have their own way of doing things. For example, they have a street officially named after current (neither retired nor deceased nor fired yet) University of Tennessee head football coach Phillip Fulmer. I guess they really do take their football seriously up there!
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Running on the Eights: 10/30
For the past eight weeks, I have been much more careful with my running. After recovering from my slight right-foot strain/tear, I obtained a more comfortable pair of shoes that seem to protect my feet more. And I’ve gradually built up my training, using only the treadmill and refraining from running on any hard/outside surface. I do plan to make the switch to outdoors running at some time in the future, but I doubt that I will ever completely abandon the treadmill (I’ve grown accustomed to its pace!). The theme for these past eight weeks has been “easy does it”, although I’ve tried to run fast during my workouts. I did miss a period of a little more than a week earlier this month, but part of that was due to my trip to Tennessee and Kentucky. Here is my running record (the first two entries were for the cross-trainer machine; the rest were for the treadmill).
DATE .MILES .TIME
9-04..... 1.0..... 8:03 (cross-trainer level 11)
9-06..... 1.3..... 8:23 (cross-trainer lever 11)
9-08..... 1.2..... 9:24 (treadmill)
9-11...... 1.3... 11:03
9-13...... 1.3... 10:42
9-15...... 1.3... 10:23
9-19...... 1.4... 11:53
9-22..... 1.4.... 11:17
9-26..... 1.5.... 12:49
9-28..... 1.5.... 11:52
10-03... 1.6.... 13:15
10-05... 1.6.... 12:31
10-15.... 1.0..... 7:53
10-19.... 1.2..... 9:33
10-23.... 1.4... 11:06
10-26.... 1.6... 12:09
10-29.... 1.7... 13:19
DATE .MILES .TIME
9-04..... 1.0..... 8:03 (cross-trainer level 11)
9-06..... 1.3..... 8:23 (cross-trainer lever 11)
9-08..... 1.2..... 9:24 (treadmill)
9-11...... 1.3... 11:03
9-13...... 1.3... 10:42
9-15...... 1.3... 10:23
9-19...... 1.4... 11:53
9-22..... 1.4.... 11:17
9-26..... 1.5.... 12:49
9-28..... 1.5.... 11:52
10-03... 1.6.... 13:15
10-05... 1.6.... 12:31
10-15.... 1.0..... 7:53
10-19.... 1.2..... 9:33
10-23.... 1.4... 11:06
10-26.... 1.6... 12:09
10-29.... 1.7... 13:19
Monday, October 29, 2007
Monday Newsbreak: 10/29
--The major story of this past week concerned the terrible fires covering much of southern California. Thousands of homes were destroyed, and a few people actually lost their lives. Some who survived related stories of waves of fire sweeping toward them at an incredible speed (due to the firestorm wind conditions) as well as stories of certain homes coming through completely untouched, while others surrounding them were completely gutted. Some critics have pointed to the fires to justify their objection to people moving into these high-risk areas and ask whether the public should be responsible for their welfare should they decide to build there again. Others claim that at least the severity of the fires would have been much less had controlled burning of dry, unpopulated forested areas been permitted in order to break up the mass of combustible material that permitted the firestorms to form.
--Related to the California fires is a press conference that FEMA called to answer questions pertaining to its role, objectives, and performance regarding the disaster. The only problem was that the "reporters" asking questions were all FEMA employees and the conference was completely staged! This story made a laughingstock out of FEMA nationwide and angered the journalists who were shut out of the press conference. The White House reprimanded FEMA for the staged event, probably thinking (from experience) that the "legitimate" press working there now would probably have done an equally effective job as the FEMA employees of being compliant hacks for the government.
--Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has reportedly decided to buckle under to criticism from some of his supporters and will criticize frontrunner Hillary Clinton more vehemently. Although at first glance this makes him and his campaign look a little weak and desperate, this also may be a ploy by him to take the first step toward the selection by Clinton as her running mate next year. After all, he didn't have to announce in advance this "strategy change", so why do it? To me, it means that he wants the Clinton camp to know that any further criticism they hear from him is not really from him personally, but rather something that his campaign forced him to do (a variation on "the devil made me do it").
--My local newspaper, the Gainesville Sun, is beginning to run articles giving runners who want to train for a local marathon in February advice on preparing for this grueling, 26-plus-mile event. And that's fine by me, although I think I'll pass up on it this time around. My problem with the Sun is that there are several local running races held annually and the results never appear in the paper. If they are so community-minded in this area as they would like to appear, then a little recognition to the participants would go a long way!
--With UN-sponsored peace talks opening up in Libya between the Sudanese government and the Darfur rebels fighting it in a devastating civil war, most of the rebel groups are reportedly boycotting the meeting. Which misses the point, as far as I can see. Sure, the rebels have grievances against Sudan. That's why they are having the meeting! If they could solve their disputes before attending the meeting, then why have a meeting?! With so many lives at stake, why do such supposedly responsible adults act like miffed little children? But then again, my own President is acting the same way regarding Iran and its leaders.
--The University of Florida football team convincingly lost its third game of the year to Georgia this past Saturday, 42-30. The Gator offensive line did not protect quarterback Tim Tebow well, resulting in several sacks. But more than that, Florida's defense showed in this game that it is a long way from the defense of last year, which had carried the team to the National Championship. Now the Gators should just stop worrying about titles and just concentrate on winning and improving. As for the team I'm now rooting for to go all the way, it's the Louisiana State University Tigers, from Baton Rouge, home of the tasty (but messy) beignet!
--Related to the California fires is a press conference that FEMA called to answer questions pertaining to its role, objectives, and performance regarding the disaster. The only problem was that the "reporters" asking questions were all FEMA employees and the conference was completely staged! This story made a laughingstock out of FEMA nationwide and angered the journalists who were shut out of the press conference. The White House reprimanded FEMA for the staged event, probably thinking (from experience) that the "legitimate" press working there now would probably have done an equally effective job as the FEMA employees of being compliant hacks for the government.
--Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has reportedly decided to buckle under to criticism from some of his supporters and will criticize frontrunner Hillary Clinton more vehemently. Although at first glance this makes him and his campaign look a little weak and desperate, this also may be a ploy by him to take the first step toward the selection by Clinton as her running mate next year. After all, he didn't have to announce in advance this "strategy change", so why do it? To me, it means that he wants the Clinton camp to know that any further criticism they hear from him is not really from him personally, but rather something that his campaign forced him to do (a variation on "the devil made me do it").
--My local newspaper, the Gainesville Sun, is beginning to run articles giving runners who want to train for a local marathon in February advice on preparing for this grueling, 26-plus-mile event. And that's fine by me, although I think I'll pass up on it this time around. My problem with the Sun is that there are several local running races held annually and the results never appear in the paper. If they are so community-minded in this area as they would like to appear, then a little recognition to the participants would go a long way!
--With UN-sponsored peace talks opening up in Libya between the Sudanese government and the Darfur rebels fighting it in a devastating civil war, most of the rebel groups are reportedly boycotting the meeting. Which misses the point, as far as I can see. Sure, the rebels have grievances against Sudan. That's why they are having the meeting! If they could solve their disputes before attending the meeting, then why have a meeting?! With so many lives at stake, why do such supposedly responsible adults act like miffed little children? But then again, my own President is acting the same way regarding Iran and its leaders.
--The University of Florida football team convincingly lost its third game of the year to Georgia this past Saturday, 42-30. The Gator offensive line did not protect quarterback Tim Tebow well, resulting in several sacks. But more than that, Florida's defense showed in this game that it is a long way from the defense of last year, which had carried the team to the National Championship. Now the Gators should just stop worrying about titles and just concentrate on winning and improving. As for the team I'm now rooting for to go all the way, it's the Louisiana State University Tigers, from Baton Rouge, home of the tasty (but messy) beignet!
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Hypocrisy and Iraq
“Hypocrisy” is a word that is getting a lot of use in the political arena lately. I heard it used by a Republican senator against a U.S. general who had become outspoken against the Iraq War. And a Democratic candidate for President made frequent use of the term during a campaign speech I was watching, particularly with reference to the ability of America to project its influence throughout the world as a peacemaker. In each case, the one using the term sounded oh-so holy and high-minded, but in my opinion, missed the point, albeit for different reasons.
When taking actions on anything, they must be done within a certain context. If a general in Iraq expressed support for the war effort there while he was on active assignment then, then he was doing so within the context of his then-role as an active military officer carrying out his Commander-in-Chief’s mandated policies. Once retired, that general’s context shifted to that of a private citizen, and he expressed his views about the war honestly and critically. The point is that if his context had been the same and he had said different things to suit his own aims, then I would agree that he had been guilty of hypocrisy. As for the United States (or any other sovereign nation for that matter), foreign policy decisions are made in different contexts as well, and some of them may seem to conflict with each other and present an appearance of hypocrisy as well. On 9/11/01, the U.S. was attacked by terrorists on a grand scale, and have since devoted a large portion of its foreign policy to armed conflict against those terrorist organizations deemed culpable, as well as against countries that were adjudged to be aiding them. This is the context of war, which unfortunately seems to happen from time to time. With the rest of the world, the U.S. conducts its foreign policy in a peaceful context, and thus sees itself as a “force” for resolving international disputes peacefully between other countries. The question of hypocrisy comes up in regard to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Was it done in the context of the “War on Terror”, as the Bush Administration claims, or did the U.S. commit an act of war against a peaceful nation? To the second question, consider that Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded two neighboring countries in the span of ten years, used chemical weapons on Iranians in Iran as well as its own citizens, and broke the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that allowed the belligerent Iraqi regime to remain in power. These facts would tend to give credence to the suggestion that Iraq was belligerent, not peaceful. On the other hand, the U.S. never officially declared war against anyone, leaving the delineation between the contexts of peace and war fuzzy both at home and abroad. And it is here, I believe, that it is susceptible to charges of hypocrisy. However, in a very technical sense, the U.S. administration can and has argued that since the Iraq had violated the cease-fire provisions ending the first Gulf War, then that cease-fire agreement was voided and hostilities were again in effect. And this gave the U.S. its needed context of war in order to launch its invasion.
The bottom line is whether the United States should be criticizing other countries for their aggressive postures when it itself invaded another country. My problem with our actions is that some of the same criteria used to justify occupying Iraq could also be used in regard to several other countries (that they were helping terrorists and were openly expressing hostility to our country and its objectives). And they know it! That’s why some of them are rushing to acquire nuclear-weapon-capability.
When taking actions on anything, they must be done within a certain context. If a general in Iraq expressed support for the war effort there while he was on active assignment then, then he was doing so within the context of his then-role as an active military officer carrying out his Commander-in-Chief’s mandated policies. Once retired, that general’s context shifted to that of a private citizen, and he expressed his views about the war honestly and critically. The point is that if his context had been the same and he had said different things to suit his own aims, then I would agree that he had been guilty of hypocrisy. As for the United States (or any other sovereign nation for that matter), foreign policy decisions are made in different contexts as well, and some of them may seem to conflict with each other and present an appearance of hypocrisy as well. On 9/11/01, the U.S. was attacked by terrorists on a grand scale, and have since devoted a large portion of its foreign policy to armed conflict against those terrorist organizations deemed culpable, as well as against countries that were adjudged to be aiding them. This is the context of war, which unfortunately seems to happen from time to time. With the rest of the world, the U.S. conducts its foreign policy in a peaceful context, and thus sees itself as a “force” for resolving international disputes peacefully between other countries. The question of hypocrisy comes up in regard to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Was it done in the context of the “War on Terror”, as the Bush Administration claims, or did the U.S. commit an act of war against a peaceful nation? To the second question, consider that Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded two neighboring countries in the span of ten years, used chemical weapons on Iranians in Iran as well as its own citizens, and broke the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that allowed the belligerent Iraqi regime to remain in power. These facts would tend to give credence to the suggestion that Iraq was belligerent, not peaceful. On the other hand, the U.S. never officially declared war against anyone, leaving the delineation between the contexts of peace and war fuzzy both at home and abroad. And it is here, I believe, that it is susceptible to charges of hypocrisy. However, in a very technical sense, the U.S. administration can and has argued that since the Iraq had violated the cease-fire provisions ending the first Gulf War, then that cease-fire agreement was voided and hostilities were again in effect. And this gave the U.S. its needed context of war in order to launch its invasion.
The bottom line is whether the United States should be criticizing other countries for their aggressive postures when it itself invaded another country. My problem with our actions is that some of the same criteria used to justify occupying Iraq could also be used in regard to several other countries (that they were helping terrorists and were openly expressing hostility to our country and its objectives). And they know it! That’s why some of them are rushing to acquire nuclear-weapon-capability.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Nick Saban and Don Shula
I've written earlier about not admiring Alabama head football coach Nick Saban. Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on this gentleman. But let me first explain myself. When I was in my early years as a kid following professional football, there were two teams that I rooted for: the Miami Dolphins and the Baltimore Colts. The Dolphins, during the late 1960s, were an expansion team that, thanks to their general manager Joe Thomas, was being assembled into a complete team that would eventually go on in the early 1970s to Super Bowl glory. Their coach was George Wilson, a nice enough fellow who stumbled with his words in press conferences and stumbled with his team through four losing seasons. In 1969, the Dolphins' fourth year, there had been great expectations of a winning season, even possibly contention for the playoffs. But they foundered badly, finishing last in their division with a 3-10-1 record. And this was with essentially the same team (minus Paul Warfield and a few others) that would go through 1972 undefeated! So, it was decided that Miami needed a new coach for 1970. The Baltimore Colts, on the other hand, had been experiencing great success under their coach of several years, Don Shula. They made it to the NFL title game against Cleveland in 1964, lost only one regular-season game in 1967 (missing the playoffs nevertheless), and had an incredible run in 1968, only to lose to the upstart New York Jets in Super Bowl III. Shula had coached this veteran, increasingly-aging team well and the Baltimore fans had been rewarded with many successful, exciting seasons. But Shula saw the opening in Miami and decided to switch to the Dolphins. Since that involved breaking a contract with the Colts, the Dolphins had to pay a penalty to them in order to hire Shula. Almost instantly, Miami was transformed from a loser to a winner. Baltimore, without Shula, only went on to win the Super Bowl the very next year! The point is that Shula knew that the Colts would be undergoing rebuilding down the road and he felt that someone else who would be there a while should be in charge of it. And he stuck with Miami, coaching the Dolphins for twenty-six years. During that time, they were always competitive, suffering only two losing seasons in that span!
Now let's move up to recent years. After retiring from coaching the Dolphins, Shula became a figure in Dolphins management. The franchise went through coaches Jimmy Johnson and Dave Wannstadt with generally disappointing results (especially with the 4-12 2004 season). Finally, they had an opportunity to hire LSU coach Nick Saban as the new Dolphins coach. Saban was going to be in charge of rebuilding the Dolphins from the ground up, and he projected confidence and commitment to this task. The first season he was coaching (2005), the lowly Dolphins made a late-season charge and won six games in a row, barely missing out on the playoffs. Last year, in only Saban's second season, Miami's "new" quarterback Dante Culpepper suffered a season-ending injury while franchise running back Rickie Williams was suspended for marijuana use. They had a losing season, but they were also still rebuilding under Saban, who demanded almost complete control over his team. He was so intense and fanatical toward his job that when President Bush visited Miami just before the start of the 2006 season and invited him to dinner, he refused him, stating that he had work to do with his team! I am not a fan of George Bush, but he IS our President, and I thought that Saban's act of shunning him like that was awfully tacky. That should have told me something right there about him. Well, at the close of the 2006 season, the University of Alabama fans were almost in open revolt against their team's coaching staff, and the Crimson Tide set out to find a new head coach. And money would be no object. Their target? Why, Nick Saban, of course! For several days, though, Saban would adamantly declare, sometimes angrily, to the press, that he was committed to coaching the Dolphins and wasn't interested in Alabama. Then, suddenly, out of the blue came the announcement that Nick Saban had signed on to become the new Alabama head football coach, for a scandalously high amount of money. And thus he abruptly left his still relatively weak, rebuilding Dolphins team in the lurch. Don Shula, opening himself up to a charge of hypocrisy for his own switch back in 1970, vehemently criticized Saban in the press for his actions. But to me, when Shula switched back in 1970, he had already provided the Baltimore fans with several great seasons (he had coached them through seven years, a considerable time) and left them as a contender. Saban, on the other hand, had centralized the Dolphins operations to be personally run by himself and then abandoned the project (and the city of Miami) after only his second year. He left a franchise in tatters, struggling to find a leftover coach somewhere to come and try to pick up the pieces.
That is why I don't admire Nick Saban. Others are entitled to their own opinions.
Now let's move up to recent years. After retiring from coaching the Dolphins, Shula became a figure in Dolphins management. The franchise went through coaches Jimmy Johnson and Dave Wannstadt with generally disappointing results (especially with the 4-12 2004 season). Finally, they had an opportunity to hire LSU coach Nick Saban as the new Dolphins coach. Saban was going to be in charge of rebuilding the Dolphins from the ground up, and he projected confidence and commitment to this task. The first season he was coaching (2005), the lowly Dolphins made a late-season charge and won six games in a row, barely missing out on the playoffs. Last year, in only Saban's second season, Miami's "new" quarterback Dante Culpepper suffered a season-ending injury while franchise running back Rickie Williams was suspended for marijuana use. They had a losing season, but they were also still rebuilding under Saban, who demanded almost complete control over his team. He was so intense and fanatical toward his job that when President Bush visited Miami just before the start of the 2006 season and invited him to dinner, he refused him, stating that he had work to do with his team! I am not a fan of George Bush, but he IS our President, and I thought that Saban's act of shunning him like that was awfully tacky. That should have told me something right there about him. Well, at the close of the 2006 season, the University of Alabama fans were almost in open revolt against their team's coaching staff, and the Crimson Tide set out to find a new head coach. And money would be no object. Their target? Why, Nick Saban, of course! For several days, though, Saban would adamantly declare, sometimes angrily, to the press, that he was committed to coaching the Dolphins and wasn't interested in Alabama. Then, suddenly, out of the blue came the announcement that Nick Saban had signed on to become the new Alabama head football coach, for a scandalously high amount of money. And thus he abruptly left his still relatively weak, rebuilding Dolphins team in the lurch. Don Shula, opening himself up to a charge of hypocrisy for his own switch back in 1970, vehemently criticized Saban in the press for his actions. But to me, when Shula switched back in 1970, he had already provided the Baltimore fans with several great seasons (he had coached them through seven years, a considerable time) and left them as a contender. Saban, on the other hand, had centralized the Dolphins operations to be personally run by himself and then abandoned the project (and the city of Miami) after only his second year. He left a franchise in tatters, struggling to find a leftover coach somewhere to come and try to pick up the pieces.
That is why I don't admire Nick Saban. Others are entitled to their own opinions.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Pendulum Swings and the Balance Impulse
Although I became aware, at seven years of age in 1963, of our Presidents (with John F. Kennedy being my "first", although I was born during Eisenhower's tenure), I did not follow elections until 1968. Since 1976, when I began to vote, I have voted in every Presidential election (except 1980). So, at least from 1968 on, I feel that I have a pretty good sense as to what the issues were in each race and what the mood of the country was at the time.
One recurring phenomenon that I noticed through the years was that, after a political party, be it Republican or Democrat, had been in office for at least eight years, there would grow within the voting population a sizable number who seemed to swing over to the other side and thus put the opposition party in power. This happened in 1968, 1976, 1992 (after three Republican terms), and 2000. There were specific issues of concern in each election (such as Vietnam, Watergate, and a recession), but I believe that there were two other factors in play. One was "voter fatigue", where people just got tired of looking up on the TV screen and seeing the same old faces saying the same old things. Another, as I see it, was a growing anxiety that the current governing party was in power long enough, and the other party needed to replace them for a while, in order to ensure that political power would not become too entrenched in the hands of one group. For a certain small, but crucial percentage of the electorate, the impulse to "balance" power between the two parties over time would in itself become an important election issue. For several elections during the mid-twentieth century, the Republicans depended unsuccessfully upon this idea in trying to unseat, first, Franklin Roosevelt, and then, to their unexpected chagrin in 1948, Harry S. Truman. But it was this sense of letting the "pendulum swing" back and forth that I believe ultimately led to the Constitutional Amendment that limited a President to two full terms. Still, people fear a party being in power longer than that. This, to me, was an enormous factor contributing to George W. Bush's (highly disputed) victory over Al Gore in 2000. For at that time, if you watch the debates and read about the issues, there really wasn't very much going on then to capture the voters' interest. And Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998-99 didn't seem to hurt Gore at all in his campaign.
And now, here we are again, on the edge of 2008, wondering in which direction the electorate is going to swing this time around. If the current two poll-leaders (Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani) obtain their parties' nominations, it may very well be this almost unconscious desire to "balance" the process and swing the pendulum back in the other direction that will determine the election's outcome.
One recurring phenomenon that I noticed through the years was that, after a political party, be it Republican or Democrat, had been in office for at least eight years, there would grow within the voting population a sizable number who seemed to swing over to the other side and thus put the opposition party in power. This happened in 1968, 1976, 1992 (after three Republican terms), and 2000. There were specific issues of concern in each election (such as Vietnam, Watergate, and a recession), but I believe that there were two other factors in play. One was "voter fatigue", where people just got tired of looking up on the TV screen and seeing the same old faces saying the same old things. Another, as I see it, was a growing anxiety that the current governing party was in power long enough, and the other party needed to replace them for a while, in order to ensure that political power would not become too entrenched in the hands of one group. For a certain small, but crucial percentage of the electorate, the impulse to "balance" power between the two parties over time would in itself become an important election issue. For several elections during the mid-twentieth century, the Republicans depended unsuccessfully upon this idea in trying to unseat, first, Franklin Roosevelt, and then, to their unexpected chagrin in 1948, Harry S. Truman. But it was this sense of letting the "pendulum swing" back and forth that I believe ultimately led to the Constitutional Amendment that limited a President to two full terms. Still, people fear a party being in power longer than that. This, to me, was an enormous factor contributing to George W. Bush's (highly disputed) victory over Al Gore in 2000. For at that time, if you watch the debates and read about the issues, there really wasn't very much going on then to capture the voters' interest. And Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998-99 didn't seem to hurt Gore at all in his campaign.
And now, here we are again, on the edge of 2008, wondering in which direction the electorate is going to swing this time around. If the current two poll-leaders (Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani) obtain their parties' nominations, it may very well be this almost unconscious desire to "balance" the process and swing the pendulum back in the other direction that will determine the election's outcome.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Favorite Songs of 2000
The first year of the new millennium (or the last year of the old millennium, depending on how "nitpicky" you are) saw me listening to a wide range of popular music, from contemporary Christian to Top-40 to hard rock. You may also notice that the first three songs listed are from the ancient band The Monkees. Specifically, they are from their sixth studio album Head, released in 1968 right after their TV series was cancelled, and bought by me in late 1999, to be listened to for the very first time. So, I place it and its songs in my memories for 2000 instead of 1968! Incidentally, one of the album’s tracks (Porpoise Song) actually “appeared” on the brilliant Tom Cruise/Penelope Cruz movie Vanilla Sky a few years ago! And the version of Daddy’s Song (there were two on the CD) that I liked was the one sung by Michael Nesmith. Head was the album with which Peter Tork really broke out and showed his musical songwriting ability. Unfortunately, he quit the group soon thereafter. The Monkees were one of those groups that were belittled and underrated by many as not being legitimate enough. But they impressed me (and the late Frank Zappa) with the quality and diversity of their music when they cranked out SIX studio albums in the span of one and a half years from late 1966 to early 1968! Here is my favorite song list for 2000:
Circle Sky (Monkees)
Can You Dig It (Monkees)
Daddy’s Song (Monkees)
You Can't Erase It (Jars of Clay)
Go Let It Out (Oasis)
I Will Remember You (Sarah McLachlan)
There She Goes (Sixpence None the Richer)
Kiss Me (Sixpence None the Richer)
Natural Blues (Moby)
Someday (Sugar Ray)
Otherside (Chili)
Lord Of The Boards (Guano Apes)
Stupify (Disturbed)
South Side (Moby & Gwen Stefani)
Californication (Red Hot Chili Peppers)
Pass The Flame (John Elefante)
Loser (Three Doors Down)
Take A Look Around (Limp Bizkit)
Hemorrhage (Fuel)
With Arms Wide Open (Creed)
Are You Ready (Creed)
Why Pt. 2 (Collective Soul)
Headwires (Foo Fighters)
Broken Home (Papa Roach)
Rollin' (Limp Bizkit)
Music (Madonna)
Renegades Of Funk (Rage Against the Machine)
Minority (Green Day)
Warning (Green Day)
One Armed Scissor (At the Drive-In)
My favorite song of 2000 was the big hard rock hit (at least in Germany) Lord of the Boards by the Guano Apes, a song touching upon the profound subject of…snowboarding. Right up there with it was Disturbed’s disturbing Stupify, complete with the trademark Disturbed “barks”. The thoroughly obnoxious rap-rock band Limp Bizkit came out in 2000 with my favorite of theirs in Take a Look Around. And speaking of rap-rock, the band Rage Against the Machine went out in a blaze of glory with their swan song, a cover of Renegades of Funk. It’s too bad they split up, because I felt that they were about to become a “supergroup”. Madonna, whom I personally find even more obnoxious than Limp Bizkit, does have an uncanny pop sense for likeable music, and she didn’t disappoint with her song Music. Sixpence None the Richer, usually a contemporary Christian music band, crossed over into the mainstream with their sweet Kiss Me. And the tearjerker of the year award has to go to John Elefante, another contemporary Christian artist, with his touching ode to his father in Pass the Flame.
Circle Sky (Monkees)
Can You Dig It (Monkees)
Daddy’s Song (Monkees)
You Can't Erase It (Jars of Clay)
Go Let It Out (Oasis)
I Will Remember You (Sarah McLachlan)
There She Goes (Sixpence None the Richer)
Kiss Me (Sixpence None the Richer)
Natural Blues (Moby)
Someday (Sugar Ray)
Otherside (Chili)
Lord Of The Boards (Guano Apes)
Stupify (Disturbed)
South Side (Moby & Gwen Stefani)
Californication (Red Hot Chili Peppers)
Pass The Flame (John Elefante)
Loser (Three Doors Down)
Take A Look Around (Limp Bizkit)
Hemorrhage (Fuel)
With Arms Wide Open (Creed)
Are You Ready (Creed)
Why Pt. 2 (Collective Soul)
Headwires (Foo Fighters)
Broken Home (Papa Roach)
Rollin' (Limp Bizkit)
Music (Madonna)
Renegades Of Funk (Rage Against the Machine)
Minority (Green Day)
Warning (Green Day)
One Armed Scissor (At the Drive-In)
My favorite song of 2000 was the big hard rock hit (at least in Germany) Lord of the Boards by the Guano Apes, a song touching upon the profound subject of…snowboarding. Right up there with it was Disturbed’s disturbing Stupify, complete with the trademark Disturbed “barks”. The thoroughly obnoxious rap-rock band Limp Bizkit came out in 2000 with my favorite of theirs in Take a Look Around. And speaking of rap-rock, the band Rage Against the Machine went out in a blaze of glory with their swan song, a cover of Renegades of Funk. It’s too bad they split up, because I felt that they were about to become a “supergroup”. Madonna, whom I personally find even more obnoxious than Limp Bizkit, does have an uncanny pop sense for likeable music, and she didn’t disappoint with her song Music. Sixpence None the Richer, usually a contemporary Christian music band, crossed over into the mainstream with their sweet Kiss Me. And the tearjerker of the year award has to go to John Elefante, another contemporary Christian artist, with his touching ode to his father in Pass the Flame.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Naomi Wolf and Her New Book
Renowned feminist author Naomi Wolf has recently written a book titled The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2007). She recently appeared on a C-Span discussion of this book, giving me my first opportunity to examine her worldview and opinions.
Naomi Wolf came across as a talented, persuasive, and articulate speaker. The essence of her book is that there are ten ways that a governing regime can take to destroy an open society (such as ours) with its freedoms (especially of dissent). Among them are to create a terrible enemy (both within and without), intimidate those critical of policy, question patriotism of dissenters (equate criticism with treason), intensify surveillance of citizens, make the press subservient to the government's interests, and ignore the law when convenient. Using these and others, Wolf compared what she saw as abuses by the present Bush administration to the outrages in human rights violations committed by past dictators such as Hitler and Stalin. I have a problem with that: Bush will be out of office in January, 2009, no doubt to pursue a career of public speaking, legacy-forging, and wealth accumulation. But he will no longer be President. The dictators Wolf alluded to were there for the durations of their lives, and the degree of their oppression of their own people far, far surpassed anything going on here in America. So her emphasis on Bush as the focus of her criticism misses the point, at least to me. The real problem seems to be the laying in place of precedents that some future administration, perhaps ten to twenty years down the line, may possibly abuse for its own benefit by really suppressing the freedoms of Americans. And that could happen at the hands of a Republican, Democratic, or Independent administration.
When Wolf brought up the Andrew Meyer tasering fiasco that happened here in Gainesville a few weeks ago, she accused the local University Police of doing the work of Governor Jeb Bush in suppressing dissent. When the questioner corrected her by stating that Jeb Bush was no longer the governor of Florida, she became momentarily flustered and retreated, saying something to the effect that Bush's power was still there. This, to me, was very revealing, because it showed to me that Wolf's motivation in writing her book and promoting it was primarily to bash Bush and subscribe to a fringe belief that he is trying to take over the country (along with the shadowy people behind him). In this sense, she is not too far removed from the conspiratorialist mania that Alex Jones promotes.
The general points that Naomi Wolf brings up, regarding how citizens need to beware of steps that their government takes to remove their freedoms and rights, are legitimate and compelling. Having said that, I get the sense that she started her idea for the book from actions from the Bush administration that she objected to and then tied them to heinous totalitarian regimes, repeatedly placing the President on the same level as monsters like Hitler and Stalin. That I find unacceptable and intellectually dishonest. But I found Naomi Wolf to be interesting enough that I may just try to get a hold of that book of hers. If I do, you may see some more entries here regarding this topic.
Naomi Wolf came across as a talented, persuasive, and articulate speaker. The essence of her book is that there are ten ways that a governing regime can take to destroy an open society (such as ours) with its freedoms (especially of dissent). Among them are to create a terrible enemy (both within and without), intimidate those critical of policy, question patriotism of dissenters (equate criticism with treason), intensify surveillance of citizens, make the press subservient to the government's interests, and ignore the law when convenient. Using these and others, Wolf compared what she saw as abuses by the present Bush administration to the outrages in human rights violations committed by past dictators such as Hitler and Stalin. I have a problem with that: Bush will be out of office in January, 2009, no doubt to pursue a career of public speaking, legacy-forging, and wealth accumulation. But he will no longer be President. The dictators Wolf alluded to were there for the durations of their lives, and the degree of their oppression of their own people far, far surpassed anything going on here in America. So her emphasis on Bush as the focus of her criticism misses the point, at least to me. The real problem seems to be the laying in place of precedents that some future administration, perhaps ten to twenty years down the line, may possibly abuse for its own benefit by really suppressing the freedoms of Americans. And that could happen at the hands of a Republican, Democratic, or Independent administration.
When Wolf brought up the Andrew Meyer tasering fiasco that happened here in Gainesville a few weeks ago, she accused the local University Police of doing the work of Governor Jeb Bush in suppressing dissent. When the questioner corrected her by stating that Jeb Bush was no longer the governor of Florida, she became momentarily flustered and retreated, saying something to the effect that Bush's power was still there. This, to me, was very revealing, because it showed to me that Wolf's motivation in writing her book and promoting it was primarily to bash Bush and subscribe to a fringe belief that he is trying to take over the country (along with the shadowy people behind him). In this sense, she is not too far removed from the conspiratorialist mania that Alex Jones promotes.
The general points that Naomi Wolf brings up, regarding how citizens need to beware of steps that their government takes to remove their freedoms and rights, are legitimate and compelling. Having said that, I get the sense that she started her idea for the book from actions from the Bush administration that she objected to and then tied them to heinous totalitarian regimes, repeatedly placing the President on the same level as monsters like Hitler and Stalin. That I find unacceptable and intellectually dishonest. But I found Naomi Wolf to be interesting enough that I may just try to get a hold of that book of hers. If I do, you may see some more entries here regarding this topic.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Coping With Tedious Situations
Have you ever been out shopping with someone, doing something that you don’t necessarily want to be doing, but having to cope with it just the same? For me, going to one of those “big” department-like stores like Target or Wal-Mart and spending any appreciable amount of time there fits this description aptly. And I’ve developed some coping strategies when I’m basically in a “waiting for others” mode. One is to explore the store itself, looking over its inventory even in areas that I have no interest in. Another strategy is to look for merchandise that carries part of its label in other languages (usually Spanish and/or French). Or, say, when I’m stuck in the clothing sections, I might check out various labels and see how many different countries the clothing that they sell is from. Of course, if the store has anything like a diner, then I could sit there and study a paper or two that I brought along, or do a puzzle. Or go to their book section, pick out a book that I know will probably always be there, and go through it, a few pages each visit. The bottom line is that I’m looking for ways to make the most of my visit without getting too exasperated.
Or take driving, especially in slow, arduous traffic. I obviously am restricted as to what I can do. But I can carry a foreign-language cassette with me and play it then for practice. Or listen to music, news, or talk shows on the radio. I can rehearse out the upcoming events of my immediate future so that I’ll be more likely to follow through with them successfully. Or come up with some writing ideas for this blog! After all, in just about anything that involves waiting over a span of time, I can simply think about various topics that suit me. Naturally, if I’m driving then I can’t immediately write down any significant thoughts, but since I’m in the habit of carrying a pocket notebook, then at full stops at traffic lights I can quickly jot things down in abbreviated form.
I have long lists of assorted items (songs, TV episodes, movies, mathematics topics, historical battles, books, short stories, rulers, governors, senators, foreign language vocabulary, and constellations) that I will go over in my mind during particularly drawn-out, boring times on the road or at work when I’m performing duties that are of a more or less repetitive, automatic (for me) nature. The object here is to turn as much of time into moments that I feel that I have some degree of control and volition over.
The examples I’ve given just scratch the surface. There are plenty of situations that I find myself in that I’d prefer not to be in. I can either try to avoid them, or if I can’t, come up with some mitigating strategies that allow me to at least survive them without going bonkers!
Or take driving, especially in slow, arduous traffic. I obviously am restricted as to what I can do. But I can carry a foreign-language cassette with me and play it then for practice. Or listen to music, news, or talk shows on the radio. I can rehearse out the upcoming events of my immediate future so that I’ll be more likely to follow through with them successfully. Or come up with some writing ideas for this blog! After all, in just about anything that involves waiting over a span of time, I can simply think about various topics that suit me. Naturally, if I’m driving then I can’t immediately write down any significant thoughts, but since I’m in the habit of carrying a pocket notebook, then at full stops at traffic lights I can quickly jot things down in abbreviated form.
I have long lists of assorted items (songs, TV episodes, movies, mathematics topics, historical battles, books, short stories, rulers, governors, senators, foreign language vocabulary, and constellations) that I will go over in my mind during particularly drawn-out, boring times on the road or at work when I’m performing duties that are of a more or less repetitive, automatic (for me) nature. The object here is to turn as much of time into moments that I feel that I have some degree of control and volition over.
The examples I’ve given just scratch the surface. There are plenty of situations that I find myself in that I’d prefer not to be in. I can either try to avoid them, or if I can’t, come up with some mitigating strategies that allow me to at least survive them without going bonkers!
Monday, October 22, 2007
Monday Newsbreak: 10/22
To be perfectly truthful, as the great, late Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill used to say, the news of late has not brought much to me in the way of interesting stories.
--I caught an article from the Chicago Tribune published in the Gainesville Sun that now says that moderate drinking, contrary to popular opinion, can put you at risk for various cancers. This is just a small part of a much larger conclusion I have arrived at long ago: being born leads to death!
--The Democrats failed to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, so it's back to the drawing board with that. The problem with Bush's veto is not that he doesn't want to help poor children: he actually wants to increase this program's funding and reach. No, the problem is that our President never factors into his decisions the debilitating expense he is incurring with his "freedom" war in Iraq, while at the same time he puts on the hat of "fiscal conservatism" whenever the domestic interests of the American people are at the heart of the issue.
--There's a drought that's so severe in Tennessee, northern Georgia and Alabama that the lake supplying water to Atlanta, Lake Lanier, is almost completely dried up. What's going to happen when they run out of water?
--Russian President Putin, taking a break from his scheming to retain political control over his country after his term ends, visited Iran and made menacing noises to the West about how no one had better attack his buddies over there. I think he's right, but not because I give a hoot about what Russia might do. Right now, Putin's just ratcheting up the nationalist bravado talk in preparation for the upcoming Russian parliament elections (he's bucking for Premier). Our American candidates all like to talk tough to the rest of the world as well before elections. Instead of socially shunning the Iranian leadership, our leaders should be taking every opportunity available for dialogue, both publicly and behind closed doors. And Iran and the United States desperately need to reestablish the friendly cultural ties that benefited both nations both in terms of their economies and their collective security.
--The ridiculous presidential campaign continues, with ridiculous debates, ridiculous questions, and ridiculous knee-jerk statements by the candidates (regardless of party). God bless Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback for having the (un)common sense to realize his campaign was going nowhere and to graciously drop out!
--There's a scare going around, especially in health care facilities, schools, and prisons, about an outbreak of a lethal, antibiotic-resistant strain of staph bacteria. Congress just voted to throw $5 million at the problem, so I'm sure that solved everything (not)! Proper personal hygiene, especially frequent washing of hands, is probably the best line of defense (besides avoiding health care facilities, schools, and prisons).
--In NFL football, my Miami Dolphins have decided to call this season a rebuilding one after failing to win a single game in seven tries. I wonder whether anyone can beat New England this year, but I remember back in 1985 when people were saying the same thing about Mike Ditka's incredible Chicago Bears, who lost unexpectedly late in the season to the Dolphins (who used to have a good team). That kind of game can happen to the Patriots as well, but it's obviously going to have to be done by a different team than Miami!
--Right now, the most interesting programming I watch on TV is college football, which I believe has turned into America's premier spectator sport. Almost nobody, except in the cities directly involved, is paying any attention to the baseball championship playoffs. And the most exciting college football in the country is being played in the Southeastern Conference!
--I caught an article from the Chicago Tribune published in the Gainesville Sun that now says that moderate drinking, contrary to popular opinion, can put you at risk for various cancers. This is just a small part of a much larger conclusion I have arrived at long ago: being born leads to death!
--The Democrats failed to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, so it's back to the drawing board with that. The problem with Bush's veto is not that he doesn't want to help poor children: he actually wants to increase this program's funding and reach. No, the problem is that our President never factors into his decisions the debilitating expense he is incurring with his "freedom" war in Iraq, while at the same time he puts on the hat of "fiscal conservatism" whenever the domestic interests of the American people are at the heart of the issue.
--There's a drought that's so severe in Tennessee, northern Georgia and Alabama that the lake supplying water to Atlanta, Lake Lanier, is almost completely dried up. What's going to happen when they run out of water?
--Russian President Putin, taking a break from his scheming to retain political control over his country after his term ends, visited Iran and made menacing noises to the West about how no one had better attack his buddies over there. I think he's right, but not because I give a hoot about what Russia might do. Right now, Putin's just ratcheting up the nationalist bravado talk in preparation for the upcoming Russian parliament elections (he's bucking for Premier). Our American candidates all like to talk tough to the rest of the world as well before elections. Instead of socially shunning the Iranian leadership, our leaders should be taking every opportunity available for dialogue, both publicly and behind closed doors. And Iran and the United States desperately need to reestablish the friendly cultural ties that benefited both nations both in terms of their economies and their collective security.
--The ridiculous presidential campaign continues, with ridiculous debates, ridiculous questions, and ridiculous knee-jerk statements by the candidates (regardless of party). God bless Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback for having the (un)common sense to realize his campaign was going nowhere and to graciously drop out!
--There's a scare going around, especially in health care facilities, schools, and prisons, about an outbreak of a lethal, antibiotic-resistant strain of staph bacteria. Congress just voted to throw $5 million at the problem, so I'm sure that solved everything (not)! Proper personal hygiene, especially frequent washing of hands, is probably the best line of defense (besides avoiding health care facilities, schools, and prisons).
--In NFL football, my Miami Dolphins have decided to call this season a rebuilding one after failing to win a single game in seven tries. I wonder whether anyone can beat New England this year, but I remember back in 1985 when people were saying the same thing about Mike Ditka's incredible Chicago Bears, who lost unexpectedly late in the season to the Dolphins (who used to have a good team). That kind of game can happen to the Patriots as well, but it's obviously going to have to be done by a different team than Miami!
--Right now, the most interesting programming I watch on TV is college football, which I believe has turned into America's premier spectator sport. Almost nobody, except in the cities directly involved, is paying any attention to the baseball championship playoffs. And the most exciting college football in the country is being played in the Southeastern Conference!
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Churches, Halloween, and Thanksgiving
When I was a young boy in the 1960s, my sister and I would go out on Halloween night in our neighborhood (with parental supervision) and engage in the tradition of trick or treat. We'd usually just wear cheap masks that we got from a local store like G.C Murphy or Woolworth, sometimes along with makeshift robes or sheets over our shoulders. Then we'd walk around our neighborhood with other groups of treat-or-treaters, going up to homes that seemed to be lit up and saying hi to people that we normally didn't talk to. It seemed, in my opinion, to bring the neighborhood closer together in a spirit of simple, good-natured fun and celebration. To me, Halloween was then a children's holiday, and its spirit was like that of Charles Schultz's Peanuts Halloween TV special (when Linus invoked the name of the Great Pumpkin).
In the years since, Halloween has gone off on two tangents. One is that of "horror", where mad-slashers and extremely evil spirits pervade our TV and movie screens, and theme parks promise "horrific" experiences for its customers. The other is the resurgence of paganism, in particular the Wicca religion, which has transformed this traditionally secular holiday into a religious observance (placing it in conflict with some adherents of other faiths). Both of these two "divergences" with regard to Halloween, combined with a surge of strict Christian fundamentalism in this country, have made the holiday rather controversial, especially for those who go to churches that condemn it. Many of these churches have lit upon the tactic of offering a "replacement" celebration on their own grounds, usually on the same night as Halloween. Called various names, such as October, Fall, Autumn, or Harvest Festival, it usually is conducted in the same "fun" tradition that we used to enjoy as kids (although some warped churches have horror exhibits to scare "sinners" back into the fold). But I'm sensing that maybe this strategy wasn't such a great idea, after all.
For by creating substitute "Fall Festival" holidays, these conservative Christian groups have unwittingly raised the significance of Halloween as well, with respect to our holiday calendar. And now, because churches celebrate the Fall season around Halloween, coupled with the explosion of materialism surrounding this holiday, the more subdued Thanksgiving holiday has diminished in comparison. It seems (to me), as the years draw on, the aftermath of Halloween, instead of leading up to the excitement and anticipation of Thanksgiving, has given way to the full-blown start of the Christmas season, with Thanksgiving increasingly becoming more of an intermediary "blip" between the two.
That's too bad, because I've always felt a personal fondness for Thanksgiving and have some good memories of this holiday, which brings people together and emphasizes true virtues such as generosity, gratitude, and kindness. Even where I work, it used to be rare to schedule employees to work on Thanksgiving Day (even if they volunteered). But nowadays, even those who want the holiday off often must lay aside their celebration plans and come to work (even though my company, the US Postal Service, does not deliver mail on Thanksgiving). I say, let's bring back Thanksgiving as a preeminent, meaningful, and respected holiday! You can have your "Fall Festival": I don't need it.
In the years since, Halloween has gone off on two tangents. One is that of "horror", where mad-slashers and extremely evil spirits pervade our TV and movie screens, and theme parks promise "horrific" experiences for its customers. The other is the resurgence of paganism, in particular the Wicca religion, which has transformed this traditionally secular holiday into a religious observance (placing it in conflict with some adherents of other faiths). Both of these two "divergences" with regard to Halloween, combined with a surge of strict Christian fundamentalism in this country, have made the holiday rather controversial, especially for those who go to churches that condemn it. Many of these churches have lit upon the tactic of offering a "replacement" celebration on their own grounds, usually on the same night as Halloween. Called various names, such as October, Fall, Autumn, or Harvest Festival, it usually is conducted in the same "fun" tradition that we used to enjoy as kids (although some warped churches have horror exhibits to scare "sinners" back into the fold). But I'm sensing that maybe this strategy wasn't such a great idea, after all.
For by creating substitute "Fall Festival" holidays, these conservative Christian groups have unwittingly raised the significance of Halloween as well, with respect to our holiday calendar. And now, because churches celebrate the Fall season around Halloween, coupled with the explosion of materialism surrounding this holiday, the more subdued Thanksgiving holiday has diminished in comparison. It seems (to me), as the years draw on, the aftermath of Halloween, instead of leading up to the excitement and anticipation of Thanksgiving, has given way to the full-blown start of the Christmas season, with Thanksgiving increasingly becoming more of an intermediary "blip" between the two.
That's too bad, because I've always felt a personal fondness for Thanksgiving and have some good memories of this holiday, which brings people together and emphasizes true virtues such as generosity, gratitude, and kindness. Even where I work, it used to be rare to schedule employees to work on Thanksgiving Day (even if they volunteered). But nowadays, even those who want the holiday off often must lay aside their celebration plans and come to work (even though my company, the US Postal Service, does not deliver mail on Thanksgiving). I say, let's bring back Thanksgiving as a preeminent, meaningful, and respected holiday! You can have your "Fall Festival": I don't need it.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
I-75 Experience
A week ago, I visited Knoxville, Tennessee and Lexington, Kentucky with my family. We went by car, going almost the entire way down Interstate-75. We covered the 1,436 mile round trip uneventfully, although the road conditions in southern Georgia were appalling, with around eighty miles of heavily-traveled I-75 traffic being slowed and boxed together by two-lane road construction. The roads were very narrow (with semi’s thundering down them, jutting over into the adjacent lanes) and extremely bumpy, with long stretches of barricades and concrete walls. At one point, in Adel, Georgia, we were going to pull off the road for some food, but the exit was so confusing because of the construction and barricades that we just stayed on the road until conditions cleared up. So the businesses of Adel lost our business (and probably that of many others) because of this. Personally, I don’t see the necessity of tying up so much road-length at one time. Why not concentrate a big effort on repairing one stretch at a time? Ultimately, the responsibility for this sort of thing, I believe, rests with the Governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue, whom I wish the good citizens of that great state (in which I was born) would toss out of office next election! Perdue’s a Republican, so let them replace him with another Republican, if that’s what they want! Just get someone in there who can keep their traffic lanes (and businesses) open!
The parts of the drive that were in Tennessee and Kentucky were striking in that, although there was some construction going on in those states, it was limited to small stretches. The driving there was much better. I also noticed that the Georgia State Police, to a much greater degree than their counterparts in Florida, Tennessee, and Kentucky, were preying upon motorists, with as many as three flashing squad cars at a time on the side of the road per victim. A little overkill, wouldn’t you say? Our experiences in Tennessee and Kentucky were, by contrast, wonderful!
Unless one slips around through the panhandle into Alabama, all road traffic emanating from Florida must travel through Georgia. And I find it personally offensive that this state would concentrate its aggressive ticketing on this crucial artery that we must travel through to get to other states, as well as caring so little about the quality and safety of this “national” road.
The parts of the drive that were in Tennessee and Kentucky were striking in that, although there was some construction going on in those states, it was limited to small stretches. The driving there was much better. I also noticed that the Georgia State Police, to a much greater degree than their counterparts in Florida, Tennessee, and Kentucky, were preying upon motorists, with as many as three flashing squad cars at a time on the side of the road per victim. A little overkill, wouldn’t you say? Our experiences in Tennessee and Kentucky were, by contrast, wonderful!
Unless one slips around through the panhandle into Alabama, all road traffic emanating from Florida must travel through Georgia. And I find it personally offensive that this state would concentrate its aggressive ticketing on this crucial artery that we must travel through to get to other states, as well as caring so little about the quality and safety of this “national” road.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Topsy-Turvy College Football
While my family and I were visiting relatives in Lexington, Kentucky, the top-ranked Louisiana State University college football team was in town to play the much-improved University of Kentucky Wildcats. I watched the entire game, which began UK’s way but gradually looked as if LSU would pull away to an easy victory. But then, something happened in the second half. Kentucky unexpectedly began to show new life and energy, while LSU made stupid mistakes that aided their opponent. At the end of regulation, the game was knotted up at 27, and overtime was called. With each overtime period, LSU committed a crucial penalty that kept the Wildcats alive in the game. Finally, in the third overtime period, Kentucky was able to score and then stop the Tigers to pull off an unexpected upset! Naturally, like they usually do whenever they pull off an upset at home, the Kentucky fans swept onto the field and pulled down their own goalposts! Since my Florida Gators will be there this Saturday to play them, I hope UF will be able to win and save them their “new” goalposts. The irony about the LSU-Kentucky game was that LSU let a solid lead disintegrate in the fourth quarter through sloppy play, just as the Gators blew their lead against the Tigers the previous Saturday.
Not only did #1 LSU lose, but so did #2 California a little while later (against Oregon State). That left Ohio State, South Florida, and Boston College the three top-ranked teams in the country (I’ve already extolled USF and BC on previous entries)! Of course, last night South Florida had to go and lose to Rutgers, further muddling up the picture.
This weekend will see some important matchups. The greatest, for me, will be Florida vs. Kentucky and Tennessee vs. Alabama (at Tuscaloosa). The Gators need to win the remainder of their Southeastern Conference games while the UT Volunteers (whose coach Phillip Fulmer I admire) need to lose at least one more game. So this Saturday, I’ll be pulling for Alabama (whose coach Nick Saban I don’t admire), something I hardly ever do!
Not only did #1 LSU lose, but so did #2 California a little while later (against Oregon State). That left Ohio State, South Florida, and Boston College the three top-ranked teams in the country (I’ve already extolled USF and BC on previous entries)! Of course, last night South Florida had to go and lose to Rutgers, further muddling up the picture.
This weekend will see some important matchups. The greatest, for me, will be Florida vs. Kentucky and Tennessee vs. Alabama (at Tuscaloosa). The Gators need to win the remainder of their Southeastern Conference games while the UT Volunteers (whose coach Phillip Fulmer I admire) need to lose at least one more game. So this Saturday, I’ll be pulling for Alabama (whose coach Nick Saban I don’t admire), something I hardly ever do!
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Favorite Songs of 2001
The year 2001 saw me listening to the radio on mainstream rock station 103.7-WRUF “Rock-104” and mainstream “Top Forty” station 103.5 “Kiss-105”. As you can see by the following list from that year, my favorite songs run a broad range in terms of genre:
Don't Tell Me (Madonna)
Imitation Of Life (REM)
One Step Closer (Linkin Park)
Beautiful Day (U2)
Jaded (Aerosmith)
Voices (Disturbed)
Breathless (The Corrs)
Drive (Incubus)
My Way (Limp Biskit)
Schism (Tool)
Play (Jennifer Lopez)
I Did It (Dave Matthews Band)
Your Disease (Saliva)
Make Me Bad (Korn)
Bodies (Drowning Pool)
What A Day (Nonpoint)
History Maker (Delirious?)
This Life (unknown)
Duck And Run (Three Doors Down)
Hashpipe (Weezer)
The Space Between (Dave Matthews Band)
Dig In (Lenny Kravitz)
Chop Suey (System Of A Down)
Only Time (Enya)
How Do You Do It (Incubus)
Wish You Were Here (Incubus)
Nice To Know You (Incubus)
Whenever, Wherever (Shakira)
Hero (Enrique Iglesias)
Elevation (U2)
My favorite song of the year (back then) was Enya’s soothing Only Time (with two different versions, both played a lot on the radio). REM released their great (to me) album Reveal in 2001, although I didn’t purchase the CD until the following year. The track Imitation of Life received some moderate airplay, and I moderately liked it (then), hardly suspecting that it would grow into one of my all-time favorites (at #13). Korn came up with a great, relentless song in Make Me Bad. My other favorite hard-rockers were Schism by Tool, Hashpipe by Weezer, and Chop Suey by System of a Down. U2 continued with its excellence by releasing Beautiful Day and Elevation, two vastly different (but both compelling) pieces (with cool accompanying videos). And the obvious choice of tearjerker of the year award went to Enrique Iglesias and his Hero which, although originally completely unassociated with the events of 9/11, came to be identified with the tragedy and the fallen (as well as surviving) heroes at Ground Zero.
Don't Tell Me (Madonna)
Imitation Of Life (REM)
One Step Closer (Linkin Park)
Beautiful Day (U2)
Jaded (Aerosmith)
Voices (Disturbed)
Breathless (The Corrs)
Drive (Incubus)
My Way (Limp Biskit)
Schism (Tool)
Play (Jennifer Lopez)
I Did It (Dave Matthews Band)
Your Disease (Saliva)
Make Me Bad (Korn)
Bodies (Drowning Pool)
What A Day (Nonpoint)
History Maker (Delirious?)
This Life (unknown)
Duck And Run (Three Doors Down)
Hashpipe (Weezer)
The Space Between (Dave Matthews Band)
Dig In (Lenny Kravitz)
Chop Suey (System Of A Down)
Only Time (Enya)
How Do You Do It (Incubus)
Wish You Were Here (Incubus)
Nice To Know You (Incubus)
Whenever, Wherever (Shakira)
Hero (Enrique Iglesias)
Elevation (U2)
My favorite song of the year (back then) was Enya’s soothing Only Time (with two different versions, both played a lot on the radio). REM released their great (to me) album Reveal in 2001, although I didn’t purchase the CD until the following year. The track Imitation of Life received some moderate airplay, and I moderately liked it (then), hardly suspecting that it would grow into one of my all-time favorites (at #13). Korn came up with a great, relentless song in Make Me Bad. My other favorite hard-rockers were Schism by Tool, Hashpipe by Weezer, and Chop Suey by System of a Down. U2 continued with its excellence by releasing Beautiful Day and Elevation, two vastly different (but both compelling) pieces (with cool accompanying videos). And the obvious choice of tearjerker of the year award went to Enrique Iglesias and his Hero which, although originally completely unassociated with the events of 9/11, came to be identified with the tragedy and the fallen (as well as surviving) heroes at Ground Zero.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Blog Half-Year Reflections and Break
It's now been six months since I've begun this blog. If you're one of my readers (and I assume you are, since you're reading this), I sincerely hope that you have gotten something of worth out of at least one of the articles that I have written. Sometimes it's been very easy for me to find a topic to write about. But I also often have periods when the writing ideas come slowly, if at all. I plan to keep plugging away at this project, though, realizing that the discipline of keeping a sort of day-to-day journal is healthy and may help me to launch into more serious writing.
For the next few days, my family and I will be travelling to Tennessee and Kentucky to attend a wedding and visit some relatives. I'm planning to resume this blog on Thursday, October 18 with my "Favorite Songs of 2001". Until then, feel free to read any of the 180+ articles in my archives!
For the next few days, my family and I will be travelling to Tennessee and Kentucky to attend a wedding and visit some relatives. I'm planning to resume this blog on Thursday, October 18 with my "Favorite Songs of 2001". Until then, feel free to read any of the 180+ articles in my archives!
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Reading on the Eights: 10/10
During the past eight weeks, I went through the last six books of a popular children's series, two science fiction novels, a "legal" thriller, and of course, a few of Stephen King's novels.
Off and on for the last year or two, I've been reading Lemony Snicket's (real name Daniel Handler) A Series of Unfortunate Events, a frustrating series relating the ordeals of the three Baudelaire orphans as they tried to escaped the clutches of evil Count Olaf. I survived the first seven books and then got bogged down in the eighth, The Hostile Hospital. Well, I decided one day just to check out all of the rest in the series from the library. Then I just plowed right through each volume, starting with the aforementioned one. Then came The Carnivorous Carnival, The Slippery Slope, The Grim Grotto, The Penultimate Peril, and The End. Whew! I'm glad that's over with! Mr. Snicket (Handler) did introduce a lot of new vocabulary items in his series, so if you're into expanding your "word power", then Snicket's the source! My favorite new word? Widdershins!
I continued reading an Isaac Asimov work, his futuristic robot novel The Caves of Steel. I plan to start up soon on his follow-up story, The Naked Sun. Good stuff! Like many other authors in the genre, Asimov had built up a complete alternate universe of the future, spanning many thousands of years, that he filled up with assorted stories. Speaking of science fiction, I picked up a copy of Douglas Adams's satirical masterpiece The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I'd seen the earlier-made miniseries based on it, and reading the book brought back some funny memories. I plan to obtain and read the next book in this series.
I decided to try a popular author whose works I had yet to experience. John Grisham was my choice, and The Pelican Brief was the novel. It was very enjoyable, although I thought the ending was a bit of a fizzle. At least for this story, Grisham's style of writing reminded me a little of Stephen King's.
And speaking of the King, the remainder of my readings for the past eight weeks were of his novels. I read Carrie, Dreamcatcher, Cujo, and The Dark Half. All were good, although Dreamcatcher stood out the most (it had an epic, science fiction feel to it). I believe that all four stories were made into movies, but I only saw parts of Carrie. And the little that I saw differed substantially from the book. Cujo and The Dark Half were actually connected by a common character. And all four novels were naturally set in Stephen King's home state of Maine. I've just started reading his fantasy novel The Eyes of the Dragon (which doesn't seem to be set in Maine).
Off and on for the last year or two, I've been reading Lemony Snicket's (real name Daniel Handler) A Series of Unfortunate Events, a frustrating series relating the ordeals of the three Baudelaire orphans as they tried to escaped the clutches of evil Count Olaf. I survived the first seven books and then got bogged down in the eighth, The Hostile Hospital. Well, I decided one day just to check out all of the rest in the series from the library. Then I just plowed right through each volume, starting with the aforementioned one. Then came The Carnivorous Carnival, The Slippery Slope, The Grim Grotto, The Penultimate Peril, and The End. Whew! I'm glad that's over with! Mr. Snicket (Handler) did introduce a lot of new vocabulary items in his series, so if you're into expanding your "word power", then Snicket's the source! My favorite new word? Widdershins!
I continued reading an Isaac Asimov work, his futuristic robot novel The Caves of Steel. I plan to start up soon on his follow-up story, The Naked Sun. Good stuff! Like many other authors in the genre, Asimov had built up a complete alternate universe of the future, spanning many thousands of years, that he filled up with assorted stories. Speaking of science fiction, I picked up a copy of Douglas Adams's satirical masterpiece The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I'd seen the earlier-made miniseries based on it, and reading the book brought back some funny memories. I plan to obtain and read the next book in this series.
I decided to try a popular author whose works I had yet to experience. John Grisham was my choice, and The Pelican Brief was the novel. It was very enjoyable, although I thought the ending was a bit of a fizzle. At least for this story, Grisham's style of writing reminded me a little of Stephen King's.
And speaking of the King, the remainder of my readings for the past eight weeks were of his novels. I read Carrie, Dreamcatcher, Cujo, and The Dark Half. All were good, although Dreamcatcher stood out the most (it had an epic, science fiction feel to it). I believe that all four stories were made into movies, but I only saw parts of Carrie. And the little that I saw differed substantially from the book. Cujo and The Dark Half were actually connected by a common character. And all four novels were naturally set in Stephen King's home state of Maine. I've just started reading his fantasy novel The Eyes of the Dragon (which doesn't seem to be set in Maine).
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Hurricane Elena
As the hurricane season drags on, it’s increasingly looking as if we (in northern Florida) are going to be spared once again. And being in Gainesville, the only way that we could really be devastated by a strong hurricane would be if it came point blank at us from the Gulf of Mexico, coming ashore at Cedar Key. And that actually almost happened in August, 1985!
I remember that I had been working late on my job one Friday night and had checked out the status of Hurricane Elena, which was fomenting out in the middle of the Gulf. The projected path had it going north and hitting around the Pensacola-Mobile area sometime Saturday or Sunday. I was especially tired that night and slept in quite late in the morning, waking up at about 11:30 AM. I thought, hey, I think I’ll just mosey on down to the Publix that was across the field from where I lived and buy me a couple of their tasty doughnuts to start my day off right! Fortunately, I just rode my bicycle over there, because the parking lot was packed solid, with several cars driving around looking for empty spots. And Publix was packed like I’ve never seen it! I asked someone there what was going on and he said that Hurricane Elena was just off the coast from Cedar Key and headed straight for Gainesville! Well, living in an apartment, I figured that my landlords could take care of their own property. I wasn’t exactly in the mental state to dash around scooping up items like water and batteries (and there probably weren’t any left anyway), so I just got my two doughnuts and got in what I saw as the shortest check-out line (they fortunately were running all of the registers). As I stood there, I heard someone far behind me say loudly, “Excuse me, sir, the line goes back here!” I looked and there was a long line going halfway down the aisle toward the back of the store! I meekly trudged all the way back to the end of the line and then said to myself, “Oh, forget it (only I was muttering in much stronger language)! I laid my bag of doughnuts on the shelf and left the store. I just hung around my apartment and calmly waited for the torrent to come sweep us away. Only it didn’t: Hurricane Elena, after it had suddenly changed direction and sped toward us, just as suddenly screeched to a complete stop and hovered a few miles out in the Gulf for about a day! Then, it changed directions and ended up hitting the Pensacola-Mobile-Mississippi area anyway!
Gainesville has been “hit” from the east, albeit very rarely. In 1964 (when I was living in Hollywood), Hurricane Dora came straight in from the Atlantic and blasted Lake City, causing flooding and wind damage in Gainesville. The 2004 hurricanes Frances and Jeanne (to be discussed in greater detail in a later article) came over much land from the southeast and did not score direct hits over Gainesville. Gainesville lies a little closer to the Gulf than the Atlantic and is much more vulnerable to a tropical storm strike from the southwest. I’m actually quite surprised that we’ve been spared a direct, devastating hit from a hurricane all these years. But it almost happened in 1985!
I remember that I had been working late on my job one Friday night and had checked out the status of Hurricane Elena, which was fomenting out in the middle of the Gulf. The projected path had it going north and hitting around the Pensacola-Mobile area sometime Saturday or Sunday. I was especially tired that night and slept in quite late in the morning, waking up at about 11:30 AM. I thought, hey, I think I’ll just mosey on down to the Publix that was across the field from where I lived and buy me a couple of their tasty doughnuts to start my day off right! Fortunately, I just rode my bicycle over there, because the parking lot was packed solid, with several cars driving around looking for empty spots. And Publix was packed like I’ve never seen it! I asked someone there what was going on and he said that Hurricane Elena was just off the coast from Cedar Key and headed straight for Gainesville! Well, living in an apartment, I figured that my landlords could take care of their own property. I wasn’t exactly in the mental state to dash around scooping up items like water and batteries (and there probably weren’t any left anyway), so I just got my two doughnuts and got in what I saw as the shortest check-out line (they fortunately were running all of the registers). As I stood there, I heard someone far behind me say loudly, “Excuse me, sir, the line goes back here!” I looked and there was a long line going halfway down the aisle toward the back of the store! I meekly trudged all the way back to the end of the line and then said to myself, “Oh, forget it (only I was muttering in much stronger language)! I laid my bag of doughnuts on the shelf and left the store. I just hung around my apartment and calmly waited for the torrent to come sweep us away. Only it didn’t: Hurricane Elena, after it had suddenly changed direction and sped toward us, just as suddenly screeched to a complete stop and hovered a few miles out in the Gulf for about a day! Then, it changed directions and ended up hitting the Pensacola-Mobile-Mississippi area anyway!
Gainesville has been “hit” from the east, albeit very rarely. In 1964 (when I was living in Hollywood), Hurricane Dora came straight in from the Atlantic and blasted Lake City, causing flooding and wind damage in Gainesville. The 2004 hurricanes Frances and Jeanne (to be discussed in greater detail in a later article) came over much land from the southeast and did not score direct hits over Gainesville. Gainesville lies a little closer to the Gulf than the Atlantic and is much more vulnerable to a tropical storm strike from the southwest. I’m actually quite surprised that we’ve been spared a direct, devastating hit from a hurricane all these years. But it almost happened in 1985!
Monday, October 8, 2007
Monday Newsbreak: 10/08
--It looks as if the terrible heat that we've had to endure here in northern Florida for the past few months is finally beginning to wane. I grew up in south Florida and have experienced some severe heat waves up here in Gainesville (the spring of 1984 was the worst). But for sheer perseverance, this year's hot weather wins the top prize. Come on, cold fronts and chilly weather! For me, the ideal temperature range would be a high in the low-sixties (Fahrenheit) and a low in the upper-thirties. So we're still a long way off from that. But I'll take what I can get!
--The University of Florida Gators football team lost its second game in a row, this time to top-ranked Louisiana State, 28-24. The loss was totally avoidable, and the Gators turned the ball over twice in the fourth quarter after amassing a 24-14 lead, giving the Tigers the opportunity they needed to come back and win. Still, UF played a tough, spirited game and I'm proud of them for their gutsy effort. They still have a shot at winning the Eastern Division in the Southeastern Conference, but they'll have to win the rest of their league games (and Tennessee will need to lose to somebody else sometime during the season).
--The press seems to be grooming Hillary Clinton as our next President. I say this because I've lately been reading articles that have diminished the significance of all those "negatives" that she has been receiving in various polls. Although I tend to agree with her politics and respect her for being a careful politician, she does irritate me when she starts to open her mouth and speak. But so did Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Do you see where I'm going with this? Having limited public speaking abilities is not something that necessarily disqualifies one from becoming President. And I do believe that Hillary is working hard to become better at it.
--Olympic track star and Gold Medal winner Marion Jones suddenly came out and admitted to steroid use, after several adamant denials in the past. During the course of the reporting about this story, it was revealed that she would typically receive around $70,000 to $80,000 for each race that she ran. To which I must say: whatever happened to amateurism in sports? It used to be that there was a special kind of dignity and honor in being an amateur athlete; in today's hypermaterialistic world, if you're an amateur you're also often regarded as a "chump". I think this philosophy is one of the chief factors in bringing on the plague of cheating. Another factor is the idea of winning-at-all-costs (or you're a "chump" as well if you don't).
--An old friend from many years back recently said on his blog something that I had been thinking myself. Those subcontractors over in Iraq that are performing essentially duties normally performed by our Armed Forces are, in essence, mercenaries! And do you remember learning in school about the hated Hessian mercenaries during our American Revolutionary War? There is something about the use of privately-employed soldiers (let's not mince our words) that tends, at least in my opinion, to diminish the moral standing and mission of the regular, legitimate forces that we are employing.
--The University of Florida Gators football team lost its second game in a row, this time to top-ranked Louisiana State, 28-24. The loss was totally avoidable, and the Gators turned the ball over twice in the fourth quarter after amassing a 24-14 lead, giving the Tigers the opportunity they needed to come back and win. Still, UF played a tough, spirited game and I'm proud of them for their gutsy effort. They still have a shot at winning the Eastern Division in the Southeastern Conference, but they'll have to win the rest of their league games (and Tennessee will need to lose to somebody else sometime during the season).
--The press seems to be grooming Hillary Clinton as our next President. I say this because I've lately been reading articles that have diminished the significance of all those "negatives" that she has been receiving in various polls. Although I tend to agree with her politics and respect her for being a careful politician, she does irritate me when she starts to open her mouth and speak. But so did Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Do you see where I'm going with this? Having limited public speaking abilities is not something that necessarily disqualifies one from becoming President. And I do believe that Hillary is working hard to become better at it.
--Olympic track star and Gold Medal winner Marion Jones suddenly came out and admitted to steroid use, after several adamant denials in the past. During the course of the reporting about this story, it was revealed that she would typically receive around $70,000 to $80,000 for each race that she ran. To which I must say: whatever happened to amateurism in sports? It used to be that there was a special kind of dignity and honor in being an amateur athlete; in today's hypermaterialistic world, if you're an amateur you're also often regarded as a "chump". I think this philosophy is one of the chief factors in bringing on the plague of cheating. Another factor is the idea of winning-at-all-costs (or you're a "chump" as well if you don't).
--An old friend from many years back recently said on his blog something that I had been thinking myself. Those subcontractors over in Iraq that are performing essentially duties normally performed by our Armed Forces are, in essence, mercenaries! And do you remember learning in school about the hated Hessian mercenaries during our American Revolutionary War? There is something about the use of privately-employed soldiers (let's not mince our words) that tends, at least in my opinion, to diminish the moral standing and mission of the regular, legitimate forces that we are employing.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
1969 Baseball Season
When I was twelve, in the early spring of 1969, I was looking forward to following my first complete major league baseball season. I had fresh memories of the previous year’s exciting World Series, with the Detroit Tigers, seemingly out of it down three games to one, coming back and winning the last three games and the Series over the intimidating St. Louis Cardinals. But 1969 would be new in other ways, as well. It would be the first season that each league was split into two divisions, representing the East and the West. In addition, there would be four brand-new expansion teams: the San Diego Padres, the Montreal Expos, the Kansas City Royals, and the Seattle Pilots. For some reason, without any knowledge of the franchise or its players, the name “Seattle Pilots” resonated with me and I decided then that it would be “my” team that year (no Florida teams existed yet).
As far as the other teams were concerned, there was some notable movement in the standings from 1967 to 1968. In New York, both the Yankees and the Mets had remarkable improvements, with the Mets actually finishing next-to-last instead of last. The Oakland Athletics, recently moved from Kansas City, had also improved, as did the Chicago Cubs and the Baltimore Orioles. The Washington Senators and Houston Astros brought up the cellars in each league, respectively.
As 1969 began, it looked as if the Senators and Astros would repeat their 1968 fates, each having horrendous starts. But it became clear early on that, although still good, Detroit and St. Louis weren’t quite the same teams that ran over baseball in 1968. Instead, other teams stepped up to the front: Baltimore and Minnesota established early leads in their respective AL Divisions (Baltimore’s was a runaway, while Minnesota (with slugger Harmon Killebrew and batting titlist Rod Carew, and all-around superstar Tony Oliva had a race with Oakland (with their budding superstar Reggie Jackson, who at one point in 1969 was on pace to break Maris’s record). The Orioles were a supremely talented team with perhaps the best all-around cast of starting pitchers to ever grace a team. Mike Cuellar, Dave McNally, and Jim Palmer were the standouts in their rotation. Boog Powell, Frank Robinson, Paul Blair, Don Buford, Brooks Robinson, and Mark Belanger were some other figures that made up this “super-team”. And their irascible manager Earl Weaver was something else! Alas, though, my Seattle Pilots, in spite of a relatively “not-too-bad” season’s first half, then proceeded to go into a tailspin and finish dead-last in their division. That could have been expected because of their expansion status, but their own hometown wouldn’t support them and the franchise moved to Milwaukee (as the Brewers) the following season.
In the National League, the Chicago Cubs, (with stars like Ernie Banks, Billie Williams, and Ron Santo), were running away in the East, ahead of the improved Mets and Pirates, while in the West the much-improved Atlanta Braves (with “the great one” Hank Aaron) were usually a little ahead of a large pack of followers. Even the Astros had surged at times to get into contention. Only the hapless San Diego Padres were completely out of the race. The only thing I remember about them is that their sorry manager actually once, during the season, pulled a pitcher (Clay Kirby) who was pitching a no-hitter after eight innings, in order to put in a pinch-hitter (and the no-hitter was lost).
As the regular season drew toward the end, the Washington Senators (with slugger Frank Howard and their new manager Ted Williams) and the Pittsburgh Pirates (with the great Roberto Clemente, Willie Stargell, and Matty Alou) surged to respectable, winning final records. But in baseball, the second half of 1969 belonged to manager Gil Hodges and his New York Mets (another team with very strong pitchers like Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, and Nolan Ryan), who put on an incredible season-ending run, coupled by the complete collapse of the Cubs, to win their division. The recent ironic collapse of the Mets this year at season’s end, coupled with the Phillies’ surge, reminded me of 1969 (and hence here’s this article).
In the divisional playoffs, the favorites won easily 3-0 (Baltimore over Minnesota and New York over Atlanta). Baltimore was expected to beat the Mets in the World Series, and it started off just like that, with the Orioles’ ace pitcher Mike Cuellar stopping New York 4-1. But the Mets prevailed in the next four games and, just like a few months earlier in football (Jets over Colts), a heavily favored Baltimore team lost convincingly to an upstart New York team. Oh, and speaking of the Philadelphia Phillies, who did so well this year, how did they do in 1969? Well, thanks to Montreal, they didn’t finish in last place. But they were the laughingstock of the league anyway because of the antics of their primadonna crybaby superstar Richie Allen (who I’ve heard was rumored to finally have grown up, changed his name to Dick Allen, and enjoyed a very distinguished career)!
As far as the other teams were concerned, there was some notable movement in the standings from 1967 to 1968. In New York, both the Yankees and the Mets had remarkable improvements, with the Mets actually finishing next-to-last instead of last. The Oakland Athletics, recently moved from Kansas City, had also improved, as did the Chicago Cubs and the Baltimore Orioles. The Washington Senators and Houston Astros brought up the cellars in each league, respectively.
As 1969 began, it looked as if the Senators and Astros would repeat their 1968 fates, each having horrendous starts. But it became clear early on that, although still good, Detroit and St. Louis weren’t quite the same teams that ran over baseball in 1968. Instead, other teams stepped up to the front: Baltimore and Minnesota established early leads in their respective AL Divisions (Baltimore’s was a runaway, while Minnesota (with slugger Harmon Killebrew and batting titlist Rod Carew, and all-around superstar Tony Oliva had a race with Oakland (with their budding superstar Reggie Jackson, who at one point in 1969 was on pace to break Maris’s record). The Orioles were a supremely talented team with perhaps the best all-around cast of starting pitchers to ever grace a team. Mike Cuellar, Dave McNally, and Jim Palmer were the standouts in their rotation. Boog Powell, Frank Robinson, Paul Blair, Don Buford, Brooks Robinson, and Mark Belanger were some other figures that made up this “super-team”. And their irascible manager Earl Weaver was something else! Alas, though, my Seattle Pilots, in spite of a relatively “not-too-bad” season’s first half, then proceeded to go into a tailspin and finish dead-last in their division. That could have been expected because of their expansion status, but their own hometown wouldn’t support them and the franchise moved to Milwaukee (as the Brewers) the following season.
In the National League, the Chicago Cubs, (with stars like Ernie Banks, Billie Williams, and Ron Santo), were running away in the East, ahead of the improved Mets and Pirates, while in the West the much-improved Atlanta Braves (with “the great one” Hank Aaron) were usually a little ahead of a large pack of followers. Even the Astros had surged at times to get into contention. Only the hapless San Diego Padres were completely out of the race. The only thing I remember about them is that their sorry manager actually once, during the season, pulled a pitcher (Clay Kirby) who was pitching a no-hitter after eight innings, in order to put in a pinch-hitter (and the no-hitter was lost).
As the regular season drew toward the end, the Washington Senators (with slugger Frank Howard and their new manager Ted Williams) and the Pittsburgh Pirates (with the great Roberto Clemente, Willie Stargell, and Matty Alou) surged to respectable, winning final records. But in baseball, the second half of 1969 belonged to manager Gil Hodges and his New York Mets (another team with very strong pitchers like Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, and Nolan Ryan), who put on an incredible season-ending run, coupled by the complete collapse of the Cubs, to win their division. The recent ironic collapse of the Mets this year at season’s end, coupled with the Phillies’ surge, reminded me of 1969 (and hence here’s this article).
In the divisional playoffs, the favorites won easily 3-0 (Baltimore over Minnesota and New York over Atlanta). Baltimore was expected to beat the Mets in the World Series, and it started off just like that, with the Orioles’ ace pitcher Mike Cuellar stopping New York 4-1. But the Mets prevailed in the next four games and, just like a few months earlier in football (Jets over Colts), a heavily favored Baltimore team lost convincingly to an upstart New York team. Oh, and speaking of the Philadelphia Phillies, who did so well this year, how did they do in 1969? Well, thanks to Montreal, they didn’t finish in last place. But they were the laughingstock of the league anyway because of the antics of their primadonna crybaby superstar Richie Allen (who I’ve heard was rumored to finally have grown up, changed his name to Dick Allen, and enjoyed a very distinguished career)!
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Bible Observations: Genesis 3-5
Someone close to me once revealed a few years ago that the experience of attempting to read the Bible and derive some inspiration from it was an exercise in frustration, because it seemed (to this person) to describe God as being incredibly bloodthirsty and vindictive. And “facts” kept being brought forth that simply did not make any sense. I’m hoping that the reading gets better later, because I’m getting the same “vibes” with the beginning of Genesis. God places Adam and Eve in a garden and places a forbidden tree right in the middle of it, within easy access for them! Upon their transgression of eating its fruits, God banishes them from the garden and states that, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil” (New International Version). One of US?! Adam and Eve’s first two sons were Cain and Abel. It was not explained why, but both of them felt compelled to make sacrifices to God. The Lord apparently preferred the dead flesh of a formerly living creation of His. After murdering his brother Abel because God preferred Abel’s flesh sacrifice to his own agricultural one, Cain, the third human in existence, was driven out and did things such as finding a woman somewhere to have more offspring as well as founding a city (where did these people come from?)! Some of Cain’s descendants are then named: one of them, Jubal, is described as the father of all who play the harp and flute (since the later-occurring Flood supposedly wiped out all humans except Noah and his family, I guess that means that those harp and flute players we see around us are hallucinations). In Chapter Five, the descendants from Adam, up to Noah, are described with their life spans. I’ve reconstructed the time scale of their lives (with Adam created in the arbitrarily-numbered year “zero”:
Adam 0-930
Seth 130-1042
Enosh 235-1140
Kenan 325-1235
Mahalalel 395-1290
Jared 460-1422
Enoch 622-987
Methuselah 687-1656
Lamech 874-1651
Noah 1056—2006
This means that for a 56 year period (874-930), all nine generations of Noah's ancestors, including Adam, were alive! The flood, according to this dating scheme, occurred in 1656. Do I believe in the veracity of these time scales? No, but I’m trying to report things in the context of the narrative here.
Now I know that, to a “true believer”, my previous commentary on Genesis 3-5 may seem quite harsh and critical. But try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes (if that’s how you see yourself). Many adherents to different faiths are expected to admit the infallibility of their holy scriptures even before they’ve had an opportunity to read them. Once they’ve begun reading their particular scripture, they are inevitably going to come across “trouble spots” that may conflict with their knowledge of reality or of their conception of the benevolent nature of their deity. If a believer addresses the textual problem directly, then his or her level of faith may be questioned. So, the “problem-text” is either passed-over (ignored) or rationalized as meaning something quite different from what it seems. Thus, for example, there are verses in Genesis 1 which would indicate that the creation of day and night was completely independent of that of the sun, something that no one has ever felt any motivation to explain to me (maybe one of you readers can be the first). And God’s reference of “one of us” is often “interpreted” in Christian circles as meaning the “Trinity” of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But it’s almost as if one has to go to special classes in order to learn to read the Bible (or another religion’s scripture) “correctly”.
That all being said, I believe in honestly reading this stuff head-on. I have some reasons that I believe are behind some of the discrepancies that I’ve brought out so far, but I’m waiting for a future “Bible observations” entry to reveal them. I don’t think that other parts of the Bible will be as problematic as its beginning, although I anticipate some “bumps” in the road.
Genesis 3-5, in sum, relates the fall of man, his expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the story of Cain and Abel, Cain’s descendants, and Seth (Adam and Eve’s third son) and his descendants (up to Noah’s time). Coming up: the flood that covered the world.
Adam 0-930
Seth 130-1042
Enosh 235-1140
Kenan 325-1235
Mahalalel 395-1290
Jared 460-1422
Enoch 622-987
Methuselah 687-1656
Lamech 874-1651
Noah 1056—2006
This means that for a 56 year period (874-930), all nine generations of Noah's ancestors, including Adam, were alive! The flood, according to this dating scheme, occurred in 1656. Do I believe in the veracity of these time scales? No, but I’m trying to report things in the context of the narrative here.
Now I know that, to a “true believer”, my previous commentary on Genesis 3-5 may seem quite harsh and critical. But try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes (if that’s how you see yourself). Many adherents to different faiths are expected to admit the infallibility of their holy scriptures even before they’ve had an opportunity to read them. Once they’ve begun reading their particular scripture, they are inevitably going to come across “trouble spots” that may conflict with their knowledge of reality or of their conception of the benevolent nature of their deity. If a believer addresses the textual problem directly, then his or her level of faith may be questioned. So, the “problem-text” is either passed-over (ignored) or rationalized as meaning something quite different from what it seems. Thus, for example, there are verses in Genesis 1 which would indicate that the creation of day and night was completely independent of that of the sun, something that no one has ever felt any motivation to explain to me (maybe one of you readers can be the first). And God’s reference of “one of us” is often “interpreted” in Christian circles as meaning the “Trinity” of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But it’s almost as if one has to go to special classes in order to learn to read the Bible (or another religion’s scripture) “correctly”.
That all being said, I believe in honestly reading this stuff head-on. I have some reasons that I believe are behind some of the discrepancies that I’ve brought out so far, but I’m waiting for a future “Bible observations” entry to reveal them. I don’t think that other parts of the Bible will be as problematic as its beginning, although I anticipate some “bumps” in the road.
Genesis 3-5, in sum, relates the fall of man, his expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the story of Cain and Abel, Cain’s descendants, and Seth (Adam and Eve’s third son) and his descendants (up to Noah’s time). Coming up: the flood that covered the world.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Harry and Rush Have a Spat
The other day on the US Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) denounced conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for impugning the honor of our soldiers in Iraq by referring to the ones who happened to be critical of the President’s war policies there as being “phony soldiers”. There was even a move for an official resolution to condemn Limbaugh for his comments! Limbaugh, for his part, has rejected the accusation, saying that he was only referring to a specific individual when he made his “phony soldier” remark.
Although I believe that public servant Reid is taking his criticism of private citizen Limbaugh a bit over the line, he is correct in his general strategy. One, to show that those in our professional fighting forces are not monolithic in their political beliefs and in their support of the Iraq War (which is the way that Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like would like to have one believe). Two, being critical of the war does not detract from a soldier’s patriotism or devotion to duty.
I’m still trying to get over the political sleight-of-hand that President Bush used, first in tying the events of 9/11/01 to Iraq, and then making the decision to stay in Iraq a part of the never-ending War on Terror. Here is how the chain of reasoning seems to have gone:
1-(before the invasion)-Saddam Hussein is connected (falsely) to the 9/11 attack, so it’s supposedly morally justified to fight him as part of the War on Terror.
2-(after the occupation started)-The ever-increasing presence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq was attributed to the presence of occupying “infidel” US and Coalition forces there. But since the terrorists were now in Iraq (after the invasion), that meant we had to hang around and continue to fight the War on Terror there (for a different reason than before), even though we had accomplished our goal of deposing Hussein.
3-(considering troop drawback)-The scenario now being presented is that, although it was our presence in the first place that drew Al-Qaeda prominently to Iraq, our absence will even “embolden” them more (and if we stay, that will also embolden them).
I find the above lines of reasoning maddening!
As for soldiers on duty in Iraq speaking out on their support (or criticism) for the war, consider the following. If somebody were to walk into any workplace with a microphone and camera crew and start interviewing people on the spot, the natural response on the part of the employees there would be to try to present a positive public image of the organization that they work for, along with their perception of its goodness for society, even if they have their own private gripes with their employer. That’s the same with those in our Armed Forces who are serving so diligently and bravely in Iraq: whether or not they approve of the Commander-in-Chief and his decisions, they must work AS IF they believe in the mission. That doesn’t mean that they should be used as propaganda material for the Republicans and their mouthpieces.
The criticism from the Democrats in Congress of Limbaugh apparently is a tit-for-tat response to the Republicans pushing through a resolution criticizing MoveOn.org for its statements regarding General Petraeus. Regardless of what one thinks about the propriety of what these private individuals and organizations are expressing, passing resolutions that judge them is completely out-of-line. This sort of thing is more appropriate, at least in my opinion, on the floor of Congress during “morning business”, when speakers can use the podium as a bully pulpit to vent their criticisms. Or better yet, save it for press conferences!
So, Senate Majority Leader Reid and his like-minded colleagues over in the House of Representatives would be completely off-base if they were to attempt any official admonition of Rush Limbaugh. Reid and Limbaugh are NOT on the same level playing field: Reid and the other members of Congress are official members of the State, and should be very careful not to do anything that would even remotely appear to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of citizens. And after all, isn’t our First Amendment designed to protect those espousing unpopular views?! Believe me, it really pains me to have to defend someone with whom I tend to disagree like Mr. Limbaugh (both in terms of his views and the overbearing style that he uses to ridicule those with whom he differs).
Although I believe that public servant Reid is taking his criticism of private citizen Limbaugh a bit over the line, he is correct in his general strategy. One, to show that those in our professional fighting forces are not monolithic in their political beliefs and in their support of the Iraq War (which is the way that Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like would like to have one believe). Two, being critical of the war does not detract from a soldier’s patriotism or devotion to duty.
I’m still trying to get over the political sleight-of-hand that President Bush used, first in tying the events of 9/11/01 to Iraq, and then making the decision to stay in Iraq a part of the never-ending War on Terror. Here is how the chain of reasoning seems to have gone:
1-(before the invasion)-Saddam Hussein is connected (falsely) to the 9/11 attack, so it’s supposedly morally justified to fight him as part of the War on Terror.
2-(after the occupation started)-The ever-increasing presence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq was attributed to the presence of occupying “infidel” US and Coalition forces there. But since the terrorists were now in Iraq (after the invasion), that meant we had to hang around and continue to fight the War on Terror there (for a different reason than before), even though we had accomplished our goal of deposing Hussein.
3-(considering troop drawback)-The scenario now being presented is that, although it was our presence in the first place that drew Al-Qaeda prominently to Iraq, our absence will even “embolden” them more (and if we stay, that will also embolden them).
I find the above lines of reasoning maddening!
As for soldiers on duty in Iraq speaking out on their support (or criticism) for the war, consider the following. If somebody were to walk into any workplace with a microphone and camera crew and start interviewing people on the spot, the natural response on the part of the employees there would be to try to present a positive public image of the organization that they work for, along with their perception of its goodness for society, even if they have their own private gripes with their employer. That’s the same with those in our Armed Forces who are serving so diligently and bravely in Iraq: whether or not they approve of the Commander-in-Chief and his decisions, they must work AS IF they believe in the mission. That doesn’t mean that they should be used as propaganda material for the Republicans and their mouthpieces.
The criticism from the Democrats in Congress of Limbaugh apparently is a tit-for-tat response to the Republicans pushing through a resolution criticizing MoveOn.org for its statements regarding General Petraeus. Regardless of what one thinks about the propriety of what these private individuals and organizations are expressing, passing resolutions that judge them is completely out-of-line. This sort of thing is more appropriate, at least in my opinion, on the floor of Congress during “morning business”, when speakers can use the podium as a bully pulpit to vent their criticisms. Or better yet, save it for press conferences!
So, Senate Majority Leader Reid and his like-minded colleagues over in the House of Representatives would be completely off-base if they were to attempt any official admonition of Rush Limbaugh. Reid and Limbaugh are NOT on the same level playing field: Reid and the other members of Congress are official members of the State, and should be very careful not to do anything that would even remotely appear to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of citizens. And after all, isn’t our First Amendment designed to protect those espousing unpopular views?! Believe me, it really pains me to have to defend someone with whom I tend to disagree like Mr. Limbaugh (both in terms of his views and the overbearing style that he uses to ridicule those with whom he differs).
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Favorite Songs of 2002
In 2002, the main radio stations I listened to for music were 104.7-WRUF “Rock 104”, 100.5-WHHZ, and 105.3-WYKS “Kiss 105”. 2002 was the last year, up until now, when I actually enjoyed listening for lengthy periods to “top-forty” radio programming, which WYKS provided. Well, here are my favorites that I enjoyed during 2002:
Get This Party Started (Pink)
My Sacrifice (Creed)
Fade (Staind)
Standing Still (Jewel)
Can't Get You Out Of My Head (Kylie Minogue)
Blurry (Puddle of Mudd)
Toxicity (System of a Down)
Hella Good (No Doubt)
Amber (311)
Trust (Megadeath)
Here To Stay (Korn)
Warning (Incubus)
By The Way (Red Hot Chili Peppers)
For You (Staind)
No Such Thing (John Mayer)
One Last Breath (Creed)
Days Go By (Dirty Vegas)
Clint Eastwood (Gorillaz)
The Energy (Audiovent)
Where Are You Going (Dave Matthews Band)
Ariels (System of a Down)
In My Place (Coldplay)
Objection Tango (Shakira)
I Am Mine (Pearl Jam)
Cochise (Audioslave)
Flake (Jack Johnson)
Die Another Day (Madonna)
Not Falling (Mudvayne)
Electrical Storm (U2)
My “top song” back in 2002 was Korn’s Here to Stay. It really wasn’t indicative of the rest of the music on my list, but its angry, frustrated tone and message seemed to provide some catharsis that drew me to it. U2 and Pearl Jam were two older bands who made meaningful contributions to the year with the beautiful, eerie Electrical Storm and the philosophical (and inspirational) I Am Mine, respectively. Pink rocked the world with Get This Party Started, which was the perfect antidote to the anxiety pervading post-9/11 America. Staind displayed their wide emotional range with the sad Fade and the angry For You. Standing Still was Alaskan singer Jewel’s best work, in my opinion. Artists experimented around with their sound in 2002, and the results were great pieces such as Days Go By by Dirty Vegas and Ariels by System of a Down (both with excellent accompanying videos). It seemed that just when I was beginning to like Creed, they broke up right after coming out with the year’s best tearjerker, One Last Breath. Finally, grungy band Puddle of Mudd, whose songs I usually disliked, came out with the compelling Blurry.
Get This Party Started (Pink)
My Sacrifice (Creed)
Fade (Staind)
Standing Still (Jewel)
Can't Get You Out Of My Head (Kylie Minogue)
Blurry (Puddle of Mudd)
Toxicity (System of a Down)
Hella Good (No Doubt)
Amber (311)
Trust (Megadeath)
Here To Stay (Korn)
Warning (Incubus)
By The Way (Red Hot Chili Peppers)
For You (Staind)
No Such Thing (John Mayer)
One Last Breath (Creed)
Days Go By (Dirty Vegas)
Clint Eastwood (Gorillaz)
The Energy (Audiovent)
Where Are You Going (Dave Matthews Band)
Ariels (System of a Down)
In My Place (Coldplay)
Objection Tango (Shakira)
I Am Mine (Pearl Jam)
Cochise (Audioslave)
Flake (Jack Johnson)
Die Another Day (Madonna)
Not Falling (Mudvayne)
Electrical Storm (U2)
My “top song” back in 2002 was Korn’s Here to Stay. It really wasn’t indicative of the rest of the music on my list, but its angry, frustrated tone and message seemed to provide some catharsis that drew me to it. U2 and Pearl Jam were two older bands who made meaningful contributions to the year with the beautiful, eerie Electrical Storm and the philosophical (and inspirational) I Am Mine, respectively. Pink rocked the world with Get This Party Started, which was the perfect antidote to the anxiety pervading post-9/11 America. Staind displayed their wide emotional range with the sad Fade and the angry For You. Standing Still was Alaskan singer Jewel’s best work, in my opinion. Artists experimented around with their sound in 2002, and the results were great pieces such as Days Go By by Dirty Vegas and Ariels by System of a Down (both with excellent accompanying videos). It seemed that just when I was beginning to like Creed, they broke up right after coming out with the year’s best tearjerker, One Last Breath. Finally, grungy band Puddle of Mudd, whose songs I usually disliked, came out with the compelling Blurry.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Spree
Sometimes during the course of my “free” time, there are a number of projects, those of a mundane nature as well as those that I do for “self-improvement”, that compete for the finite time that I can allot to them. With many of these projects, I can get so involved that just one of them could take up all of my time, with the others going by the wayside. I’ve developed a strategy that occasionally helps me cover some ground and not let me get too far behind in some of them.
I have one of those little digital kitchen timers that I can carry with me and set for a specific time—anywhere from 1 second to 99 minutes. First, I make a list of the projects I want to go through. Then, I make sure that I have the necessary equipment and material to do them. Then, I set off my timer (usually around 15-30 minutes) and go through each project. When the timer sounds (signifying time’s up), I put aside the project I was working on (finished or unfinished), reset the timer, and then start on the next one. I do this until I’ve finished the list of activities, even though I may have some unfinished work to do in some of them.
Doing this tends to focus my attention sharply, and without distractions, on the “assigned” project at hand. And thus I am able to accomplish much more within a specific span of time than if I hadn’t organized my work this way. I even have a name for this strategy: I call it “spree”, after the sprees on the game show Supermarket Sweepstakes, where contestants were given a specified time to charge through a grocery store and fill up their carts with as many expensive items as possible. Now that’s focus!
To be perfectly honest, though, I haven’t been as assiduous lately in employing this very effective personal strategy as I would like to. Which is why I’m writing about it here! Maybe this way, I’ll be more likely to employ “spree” to whiz through the seemingly never-ending tasks that I feel the obligation or motivation to master and transcend.
I have one of those little digital kitchen timers that I can carry with me and set for a specific time—anywhere from 1 second to 99 minutes. First, I make a list of the projects I want to go through. Then, I make sure that I have the necessary equipment and material to do them. Then, I set off my timer (usually around 15-30 minutes) and go through each project. When the timer sounds (signifying time’s up), I put aside the project I was working on (finished or unfinished), reset the timer, and then start on the next one. I do this until I’ve finished the list of activities, even though I may have some unfinished work to do in some of them.
Doing this tends to focus my attention sharply, and without distractions, on the “assigned” project at hand. And thus I am able to accomplish much more within a specific span of time than if I hadn’t organized my work this way. I even have a name for this strategy: I call it “spree”, after the sprees on the game show Supermarket Sweepstakes, where contestants were given a specified time to charge through a grocery store and fill up their carts with as many expensive items as possible. Now that’s focus!
To be perfectly honest, though, I haven’t been as assiduous lately in employing this very effective personal strategy as I would like to. Which is why I’m writing about it here! Maybe this way, I’ll be more likely to employ “spree” to whiz through the seemingly never-ending tasks that I feel the obligation or motivation to master and transcend.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Language Learning Plan
As I have written on this blog a few times earlier, I have a great interest in learning foreign languages. The problem is in fitting study time into my daily schedule. I’ve decided to employ two different strategies to accomplish this.
My first strategy in learning languages is to daily get on the Internet and intently listen to news broadcasts in the languages I’m interested in for about three minutes per language (Spanish, French, German, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese). Sites such as Radio Japan, the Voice of America, and Polskie Radio Online are at present my chief sources (I also get a lot of Spanish from my Univision TV channel).
My second strategy is to study a book about a particular language, one language at a time, for a “season”. The language I’ve chosen to begin with is Vietnamese, which I had actually built up a pretty good working vocabulary with during the early 1980s. The book that I’m using is Vietnamese: A Rough Guide, compiled by Lexus (Penguin Books, 2000). It is perfect for my purposes right now, containing a simple grammar, vocabulary list, and phrase section. I’ve also ordered an inexpensive elementary Vietnamese text, Beginner’s Vietnamese by Robert Quinn (Hippocrene, 1995). My intention is to “master” this book before I go on to the next foreign language project. And to come back and review it from time to time. The only sticking point to this is that, while in the early 1980s, I had several Vietnamese speakers to practice with, that is no longer the case. So, it will be interesting to see how I tackle that problem. Anyway, I’m adding another “eights” to my blog. This version will be “Language Learning on the Eights”, and the next entry, with a report on my progress, will be eight weeks from today. I remember having written thoughts along these lines in an earlier entry a few weeks ago, but I never could seem to get “on track” with my studying. But now it’s official! I’m studying!
I don’t know how far I’ll be able to progress in learning the aforementioned languages, but then again, I don’t know how long I’m going to live either (who does?). The point is that this is one of those types of endeavors that I foresee as open-ended, with something always new on the horizon!
My first strategy in learning languages is to daily get on the Internet and intently listen to news broadcasts in the languages I’m interested in for about three minutes per language (Spanish, French, German, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese). Sites such as Radio Japan, the Voice of America, and Polskie Radio Online are at present my chief sources (I also get a lot of Spanish from my Univision TV channel).
My second strategy is to study a book about a particular language, one language at a time, for a “season”. The language I’ve chosen to begin with is Vietnamese, which I had actually built up a pretty good working vocabulary with during the early 1980s. The book that I’m using is Vietnamese: A Rough Guide, compiled by Lexus (Penguin Books, 2000). It is perfect for my purposes right now, containing a simple grammar, vocabulary list, and phrase section. I’ve also ordered an inexpensive elementary Vietnamese text, Beginner’s Vietnamese by Robert Quinn (Hippocrene, 1995). My intention is to “master” this book before I go on to the next foreign language project. And to come back and review it from time to time. The only sticking point to this is that, while in the early 1980s, I had several Vietnamese speakers to practice with, that is no longer the case. So, it will be interesting to see how I tackle that problem. Anyway, I’m adding another “eights” to my blog. This version will be “Language Learning on the Eights”, and the next entry, with a report on my progress, will be eight weeks from today. I remember having written thoughts along these lines in an earlier entry a few weeks ago, but I never could seem to get “on track” with my studying. But now it’s official! I’m studying!
I don’t know how far I’ll be able to progress in learning the aforementioned languages, but then again, I don’t know how long I’m going to live either (who does?). The point is that this is one of those types of endeavors that I foresee as open-ended, with something always new on the horizon!
Monday, October 1, 2007
Monday Newsbreak: 10/1
--"Hope wanes among Myanmar protesters" is the title of Sunday's Gainesville Sun article describing the dwindling protest movement there, led by Buddhist monks, against the long-time authoritarian military government. The Myanmar authorities decided to fire on the protesters, and this tactic has worked, at least for the short term. And sanctions are unlikely to work, since India, China, and Russia depend on trade with Myanmar, chiefly for their natural resources. By all accounts, I've heard that this is a repressive government, though not totalitarian in nature. There is a pro-democracy movement for Myanmar, symbolized by Aung San Suu Kyi, a noted Burmese (Myanmar) woman who has won the Nobel Peace Prize and is under house arrest there for her efforts at promoting democracy in Burma (I can't stand calling it Myanmar). A few decades ago, I think most people in the West would automatically take the side of religious groups (like the Burmese Buddhist monks) protesting against an authoritarian secular government, but now it's not such a clear picture. The rest of the world has seen some examples in recent years of countries being worse off after "religious" people took over control of them from secular dictators. Burma--I mean (ugh!) Myanmar is another of those countries, like Iraq, that were created out of the Imperialism Era of the nineteenth century by European powers and then granted independence in the twentieth century. In Myanmar's case, it was Britain who ruled and patched together a multitude of disparate and often conflicting ethnic groups into a national entity that was bound to have problems with stability.
--There seems to be a refocus in the media on the future U.S. space program plans. After the Space Shuttle program ends in 2010, we're supposedly going to go back to the moon (and stay there) using a new generation of rockets (the Orion rockets) that can eventually get us to Mars as well. Also, private companies as well as other countries are getting into space. I welcome all of this, and wonder why it's taken so long. After all, according to Carl Sagan in his 80's series Cosmos, we already possess the scientific know-how to build spaceships that can take us to the stars!
--The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) renewal bill, with some alterations expanding its scope, was overwhelmingly passed in both the Senate and House, although the House margin was insufficient to sustain a promised White House veto. And why would Bush veto it? He claims that, under the new bill, children would be covered under SCHIP whose parents could otherwise afford their insurance, and that it would lead to more government-mandated health care. To me, this is another reason to support the bill. I'd prefer to live under a system where health insurance coverage is guaranteed to all American citizens and is not tied to employment. Our businesses need to be liberated from this yoke, and we as a people need to feel that we can switch careers or even become entrepreneurs in mid-life without worrying about ruining our health insurance coverage for ourselves or our dependents. But I remember back in 1992 when then-President George H.W. Bush vetoed the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). When Clinton became President the next year, one of the first things he did was sign the FMLA into law. And I think that the defeat of SCHIP will be just one more campaign issue to help convince the American people to return a Democrat to the Presidency.
--My prediction of there possibly being more than five undefeated major college football teams at the pre-bowl season's end just went flushed-down-the-toilet when seven of the undefeated top thirteen teams lost this past football weekend. Sad to say, my Florida Gators were one of the fallen. But they say misery loves company, and Gator Nation has plenty of company among the fans of Oklahoma, West Virginia, Texas, Rutgers, Oregon, and Clemson! Let's see if Florida can't straighten themselves out and add LSU to that list next week! I don't imagine they're going too far down in the rankings (with so many others losing as well).
--There seems to be a refocus in the media on the future U.S. space program plans. After the Space Shuttle program ends in 2010, we're supposedly going to go back to the moon (and stay there) using a new generation of rockets (the Orion rockets) that can eventually get us to Mars as well. Also, private companies as well as other countries are getting into space. I welcome all of this, and wonder why it's taken so long. After all, according to Carl Sagan in his 80's series Cosmos, we already possess the scientific know-how to build spaceships that can take us to the stars!
--The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) renewal bill, with some alterations expanding its scope, was overwhelmingly passed in both the Senate and House, although the House margin was insufficient to sustain a promised White House veto. And why would Bush veto it? He claims that, under the new bill, children would be covered under SCHIP whose parents could otherwise afford their insurance, and that it would lead to more government-mandated health care. To me, this is another reason to support the bill. I'd prefer to live under a system where health insurance coverage is guaranteed to all American citizens and is not tied to employment. Our businesses need to be liberated from this yoke, and we as a people need to feel that we can switch careers or even become entrepreneurs in mid-life without worrying about ruining our health insurance coverage for ourselves or our dependents. But I remember back in 1992 when then-President George H.W. Bush vetoed the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). When Clinton became President the next year, one of the first things he did was sign the FMLA into law. And I think that the defeat of SCHIP will be just one more campaign issue to help convince the American people to return a Democrat to the Presidency.
--My prediction of there possibly being more than five undefeated major college football teams at the pre-bowl season's end just went flushed-down-the-toilet when seven of the undefeated top thirteen teams lost this past football weekend. Sad to say, my Florida Gators were one of the fallen. But they say misery loves company, and Gator Nation has plenty of company among the fans of Oklahoma, West Virginia, Texas, Rutgers, Oregon, and Clemson! Let's see if Florida can't straighten themselves out and add LSU to that list next week! I don't imagine they're going too far down in the rankings (with so many others losing as well).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
