2010 Forecast: Heavy Smug and Smirks

So now we have reached not only the end of another year, but also the end of another decade. Forget the technical argument of the century changing at 2001, not 2000; I'm referring to the traditional way of classifying decades, starting with 2000 and ending with 2009. In a recent column, Paul Krugman referred to the passing ten years as the "naughties". However one refers to it, the last decade merits review and analysis. Which I will naturally do in future posts.

What I would instead like to do on this last day of the year is look ahead to 2010 and what might happen. After 2001, though, I must proclaim that I am released from science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke's timetable of future events. Unlike his movie (and novel) 2010, the United States and the Soviet Union will not, I repeat will not be on the verge of nuclear war due to proxy skirmishes in Central America (the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists helps to convince me of this). Jupiter will not explode into a second star, causing everyone back home to embrace each other and forgo war. And the Chicago Cubs won't win the World Series (wait, Clarke didn't predict them winning; he wasn't that unrealistic). Instead, life will continue pretty much as it has been this past year. Some more politicians and celebrities will flush their reputations down the toilet with disreputable behavior. The media will exploit this and make a lot of money doing so. There will be more terrorism attempts at home and successful ones abroad. Congress will tackle new projects, in particular immigration reform, that the GOP and the media will say are political "Waterloos" (or something similar) and will bring on the downfall of the Democrats and Obama. Again. They'll say that again. And then the 2010 midterm elections will arrive and the voters will cast their ballots according to how they see the economy moving. Which by all accounts should be in full-blown recovery by then. The Democrats will win some and lose some, coming out of the process still firmly in the majority, albeit not necessarily with a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate.

Smugly smirking Fox News Channel hosts will continue to have as guests smug smirkers knocking the Obama administration, while MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and Rachel Maddow will continue to offer up their own opinions smugly, accompanied by their own lineups of smugly smirking head-nodders. Ho-hum, why don't I just turn off the TV and do something else the whole year?

Big Business, the Government, & the Two Parties

I have noticed an interesting trend when following floor speeches in the US Senate and House of Representatives. The conservatives, mainly on the Republican side, rail against the threat of expanding big government and its concomitant abuses, with the hopes for our future depending on benevolent big business. While the liberals, mainly on the Democratic side, rail against the threat and abuses of big corporations, and how the government stands in the way of them completely overrunning the people. But where do small businesses stand in this?

Both sides claim to be the advocate of small business. I think there is a kind of mentality that small business operators have (not just those under 5') whereby they tend to identify themselves as smaller, aspiring versions of the big corporations, and hence a tendency to affiliate themselves with the conservatives and the GOP. But although every once and a while a small business will expand and grow into a large one, the overwhelming number of them will remain small and very, very different in design and scope from the "big boys". In fact it could be argued that the greatest threat to small businesses comes not from overburdening government regulation, but rather from inequitable competition with these major corporations. When a "super" Target or Wal-Mart sets up shop in town, especially a small town, you can almost hear a collective shudder running through the surrounding small business community.

From the standpoint of an individual such as myself, both major corporations and government are gargantuan powers which have to be checked in some way in order to prevent them from completely engulfing my life and freedoms. So it's slightly comforting to see the two main political parties tee off against one another, in effect checking the power of one institution with the other. The only problem with this is when big government teams up with big business to the detriment of the people. To me, this may be happening with the health care reform bill recently approved by the Senate and sent to conference. And was sadly the case in Iraq where the government awarded no-bid contracts with various corporations, most notably Dick Cheney's Halliburton.

Of course, there are times when conservatives like to evoke and exalt the power of the state. In social issues like abortion or gay rights, conservatives have no qualms at all with using big government to impose their social mores on everyone else. And also, they are very gung ho with taxpayers' money regarding the military and the prosecution of wars. Unfortunately, this adulation of the military often fades away when addressing the concerns of veterans.

Back to small business, if the Democrats with this health care bill can ease the enormous burdens that they are incurring with rising costs and preexisting condition exclusions, then we might just see a political realignment occurring in a few years. I for one never thought that employers should ever have been saddled with the obligation to provide health insurance for their employees anyway, the whole process having evolved from businesses using it as a benefit inventive to prospective hires.

Football Commentary

As the year's end draws near, we have reached a crucial point in the football season. Two main news stories come to mind. One is the resignation and subsequent reversal thereof regarding University of Florida head coach Urban Meyer. The other is the late-season collapse of the Miami Dolphins.

Urban Meyer has, for the past five years, coached UF with a single-minded ferocity that, at times, bothered me quite a bit. The man seemed devoid of humor and carried on with his job as if it were some sort of divine mission, with critics somehow standing on the wrong side of an absolute moral standard. The fact that his star player Tim Tebow would consistently "stick up" for him in the face of any criticism only made the situation worse, in my opinion. Now that Meyer has revealed that he has health problems, possibly concerning his heart, it may be advisable to tone down that supposed "mission" into a fun, fulfilling job and pick up an ability to kid around somewhere along the way. He has taken a leave of absence, beginning after the Sugar Bowl game on January 1, and will resuming coaching the Gators sometime before next year's season begins. I wish him the best, both in terms of physical health and job enjoyment.

At season's end, the NFL Miami Dolphins are pretty much in the standings where I had predicted them to be at the season's start. But things have changed on the team. Original starting QB Chad Pennington suffered an early season-ending injury, clearing the way for Chad Henne to take over the helm. And he has shown much promise, despite his many mistakes. Henne reminds me of a young John Elway, who also had a strong passing arm but made a lot of bad throws early on in his career. Henne could well lead the Dolphins to "playoff glory" in the future. RB Ronnie Brown, who was crucial to the team's effective wildcat formation, also was injured and taken out for the season, leaving the running game one-dimensional. Ricky Williams has had a great season, but Brown's absence has made his job more difficult as well. But the Dolphins have simply been too inconsistent with their play, from game to game, to be able to make a realistic run to qualify for the playoffs. Also, their schedule has been very tough. Still, I admire how they fought through their games, win or lose.

Before this season, I expressed an interest in following the Pacific Ten Conference in college football. Unfortunately, I was unable to follow many of the games on television as I had hoped. Also, the calibre of play was not as high as I had expected, with Pac-10 teams generally faring poorly in games with non-conference opponents. To top it off, nobody emerged as the premier team in the conference. Sure, the Oregon Ducks ended up winning the conference title and will face Iowa in the Rose Bowl. Well, maybe they will do well then and give me something to look forward to next year.

Blog Still Truckin' On

I haven't given up on this blog; I have lately been in a period of "distraction" when other things going on in my life (mostly great) have taken up my time. But I do love to go out (perhaps to a Starbucks) and just sit, think, and type out whatever comes to mind. Eventually, things will settle down again and I'll be writing more. So bear with me, blog resumption is coming! More ridiculous articles ahead to amuse yourselves with, loyal readers!

Xmas Season Postal OT

Being a postal worker involved in processing mail that I am, December is by far the most intense, busiest time of the year. Contract provisions governing the other eleven months regarding double overtime and other matters are waived for December due to the heavy amount of holiday mailings. This past week has been the busiest for my shift, which is for processing outgoing mail in the late afternoon and evening. I have a job sorting Priority parcels on a machine that classifies and moves them out according to destination as I, along with the rest of my team, key the correct sorting codes on keypads that directs the parcels down a conveyor belt to be dropped in the appropriate containers for later dispatch and transport.

Because I have been working considerably longer hours during this past week, I haven't had the opportunity to do other things that I would normally due. Including writing on this blog. Hence the most recent gaps in daily entries.

I had intended to set up a regular time, early in the afternoon before going to work, to write my entries out. But since that time has been co-opted by me having to report to work early every day, I'll have to wait until business has settled back down. After Christmas, that is. BAH HUMBUG!

Weird, Disturbing Kindergarten News

Oooh, I can sense another South Park episode coming on. Having just read Chuck Shepherd's weekly News of the Weird in my local newspaper, I have a new candidate for a spoof. For many New York City parents are now sending their children to expensive test-preparation courses for...kindergarten!

According to the article, New York City's public school system has a high-achiever kindergarten program, but applicants have to be in the 90th percentile on two different tests. And the age of the applicants? Three, four years old!

It's true that some kids are precocious, learning to read at a very early age or demonstrating other special talents. The late Isaac Asimov and my friend in New York are examples. For myself, I was a pretty bright little kid who may or may not have qualified on the "admissions" exams for an advanced kindergarten program, whatever that program may constitute. I do know that if this program is run the in same manner that the "high-achiever" public school I attended from fourth through twelfth grade was, I would rather just as soon pass up on the offer, thank you. Of course, it's the parents who ultimately make these decisions, not the poor kids, who have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

It might be argued that having such a high-achiever kindergarten program in the NYC public school system gives an otherwise unavailable opportunity for kids in depressed, blighted areas to rise above their surroundings and enjoy a more positive, constructive learning environment. But these test preparation courses not only unfairly skew the admissions test scores; their expensive nature (as much as $1,000 or even more) also ensures that those admitted to the program will tend to be from the more affluent families. It may be a great idea for a private school, but hardly something that should be part of the taxpayer-funded public school system.

Philip K. Dick's The Cosmic Puppets

Many years ago, there was a TV movie starring Martin Landau titled Welcome Home, Johnny Bristol. In it, a weary Vietnam ex-POW decides to go back to the beloved little town in Vermont where he grew up, see some of the old faces, and see how much things had changed (or hadn't). The only problem is that he can find no trace of this town's existence, either in the present or the past. Ultimately, this mystery is resolved with a pretty ordinary explanation. Philip K. Dick's relatively short novel The Cosmic Puppets creates a similar scenario. Only here, the town is in a remote Virginian valley and the story's resolution is quite cosmic in nature.

The protagonist is Ted Barton, recently married and passing on through to visit his childhood town of Millgate, Virginia. When he reaches it, he discovers that everything has changed, even retroactively, with a completely different history. The people are all different, the streets are all different, and all the town's buildings and landmarks are different. Barton decides to stay in town for a few days in order to sort out this mystery. And discovers two children who seem to be engaged in a life-and-death struggle against each other, using bees, rats, spiders snakes, and even animated clay models (called "golems" here) as surrogate spies and soldiers. Barton becomes entangled in their conflict. Which turns out to be anything but local.

The Cosmic Puppets was an early science fiction novel of Philip K. Dick, written in 1953. Only 143 pages in length, I read it by just stopping by at a local bookstore and reading a few pages at a time (it wasn't available at my local public library). Another writer such as Stephen King probably could have taken this story's premise and expanded it into an 800-page novel. Which he did with other ideas in novels like Desperation, The Regulators, and Insomnia (another "cosmic" thriller). But as I have said before, part of Philip K. Dick's appeal to me is the relative terseness of his writings. And The Cosmic Puppets is about as terse as they come! A worthwhile read, even if you have to shell out some money for it.

The next novel of Philip K. Dick that I am reading is another of his "reality" stories, titled Puttering About in a Small Land. So far, it seems to me to be his best work of this genre, and I am looking forward to reviewing it in the near future.

Health Care Reform Slogs On

So it looks as if the Senate version of health care reform will come down soon to a showdown vote to end debate and have a final up-or-down vote on passage. With the more progressive features like the public option and its substitute of Medicare extension to age 55 cut out, the bill's fate still confronts anti-choice Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, who is determined to add more restrictions on abortions to the bill before giving it his approval. Considering that former DNC chairman Howard Dean has already come out in strong opposition to the bill as it currently stands, too much of a concession to Nelson could tear away the support of some of the most ardently pro-choice senators.

I've already stated on this blog (and have been affirmed in this opinion by Dean and others) that it is disturbing to have the following scenario facing us if this bill is passed:

--Legally-imposed mandate that everyone purchase health insurance from private health insurance companies, which are not subject to federal antitrust laws; fines levied on those in violation.

--No public option available to keep companies honest and competitive with their prices.

The combination of the above two, at best, is corporate welfare at its worst. And there can be a strong argument made that this is an underhanded way of establishing a fascist type of society, without the overt ideology. For what is fascism anyway, but the partnership between the state and the big money interests and corporations to the detriment of the general population? Yes, I think that there is definitely something wrong having the government, with its police powers, shaking down already financially-struggling people to help further enrich the fatcats in the private health insurance industry!

Maybe, though, I have it all wrong. Maybe, if this bill is enacted, the pool of choices (albeit all private) may drive prices down and make health insurance more affordable, even without a public option. As might the idea that having more participants (albeit forced by law to participate) would keep prices down. But the Senate bill, even if finally passed, still has to be reconciled with the more liberal House version in conference. With the final product subject to up/down votes in both houses. No done deal, I say. Ironically, the President seems so mellow on this extremely divisive and passion-stirring subject that he is likely to sign a final passed bill into law regardless what garbage it contains!

Get Off Tiger’s Back

The latest feel-good news story for those Nancy Grace types whose self-image is so low that they can only derive a sense of self-worth by putting down others who are in a personal crisis is the recent Tiger Woods saga. Woods had an auto accident near his home in Orlando and defied police efforts to interview him at his home afterwards. That is the only problem I have with Woods regarding this story. But the predatory gossip press has expanded on the famous pro golfer’s misfortune and intruded into his marital life, emphasizing extramarital affairs, insinuating spousal abuse, and even interviewing former lovers and adorning their pictures on the covers of gossip magazines. But I personally sense that there is more to this story than people deriving some sick vicarious pleasure at the downfall of a celebrity.

Tiger Woods has a multiracial background, if you want to believe that there actually is such a thing as race. And apparently it is too much of a temptation to emphasize his marriage to a woman of Swedish background. So that old, stinking racism against interracial marriages, which still runs high across demographic boundaries, has found a vehicle for expression. Only you don’t hear anyone actually explicitly coming out against Tiger’s “interracial” marriage per se. But his blond light-skinned wife has become something of a caricature in the press, and I have seen many drawings of her that would never have been published had she, say, an African-American background. I would have thought that by the year 2009 we all would have lifted ourselves out of this sort of slimy bigotry.

Which leads me to wonder aloud why all of these big corporations are dropping Tiger Woods from sponsorships. After all, celebrities goof up all the time, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t merit respect for what they have accomplished in their respective professions. This notion that Woods has “fallen”, so he doesn’t deserve the title of “role model”, is pure bull. I am sick of the nonsense that someone who has become a success in a particular area suddenly has to project a saint-like image in order to have any chance of economically capitalizing on that success.

Yes, I wonder whether the unspoken unforgivable “sin” that Tiger Woods has committed wasn’t his accident or adultery, but rather his marriage to his “white” wife! Could I be wrong about this? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it. Beyond the matter with the police I have previously mentioned, this is all none of anyone else’s business. Every time I hear some editorial take on this story or a new “scoop”, I get angrier. Butt out, jerks!

As the World Turns Canceled

CBC [see comments below] has just announced its plans to cancel the soap opera As the World Turns, which began its incredibly long run in 1956 (my birthyear). I generally have a strong feeling of disdain for soap operas, or novelas as they are called on Spanish-language television. Even from early childhood, I could see no point in watching programs where grownups stood around arguing with each other all the time. (Correction: sometimes they sat around arguing with each other.) Frankly, when I was a kid, soap operas painted for me an image of adults as just being a foolish, contentious bunch of dumbasses. Hmm--come to think of it, they may have had something there after all!

My beloved mother, alas, was a big fan of the genre, though. And As the World Turns, with its evil lead character Lisa running around messing up everyone's lives, was by far her favorite in the late 1950s and early 1960s. When I was three or four, I lived in an apartment in Opa-Locka, Florida. Our TV set worked O.K. ... except, that is, for the slight problem that it couldn't pick up channel four (which was CBS for the Miami area). So on weekday afternoons, my mother and I would walk down to the other end of the apartment complex to visit her friend Betty and watch the show. And I would hang around, drink "cossee" (coffee), and play with the kids around there. So As the World Turns occupies a special place in my memory, although it's a pretty ancient, dilapidated place!

I'm trying to think of any soap operas that I actually watched and enjoyed. The only one I could come up with was the gothic series Dark Shadows around 1969. And that was only for a stretch of a few weeks. Many years ago I would sit in on episodes of Days of Our Lives and General Hospital, but that was when my wife enjoyed those shows and I watched them with her as part of sharing her company. But as a personal choice, I guess I just don't dig this genre, pure and simple.

I Change My Mind (Horror of Horrors)

I change my mind, from time to time. For example, my favorites in music vary over the months and years, and sometimes pretty dramatically. My political notions undergo some revisions as well as I follow the issues, how they are presented by their advocates, and how I conclude how much those advocates are motivated by the public welfare and how much by ulterior motives such as power or secret ideological agendas. I change my own personal self-improvement goals as well quite a bit. Earlier in this blog, I used to express them much more often (and my progress or lack thereof), using the reasoning that expressing my goals publicly would sharpen my focus in striving for them. I'm thinking of reviving that, as a matter of fact.

I have not always been center-left in my political leanings. When I was growing up, I was more centrist-right, reflecting the views of my parents. They opposed anyone whom they perceived as being too extreme in one direction or the other. Hence they were against both Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Democrat George McGovern in 1972. By 1976, though, I had come of voting age and had early on jumped on board with upstart Georgian Jimmy Carter's candidacy. In 1980, I missed out on that election although I felt then, as did many others, that the country was quickly going to hell in a hand basket and that Carter needed to turn the reins of power over to someone else. I think that the turning point that made me reject Carter was his cynical ploy of "staying in the White House" in the early months of the Iran Hostage Crisis to avoid campaigning head-on against challenger Ted Kennedy. Not that I supported Kennedy: he should have supported Carter instead of dividing his party.

By 1984, I was back with the Democrats and gamely supported them in the next three presidential elections, finally winning with Clinton in '92. Then, from 1994-2001, I shifted over to a more center-right orientation. After watching C-Span and C-Span2 in the spring of 2001, though, I discovered that the Democrats had better ideas and a better grasp of the issues, while the Republicans, albeit with some good arguments from time to time, tended to be hollow in their intentions. So I switched back to being a Democrat and have supported them ever since. But, hey, my leanings aren't set in stone and they could change in the future. But not if folks like Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Mitch McConnell, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck continue to determine the GOP's direction.

Miami Dolphins and the "Perfect" NFL Teams

As a follow-up to my article the other day on the "curse of perfection", specifically regarding football teams, let me direct my attention to the professional sector. In the NFL, there are an unprecedented two teams, the Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints, which still have perfect regular season records of 12-0 with four more games to go before the playoffs. I say good for them, but the team I am following, the Miami Dolphins, is 6-6 and can make the playoffs as well if they finish the season strong. And if they make the playoffs, then who knows what could happen?

As far as I'm concerned, Miami made a success out of its season last Sunday by knocking off its archrival New England 22-21. Now that is a team whose fans have had to come to grips with the "curse of perfection" after the NY Giants, with five regular season losses, deprived them of the championship two years ago, despite the Patriots having won all of their previous games, with a 17-14 Super Bowl win. The Dolphins may well do the same thing this year against the "perfect" Colts or Saints in the playoffs.

But what would be even sweeter than that would be for Miami to pass New England in the standings, win the division again, and deprive the Patriots of a playoff spot for the second year in a row. And this time without the excuse of their MVP quarterback Tom Brady being injured. Or the Dolphins could just as well screw up and lose their final games. Oh well, I can dream, can't I?

Philip K. Dick's Time Out of Joint

I have a theory about some of the blockbuster movies and television series that have come out over the past few decades. It is that those responsible for creating some of these successes lifted, possibly unconsciously, the premises for them from earlier, relatively unknown stories. Stories by authors like Philip K. Dick. Take his 1959 science fiction novel Time Out of Joint, which I recently read, as an example.

Like Dick's realism novel Voices From the Street, which I had earlier reviewed, Time Out of Joint reminds me vividly of a television series and a movie: The Prisoner (again) and The Truman Show, respectively. The story's protagonist is Ragle Gumm, a single, deliberately unemployed middle-aged man who resides in a small town with his sister and her husband and makes a small fortune posting consistently winning entries in an ongoing nationwide newspaper game. Originally content with his lifestyle, circumstances begin to unravel and Gumm decides to leave town and begin his life afresh. But he soon finds out that everyone out of town knows him by name and appearance and is working to bring him back "home". He even intercepts radio broadcasts mentioning him by his name and location. So Gumm realizes that he is living a life of illusion: a very important life, evidently, from the perspective of others. But a fake one, nevertheless, in a contrived location around contrived people and family. Why? Having probably already revealed too much of the plot, I'll leave it at that. But you should be able to make the connection I made with The Prisoner (the original series) and The Truman Show. Time Out of Joint also has the feel of a very well-written Twilight Zone episode, creating an atmosphere of mystery and intrigue while ending with a relatively mundane explanation.

As I read through this novel, I began to identify more with Ragle Gumm. Is this because I may have paranoid or narcissistic tendencies, believing that in some hidden way I am the center and reason for everything going on around me, or is it more that I believe that there is something very significant underlying my life of which I am as yet unaware? The former choice is unhealthy from a psychological standpoint, but the latter view is that of a "seeker", i.e. one who believes that there is more to life than everyday existence. A seeker strikes out to find answers. And then to find the appropriate questions for those answers!

Time Out of Joint, so far, is my favorite Philip K. Dick novel. It really helps to be able to strike up some empathy for the protagonist, not always the case for me with some of his other works. I am currently reading another science fiction novel of his titled The Cosmic Puppets, which more closely resembles something that Stephen King might have written (like his The Regulators, published under "alter ego" pseudonym Richard Bachman).

Passing the Torch (or Curse)

Conversation overheard the other morning at the Clock Restaurant while I was eating breakfast:

Customer: Go Gators!
Waitress: Go Gators! (sigh) Doggone it!

I have a slightly different take on Florida's convincing 32-13 drubbing at the hands of now "perfect" Alabama for the SEC football championship. The situation reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode titled A Game of Pool. In it, a pool fanatic played by Jack Klugman is a general loser at life, except for pool: he practices and plays it day and night. And only wants one thing in life: to be the best pool player ever. The only problem is that the man who was the recognized best, played by Jonathan Winters, had just died, depriving Klugman of his opportunity to dethrone the champ. So this talented man was turning into a very bitter man over this. Then one day, what should happen but the ghost of Winters shows up and challenges Klugman to a match. The stakes: if Klugman wins, then he is recognized as the greatest ever. But if he loses, then he forfeits his life. In the end, Klugman "wins", but as a result is cursed with the responsibility, after his eventual death later on, of replacing Winters in heaven with the job of defending his "title" against future wannabes on Earth.

I feel kind of like that about following a team that, like Florida recently, has come to be expected to be perfect and better than everyone else. This year they haven't been annihilating their opponents with the extremely lopsided scores that their fans have been used to. And quarterback Tim Tebow has also been much more closely scrutinized regarding his performance than ever before. But they kept on winning, until last Saturday that is. Once the shock of their defeat has settled in, they can now go back to just being a very good and entertaining team. And the curse of perfection has been successfully transferred to the University of Alabama. Good luck, guys! Now Gators, just go out and have some fun in the Sugar Bowl against Cincinnati!

President Obama's New Afghan Policy

President Obama has delivered his decision on Afghanistan in a speech Tuesday evening. The President will send 30,000 more American troops to this civil war-ravaged, historically multi-factioned and warlord-dominated country in order, apparently, to eventually speed up their withdrawal. This seems to be somewhat like the "surge doctrine" used in Iraq during the last two years of the Bush presidency, when a more more aggressive military posture was employed to overcome insurgents there, particularly in Sunni areas.

In Iraq, however, whatever successes the surge had were based on the foundation of area tribal chiefs and leaders switching their allegiances from the insurgency to the government. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is not just some covert insurgency, but rather a very organized shadow government, not necessarily dependent on local chiefs for its survival. I may be misinformed, but I don't believe that the same scenario for success exists in Afghanistan (especially the southern region where the Taliban is the strongest) that existed in Iraq.

The additional U.S. troops will fill in the void of security in areas that the Afghan government does not control. Which of course means that these areas are, for all practical purposes, Taliban territory. With popular support rooted in those areas. When our soldiers go into these areas, they will once again be confronted by the specter of having to regard the local civilian population as the enemy unless proven otherwise, inviting possibly tragic misunderstandings and even atrocities.

But then again, I could have it all wrong. Maybe, as in Iraq, the groundwork for some success has clandestinely been laid with more moderate Taliban supporters being persuaded to support a temporary American presence in return for political recognition or autonomy of some sort. Who knows? Perhaps our elected leaders, with their access to classified intelligence, know something that I or my fellow lay citizens don't. But then again, this same reasoning was put over on us by the previous Bush administration to justify invading Iraq in 2003("trust us, we have access to special intelligence and know better than you").

Come what will, I believe that continually ostracizing the Taliban in this area is not a formula for success. Our focus should be to separate them from Al-Qaeda, not eliminate them. There will always be a harsh, Islamic fundamentalist presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those following it are in the minority in both countries, but they are devoted and willing to sacrifice themselves and others to achieve legitimacy. Ultimately, the solution for peace will come through negotiation and some sort of political equilibrium with these groups. And there will always be a degree of tension between the fundamentalist interests and those who want a more secular, albeit still Islamic, society in their countries.

Anyway, the way I see it, our main problem over there isn't Afghanistan, but rather Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons that is directly threatened by extremist forces and in which Al-Qaeda is currently based. And where American troops are not welcome by the presiding official government. Good luck on sorting that mess out, Mr. President! I just hope our additional troops don't just succeed in driving the Taliban completely over the border into Pakistan, further destabilizing that already too-unstable nation.

Assorted Rants, Reader Beware

--In a radio interview with conservative talk show host Rusty Humphries, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who abandoned her position of responsibility to "go rogue", openly approved of those who were continuing to question Barack Obama's status as a native-born American citizen. Palin reminds me of people who win the lottery before they learn how to manage money. So they squander their prize with reckless spending. With Palin, the lottery win was McCain selecting her as his running mate in 2008. Her lack of expertise is in managing political capital, not money. And she is squandering it all with reckless speech. Well, maybe not all: she'll always have the conspiratorial nutcase wing of the political right at her beck and call. Do I see a Sarah Palin/Ron Paul ticket in the works?

--Recently, some Republican lawmakers have tried to use a recent misguided government study that was skeptical of women having mammograms for early breast cancer detection before age 50. They cried that this is an example of government health care rationing and is what we can expect if the Democrats' health care reform bill is enacted. But the study was just that: a study, nothing more. And as Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd recently pointed out on the Senate floor, our health care is now already constantly being rationed in minute detail, not by the government, but rather by the private health insurance companies. Which, by the way, enjoy protection as monopolies with their exemption from federal anti-trust laws.

--Regarding the Tiger Woods incident where he had an auto accident and seems to be covering up some personal meanderings, I couldn't care less about the personal business. But I AM concerned about the fact that he was able to get away with repeatedly refusing to talk to police officers following the accident without any legal consequences. Suppose you or I tried the same thing: how long would the police have waited before we were dragged out of our homes, possibly Tasered, and pushed into a squad car and driven off to jail, with charges of resisting the police being levied against us? This is another case of the law being applied differently, depending on how powerful and wealthy one is. Scary.

--The buzz around Gainesville is naturally about the upcoming Southeastern Conference championship game between the Florida Gators and the Alabama Crimson Tide on Saturday in Atlanta. In football. American football. You know, that weird sport where big people in astronaut-like gear and tight pants form lines opposite each other and then abruptly collide en masse, falling down all over the place and then getting up to repeat the process? And somewhere along the line, some points mysteriously get added to one side or another? With funny little guys in striped outfits running around, throwing flags, blowing whistles and wildly gesticulating with their arms? Yeh, that sport. I'm pulling for UF, but I am no fanatic, either. As Billy Preston once so eloquently put it, "Let the bad guy win every once in a while." Maybe I'll begin to care more who wins when someone shows me how that is going to make even a rat's @$$ of a difference in my life. [Note previous day's article and how irrationally I root for the Miami Dolphins.]

Dolphins Still In It (Barely)

It's too bad that this year's edition of the Miami Dolphins has experienced some problems, both in terms of their place in the standings and with season-ending injuries to key players. But I'm still with them and admire the gritty, determined manner in which they tackle each game (although they suffered a collective fourth-quarter meltdown against Buffalo last week).

The injuries didn't begin at the beginning of the season, but Miami still couldn't buy a victory, incurring several close losses. Then quarterback Chad Pennington, running back Ronnie Brown, and defensive tackle Jason Ferguson suffered injuries putting them out of action until next year. Backup quarterback Chad Henne, although erratic at times with his accuracy, has generally done quite well replacing Pennington, who in all probability won't be with the Dolphins after this season. Ricky Williams, likewise, has worked very hard, with varying degrees of success, to cover for Brown's absence. One of the big problems with this is that Miami's once-vaunted wildcat offense has thus become much easier to predict and contain with only one star running back in there to cover at a time instead of the great Brown/Williams combo.

These problems notwithstanding, Miami is still, after eleven games, only one game out of wild card playoff contention with a 5-6 record. But they would have to hold off three teams with their same record and pass ahead of three others with 6-5 marks. And next week they play New England, a pretty steep hurdle to cross in itself. Another loss by the Dolphins will pretty much eliminate them from playoff contention, as I see it. Better, I think, to appreciate them from week to week and hope for a .500 season.

Night Run Through UF

After driving back from Jacksonville this past Sunday, I thought it would be interesting to see whether the outdoor track on the University of Florida campus was available for me to run on at night. When I pulled my car into the adjacent parking lot and got out, the gates at first glance seemed to be locked up. And I didn't see anyone running on the track, so I assumed that it was closed. However, already ready to go on a jog, I decided to do just that. Across the UF campus, instead.

I was a little skittish at the prospect of running at night through the University of Florida because I knew that their night lighting was somewhat dim and might fail to properly illuminate obstacles and holes in my running path, causing me a possibly injurious spill. But I quickly became accustomed to the low level of lighting and gamely "chugged" on through, passing landmarks like the O'Connell Center, Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, Weil Hall, Turlington Hall, Marston Science Library, Century Tower, Music building, Little Hall, Tigert Hall, various dorms, Reitz Union, more dorms, and finally Fraternity Row, before completing my 2.7 mile loop in the darkness back just outside the track.

It was just then, at the end of my jaunt through UF, that I noticed someone running around the track. So I examined the gates more closely and found an opening. And entered the track, running another half mile. Cool!

So night running apparently does work at UF, after all. But like Charlie Daniels, I think I'm gonna reroute my trip (at least the final part) in the future (only slightly, not going via Omaha): I'll forsake Fraternity Road, which has no sidewalk or bike path, and go a little further west down Village Drive, which has both. And this small change will also give me a running route exactly five kilometers in length. Doubly cool!

Philip K. Dick's The World Jones Made

The World Jones Made, a science fiction novel by Philip K. Dick written in 1954, explores the "future" world of 2002. And, like other typical works of science fiction produced in this era, mankind is deep into outer space, colonizing the moon, Venus, the outer planets, and even exploring nearby star systems. Seven years ago, so it would seem. So where have we gone wrong in our real world?

After giving it a little thought, I hold that we're right on track with our space exploration. The impetus given to human space exploration in the fifties and sixties was motivated in large part by the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, along with the desire to develop and test long-range missiles capable of accurately delivering nuclear warheads to enemy targets in the event of a nuclear war. As the threat of nuclear war diminished with arms control agreements and easing of relations, so diminished the military's influence on space exploration policy. I believe that many today are wary that a new effort to send men and women into deep space will encourage its militarization and eventually threaten life on Earth. And noting how, in the last century and a half, technological innovations have quickly been converted to instruments of war and death, I would sadly have to concur with them.

But there is an even more obvious reason why we "real folks" haven't lived up to the standards of space exploration set by those sci-fi writers of decades long gone. And it's pretty simple, actually. To make a story more appealing to its readers, many of them in their youth, the writer may find it attractive to paint a picture of colonized planets and star exploration within the projected life spans of those readers. Which gives the story an added dimension of personal involvement on the part of the reader. I remember, in my own youth, reading an Alan Nourse novel titled Rocket to Limbo, in which an expedition to Alpha Centauri takes off in 2008. It had a great impact on me, and putting a date within my own reach no doubt contributed to that. And who can argue against the appeal of Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey and its sequel 2010?

Philip K. Dick was no scientist, but he knew just enough to be able to enable readers to visualize the future. Dick's greatest strength as a writer was to capture and convey the essence of human nature in all of its forms, good or bad, foolish or wise, weak or strong, through his stories' characters. And The World Jones Made does not disappoint in this respect.

The story's protagonist is a security officer named Cussick who is protecting a worldwide government based on the philosophy of Hoff's Relativism, which criminalizes absolutism, even in ordinary conversation. His foil is a character named Jones, who has the paranormal ability to experience his own life exactly one year into the future. Dick takes this ability and explores all of its ramifications, which become more fascinating as the novel progresses.

There is a subplot to The World Jones Made that involves humans who have been genetically manipulated to adapt to an environment not normally found on Earth. To say more about this would be giving away the story, and I am recommending that you read it. So I'll just let it go at that, except to say that Dick uses this to create a perfect symmetry between the novel's beginning and conclusion.

The World Jones Made, although obviously outdated and technically very flawed, is still very good, entertaining reading. Philip K. Dick explored the nature of personality cults as well as his own favorite topic: the nature of subjectivity versus objectivity. And of course, it's always fun to go back and see what some people thought today's world in the early 21st century might be like.

Health Care For All

Here I am, sitting off in a corner of a Starbucks next to the Oaks Mall here in Gainesville, across the street from the North Florida Regional medical offices where I am currently between appointments for routine medical tests and consultations. For which my excellent health insurance, provided by my employer, USPS, gives coverage with a very reasonable premium. This is the same general type of coverage that our lawmakers in Washington enjoy. And many of them, Republicans for the most part but also several Democrats, evidently think that they are so superior to the American people that they would deprive the rest of the country's population of the same benefits that they enjoy themselves. By opposing health care reform.

As far as the public option that we have heard so much about over the past few months is concerned, it doesn't explicitly exist in the pool of choices I have for health insurance. Instead, insurance companies and FHOs have negotiated special policies with the government to cover federal employees, with their prices being relatively low. So, in a sense, there is already a degree of "public" in the available private options, at least for federal employees.

I have been opposed to efforts put forth by a few Democrats (and Independent Joe Lieberman) to pass a bill without a public option. I can handle that, provided that any mandated health insurance is not beyond the means of the people to pay for. Especially poor people. The only problem is that there is no guarantee that this won't happen, and I am strongly opposed to creating a new class of criminals, based on a new unreasonable mandate to carry health insurance. If there are provisions within the bill to lessen the load on the poor (and I've heard that there are), then those poor Americans should not have to jump through any bureaucratic hoops to obtain that relief and avoid fines or prosecution. After all, there are many living in poverty right now who don't receive available public assistance simply because they are averse to the red tape involved in it or are simply ignorant of their options.

Blog Entering Patchy Period

I am anticipating a period of a few days in which my blog entries may be sporadic. Or relatively short. Things should pick up, though, sooner or later.

Dip Into Thirties, Finally

This morning the local temperatures here in Gainesville dipped down into the thirties for the first time since early April. Although meteorologists have predicted a wet and cold winter due to the El Niño effect, we have been experiencing a rather warm, dry autumn so far. Lows in the upper thirties, highs in the fifties: that is "my" optimum weather!

Philip K. Dick's In Milton Lumky Territory

In Milton Lumky Territory is a realism novel by Philip K. Dick (1928-82), known primarily for his science fiction. The setting is the American Pacific Northwest, mostly in the state of Idaho. The three main characters, Bruce Stevens, Susan Faine, and Milton Lumky, are struggling with their jobs and businesses in the area. Bruce joins Susan's typewriter/office services business and tries to improve on it by concentrating on selling higher-quality typewriters. To accomplish this, he searches the Pacific area from San Francisco to Seattle for a supplier of a certain Japanese electric typewriter that he feels will sell well and turn the business around. Lumky, on the other hand, is a travelling office paper salesman who knew Susan from earlier and is getting to know Bruce. He reveals a supplier who has a large stock of the typewriters in question. There is a clash of personalities and values between Lumky and Stevens, as the former accuses the latter of lacking in spirituality and concern for others. Lumky asks Stevens if he believed in God, and Stevens can only laugh back uncontrollably in response. Lumky becomes angry at him, not only for his atheism but for the fact that Stevens, unlike himself, thrives being on long road trips.

This novel, not one of my favorites of Dick's, does examine closely how people think and relate to one another. It paints no favorable picture of anyone, as all of the story's main characters are really pretty disagreeable and miserable people. Which makes reading through it a somewhat depressing experience.

The bleak, ugly description of Idaho that Dick lays out is also rather depressing. The roads are bad, the weather is miserable, and there are these nasty flying, biting bugs that get in your face and clog up your car's radiator.

I suppose that if you are a glutton for punishment, you may want to read In Milton Lumky's Territory. I for one didn't particularly enjoy it, although it did provide some insight into what motivates some people to behave in a petty manner regarding money. And like other Philip K. Dick realism novels such as Humpty Dumpty in Oakland and Voices From the Street, it exposes the mindset of people running small businesses, at least as Dick sees it. And a not-so-favorable portrayal at that.

I am currently reading a science fiction novel of Dick: The World Jones Made. Much, much more enjoyable and interesting (I'm about two thirds of the way through it). I think Philip K. Dick's strength was definitely in the genre of science fiction! The fact that many of his realism novels, including In Milton Lumky's Territory, were repeatedly rejected by publishers during his lifetime and were only published posthumously is just an affirmation of my own opinion.

Urban Meyer and Notre Dame

With Notre Dame once again having a mediocre season at 6-5, talk is heating up about an impending head football coach vacancy up there in South Bend, with Charlie Weis on the way out after a string of disappointing seasons. And talk is also heating up about the possibility that Florida head coach Urban Meyer will step in to replace Weis.

Before coming to UF, Meyer has described coaching at Notre Dame, where he was previously an assistant coach for five years, as his "dream job". But he has become very comfortable here in Gainesville and has accomplished everything he would have wanted to at Notre Dame, particularly two national championships in four seasons and possibly a third this year. He can recruit more easily in the high schools of Florida and the South at large, and he doesn't have to overcome the stringent academic standards that Notre Dame has to bring in players who may have had enough difficulty just passing high school. Meyer is almost idolized in the Gainesville area, something that I have already written disturbs me to no end. If he went to Notre Dame, then winning the national championship occasionally and competing for it every season would be the minimum expectation among their fans. Of course, give Meyer a string of three or four seasons with three or four losses per season at UF and see much longer he would remain idolized here in Gainesville.

Urban Meyer has consistently and firmly denied rumors that he would be interested in coaching at Notre Dame, and has reiterated that he is very happy at the University of Florida. The only problem with that is that Alabama head coach Nick Saban was saying the same things while coaching the Miami Dolphins when the Alabama job became available. And once Alabama made him an "offer he couldn't refuse", Saban reneged on his commitment to the Dolphins and jumped over to Alabama. Meyer has "jumped ship" before, most recently leaving Utah for Florida following only his second season of coaching for them, after recruiting players there who believed that he would be with them for their college careers.

For me, I think Urban Meyer is a good coach with essentially no sense of humor, at least as far as it relates to him or his team. This whole mindset around here that it is somehow offensive to criticize Meyer, Tim Tebow, or any other UF player or coach is offensive in itself to me. I would rather have a less successful coach and a team to follow that had moderately successful seasons than a coach and team that are EXPECTED to win every game they play (and by large point margins at that). So Meyer is welcome to jump ship, as far as I'm concerned. Whether he does or not, I'll still root for the Gators. But it wouldn't hurt my feelings if he left, either. After all, Nick Saban has already conditioned me in this area!

Health Care Reform Bill, Prospects

Well, the health care reform bill has finally gotten into debate in the US Senate with the bare sixty votes needed. All of the Democrats (included the two Independents caucusing with them) voted for starting debate while all Republicans voted against it. This was to be expected. Now I'll predict what will happen next.

Now that debate on this bill, completely opposed by the GOP, has begun, several amendments will be put forth by Republican senators who have no intention whatsoever to vote for the bill, regardless whether or not their amendments are approved. And some of these amendments will be accepted. The task of the Democrats will be to alter the bill enough to give political cover to Independent Senator Joe Lieberman and more conservative Democrats Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson. This will be done by reinstating the "trigger" gimmick that would activate the public option should prices stay too high. But they'll call it something else and make it slightly different. In the end, cloture on the bill will pass with 60 or 61 votes, Maine Republican Olympia Snowe possibly returning with her support of it. And it will easily pass in this form in the final Senate vote.

The next step will see this legislation brought to conference, where the House and Senate versions will have to be reconciled into something of a compromise between them. Once that final version is produced, the two bodies will have to approve it. And if there is not a public option after conference, then there is a real danger of it not being approved in the House of Representatives, where support for a public option is stronger and more insistent.

Let's see how well I do with my prediction. I seem to be doing pretty well with my football prognosticating this year (well, the Ravens aren't doing as well I thought they would); maybe it will carry over into politics!

My Running and Weight Training

During the past few days, I have decided to change my running regimen by alternating my running with weight training, done at my local YMCA workout room. I had noticed that running every day seemed to put more wear on my feet and ankles, but skipping a day gave them a better chance to recover and strengthen. I also want to develop my upper body strength anyway.

The weight training technology that is available nowadays is, in my opinion, vastly superior and safer than the old barbells and bars (still available at the "Y" for those masochists who prefer them). In the mid to late 1950s, my father developed an interest in weightlifting and purchased a complete set of Joe Weider weights. When I was twelve (and emaciated-looking, ribs prominently poking out of my chest), he gradually and cautiously introduced me to weight training. But it wasn't until I turned fifteen that my interest took off. By that time, I did all of my training on my own, which wasn't actually the safest thing to do. When you're bench-pressing heavy weights, there is a danger that you'll lose control of the bar and it could fall on top of you, possibly fatally. But since I am not "ghost writing" this, I obviously survived that sometimes foolhardy period. But it would have been more prudent to have a partner during workouts.

And now I'm making good use of the weight room. It's actually a lot of fun and adds a touch of variety to my exercising. I still do most of my running around my neighborhood, usually covering 3.4-3.6 miles each time. I like this distance because it doesn't take up too much time to accomplish while still keeping me accustomed to running a span of more than 5K (3.11 miles). After all, I may just get up one Saturday morning and decide to run one of those numerous 5K races held in town this time of year!

Paul Is Dead and JFK Plot Theories

In writing about various conspiracy theories that have been spun over the years, I could replicate the information that is readily available on the Internet. But seeing that those who read my blog are already either pretty intelligent and well-informed about performing searches or have found my blog through a search (proving that they are capable in this area), I decided to instead focus on my own circumstances and reflections regarding those "theories".

With conspiracies in general, I believe that human nature, along with the concept of chaos when as few as three variables come into play, make elaborate conspiracy/cover-up theories like the JFK assassination plot, the moon hoax, the 9/11 "inside job", and the "Paul is dead" cover-up preposterous. But it's still fun to "play" the game for a while, just as I may enjoy watching a far-fetched James Bond or science fiction movie or read a Stephen King or Philip K. Dick novel. And then return to the real world, none the worse for wear. Unfortunately, this return to reality after exposure to some of this stuff is beyond the means of some people.

Although John F. Kennedy was murdered on 1963, for me the first true immersion into conspiracy theories was of the contrived story that Beatles co-leader Paul McCartney had been killed in an automobile accident in 1966, occurring either on September 11 or November 9 (depending on how one interprets the "clues"). I first heard about this in the spring of 1970 at school in the eighth grade during morning televised announcements. Apparently, some upperclassman had picked up on the rumors begun the previous year by a pair of Detroit radio DJs and had put together a pretty compelling presentation at the end of the announcement show that morning. A couple of years later, a classmate friend of mind decided to make this his term paper topic. I began to listen to "clues" on Beatles songs and examine the albums. Why the other Beatles would go to all the trouble to bring in a replacement "look-alike" Paul to permit the band's continuity in the public eye and then furtively place these clues on their material never occurred to me, or to many others, apparently. But it was fun. It also made me wonder whether I could manufacture my own conspiracy/cover-up by first taking incidental lyrics and album design features and then constructing a secret "narrative" to fit them. This is, after all, what those DJs did with McCartney's premature demise.

Speaking of Kennedy's assassination, as I child in the 1960s I never heard of Jim Garrison's campaign to promote his view of it as a complex conspiracy involving right-wing extremists and secret agents (as shown in Oliver Stone's movie JFK). It was only in the 1970s when I caught wind of the notion that others beside Lee Harvey Oswald may have been in on the assassination. Three of the arguments promoting the idea of a conspiracy were (1) witnesses in the area reporting hearing more than the officially-established number of shots, (2) the single-bullet theory accounting for both the first bullet going through the President and then hitting Texas governor John Connally was too outlandish to believe, and (3) the real killers shot JFK from a hidden spot on a grassy knoll as he was passing by. But (1) I travelled to Dallas in 1994 and drove through the same area, past the places immortalized in those tragic scenes. And I noticed that in real life, everything is much more closed in, with tall buildings everywhere. Giving the idea that witnesses heard echoes instead of extra shots more credence. (2) The Discovery Channel investigated the single-bullet theory by meticulously recreating the parameters of the assassination, using the same type weapon that Oswald had, shooting from the same height, angle, and distance. They closely mimicked the bone structure of the victims by having models made with "skeletons". They placed the victims (models) in positions as close as possible to filmed records. And then shot the models and analyzed the results. By this, the one-bullet theory was CONFIRMED, not refuted. (3) One doesn't have to be a marksman to know that, in order to hit a moving target, you would need to reduce the effects of that motion on your aim. The way to do this is to align yourself with the direction of the motion, as Oswald did from his position at the Texas Schoolbook Depository in order to keep the angular change at a minimum. Those supposed assassins at the grassy knoll would have been shooting from the worst possible angle, perpendicular to the President's car as it passed by. Why would anyone plan it this way?!

In December 2000, I heard a late-night radio interview with the late muckraking journalist Jack Anderson. In it, Anderson laid out his own conspiracy theory about JFK's death. And like those who created the "Paul is dead" narrative, he constructed it from contributory circumstances. The narrative: in the 1960 presidential election, JFK's father, with the help of the Chicago mob, bought the vote and the state of Illinois, giving him the election in 1960 (although in reality Kennedy didn't need Illinois in the final count). So the mob expected good treatment from JFK as president in return. But JFK made his brother Robert attorney general and RFK went after the mob, creating a feeling of betrayal among the gangsters. Also feeling threatened was Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA was trying to kill using the mob. Well, according to Anderson, both the mob and Castro "saw the light", got together, and conspired to kill Kennedy. Huh? Oh well, when you're a true believer in something, you accept the contributing "evidence" and ignore anything that would contradict it.

Should Conservatives Support Palin for President?

The Republican Party needs someone knowledgeable about the issues to lead them as an opposition party, not someone like drama-queen/attention-seeker/quitter ex-governor Sarah Palin. As I had written before, Palin is much like the late Richard Nixon in that she never forgets a slight and doggedly hangs on to her grudges, striking back repeatedly and openly against anyone who she feels “did her wrong”. This includes anyone in the media who ever asked her a question she didn’t like, as well as practically the entire John McCain campaign organization. Her newly released book Going Rogue, rather than mending fences to move forward with her political and/or media ambitions, is employing a different metaphor: burning bridges.

The GOP has plenty of articulate (and even sometimes charismatic) individuals whom their members could follow all the way through to victories in 2010 and 2012, possibly even winning back the White House in 2012; Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, and Mitt Romney are experienced, conservative ex-governors who, besides having extensive campaign experience, served out their terms in office to their completion responsibly and with the view that while in office, they represented their entire states, not just those who voted for them. As opposition leaders, they are now naturally more ideological in their rhetoric. But although a future Huckabee, Jeb, or Romney administration would definitely have a much more conservative flavor than the present Obama presidency, I am confident that they would display the kind of pragmatism that they showed as governors. I can’t say the same for Sarah Palin.

On the other hand, George W. Bush, as governor of Texas, enjoyed wide popularity even among Democrats. Upon assuming the presidency, though, he reverted to being more of an ideologue. So who knows, except that I can easily tell that Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, my differences with them aside, strike me as being much more intelligent and confident in their abilities to lead (instead of passively sitting back and letting their staff and VP do the job for them as Dubya did).

And if people are just looking for someone in the media to represent their conservative views, may I suggest folks like George Will or Charles Krauthammer instead of Palin. Actually, though, even a bomb-thrower like Ann Coulter, who can be quite funny sometimes and has a self-deprecating and wicked sense of humor, is a better “leader” than vindictive, take-it-all-personally Sarah Palin. C’mon, conservatives, wise up!

I think that the McCain campaign made a huge mistake in the summer of 2008 regarding the role that Sarah Palin was to take in the campaign. She initially enjoyed huge, widespread popularity and had a compelling personal rags-to-glory story that ordinary people could relate to. The problems began when she concentrated on attacking Obama and the Democrats instead of focusing on her life and positive values. The Republicans wasted Palin’s initial popularity by relegating her to the role of being the “attacker”. That having been said, it must also be said that Governor Palin seemed to relish this role quite a lot. But that set the Democratic attack machine squarely against her, and in a matter of days she began the object of ridicule, not admiration. And a liability to the McCain campaign.

Sarah Palin has often cited Ronald Reagan as a sort of political role model, but she hasn’t followed his path. But another ex-governor has: Mike Huckabee, who has his own entertaining Sunday night prime time show on Fox News. Like Reagan before him in the late 1970’s, Huckabee has successfully kept himself in the media without whipping up hostility, as Palin has. If you identify yourself as a political conservative, you may admire and agree with Sarah Palin. But you should be concerned if she were to run for president and lead in the Republican primaries. Because there's no way she's going to garner enough support to win a national election!

As a side note, I noticed in a recent nationwide opinion poll (I believe it was ABC/Washington Post) that 53% of respondents said that they would not vote for Sarah Palin for president. But in the same poll, 60% said that she was unqualified for being president. Leaving the implication that at least 7% would consider voting for her, even acknowledging that she was unqualified. Scary!

In Defense of Senator Joe

I know that Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is currently under fire from many Democrats for his opposition to any health care reform bill that contains a public option. Some are calling for the Senate leadership to strip him of his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship as well as ignoring his overall Senate seniority in determining his placing among the Democratic caucus, of which he is still a member. I for one am sorry that Senator Lieberman has chosen to oppose what I think is an important means to keep insurance prices down, especially if the proposed legislation makes not buying health insurance a matter of criminality for ordinary Americans. But let the man speak for himself.

Lieberman, I believe, is genuinely concerned, all protestations to the contrary from some of the proposed Senate bill's supporters, that having a government (and therefore taxpayer)-funded public option will eventually balloon into an enormous national debt burden. And we are already dependent on China, our competitor and ideological adversary, to fund our already gargantuan national debt. I've heard folks like Keith Olbermann point out that Senator Lieberman, being from the insurance-based state of Connecticut, receives much financial support from insurance companies there. But as I see it, that doesn't necessarily imply that Lieberman is under the sway of the insurance companies. As he has pointed out, he is strongly supporting the current push through congress to strip away the health insurance industry's ridiculous exemption from the Federal Anti-Trust Act. The charge of conflict of interest regarding his stance on the public option, to me, is unsubstantiated since practically everyone in elected office receives contributions from parties located in their home states and districts with vested interests in their votes and decisions. And the matter of the burgeoning national debt is truly an enormously urgent concern, not a trivial excuse as some on the left are implying.

Let us also not forget that in 2006, after Lieberman's own party, disaffected with his support for Bush's Iraq War, had essentially deserted him and supported Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senatorial Democratic primary (and defeated him), Lieberman, after receiving most of his support in the general election from Republican voters, still decided to caucus with the Democrats. Which gave them the crucial, razor-thin 51-49 majority to run the Senate for two years in opposition to President Bush, not an insignificant accomplishment. Where is the gratitude for that action, when his own party had abandoned him?

Sure, Joe Lieberman supported John McCain for president against Barack Obama in 2008. But he had a very strong friendship with the Arizona senator and strongly supported his tough stance on national defense and homeland security. Personally, though, I think he went too far in his campaigning for McCain when he criticized Obama. Despite this, Obama urged other Democrats to reconcile with him after the election. Lieberman is still much more Democratic than Republican in his Senate voting and has voted many times for cloture against GOP filibusters. That, however, does not preclude him from occasional dissenting votes of "conscience", as he likes to put it.

Yes, I wish that Senator Lieberman would have supported the public option. But his statement that he would vote for opening the debate on the proposed health care reform bill that contains a public option indicates to me that he is genuinely interested in working with his Democratic colleagues to create a final product that is more to his liking and, in his opinion, more in line with the national interests. Although Senator Joe irritates me to no end with his pompous, self-righteous oratorical tone, I do respect him for taking a stand that he truly believes is important for the country. Even when I disagree with that stand.

Do Unto Others…

I wish that people of faith, regardless of their faith, would demonstrate a degree of maturity in their exercise of said faith. It matters not what one believes in, be it Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Scientology, or anything else. It’s all right to make your own personal decisions of belief or nonbelief. It’s another to try to ram YOUR decisions down others’ throats! And then to condemn anyone not subscribing to your belief system as being out of God’s will, or worse, of the devil!

As I have previously written on this blog, the overwhelming majority of religious adherents identify with the faith that they grew up in, either from their parents’ faith or the convenience of that faith’s relative predominance and acceptance in the surrounding society. Sure, there are those who may make a conversion decision without this context of background, but they are rare indeed. And that is why a believer should keep as a personal habit a degree of empathy for others who have grown up in religious climates different from their own. It is the accident of birth that is the primary factor in determining one’s religious orientation, so why put down others for being born in the “wrong” place and time?

Having said the above, it also bears noting that those NOT sharing a belief in a particular religion need to demonstrate a little compassion and maturity for those who do. Just about every religion I’ve heard of practices the doctrine of exclusivity in some form or another; this even includes “big tent” faiths like the Baha’is and the Unitarian Universalists. I respect the decisions that believers of various faiths make for their own lives regarding the parameters of behavior and appearance that these faiths dictate within their doctrines. But I also expect, in turn, for those believers to respect my right to not necessarily abide by THEIR codes.

What was that saying in the Bible? Oh yes, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or in simple language, treat others the way you would like them to treat you. Unless, of course, you have a pronounced self-destructive streak to your personality!

Gainesville’s Green Zone?

A few days ago, the Gainesville Sun featured an article about how the University Police was patrolling areas surrounding the University of Florida campus to keep criminals off campus. You see, UF students have recently seen an upturn in the amount of armed muggings. These have predictably occurred overwhelmingly off-campus and in traditionally high-crime areas like the downtown night club zone. Nevertheless, since it was “UF students” who were victims, there has been a big cry to “protect the campus”.

Apparently, the police are searching out individuals behaving in a suspicious manner in the streets near campus. I presume (hopefully) that there is no profiling going on here (especially that of a racial nature). One of the police officials had given a comment that the police were trying to keep off campus people who didn’t belong there. But what constitutes “not belonging there”? It is public tax-funded property, after all. If one wants to jog through campus, try out one of the libraries, or attend a lecture, how can the police decide from someone crossing University Avenue onto campus whether they belong or not, unless they are in some way doing some profiling?

I can understand the need to keep people from sleeping on the campus grounds, and I also understand the need for students on campus to be secure from mugging. But for the police to have grounds for preventing access to the campus, they need to establish suspicion of an imminent crime and not be in the business of making value judgments as to who belongs there or not. Obviously, if a police officer observes someone going around a building trying different door handles, peering through windows, hanging around aimlessly at 3 am, or skulking in alleys or behind bushes, that would constitute suspicious behavior. Likewise, they are justified in responding to a call from someone on campus who is concerned about the behavior of another. But, as I said before, this all comes under the umbrella of upholding the law, not making value judgments.

Let’s not turn the wonderful, open University of Florida campus into another Green Zone with checkpoints and a martial atmosphere surrounding it. We’re not in Iraq, for crying out loud!

Assorted Sports Thoughts

--In college football,the Pacific Ten conference has been more difficult to follow than I had anticipated. But still I feel that it is a very interesting conference. Once you factor out the very poor Washington State team, there is an extraordinarily high level of parity in this conference. USC, which has dominated it in recent years, is in a rebuilding phase while other schools are peaking. On any given gameday, any of the nine viable teams can beat the other. And often the result is an unexpected blowout. That having been said, two teams have emerged at the "top of the heap": the league-leading Oregon Ducks and the Stanford Cardinal, who just routed USC 55-21.

--The University of Florida football team continues its winning ways, although there seem to be issues regarding its passing game. As much as I respect quarterback Tim Tebow, it does seem to me that he has difficulty on designed passing plays deciding what to do with the ball. Which often results in him eventually being sacked. I do think that Tebow has a future in pro ball, but he may be more suited to a running back role, much like that of Hall of Famer Miami Dolphin Larry Csonka.

--The University of Florida men's basketball team began their season Sunday with an easy victory over Stetson. I am optimistic about the Gators' chances to reach the NCAA tournament after two lackluster seasons. Florida now has a true center in Georgetown transferee Vernon Macklin while freshman point guard Kenny Boynton holds great promise for the Gators. I'm also glad that coach Billy Donovan finally saw the light and made his non-conference schedule a little more challenging this season.

--The Phoenix Suns, led by multiple MVP point guard Steve Nash, have returned to their old fast-paced style of offensive play. And with that has also returned their old high percentage of victories. Phoenix promises to return to the playoffs this year and may challenge the defending NBA champion Los Angeles Lakers for their divisional title this season.

Philip K. Dick's Voices From the Street

Although the late Philip K. Dick is famous primarily as a science fiction writer, he has also written quite a bit of "realism" fiction. Several of his novels went unpublished until after his death. One of Dick's first novels, Voices From the Street, was one of his last ever published, although it was originally written in 1952. I just finished reading it.

Voices From the Street is different from the first two Dick novels I've read so far in that at 301 pages, it is considerably longer. Set in the San Francisco Bay area of 1952, the focus is on character Stuart Hadley and his inability as a young man to fit into the society around him. Hadley is an employee in a small TV store who is a dreamer dissatisfied with his mundane existence. His young wife Ellen has just given birth to his son, and by all accounts he looks like a young man with a bright future. Good job, good family, good health, good friends. But to Hadley, this life is nothing more than a prison from which he becomes increasingly desperate in his desire to escape. He becomes aware of an apocalyptic Christian sect in town with a very charismatic leader, and finds that its message of the world's end resonates with his feelings. But even that is not enough, and toward the novel's end, Hadley decides to embark on a reckless and hastily thought-up scheme to get away from the life he detests.

To fully analyze this novel, I really have to relate how it ended. But I won't, so this review is by necessity incomplete. But I will point out that it reminded me of a television series and a movie I have seen in the past: The Prisoner and Groundhog Day, respectively. In the former, the protagonist eventually escapes his predicament strengthened and unbroken. In the latter, the protagonist finally capitulates to his situation and undergoes a complete personal transformation, something I found to be unsettling (although Groundhog Day was a comedy above everything else). In Voices From the Street, Stuart Hadley has his own predicament as well: his present life and his place in it, pure and simple. Does he escape to a better life or is he forced to yield to the forces within his present existence? That is what the story's ending revealed. And that ending, depending on one's point of view, was either happy and positive or sad and tragic. And I find that ambiguity to be fascinating.

A disproportionately high percentage of this novel is spent in dialogue situations, in which the speakers discuss their diverse views on politics, business, religion, sex, and just about anything else that comes to the author's mind. That can get to be pretty tedious reading, and it is why I went through this book at a slower pace than with the previous two. Also, since this novel was published posthumously, the author couldn't correct its flaws. For example, early in the story Stuart Hadley tells his wife that he will pick up his sister for a visit that evening. But when evening comes, a couple of old friends visit instead, with no mention or explanation given about his sister.

For an early novel, Philip K. Dick's Voices From the Street was quite compelling and deep. I recommend it. If it's available, check it out from your local public library as I did.

My next Philip K. Dick novel is another venture into fictional realism: In Milton Lumpky's Territory. Sooner or later, I'll come across another of his science fiction works. Until then...

Resuming Old Writing Time

For a long time, I had a certain routine to my life. Before I had to be at work in the afternoon, I would leave a little early at stop off at a local coffee shop. There I would read some and then write on my AlphaSmart portable word processor, usually a blog article. This worked quite well for me, but I fell out of the habit. Lately, I have been trying to write earlier in the morning when, to be perfectly frank, my brain isn't working on all cylinders. I need a little while to get myself in "optimum" form for the day, and it happens a little later than with most people. My working hours are from 3:30 pm to midnight, with me being usually sharply awake afterward until around 2 am.

So now I'm consiciously trying to resume my old afternoon reading/writing habit, with this article representing one of those efforts. Good luck, self!

Subway Artist "Works"

I like Subway, although I was spoiled back in the 1980s by Gordies Subs, which was a five-minute walk from my apartment (they had the best turkey salad sub sandwiches) here in Gainesville. The prices at Subway are reasonable, the line moves fast, the food is fresh, and there are plenty of choices. I usually order for myself one of the less expensive sub sandwiches, with lots of vegetables loaded into them.

Subway has its own system of custom-made sandwiches. First, I choose the type of bread for my sandwich and give the "sandwich artist" (as they call themselves) my order, including what cheese type I want and whether I want the bread toasted. At the final stage of the line, just before paying for my order, another "artist" puts on the vegetable toppings as I dictate. Subway has something called "the works": this consists of a standard group of vegetable toppings like lettuce, tomato, onions, cucumber, and black olive. Explicitly excluded from "the works" are hot peppers and banana peppers. These have to be asked for separately, for obvious reasons. Which leads me to a funny ongoing thing that they do.

If I say I want "the works", they invariably start adding the hot peppers anyway, although they aren't supposed to. But if I say I want "the works, but no hot peppers or banana peppers", the "artist" on duty invariably begins to condescendingly lecture me on how those aren't included in "the works" anyway and I didn't need to have said that.

So Wednesday I went to Subway, ordered my sub sandwich, and at the end, simply said "the works". And then stood back and watched bemusedly as my "artist" once again began to reach for the hot peppers!

Tried Fox News

I tried something different the other day: I deliberately kept the TV channel on Fox News and watched their evening shows. And came away with the conclusion that it was worth it.

I recognize that Fox is pretty slanted toward the political right. Please spare me that ridiculous, tired old cliche of theirs that they are "fair and balanced". In their so-called round-table discussions, what is usually presented is a "balance" between far-right, center-right, and centrist views, with the left shut out of the discussion. The hosts, without exception, are very conservative in outlook. And, like their liberal counterparts on MSNBC, they have an irritating smugness about themselves. While operating under the impression that, I, the viewer, am on their "side" as well.

I'm accustomed to the generally (and sometimes intensely) liberal slant on MSNBC's evening programming, so it was easy for me to filter out the conservative bias on Fox. Once I had done that, I felt that they were actually pretty good. Although their commentary was slanted, they did make a good effort at getting guests with opposing viewpoints, including liberal viewpoints (although this diversity was lacking in their regular panelists).

Bill O'Reilly at nine and Sean Hannity at ten each had as regular guest commentators virulently anti-Obama and anti-Democratic personalities: Bernard Goldberg and Dick Morris, respectively. And watching Goldberg and Morris one after the other gave me an interesting insight into them. Goldberg is what I would say is a "true believer" in his ideology and quite eloquently and knowledgeably (if a bit sarcastically) expresses himself on just about any issue that comes up for discussion. Morris, on the other hand, has a vile, vindictive mean streak to his personality. His driving force seems to be vengeance specifically directed at the Clintons, whom he used to work for in the 1990s, and generally against anyone sharing their political outlook. I found myself laughing with Goldberg, even when I disagreed with him. But Morris? More of a teeth-gritting, fist-clenching experience, I'm sad to say.

Sean Hannity was, of course, the most slanted of the hosts. But unlike Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, he welcomes guests from the other end of the ideological spectrum. My problem with Hannity's show the other night was his featured guest: that California beauty contest contestant who became a heroine or villain, depending on one's viewpoint, for her anti-gay marriage response to a pageant question. She seemed to me every bit as bubble-headed and ignorant as that South Carolina beauty contestant a couple of years back.

I wouldn't want to wholly depend on Fox for my news, just as I don't fully trust MSNBC. Better to take a composite of the news outlets. For myself, CNN seems to be the most neutral and reliable. But I may be watching Fox a little more often than before. Of course, I did completely avoid that nutcase Glenn Beck!

Conjectures About Bin-Laden, Creating "Reality"

In keeping with the theme of November as "conspiracy month"...

People who easily find themselves falling for conspiracy theories often proudly refer to themselves as "skeptics". After all, they ARE skeptical of the prevailing, commonly held take on whatever it is that they think is being manipulated behind-the-scenes by others. But a true skeptic takes in all of the available facts, not just those which affirm his/her biases. So, in writing here about Osama Bin-Laden, I must make a disclaimer: I fit NEITHER definition of a skeptic, at least for the purpose of this article. Because (if you can stand it, here it goes)....I don't know for sure what's really going on, but that's not going to stop me for speculating.

For many Americans, the name Osama Bin-Laden has the same level of infamy, if not worse, as Adolf Hitler. And to the extent that I think that ALL mass murderers are evil villains, I agree with that viewpoint. But back in the 1980s, this sun-of-a-gun was an allied guerrilla warrior in our proxy war in Afghanistan against the then-occupying force of the Soviet Union. Our popular culture was full of praise and support for Afghanistan's "freedom fighters" (see Rambo III or the James Bond flick The Living Daylights). Bin-Laden was right in the middle of this and was a brave fighter. And some of our money and supplies (and intelligence) may have gone to him (this is where I have a big "I don't know" feeling). And why not? He was our ally. But "ally" does not necessarily equate to "friend", although it could have had we followed through with support after the Soviets withdrew. While our main concern, the Soviet Union, was on Afghan soil, we were all for the people of Afghanistan. The moment they left, we quickly went back to virtually ignoring the area. So Osama Bin-Laden, with his bravado and his wealth, looked around him and determined that America's actions regarding Muslim nations were ultimately only directed at promoting its own interests. To him, the U.S. was like any other foreign occupying power. Any American military presence on any Muslim-populated territory was, to Bin-Laden, just as illegitimate and warlike as what the Soviets had done in Afghanistan. And thus, since the early 1990s, Bin-Laden and his organization Al-Qaeda have been at war against the U.S.,its western allies, and those Muslim nations supporting American military presence on their soil.

But why haven't we captured or killed Bin-Laden more than eight years after the 9/11 attack that he authorized? He is believed to be in Pakistan somewhere (if still alive, that is). Or possibly southern Afghanistan. But I find it (and here is where my skepticism may be interpreted in different ways) difficult to believe, in such a relatively small area to search, and with Pakistan being our political and military ally, that we haven't been able to pinpoint his location and "get" to him. And now I wonder (I tend to do this on this blog, for better or for worse)...

Suppose that, on some intelligence level, the U.S. has always maintained some contact with Bin-Laden. And after 9/11, suppose further that they got an ultimatum through to him: keep it off American soil, or YOU will be "soil". Does that sound so far-fetched? Well, consider this: It fits with the reality we're experiencing nowadays. Does it seem to you that Osama Bin-Laden is going to be caught anytime in the near future? How about the middle future? How about...ever? Remember our impressive intelligence and military performance in late 2001 that drove the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan (but obviously not out of existence)? And once that goal was accomplished, how our emphasis there petered, even though Bin-Laden was still free at large? And how instead, President George W. Bush resurrected an old bogeyman in Saddam Hussein for everyone to hiss at? Could that have been done, at least partially, in order to distract public attention from the failure to locate the head terrorist? And if this all is true, then could it be that we made a secret deal with Bin-Laden after 9/11? And finally, am I ever going to write anything else without making it a question?

To make a deal with the individual responsible for a terrorist attack that caused nearly three thousand American civilian deaths would have been political suicide for Bush. But if he could be reasonably sure that Bin-Laden would "play along" in the future, a deal could well have been justified as being in our national security interests.

Not that any of this really happened, mind you. I just don't know. But I'm just having some problems fitting the facts together. No domestic Al-Qaeda attacks since 9/11. Bin-Laden never caught. We're still in Afghanistan, but we're focusing on fighting the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. The sudden deliberate diversion of national attention away from Afghanistan and Bin-Laden toward Iraq in 2002. Hmmmmm....

Can you see from all this how easy it is for people to construct a "reality" solely from the circumstances that frame it? No, I honestly don't think that Bush made a deal with Bin-Laden. I also don't believe that Paul McCartney died in a 1966 car crash or that the six Apollo moon landings from 1969 to 1972 were elaborate hoaxes. But those notions also came about by people inserting theories to account for circumstances that indicated their veracity.

And now we come to those making outlandish claims about our current president. Obama wasn't born in the U.S., he's setting up a network of concentration camps to deal with future dissidents, he is turning America socialist/communist, he wants to kill old people, and so on. Each "theory" is presented by revealing "facts" pointing inexorably to the horrible conclusion. But I hold that, with a little creativity, one could pretty much manipulate circumstantial facts to create any kind of underlying "reality" that one liked.

Recently we have seen in the news the big story about the arrested Afghans who were apparently part of a terrorist plot to bomb places in the United States. But since we caught them, this information wouldn't go into the "circumstances" supporting or refuting the "deal with Bin-Laden" assertion. So that assertion keeps its life. That's quite intellectually dishonest, but it is regrettably how a lot of people think things out!

Gnawing, Irrational Feeling That NFL is Fake

I would like somebody to explain to me how a football team I'm following can stop the other with its defense almost the entire game and then, at the end, changes its strategy to a so-called "prevent defense", allowing the opponent to march down the field in a matter of seconds, at a rate of about 10-25 yards per play. And scoring at the end, beating my team. Or suddenly my team, with its highly-paid professionals with years of college and high school stardom and experience behind them, mysteriously can no longer hold on to the football, repeatedly fumbling it away or dropping easy passes, kickoffs, and punts. It's almost as if the game had been scripted, and as if it was my team's predetermined role to fold at the very end.

I have had this gnawing feeling for years about the National Football League in this regard, although I know that the competition there is at almost a cutthroat level, with little or no room for manipulation. Still, there are some games that give me that same feeling I get when someone sucks me into watching one of those professional wrestling travesties, outcomes already written out and only needing to be acted out by the "athletes".

In football, though, I think that stupid coaching decisions may account for much of that perceived manipulation of events. Especially with time running out in close games. No real need to add the suspicion that professional football is fake to my conspiracy list. Yet. After all, what are professionals really but bumbling humans who are just getting paid for being bumbling humans? Better to presume incompetence over conspiracy, as a general rule.

UF Pond, Off To The Side

While bicycling through the University of Florida campus the other day, I noticed that there were some places in the middle of this densely urban college campus that are relatively more secluded and conducive to contemplation and retreat. This locale, while not exactly of the order of Walden's Pond, is only a short walking distance from Turlington Hall, Marston Science Library, the Hub, and the Reitz Union. There is a bench to sit on here as well (from where I snapped this shot). The building in the background is part of the UF College of Agriculture (IFAS).

GOP Stonewalls Obama Nominee, Then Confirms

I recently witnessed a Senate floor vote, delayed for months by Republican filibustering, which finally confirmed Thomas Perez, Obama’s nomination for Assistant Attorney General in charge of civil rights, by a vote of 72-22. The Judiciary Committee, back in March, had passed on Perez’s nomination to the full Senate with a resounding 17-2 approval vote. This meant that most of the Republicans on that committee had approved of Perez. And most of them stayed with their committee positions during the final recent floor vote. But in the intervening period, they voted to stonewall the nomination through procedural tactics and filibusters.

This policy of the GOP delaying EVERYTHING as much as possible, even when there is little opposition, runs contrary to the spirit of cooperation and comity that is necessary within the Senate to accomplish anything. With the track record they have demonstrated, I don’t think that the Republicans will be as successful against the Democrats in next year’s elections as they were in 1994, when they won control of that body. The Dems are “hip” to what they are up to and are making sure that the country as whole is aware of it. However, in order to hold on to some seats, there will have to be a much larger level of voter participation than has usually been in case in non-presidential election years.

Seven Unbeatens in NCAA Football

The 2009 NCAA football season is shaping up to be quite different from the previous few years in one important respect: this late in the season, there are still seven teams with undefeated records. They are Florida, Texas, Alabama, Iowa, TCU, Boise State, and Cincinnati. Except for Florida and Alabama, one of which will have to lose since they are in the same conference and would play each other for the title, these teams can pretty much run out the remainder of the regular season and remain unbeaten. Potentially leaving six teams with perfect records.

Now who gets to decide who can play for the national championship if this happens? If we had instituted a three-week, eight team playoff system as has been proposed for several years already, this situation would not present much of a problem. But we seem locked in, year after year, to this asinine way of determining who gets to play for the national title in football. Unlike, I might add, any other sport, high school, college, or pro. And even unlike small college football, which does employ a playoff system.

Most likely, Texas will play the winner of Florida vs. Alabama for the national championship (presuming these teams continue to otherwise remain undefeated). Leaving four other unbeaten teams shut out. It might be argued that TCU and Cincinnati are from much weaker conferences and, as such, their records don't qualify them for a shot at the title. But how about Iowa and Boise State? Iowa is in the Big Ten Conference, one of the premier leagues in the country. And all Boise State did was manhandle Oregon, a Pacific-Ten team that has won the rest of its games, including a recent 47-20 drubbing of perennial power Southern Cal.

But then again, maybe I'm writing this article one or two weeks too early. There is still plenty of time for some of these "perfect" teams to go down in ignominious defeat. Like Cincinnati, who is playing Pittsburgh in a few weeks. Or Alabama, who is playing LSU. Even Texas, the most likely candidate for a national championship slot, will have to win its Big 12 title in a playoff game against the winner of that conference's Northern Division, not a done deal.