Another year has come and gone, and here we are again on the eve of another Super Bowl in the National Football League. Last year’s championship game was a classic matchup between an undefeated New England Patriots “team of destiny” and an upstart, maligned New York Giants team with a lowly wild-card playoff status and a major chip on their collective shoulders. And that game was unforgettable, with the Giants coming from behind to upset the Patriots in the game’s final seconds. This year’s matchup has a vastly different feel to it. Yet the term “team of destiny” hasn’t gone away. It’s just being applied differently.
The Arizona Cardinals (formerly the St. Louis Cardinals, formerly the Chicago Cardinals) haven’t won an NFL championship since 1947, nineteen years before the first Super Bowl game was ever played. Usually consigned to the bottom of their NFC East division in the past, they “lucked” out a few years ago by being moved to the West (where they belong anyway`). And this division has been very weak this year, with Arizona winning it with its own weak 9-7 record. Not given much of a chance in the playoffs, the Cardinals proved their critics wrong and, behind popular and inspiring veteran quarterback Kurt Warner, they’ve managed to get this far. But now they are facing a pretty strong Pittsburgh Steelers team, who were impressive throughout the regular season and the playoffs.
I’ll be rooting for the Cardinals, but it will be an uphill battle. Still, that’s the kind of thing they said about the Giants last year. I’m not very passionate about this game (as I was last year), having had my NFL season this year already “made” when the Miami Dolphins won their division and made the playoffs. I just hope this year’s Super Bowl game is close enough to be interesting to its conclusion, regardless who wins.
And as a side note, I’m finding myself dreading commercial time during the game, as the quality of the ads never seems to live up to the hype leading up to their airing. I plan to take frequent kitchen, bathroom, and “chores” breaks during these commercials. And the half-time show? Forget it!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Ashley’s Pub Closes
Such was the heading on an article appearing Thursday in my local rag The Gainesville Sun. Ashley’s Pub was a Mexican-style restaurant/bar that had been in business since 1981. The site, toward the south end of the original Butler Plaza off Archer Road in southwest Gainesville, had originally been Allen’s Gator House. There were two parts to the restaurant: as you entered, there was a relatively lit up dining room on the right where you could sit, eat, and read if you liked. And if you wanted more of a “bar” atmosphere, you could step over into the more spacious, dark room on the left, where there was television, a nice bar, jukebox, pool table, etc. I used to frequent this place (both when it was Gator House and Ashley's) often from 1979 to 1982, since I worked nearby.
After the Ashleys bought the place and transformed the menu to Mexican cuisine, they kept the same divided arrangement for a while, which suited me well (I liked to sit and study in the well-lit section). But in 1982, they redesigned the restaurant and made everything one big, dark room. I tried going there a few times, but the poor lighting finally made me choose other places to eat at instead. That was too bad, for I liked the Ashleys and their employees were great. And they had the best enchiladas, at a very affordable price!
I don’t quite get the “art” of feng shui, which seems to impart spiritual values to how rooms are arranged. But how a business, especially a restaurant or coffee shop, arranges its dining section, can be as crucial to its survival as the actual product it sells. A few months ago, a small coffee shop near my home opened for business. I checked it out, walking in there with my backpack containing books and my word processor. I bought a cup of their coffee and wheeled around to sit down, only to find that their “dining” area consisted of one small love seat and a couple of chairs without tables! I took my coffee to my car and never went back. And that business closed down after a few weeks.
Naturally, everyone has their own preferences regarding what constitutes a friendly dining area. Ashley’s Pub lasted for a good 27 years, so there apparently were quite a few happy customers over that span of time. And I can’t really be sure that the asinine seating arrangement of that fledgling coffee shop I once went to was what ultimately did it in. I can only speak from my own individual experience and preferences. But a good, common sense rule of thumb for a restaurant operator would be to give customers as much of a choice as practicable regarding their seating and lighting (which is one of the main reasons that I tend to dig Starbucks). That, I would have thought, should have been a “no-brainer”!
After the Ashleys bought the place and transformed the menu to Mexican cuisine, they kept the same divided arrangement for a while, which suited me well (I liked to sit and study in the well-lit section). But in 1982, they redesigned the restaurant and made everything one big, dark room. I tried going there a few times, but the poor lighting finally made me choose other places to eat at instead. That was too bad, for I liked the Ashleys and their employees were great. And they had the best enchiladas, at a very affordable price!
I don’t quite get the “art” of feng shui, which seems to impart spiritual values to how rooms are arranged. But how a business, especially a restaurant or coffee shop, arranges its dining section, can be as crucial to its survival as the actual product it sells. A few months ago, a small coffee shop near my home opened for business. I checked it out, walking in there with my backpack containing books and my word processor. I bought a cup of their coffee and wheeled around to sit down, only to find that their “dining” area consisted of one small love seat and a couple of chairs without tables! I took my coffee to my car and never went back. And that business closed down after a few weeks.
Naturally, everyone has their own preferences regarding what constitutes a friendly dining area. Ashley’s Pub lasted for a good 27 years, so there apparently were quite a few happy customers over that span of time. And I can’t really be sure that the asinine seating arrangement of that fledgling coffee shop I once went to was what ultimately did it in. I can only speak from my own individual experience and preferences. But a good, common sense rule of thumb for a restaurant operator would be to give customers as much of a choice as practicable regarding their seating and lighting (which is one of the main reasons that I tend to dig Starbucks). That, I would have thought, should have been a “no-brainer”!
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Postal Service Proposed Five-Day Service
I’ve heard that the United States Postal Service, my employer, is considering cutting back to a five day per week delivery. They have lost a considerable amount of money in recent years and are desperately searching for ways to cut their expenses. There is a federal law in the books since 1983, though, that mandates a six-day delivery week. The USPS will need to lobby congress to change that law before any cutback in service is enacted.
I don’t think that cutting back hours and service is usually a very far-sighted, wise thing to do. Sure, in the short run it may save some money. But depriving people of delivery on Tuesday (or some other designated day) will eventually reduce the overall mail flow (and subsequent postage revenue) as customers search for more dependable alternative ways that can substitute for sending things through the mail.
I used to live across a field from a small Krispy Kreme donut store/coffee shop. The man who had subleased this small shop did a thriving business in the morning hours, but in the afternoon, things dried up considerably. He told me that he had done an analysis of how much money he was raking in at various times of the day and concluded that, since he was losing money in the afternoon, he would close the shop then to cut his losses. Unfortunately, the result was that fewer and fewer customers came during the morning hours as well, since many were no longer confident about it being open. After all, who wants to drive out of their way to do business somewhere only to find that the business had cut their operating hours for the sake of their own expedience and convenience? Eventually, that Krispy Kreme store closed down for good.
In like manner, I fear something similar happening if the USPS begins to fine-tune their service hours and days. As far as my own employment is concerned, I naturally want my company to be financially viable. They have already attempted (not hard enough, in my opinion) to offer early retirement to more employees and are eliminating the daytime mail processing shift. If service is cut back to five days, I see this affecting carriers and window clerks the most directly, as many of them would have their jobs reassigned according to the new paradigm. But, at least immediately, I don’t see too much of a change in my immediate position, which involves processing mail. And mail processing takes place seven days a week. What would affect my position adversely would be if a reduction to five-day service caused the total mail volume to be drastically reduced. Which I see as a real danger.
It could be, though, that Postal Service leadership is simply floating this five-day mail service possibility as a way to get some federal funding (i.e. bailout) from congress. Well, mail delivery is definitely a crucial part of our national communications and transportation (of goods) infrastructure. If we’re going to be serious about economic recovery and make sure that our communications and transportation systems are functioning optimally, then the postal service should definitely be included as a full, active participant in this ambitious effort.
I don’t think that cutting back hours and service is usually a very far-sighted, wise thing to do. Sure, in the short run it may save some money. But depriving people of delivery on Tuesday (or some other designated day) will eventually reduce the overall mail flow (and subsequent postage revenue) as customers search for more dependable alternative ways that can substitute for sending things through the mail.
I used to live across a field from a small Krispy Kreme donut store/coffee shop. The man who had subleased this small shop did a thriving business in the morning hours, but in the afternoon, things dried up considerably. He told me that he had done an analysis of how much money he was raking in at various times of the day and concluded that, since he was losing money in the afternoon, he would close the shop then to cut his losses. Unfortunately, the result was that fewer and fewer customers came during the morning hours as well, since many were no longer confident about it being open. After all, who wants to drive out of their way to do business somewhere only to find that the business had cut their operating hours for the sake of their own expedience and convenience? Eventually, that Krispy Kreme store closed down for good.
In like manner, I fear something similar happening if the USPS begins to fine-tune their service hours and days. As far as my own employment is concerned, I naturally want my company to be financially viable. They have already attempted (not hard enough, in my opinion) to offer early retirement to more employees and are eliminating the daytime mail processing shift. If service is cut back to five days, I see this affecting carriers and window clerks the most directly, as many of them would have their jobs reassigned according to the new paradigm. But, at least immediately, I don’t see too much of a change in my immediate position, which involves processing mail. And mail processing takes place seven days a week. What would affect my position adversely would be if a reduction to five-day service caused the total mail volume to be drastically reduced. Which I see as a real danger.
It could be, though, that Postal Service leadership is simply floating this five-day mail service possibility as a way to get some federal funding (i.e. bailout) from congress. Well, mail delivery is definitely a crucial part of our national communications and transportation (of goods) infrastructure. If we’re going to be serious about economic recovery and make sure that our communications and transportation systems are functioning optimally, then the postal service should definitely be included as a full, active participant in this ambitious effort.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Walk In Their Shoes
As I was driving my daughter to school yesterday morning, the car radio was tuned in to the local “top forty hits” station. Only there was more talk than music, radio stations in general having adopted the ridiculous practice of continuous yakking over the air in the morning. Such was the case here as well. The basic format on this station was that the man-woman team of announcers would pick some story from the news flow and then make some comments on it, then going on to another. Eventually, if you listened long enough, you just might find yourself screaming for a commercial, much less a song.
On this morning, I knew that these DJs didn’t have it all together when they committed the worst infraction possible on the radio: no, I’m not talking about profanity; I’m talking about “dead air” with no one saying anything for a few seconds. After that, I was ready for anything. One of the announcers brought up a story from some city where the pastoral leadership in a church offered free pedicures to the homeless; both of them thought that this was a real hoot. The woman then indignantly asked why the church wasn’t doing something to meet their “real needs”. It was then that I realized that these “yakkers” not only were relatively incompetent for their jobs: they also were ignorant and foolish.
Most homeless people do everything on foot. They don’t drive, and most don’t even ride bicycles. And most of their lives are spent outdoors, under many different kinds of conditions. They have to walk and stand in various states of dryness and wetness, hot and cold, cleanliness and filth, and often on rough surfaces. Often without the opportunity to kick off their shoes and socks and attend to their own feet. Homeless people generally don’t carry around a full complement of footwear that they can change. They often sleep in their shoes. The fact that they are so dependent on their feet makes any cut or infection a vitally important factor in their lives.
Giving pedicures gives the involved church the opportunity not only to clean under the toenails of the homeless; that alone would help to reduce infections and would have been by itself a great public service. They can also see the entire foot and notice any outstanding problems that need immediate attention. Besides the benefits that they impart to the homeless people’s feet, the church further gave as a reason for their free pedicures the explanation that they are mimicking the foot washings that Jesus gave during his ministry on Earth. That really set off our announcers, who revealed themselves to be part of the population that believes that organizations founded on spiritual beliefs must necessarily censor themselves regarding the expression of those very beliefs when tending to the needs of anyone outside their group.
These two announcers apparently have lived very insulated, compartmentalized, easy lives in order to put down a religious organization that really is in touch with one of the major needs of homeless people. What is that saying? Something like, “You need to walk a mile in someone’s shoes to know what it’s like for them.” These radio jocks must not have ever had to do much walking!
On this morning, I knew that these DJs didn’t have it all together when they committed the worst infraction possible on the radio: no, I’m not talking about profanity; I’m talking about “dead air” with no one saying anything for a few seconds. After that, I was ready for anything. One of the announcers brought up a story from some city where the pastoral leadership in a church offered free pedicures to the homeless; both of them thought that this was a real hoot. The woman then indignantly asked why the church wasn’t doing something to meet their “real needs”. It was then that I realized that these “yakkers” not only were relatively incompetent for their jobs: they also were ignorant and foolish.
Most homeless people do everything on foot. They don’t drive, and most don’t even ride bicycles. And most of their lives are spent outdoors, under many different kinds of conditions. They have to walk and stand in various states of dryness and wetness, hot and cold, cleanliness and filth, and often on rough surfaces. Often without the opportunity to kick off their shoes and socks and attend to their own feet. Homeless people generally don’t carry around a full complement of footwear that they can change. They often sleep in their shoes. The fact that they are so dependent on their feet makes any cut or infection a vitally important factor in their lives.
Giving pedicures gives the involved church the opportunity not only to clean under the toenails of the homeless; that alone would help to reduce infections and would have been by itself a great public service. They can also see the entire foot and notice any outstanding problems that need immediate attention. Besides the benefits that they impart to the homeless people’s feet, the church further gave as a reason for their free pedicures the explanation that they are mimicking the foot washings that Jesus gave during his ministry on Earth. That really set off our announcers, who revealed themselves to be part of the population that believes that organizations founded on spiritual beliefs must necessarily censor themselves regarding the expression of those very beliefs when tending to the needs of anyone outside their group.
These two announcers apparently have lived very insulated, compartmentalized, easy lives in order to put down a religious organization that really is in touch with one of the major needs of homeless people. What is that saying? Something like, “You need to walk a mile in someone’s shoes to know what it’s like for them.” These radio jocks must not have ever had to do much walking!
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Barack Obama, Tony Robbins, and Change
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama made “change” the overriding theme in his successful quest for the office. Now that he has made it to “the top”, how will he be able to effect that change?
I’m a fan of self-improvement guru Anthony Robbins. As a matter of fact, I wish I had instilled within myself more of his suggestions about how to view my life and how to go about fulfilling my own dreams. In his book Giant Steps, Robbins distills the concept of “change” into three crucially important statements. First the change MUST happen. Making it anything less than an absolute requirement dilutes its importance and gives in to the inertia of stagnation that stands in the way of change. Second, I MYSELF must make the change. This means that the one who wants the change must assume the personal responsibility and exercise the personal authority to bring that change about, without just sitting back hoping that someone else will do it. Believe me, chances are that no one else will! Third, if I want to change something, then I must believe that I CAN change it. There has to be a sense of hope and optimism regarding the attainability of the desired change. Otherwise, it would be too easy, as soon as the going got tough, to stop and downsize one’s goals for change.
I wonder whether our new president will apply Tony Robbins’s suggestions for making change possible. Not that he would have necessarily read the passage from Giant Steps that I read, but Obama strikes me as one who may have been a student of his teachings at one time. It will be interesting to see how he tackles the inevitable obstacles in his path toward the change he desires for America.
I’m a fan of self-improvement guru Anthony Robbins. As a matter of fact, I wish I had instilled within myself more of his suggestions about how to view my life and how to go about fulfilling my own dreams. In his book Giant Steps, Robbins distills the concept of “change” into three crucially important statements. First the change MUST happen. Making it anything less than an absolute requirement dilutes its importance and gives in to the inertia of stagnation that stands in the way of change. Second, I MYSELF must make the change. This means that the one who wants the change must assume the personal responsibility and exercise the personal authority to bring that change about, without just sitting back hoping that someone else will do it. Believe me, chances are that no one else will! Third, if I want to change something, then I must believe that I CAN change it. There has to be a sense of hope and optimism regarding the attainability of the desired change. Otherwise, it would be too easy, as soon as the going got tough, to stop and downsize one’s goals for change.
I wonder whether our new president will apply Tony Robbins’s suggestions for making change possible. Not that he would have necessarily read the passage from Giant Steps that I read, but Obama strikes me as one who may have been a student of his teachings at one time. It will be interesting to see how he tackles the inevitable obstacles in his path toward the change he desires for America.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Monday Newsbreak: 1/26
--By far the biggest story this week has been Tuesday's changing of the guard at the White House, with Barack Obama assuming presidential duties for the next four years. He has quickly moved to place a deadline for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center and ordered interrogations of detainees to be performed according to the rules expressed within the Army Field Manual. And he has a very ambitious agenda planned for the economy. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton was confirmed as Secretary of State by the Senate in a 96-2 vote.
--Hillary Clinton's vacated Senate seat went to upstate New York Representative Kirsten Gillibrand after Caroline Kennedy (who might not have been selected anyway) withdraw her name from consideration. Gillibrand's sometimes conservative stand on issues (e.g. anti-gun control) may help her statewide in the 2010 special election to retain that seat. But first she may have difficulty winning her own party's nomination, as one of Gillibrand's House colleagues has already said that she would be challenging her then.
--Last week I omitted commenting on the passing on January 13 of one of television and film's great actors: Patrick McGoohan. He was best known for his role as "Number Six", the British spy imprisoned in a mysterious resort-like place called "The Village" in the seventeen-episode cult classic series The Prisoner (one of my all-time favorite series). But he excelled in whatever role he played, which was usually the "villain". My favorite McGoohan villain roles occurred in the movies Escape From Alcatraz and Silver Streak. He also excelled in a couple of Columbo episodes as the "heavy". His death saddens me.
--Just as suddenly as they invaded and occupied the Gaza Strip, Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire and left the territory. Leaving Hamas to make some hard decisions about what direction they need to go in: work for peace and the dignity and rights of the suffering Palestinians, or resume firing missiles into Israel and bring more destruction down upon Gaza and its people. Unfortunately, anyone who is brave enough to step out to make a case for peace is certain to be branded as a traitor and would then be a target for arrest (or worse).
--One of the relatively overlooked areas in University of Florida athletics has been the women's basketball team this year. Already nationally ranked at #15 in one poll, they improved their record to 18-2 yesterday with a solid 75-54 home Southeastern Conference win over Mississippi. I attended the game with my wife and daughter. UF's coach is Amanda Butler, her first year here on the job. Their leading players are seniors Sha Brooks and Marshae Dotson. During yesterday's game, Brooks was an excellent ball-handler and passer while Dotson was great under the boards, scoring Florida's first nine points of the game and giving them a clear lead that they never relinquished. The entire team saw plenty of action, as the game's outcome was pretty much decided early in the second half. I'm looking forward to more great things from this team this year!
--Hillary Clinton's vacated Senate seat went to upstate New York Representative Kirsten Gillibrand after Caroline Kennedy (who might not have been selected anyway) withdraw her name from consideration. Gillibrand's sometimes conservative stand on issues (e.g. anti-gun control) may help her statewide in the 2010 special election to retain that seat. But first she may have difficulty winning her own party's nomination, as one of Gillibrand's House colleagues has already said that she would be challenging her then.
--Last week I omitted commenting on the passing on January 13 of one of television and film's great actors: Patrick McGoohan. He was best known for his role as "Number Six", the British spy imprisoned in a mysterious resort-like place called "The Village" in the seventeen-episode cult classic series The Prisoner (one of my all-time favorite series). But he excelled in whatever role he played, which was usually the "villain". My favorite McGoohan villain roles occurred in the movies Escape From Alcatraz and Silver Streak. He also excelled in a couple of Columbo episodes as the "heavy". His death saddens me.
--Just as suddenly as they invaded and occupied the Gaza Strip, Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire and left the territory. Leaving Hamas to make some hard decisions about what direction they need to go in: work for peace and the dignity and rights of the suffering Palestinians, or resume firing missiles into Israel and bring more destruction down upon Gaza and its people. Unfortunately, anyone who is brave enough to step out to make a case for peace is certain to be branded as a traitor and would then be a target for arrest (or worse).
--One of the relatively overlooked areas in University of Florida athletics has been the women's basketball team this year. Already nationally ranked at #15 in one poll, they improved their record to 18-2 yesterday with a solid 75-54 home Southeastern Conference win over Mississippi. I attended the game with my wife and daughter. UF's coach is Amanda Butler, her first year here on the job. Their leading players are seniors Sha Brooks and Marshae Dotson. During yesterday's game, Brooks was an excellent ball-handler and passer while Dotson was great under the boards, scoring Florida's first nine points of the game and giving them a clear lead that they never relinquished. The entire team saw plenty of action, as the game's outcome was pretty much decided early in the second half. I'm looking forward to more great things from this team this year!
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The Momentum of Mobilization
Can a military mobilization take place on a hurried, grand scale without its own momentum carrying it into an attack? I have three examples that would indicate a “no” answer to that question.
I just finished reading Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls, a novel set in the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War between the Republicans (supported by the story’s protagonists) and the Nationalists. One part of the story has someone rushing to deliver a note that recommended forestalling a planned grand-scale attack involving an entire division. As the messenger passes the mobilized forces to deliver the letter, it becomes increasingly apparent that the sheer force of the mobilization had reached a point where that attack would be launched anyway, regardless of any late-breaking information warning against it.
I read a while back a book about World War I (and stupidly forgot the title and author). During the days building up to this horrendous conflict, following the assassination of Austria/Hungary’s Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo by Serb nationalists, nations lined up against nations, threatening and preparing for war against each other. In Germany, a war front on its western borders had long been anticipated and planned for, ever since the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. So Germany developed an intricate and comprehensive plan of mobilization that emphasized the use of its extensive railway system. The result was that, very quickly, German troops were amassed at its borders in very large numbers, ready for attack. There were serious “last-minute” diplomatic efforts made to prevent the war from breaking out. But by that time, the German military had become so strong within its government that it essentially called the shots. And shots it did call, resulting in the brutal invasion of neutral Belgium and drawing Great Britain into the conflict.
And now we jump ahead in time to early 2003, when U.S. forces were mobilized and poised to strike at Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The expressed rationale for the buildup and threatened attack was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as well as a tenuous connection to Al-Qaeda. The United Nations, along with those who understood the gravity of war, tried to prevent the invasion. The UN had weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq and were systematically searching for those supposed WMDs. But the U.S. decided to invade anyway, one reason being given that, if delayed too long, it would involve fighting during the excruciatingly hot months of summer there. Well, how many summers have we been there now? I count six, with another on the way.
The above examples make me wonder whether there are other instances when the momentum of mobilization pushed those forces over the edge into combat, even when conditions seemed to mitigate against it. For example, I wondered about the German invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941 and the Chinese counterattack in late 1950 against the UN forces in Korea. Both involved heavy mobilization and sudden attacks. But the difference I see in these is that they had strong (albeit not necessarily benevolent) leaders over them who could themselves have canceled the invasions had conditions so dictated. And for the examples I had earlier given, the leadership was either too disorganized or ignorant to match up against the military momentum. But even with the German invasion of Russia in 1941 and the Chinese invasion of Korea in 1950, there may have been a point in the military buildup beyond which calling off the attack would have been interpreted as a humiliating political setback in itself. That doubtless was an important factor in the U.S. going through with its invasion of Iraq in 2003.
I just finished reading Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls, a novel set in the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War between the Republicans (supported by the story’s protagonists) and the Nationalists. One part of the story has someone rushing to deliver a note that recommended forestalling a planned grand-scale attack involving an entire division. As the messenger passes the mobilized forces to deliver the letter, it becomes increasingly apparent that the sheer force of the mobilization had reached a point where that attack would be launched anyway, regardless of any late-breaking information warning against it.
I read a while back a book about World War I (and stupidly forgot the title and author). During the days building up to this horrendous conflict, following the assassination of Austria/Hungary’s Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo by Serb nationalists, nations lined up against nations, threatening and preparing for war against each other. In Germany, a war front on its western borders had long been anticipated and planned for, ever since the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. So Germany developed an intricate and comprehensive plan of mobilization that emphasized the use of its extensive railway system. The result was that, very quickly, German troops were amassed at its borders in very large numbers, ready for attack. There were serious “last-minute” diplomatic efforts made to prevent the war from breaking out. But by that time, the German military had become so strong within its government that it essentially called the shots. And shots it did call, resulting in the brutal invasion of neutral Belgium and drawing Great Britain into the conflict.
And now we jump ahead in time to early 2003, when U.S. forces were mobilized and poised to strike at Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The expressed rationale for the buildup and threatened attack was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as well as a tenuous connection to Al-Qaeda. The United Nations, along with those who understood the gravity of war, tried to prevent the invasion. The UN had weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq and were systematically searching for those supposed WMDs. But the U.S. decided to invade anyway, one reason being given that, if delayed too long, it would involve fighting during the excruciatingly hot months of summer there. Well, how many summers have we been there now? I count six, with another on the way.
The above examples make me wonder whether there are other instances when the momentum of mobilization pushed those forces over the edge into combat, even when conditions seemed to mitigate against it. For example, I wondered about the German invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941 and the Chinese counterattack in late 1950 against the UN forces in Korea. Both involved heavy mobilization and sudden attacks. But the difference I see in these is that they had strong (albeit not necessarily benevolent) leaders over them who could themselves have canceled the invasions had conditions so dictated. And for the examples I had earlier given, the leadership was either too disorganized or ignorant to match up against the military momentum. But even with the German invasion of Russia in 1941 and the Chinese invasion of Korea in 1950, there may have been a point in the military buildup beyond which calling off the attack would have been interpreted as a humiliating political setback in itself. That doubtless was an important factor in the U.S. going through with its invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Obama’s Inauguration and Image
Now that Barack Obama is sworn in (twice) as president and is in full swing with his duties, perhaps we can (most of us, that is) descend back to Earth and cautiously support him in his efforts to effectively and compassionately lead our nation.
I enjoyed watching the presidential inauguration events, but only up to a point. I’ve nothing against the crowds of people who went to Washington to personally witness and celebrate this historic event. But it seems to me that the hype surrounding it was way overblown. For one, funded privately or not, the extravagance lavished on it sent a bad message in the midst of our current troubled economy, with so many people losing their jobs recently. For another, it raises unreasonably high expectations for Obama, who for all of his promise and skills as a public servant, is not the country itself. But it could also be counter-argued that making such a big deal about Obama’s inauguration may politically help him during his “honeymoon” period in office get important legislation passed and signed into law (and potential vetoes averted).
It is interesting for me to see how Barack Obama has been portrayed in the media and regarded by the public. I remember watching him in the Senate (on C-Span 2) back in 2005 during his first year there. And he was the same person back then that he is now. But as he has traveled on this momentous journey to the White House, his public image has been repeatedly redefined according to whatever the prevailing political conditions were. Sooner or later, though, comparisons with Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy will abate and Barack Obama will enjoy the accurate image that uniquely belongs to him, one that I believe transcends all of the hoopla going on about him now. He is a decent, intelligent, pragmatic, and compassionate human being who genuinely cares about the welfare of his fellow Americans, loves his country, and is not above hearing and considering opposing viewpoints. And that’s enough for me.
I enjoyed watching the presidential inauguration events, but only up to a point. I’ve nothing against the crowds of people who went to Washington to personally witness and celebrate this historic event. But it seems to me that the hype surrounding it was way overblown. For one, funded privately or not, the extravagance lavished on it sent a bad message in the midst of our current troubled economy, with so many people losing their jobs recently. For another, it raises unreasonably high expectations for Obama, who for all of his promise and skills as a public servant, is not the country itself. But it could also be counter-argued that making such a big deal about Obama’s inauguration may politically help him during his “honeymoon” period in office get important legislation passed and signed into law (and potential vetoes averted).
It is interesting for me to see how Barack Obama has been portrayed in the media and regarded by the public. I remember watching him in the Senate (on C-Span 2) back in 2005 during his first year there. And he was the same person back then that he is now. But as he has traveled on this momentous journey to the White House, his public image has been repeatedly redefined according to whatever the prevailing political conditions were. Sooner or later, though, comparisons with Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy will abate and Barack Obama will enjoy the accurate image that uniquely belongs to him, one that I believe transcends all of the hoopla going on about him now. He is a decent, intelligent, pragmatic, and compassionate human being who genuinely cares about the welfare of his fellow Americans, loves his country, and is not above hearing and considering opposing viewpoints. And that’s enough for me.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Caroline Kennedy Withdraws From NY Senate Bid
Caroline Kennedy is withdrawing her name for consideration as Hillary Clinton’s replacement for the U.S. Senate seat from New York. New York Governor David Paterson was reportedly increasingly reluctant to appoint her, and she may have withdrawn in anticipation of someone else’s selection. I initially had supported her being a senator and didn’t go along with the assertions on the part of others that she was too inexperienced to assume the duties of the office.
Being a senator is quite different in nature from being a governor. A governor is the chief executive officer of a state, with the responsibility and authority to carry out that state’s laws and serve its people by signing bills into law, responding to emergencies, and delegating authority. A senator needs to be responsive to that state’s interests as well, but also needs to take into account the nation’s interests. A senator needs only to keep well informed about his/her constituency’s views on the issues, consistently attend the Senate when in session, be prepared to sponsor and debate various bills on the Senate floor, and faithfully vote in an informed manner in that body. So, as far as I can see, any reasonably educated and informed citizen should be qualified to serve in the Senate, assuming the age requirement is met.
The Kennedy name was naturally the big attraction leading a lot of people to support JFK’s famous daughter in her Senate bid. Caroline has always enjoyed a great deal of popularity and has a likable personality. That she seems a bit introverted only makes me identify with her more. She did step out publicly to endorse and campaign for Barack Obama last year, so I can see that she has the necessary constitution to get up in front of people and speak. It is true that, as is the case with others as well, that her speech suffers when chatting “off the cuff” with her far-too-numerous "you know"s (Obama’s extemporaneous speech problem is his omnipresent “uh-h-h”). But I see that she is intelligent, informed, and generally believes as I do on the important issues facing us. So what’s the problem with her?
New York is an enormous state with a very large complement of qualified Democratic public servants who could succeed Clinton quite well in the Senate. Chief among them is Andrew Cuomo. The idea that a Kennedy could bypass them all just for being a Kennedy (publicly supporting Obama didn’t hurt either) is the same kind of thinking, though, that gave us George W. Bush for the previous eight years. And may in turn bestow upon us Jeb Bush at some time in the future.
I don’t think that Caroline Kennedy would have done a bad job as senator. My chief objection to her was that it appeared over time, true or not, that she didn’t really have her heart in the job and that her decision to try for it was made impulsively. I believe that New York’s (and the country’s) interests would be better served by someone more committed to such an important position. Andrew Cuomo, of course, also fits the “hereditary politician” mold as well, being the beneficiary of his father’s (Mario Cuomo) political legacy in that state. But he may be in a better position to retain this seat as the 2010 election approaches.
Being a senator is quite different in nature from being a governor. A governor is the chief executive officer of a state, with the responsibility and authority to carry out that state’s laws and serve its people by signing bills into law, responding to emergencies, and delegating authority. A senator needs to be responsive to that state’s interests as well, but also needs to take into account the nation’s interests. A senator needs only to keep well informed about his/her constituency’s views on the issues, consistently attend the Senate when in session, be prepared to sponsor and debate various bills on the Senate floor, and faithfully vote in an informed manner in that body. So, as far as I can see, any reasonably educated and informed citizen should be qualified to serve in the Senate, assuming the age requirement is met.
The Kennedy name was naturally the big attraction leading a lot of people to support JFK’s famous daughter in her Senate bid. Caroline has always enjoyed a great deal of popularity and has a likable personality. That she seems a bit introverted only makes me identify with her more. She did step out publicly to endorse and campaign for Barack Obama last year, so I can see that she has the necessary constitution to get up in front of people and speak. It is true that, as is the case with others as well, that her speech suffers when chatting “off the cuff” with her far-too-numerous "you know"s (Obama’s extemporaneous speech problem is his omnipresent “uh-h-h”). But I see that she is intelligent, informed, and generally believes as I do on the important issues facing us. So what’s the problem with her?
New York is an enormous state with a very large complement of qualified Democratic public servants who could succeed Clinton quite well in the Senate. Chief among them is Andrew Cuomo. The idea that a Kennedy could bypass them all just for being a Kennedy (publicly supporting Obama didn’t hurt either) is the same kind of thinking, though, that gave us George W. Bush for the previous eight years. And may in turn bestow upon us Jeb Bush at some time in the future.
I don’t think that Caroline Kennedy would have done a bad job as senator. My chief objection to her was that it appeared over time, true or not, that she didn’t really have her heart in the job and that her decision to try for it was made impulsively. I believe that New York’s (and the country’s) interests would be better served by someone more committed to such an important position. Andrew Cuomo, of course, also fits the “hereditary politician” mold as well, being the beneficiary of his father’s (Mario Cuomo) political legacy in that state. But he may be in a better position to retain this seat as the 2010 election approaches.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Sub-Freezing Week in Gainesville
Well, my complaints about the relative mildness of this winter here in Gainesville must have reached the “appropriate department” in such matters, for temperatures this week have plummeted to the upper teens (Fahrenheit). Highs during the daytime have peaked in the forties. But a warming period is beginning today. Of course, as is usually the case with such low temperatures this far south, there has been no precipitation to complicate matters. I’d just like a more stable range of temperatures (lows in upper thirties and highs in upper fifties to low sixties) lasting over a longer period.
Here, let me see if I can reach that “appropriate department” again.
Here, let me see if I can reach that “appropriate department” again.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
You Can’t Take It With You
About 25 years ago or so, my local PBS station showed PBS's own production of the play You Can’t Take It With You, which had already come out as a popular movie back in the 1940s. “My” version starred Jason Robards as an aging retiree who lived with his eccentric family. “Eccentric”, because this family’s philosophy was quite special: let each member live their lives the way they want to. Even to the extent of not working, if that is what they wish. Robards’s character had been working as a highly paid-but stressed out business executive who one day decided that he had experienced enough of the rat race and abruptly walked off his job, never to go back. Robards instead chose to spend his life completely with his family, as well as going around chatting with various people about this or that. The movie centered around his daughter’s struggle to overcome her own reluctance to introduce her fiancé to the rest of her family, especially to her father. And the laughs abound in this hilarious examination of what it really means to live well. The title expresses the family’s weltanschauung: when you die, you can’t take the personal wealth that you’ve struggled to obtain with you. Best to live each day the fullest as it comes.
It was refreshing to see this take on life, but I also recognize that there are two important things to consider:
--One, the world runs on money, and in order to obtain it, one must either consciously strive to get it or be in a position to receive it from another. If you belong to the latter group, then I suppose you can conveniently adopt the attitude of being “above” the money-grubbing rat racers and instead do whatever you want. But if you don’t have such an “effortless“ source of income, then that leaves you with the necessity to venture out and work to get the money you (along with your family) need to live on.
--Two, even someone with misanthropic tendencies as myself recognizes that being able to do “what I want” eventually requires someone else to clock in to work and perform the labor necessary to provide the goods or services that I “need” for my glorious self-fulfillment. A sense of social ethics within me rises up in objection to the idea of everyone in society just doing their own thing. That scenario would imply the existence of a submerged and neglected subclass in servitude to everyone else. Like the slaves over the course of history or the elves in Rowling’s Harry Potter series. Better that each does his/her own part in doing the necessary-but-not-necessarily-fulfilling tasks for the good of the whole society as free people.
Still, I can accept part of the movie’s premise by making sure that I set aside a portion of my daily life to my own projects that I enjoy doing and the people whom I love. And to not get carried away with the stressful moments of my job, either.
After seeing the PBS production of You Can’t Take It With You so long ago, I kept trying to find it on televised programming schedules or rent it out on DVD/VHS. But the best I could do was find and watch the original movie, which starred Jimmy Stewart. And I was disappointed in that movie, having been spoiled by the great performances in the later version. So I’m still looking for the PBS You Can’t Take It With You. I’m optimistic that I will eventually come across it; in this era of the Internet, you never know what old treasures will resurface!
It was refreshing to see this take on life, but I also recognize that there are two important things to consider:
--One, the world runs on money, and in order to obtain it, one must either consciously strive to get it or be in a position to receive it from another. If you belong to the latter group, then I suppose you can conveniently adopt the attitude of being “above” the money-grubbing rat racers and instead do whatever you want. But if you don’t have such an “effortless“ source of income, then that leaves you with the necessity to venture out and work to get the money you (along with your family) need to live on.
--Two, even someone with misanthropic tendencies as myself recognizes that being able to do “what I want” eventually requires someone else to clock in to work and perform the labor necessary to provide the goods or services that I “need” for my glorious self-fulfillment. A sense of social ethics within me rises up in objection to the idea of everyone in society just doing their own thing. That scenario would imply the existence of a submerged and neglected subclass in servitude to everyone else. Like the slaves over the course of history or the elves in Rowling’s Harry Potter series. Better that each does his/her own part in doing the necessary-but-not-necessarily-fulfilling tasks for the good of the whole society as free people.
Still, I can accept part of the movie’s premise by making sure that I set aside a portion of my daily life to my own projects that I enjoy doing and the people whom I love. And to not get carried away with the stressful moments of my job, either.
After seeing the PBS production of You Can’t Take It With You so long ago, I kept trying to find it on televised programming schedules or rent it out on DVD/VHS. But the best I could do was find and watch the original movie, which starred Jimmy Stewart. And I was disappointed in that movie, having been spoiled by the great performances in the later version. So I’m still looking for the PBS You Can’t Take It With You. I’m optimistic that I will eventually come across it; in this era of the Internet, you never know what old treasures will resurface!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Congrats
Not a long entry today: just a note to congratulate Barack Obama and Joseph Biden for becoming our 44th president and 47th vice-president, respectively. May the inauguration go off flawlessly! I'm keeping the TV on this morning, with the news coverage constantly in the background. Although, like most people, I have other things to do. I guess Obama's finished with his painting detail, for a while.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Monday Newsbreak: 1/19
--The excitement is building for Barack Obama’s inauguration tomorrow, with the soon-to-be president (along with VP-Elect Joe Biden) retracing Abraham Lincoln’s rail journey to his inauguration in 1861. There is much good will and hope surrounding the “changing of the guard”. May the new president depart from the ways of his predecessor and take to heart George Washington’s warning not to get entangled in any pointless and costly adventures abroad.
--A U.S. Airways passenger jet, containing 155 living souls, successfully “crash” landed on the Hudson River after an encounter with flocks of geese knocked out both of its engines. Not one life was lost in this “miracle on the Hudson”, as New York Governor Paterson termed it (other than those of the geese, that is).
--Today is the national holiday commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. The civil rights leader would have been 80 had his life been so senselessly cut short by an assassin’s bullet.
--Israel has declared a unilateral cease fire in its conflict with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It will keep its army there, though. Hamas has vowed not to respect the cease fire. I don’t understand Israel’s cease fire declaration when it’s obvious that the armed conflict is by no means over. Perhaps this is an attempt to acknowledge the efforts of its allies abroad to bring about peace in the area.
--So the stage is set for this year’s Super Bowl: Arizona Cardinals vs. Pittsburgh Steelers. The Cardinals, considered by many of the so-called media football experts as the worst team in the playoffs, won the National Conference championship with an exciting 32-25 win over Philadelphia. And the Steelers slugged it out in the frigid snow at home with Baltimore, earning a very hard-fought 23-14 victory. I’ll be pulling for the Cardinals at the Super Bowl, which will be held on February 8 in Tampa.
--A U.S. Airways passenger jet, containing 155 living souls, successfully “crash” landed on the Hudson River after an encounter with flocks of geese knocked out both of its engines. Not one life was lost in this “miracle on the Hudson”, as New York Governor Paterson termed it (other than those of the geese, that is).
--Today is the national holiday commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. The civil rights leader would have been 80 had his life been so senselessly cut short by an assassin’s bullet.
--Israel has declared a unilateral cease fire in its conflict with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It will keep its army there, though. Hamas has vowed not to respect the cease fire. I don’t understand Israel’s cease fire declaration when it’s obvious that the armed conflict is by no means over. Perhaps this is an attempt to acknowledge the efforts of its allies abroad to bring about peace in the area.
--So the stage is set for this year’s Super Bowl: Arizona Cardinals vs. Pittsburgh Steelers. The Cardinals, considered by many of the so-called media football experts as the worst team in the playoffs, won the National Conference championship with an exciting 32-25 win over Philadelphia. And the Steelers slugged it out in the frigid snow at home with Baltimore, earning a very hard-fought 23-14 victory. I’ll be pulling for the Cardinals at the Super Bowl, which will be held on February 8 in Tampa.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Not On This Blog
Aside from in-depth, highly technical articles of an academic, scholarly quality, this blog of mine lacks a few other things as well, some of them deliberately. Let me list some the deliberate omissions:
--Sometimes I will refer to someone I personally know by their name, but only either in passing when referring to something else or if I am praising or congratulating them for something. I do not use this blog as a forum to personally criticize or gossip. However, public figures are an entirely different matter! But even with those, you may have noticed that I hold back from the personal gossip about them as well.
--Everyone has gripes about this thing or that in their work and school lives. So do I. And I may write about these gripes to some extent, while couching them in general terms. But identifying specific people is not for this forum of mine, although I do feel justified in discussing some of my opinions about non-family people in positions of authority over me in my past (such as teachers), without naming them.
--Consider the extremes of emotions that pretty much all of us regularly experience. I experience the whole range, all the way from ecstasy to deep funks. Relating, from one day to the next, what emotional state I’m in and why I’m feeling this way or that doesn’t belong on this blog.
--The above also applies to the gamut of health issues I regularly confront over the course of a day and over a period of days. If others want to do this with their blogs, then that’s cool with me. I just don’t think that this sort of thing would be very interesting.
--This isn’t Facebook. I have a Facebook account, so if I want to do the social networking scene with the pictures and little blurbs, then that’s where I’m going. Not that I won’t occasionally stick a picture or two here as well.
--From time to time I will feature an embedded music video on this blog. But I am careful to only feature officially-sanctioned videos put on YouTube by the concerned artist/company and for which the embedding codes have been provided. Most of the material I see on YouTube, regrettably, is not authorized by the artist responsible for the work. Also, most of the official stuff has the embedding disabled by request. I don’t see how this helps them, because all I am doing by featuring their already released material (on YouTube) on my blog is to lavishly promote them! Oh well, go figure!
--A few months ago, I changed my blog’s title to my initials, hence “WMI Blog”. Later, I discovered that Windows has some kind of software application with the name “WMI” and even has a website with the same name (but whose URL is simply “.com”. Seeing how I was WMI since back in 1956, I feel I have a bit more legitimacy to the usage of this as my title. If confusion about this inadvertently brings computer geeks and customers over my way, then so be it. The “commercial” WMI can always change ITS name. I’m certainly not.
--I notice a lot of blogs freely using photographs they’ve found elsewhere to enhance their writing (e.g. show a picture of Obama next to the article about him). But it appears to me that practically every photo I run across is the intellectual property of someone else, even those I run across in the general news flow. So I avoid using them. But, of course, no such restriction applies to pictures I have taken myself.
--I am not above using sarcasm or some moderately strident language (such as “crappy”) when criticizing a public figure (or my local newspaper). But using profanity or extreme comparisons (e.g. to Hitler or Satan or “terrorist”) is not only inappropriate, it’s stupid!
So what does this leave me to write about on this blog? Pretty much everything else!
--Sometimes I will refer to someone I personally know by their name, but only either in passing when referring to something else or if I am praising or congratulating them for something. I do not use this blog as a forum to personally criticize or gossip. However, public figures are an entirely different matter! But even with those, you may have noticed that I hold back from the personal gossip about them as well.
--Everyone has gripes about this thing or that in their work and school lives. So do I. And I may write about these gripes to some extent, while couching them in general terms. But identifying specific people is not for this forum of mine, although I do feel justified in discussing some of my opinions about non-family people in positions of authority over me in my past (such as teachers), without naming them.
--Consider the extremes of emotions that pretty much all of us regularly experience. I experience the whole range, all the way from ecstasy to deep funks. Relating, from one day to the next, what emotional state I’m in and why I’m feeling this way or that doesn’t belong on this blog.
--The above also applies to the gamut of health issues I regularly confront over the course of a day and over a period of days. If others want to do this with their blogs, then that’s cool with me. I just don’t think that this sort of thing would be very interesting.
--This isn’t Facebook. I have a Facebook account, so if I want to do the social networking scene with the pictures and little blurbs, then that’s where I’m going. Not that I won’t occasionally stick a picture or two here as well.
--From time to time I will feature an embedded music video on this blog. But I am careful to only feature officially-sanctioned videos put on YouTube by the concerned artist/company and for which the embedding codes have been provided. Most of the material I see on YouTube, regrettably, is not authorized by the artist responsible for the work. Also, most of the official stuff has the embedding disabled by request. I don’t see how this helps them, because all I am doing by featuring their already released material (on YouTube) on my blog is to lavishly promote them! Oh well, go figure!
--A few months ago, I changed my blog’s title to my initials, hence “WMI Blog”. Later, I discovered that Windows has some kind of software application with the name “WMI” and even has a website with the same name (but whose URL is simply “.com”. Seeing how I was WMI since back in 1956, I feel I have a bit more legitimacy to the usage of this as my title. If confusion about this inadvertently brings computer geeks and customers over my way, then so be it. The “commercial” WMI can always change ITS name. I’m certainly not.
--I notice a lot of blogs freely using photographs they’ve found elsewhere to enhance their writing (e.g. show a picture of Obama next to the article about him). But it appears to me that practically every photo I run across is the intellectual property of someone else, even those I run across in the general news flow. So I avoid using them. But, of course, no such restriction applies to pictures I have taken myself.
--I am not above using sarcasm or some moderately strident language (such as “crappy”) when criticizing a public figure (or my local newspaper). But using profanity or extreme comparisons (e.g. to Hitler or Satan or “terrorist”) is not only inappropriate, it’s stupid!
So what does this leave me to write about on this blog? Pretty much everything else!
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Stephen King's Just After Sunset
I like reading novels, but I generally love reading short stories, especially by certain authors. And Stephen King is one of them. He has come out with some notable collections in the past (Night Shift, Skeleton Crew, Nightmares and Dreamscapes, and Everything’s Eventual). Of King’s earlier works, my favorite is Skeleton Crew, and my favorite individual piece is The Mist, a novella from Skeleton Crew that was recently made into a movie (which changed and ruined the written story’s original ending, in my opinion.)
Just After Sunset contains thirteen short stories, some of which I liked more than others. Although they are written in different styles and portray completely different characters in widely varying circumstances, they all share the common thread of examining how people must come to terms with the socially taboo subject of death. That doesn’t mean that these stories are all horror stories, although a couple of them would definitely fit into that genre. Just After Sunset contains ghost stories, science fiction, murder/suspense, alternative reality tales, and psychological reflections. Here are my five favorite stories:
#5 Rest Stop--A writer traveling home on the Interstate in Florida stops at a rest stop and finds himself an unwilling (and unseen) witness to a man viciously beating his girlfriend. Should he wait and see if it ends peacefully, or should he intervene to prevent a possible murder? Or should he just get back in his car and drive off? This is one of those “what would YOU do” types of stories.
#4 Stationary Bike--A man, commercial artist by trade and faced with the need to exercise, purchases an exercise bicycle and puts it in his apartment’s basement. Bored by the tedium of riding it, he decides to make a picture of pretty country scenery to look at while he is exercising. And then, as he rides on the stationary bike, the picture begins to take on a reality of its own! This story has a conceptual similarity to The Road Virus Heads North (from Everything’s Eventual).
#3 The Gingerbread Girl--A young woman, after the tragic death of her infant child, begins to get the urge to run. And run. And run. Her running eventually causes her to split up from her husband, and she moves to a beach cottage (in Florida). Where she continues with her running, of course. And experiences one of those trademark Stephen King life-or-death adventures. I liked King’s tale about running and Florida beaches. And his “moral” revealed by its ending.
#2 Willa--Way out in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming, an Amtrak train has derailed and its passengers are huddled in a nearby train station, awaiting their rescue. Willa, the strong-willed young wife of the protagonist, gets tired of waiting and wanders away. Our hero goes out to find her, and in the process finds out much more than what he had bargained for. This story definitely has a strong Twilight Zone feel to it.
#1 N. No, that’s not a typo: the story’s title is “N.”. This story, to me, is head and shoulders above all of the others. I’d even say it ranks right up there with The Mist. N. is about obsessive-compulsive disorder and alternative realities. And the transference of the burden of guardianship from one to another. This was also King’s contribution for the book that was set in Maine, his original home state. And it has that eerie, creepy feel of earlier tales like Pet Sematary and It. N. also reads a little like one of H.P. Lovecraft’s twisted tales, which is a big plus (I am a fan of his writing).
Stephen King has a tendency to write about areas that he lives in. For the most part, he has resided in Maine. But recently, he has kept a home in Florida as well. As a result, some of the stories in this book have a Florida setting. I even know the rest stop he’s writing about in Rest Stop! Pick up Just After Sunset at a store or check it out from the library, if you can find it there. Or maybe just wait awhile until it eventually comes out in paperback. I liked all of the stories. But once again, I recommend N. the most!
Just After Sunset contains thirteen short stories, some of which I liked more than others. Although they are written in different styles and portray completely different characters in widely varying circumstances, they all share the common thread of examining how people must come to terms with the socially taboo subject of death. That doesn’t mean that these stories are all horror stories, although a couple of them would definitely fit into that genre. Just After Sunset contains ghost stories, science fiction, murder/suspense, alternative reality tales, and psychological reflections. Here are my five favorite stories:
#5 Rest Stop--A writer traveling home on the Interstate in Florida stops at a rest stop and finds himself an unwilling (and unseen) witness to a man viciously beating his girlfriend. Should he wait and see if it ends peacefully, or should he intervene to prevent a possible murder? Or should he just get back in his car and drive off? This is one of those “what would YOU do” types of stories.
#4 Stationary Bike--A man, commercial artist by trade and faced with the need to exercise, purchases an exercise bicycle and puts it in his apartment’s basement. Bored by the tedium of riding it, he decides to make a picture of pretty country scenery to look at while he is exercising. And then, as he rides on the stationary bike, the picture begins to take on a reality of its own! This story has a conceptual similarity to The Road Virus Heads North (from Everything’s Eventual).
#3 The Gingerbread Girl--A young woman, after the tragic death of her infant child, begins to get the urge to run. And run. And run. Her running eventually causes her to split up from her husband, and she moves to a beach cottage (in Florida). Where she continues with her running, of course. And experiences one of those trademark Stephen King life-or-death adventures. I liked King’s tale about running and Florida beaches. And his “moral” revealed by its ending.
#2 Willa--Way out in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming, an Amtrak train has derailed and its passengers are huddled in a nearby train station, awaiting their rescue. Willa, the strong-willed young wife of the protagonist, gets tired of waiting and wanders away. Our hero goes out to find her, and in the process finds out much more than what he had bargained for. This story definitely has a strong Twilight Zone feel to it.
#1 N. No, that’s not a typo: the story’s title is “N.”. This story, to me, is head and shoulders above all of the others. I’d even say it ranks right up there with The Mist. N. is about obsessive-compulsive disorder and alternative realities. And the transference of the burden of guardianship from one to another. This was also King’s contribution for the book that was set in Maine, his original home state. And it has that eerie, creepy feel of earlier tales like Pet Sematary and It. N. also reads a little like one of H.P. Lovecraft’s twisted tales, which is a big plus (I am a fan of his writing).
Stephen King has a tendency to write about areas that he lives in. For the most part, he has resided in Maine. But recently, he has kept a home in Florida as well. As a result, some of the stories in this book have a Florida setting. I even know the rest stop he’s writing about in Rest Stop! Pick up Just After Sunset at a store or check it out from the library, if you can find it there. Or maybe just wait awhile until it eventually comes out in paperback. I liked all of the stories. But once again, I recommend N. the most!
Friday, January 16, 2009
To Astronomy…And Beyond!
Oh, to be an astronomer! That was one of the pat answers that I, when a little kid, would give to those pesky grownups whenever they asked me what I planned to be when I grew up. What I should have said was, “Just like you!” and then observe their reactions. For most people as adults feel, I suspect, as if they have fallen far short of their childhood ideals. A kid will rarely express interest in doing something commonly believed as being ordinary and mundane. One of the great comic lines I ever heard was on an episode of The Beverly Hillbillies when someone asked Jethro what he wanted to become after he graduated from school. Beaming with enthusiasm and excitement, the towering, overage "kid" replied, “A brain surgeon!--Either that, or a soda jerk!”
Most of us fall somewhere in the “middle” of those two choices, finally settling for what we can best get from the employment marketplace. And much of this is just seeing things from a more realistic and mature perspective. But is it such a wise decision to completely abandon the lofty and seemingly unattainable goals of childhood?
I get a kick out of watching various astronomy shows on TV, especially the ones like Nova where they show astronomers publicly undergoing near-orgasmic fits of ecstasy over their discoveries. These folks know how to live! We should, all of us, have goals that may seem at present far out of reach, but which we can work toward accomplishing and which will put us in a better (if not utterly ecstatic) life situation. Like those “wild and crazy” astronomers! (Of course, who knows what kinds of “gloomy Gusses” they are when the cameras aren’t trained on them).
Most of us fall somewhere in the “middle” of those two choices, finally settling for what we can best get from the employment marketplace. And much of this is just seeing things from a more realistic and mature perspective. But is it such a wise decision to completely abandon the lofty and seemingly unattainable goals of childhood?
I get a kick out of watching various astronomy shows on TV, especially the ones like Nova where they show astronomers publicly undergoing near-orgasmic fits of ecstasy over their discoveries. These folks know how to live! We should, all of us, have goals that may seem at present far out of reach, but which we can work toward accomplishing and which will put us in a better (if not utterly ecstatic) life situation. Like those “wild and crazy” astronomers! (Of course, who knows what kinds of “gloomy Gusses” they are when the cameras aren’t trained on them).
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Experiment
In the evening of January 8, the Florida Gators and the Oklahoma Sooners played each other in Miami for college football’s national championship (with the Gators ultimately prevailing). Being at work during the game, I had decided to listen to the play-by-play on my headset radio. But at the last minute, I decided to go in a different direction, tuning instead to my local classical radio station and listening to classical music (and later jazz) for the duration of the game.
I went further. I never asked anyone around me how the game was going, and I avoided the break room TV area where the game was being shown. I had decided to see how far I could go without knowing who was winning.
I did this sort of thing during the Super Bowl in early 1984, played between the Los Angeles Raiders and the Washington Redskins. Usually a football fan, I deliberately avoided watching the game or exposing myself to any media that would give away the outcome. I went to sleep that night successful in that endeavor. The next morning, on the way to work, I was still doing well when my eyes accidentally passed over the news rack outside my work place. And fell upon a picture of the Raiders’ quarterback Jim Plunkett beaming with a huge grin over his team’s 38-9 thrashing of the Redskins. So then it was over.
I didn’t think that I would go that long this time, because I was surrounded by interested football fans for the duration of the Florida-Oklahoma game. For most of the night, I just heard classical music and couldn’t hear any outbursts of cheering on the part of my coworkers. But around 11:30, I couldn’t deny that, every five minutes or so, people would be breaking out in cheers and yells. So then I knew: the Gators were winning, and the game was almost over. Finally, once I pulled out of the parking lot onto the main road here in Gainesville, all doubt was erased: horn-honking, yelling, and very, very heavy traffic, along with groups of students walking toward University Avenue to celebrate.
In case you thought this entry was all about football, think again. All of the above I did in fun, of course. But during the time that I was avoiding the football game, I noticed the several coworkers around me who were totally engrossed in it. And it seemed as if they were involved in an alternate reality of sorts, with their thoughts and emotional reactions keyed into things that were invisible and seemingly unreal. Kind of like what you commonly see nowadays when you see people walking around by themselves talking on their cell phones in public. They may be communicating with others, but they present the appearance of being "zoned out" or of talking to themselves. In older times, this kind of behavior would be deemed abnormal. Nowadays, all I would have to do is stick a small gadget on one of my ears and then I could walk around anywhere in the open public, loudly yakking my head off and no one else thinking anything of it.
Are we really that far off from the scenario in the movie The Matrix, where the real world is completely supplanted a cyber/neural network that supplies all of the necessary environmental and emotional cues? Hey, I too am a 21st century human who loves escapist entertainment and thinks on different tracks, but I think I’ll opt for keeping at least one foot firmly planted in reality, thank you!
I went further. I never asked anyone around me how the game was going, and I avoided the break room TV area where the game was being shown. I had decided to see how far I could go without knowing who was winning.
I did this sort of thing during the Super Bowl in early 1984, played between the Los Angeles Raiders and the Washington Redskins. Usually a football fan, I deliberately avoided watching the game or exposing myself to any media that would give away the outcome. I went to sleep that night successful in that endeavor. The next morning, on the way to work, I was still doing well when my eyes accidentally passed over the news rack outside my work place. And fell upon a picture of the Raiders’ quarterback Jim Plunkett beaming with a huge grin over his team’s 38-9 thrashing of the Redskins. So then it was over.
I didn’t think that I would go that long this time, because I was surrounded by interested football fans for the duration of the Florida-Oklahoma game. For most of the night, I just heard classical music and couldn’t hear any outbursts of cheering on the part of my coworkers. But around 11:30, I couldn’t deny that, every five minutes or so, people would be breaking out in cheers and yells. So then I knew: the Gators were winning, and the game was almost over. Finally, once I pulled out of the parking lot onto the main road here in Gainesville, all doubt was erased: horn-honking, yelling, and very, very heavy traffic, along with groups of students walking toward University Avenue to celebrate.
In case you thought this entry was all about football, think again. All of the above I did in fun, of course. But during the time that I was avoiding the football game, I noticed the several coworkers around me who were totally engrossed in it. And it seemed as if they were involved in an alternate reality of sorts, with their thoughts and emotional reactions keyed into things that were invisible and seemingly unreal. Kind of like what you commonly see nowadays when you see people walking around by themselves talking on their cell phones in public. They may be communicating with others, but they present the appearance of being "zoned out" or of talking to themselves. In older times, this kind of behavior would be deemed abnormal. Nowadays, all I would have to do is stick a small gadget on one of my ears and then I could walk around anywhere in the open public, loudly yakking my head off and no one else thinking anything of it.
Are we really that far off from the scenario in the movie The Matrix, where the real world is completely supplanted a cyber/neural network that supplies all of the necessary environmental and emotional cues? Hey, I too am a 21st century human who loves escapist entertainment and thinks on different tracks, but I think I’ll opt for keeping at least one foot firmly planted in reality, thank you!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
My Running Update: 1/13
I had been hoping that I could train for longer distances and run in those types of races. On January 31, the Florida Track Club with be holding a 15-kilometer (9.3 miles) race by Newnan’s Lake. Later, in late February, I was planning to run a half-marathon in Gainesville. But I haven’t been getting out there and putting in the miles as I should have. I’m still continuing my running, but at shorter distances and not on a daily basis. But it still would be interesting to try out those two races, with just finishing them being the main goal. We’ll see. I’m obviously not in my late teens anymore, so it isn’t realistic for me to try to drive my body through harsh training as I could do back then. After all, the whole idea is for me to ultimately enjoy distance running as an enjoyable daily activity, combining exercise with leisure. The races are secondary. Here is my training log, from November 13 to the present (click on it to enlarge):
Monday, January 12, 2009
Monday Newsbreak: 1/12
Is my mind going numb on me or has the news become less interesting? Sure, there's a war going on in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Hamas, with people across the world shouting out their opinions for one side or the other (or neither). Bush is preparing to leave office, while Obama is preparing to begin his term. The economy is bad off, but how bad off? What's the new president going to do? Russia is in a dispute with Ukraine over gas resources, resulting in a temporary shut-off (by Russia) of the pipeline flowing through Ukraine to Europe. Someone please try to make sense of this news to me! Is Caroline "Y'know" Kennedy going to be selected to replace Hillary as New York's senator? Do you really care? Will Al Franken ever get to be sworn into his Senate seat? Will Blagojevich ever disappear from the news headlines? Even with my University of Florida Gators winning the national championship in football this past Thursday, I'm not all that excited.
Maybe I need to do what that Chinese journalist did a couple of years ago and lift articles from The Onion, reporting them as real news!
Maybe I need to do what that Chinese journalist did a couple of years ago and lift articles from The Onion, reporting them as real news!
Sunday, January 11, 2009
An Act of Willed Understanding
In his notes at the back of his new short story collection Just After Sunset, Stephen King describes writing as “an act of willed understanding”. When I read those words, a great realization dawned on me: that’s one of the most compelling reasons I have for writing this blog!
A lot of people will never sit down and write anything for fear that others will call out their inexpertise on the topic being written about. And there are indeed many, many subjects that I feel relatively ignorant and unqualified to discuss. And yet, King’s statement comes back to me and refutes this inhibition to writing. As a matter of fact, it turns it on its head and transforms it to the idea that one SHOULD write about anything, and the less one understands the subject matter, the better! And, you know what, I think that I’ve already been doing this, although at a more “inhibited” level.
When I sit down to write an article, I often don’t know what I will write about until my word processor is turned on and I’m about to hit the keys. Even when I’ve chosen a subject, the simple act of writing some opening sentences may cause me to reexamine my entire viewpoint and to even adopt an opposing view. Or, I may discover that the subject that I had thought was so interesting or important was actually only secondary to another topic that I only discovered because I had first begun discussing my original topic.
It is too easy nowadays, with the omnipresent media-induced catch-phrases, clichés, and prepackaged talking points, to walk around thinking I’ve figured out everything. But once I begin to write things out, my viewpoints often appear shallow to me, and alternative directions to the discussion begin to make themselves known.
One of the rules of thumb that I write with is to imagine myself as someone like Larry King, and I am interviewing an expert in the topic that I’m writing about. In this role, I’d never presume my own expertise in the area, but I instead would be trained to ask pertinent and interesting questions. With this blog though, instead of an expert guest giving me feedback to my questions, I have the whole world to draw upon (if they're willing readers, that is)!
In sum, I do write in part to make myself think more about the topics I am interested in. It serves to increase my understanding, both in terms of what to believe and what to be skeptical of.
A lot of people will never sit down and write anything for fear that others will call out their inexpertise on the topic being written about. And there are indeed many, many subjects that I feel relatively ignorant and unqualified to discuss. And yet, King’s statement comes back to me and refutes this inhibition to writing. As a matter of fact, it turns it on its head and transforms it to the idea that one SHOULD write about anything, and the less one understands the subject matter, the better! And, you know what, I think that I’ve already been doing this, although at a more “inhibited” level.
When I sit down to write an article, I often don’t know what I will write about until my word processor is turned on and I’m about to hit the keys. Even when I’ve chosen a subject, the simple act of writing some opening sentences may cause me to reexamine my entire viewpoint and to even adopt an opposing view. Or, I may discover that the subject that I had thought was so interesting or important was actually only secondary to another topic that I only discovered because I had first begun discussing my original topic.
It is too easy nowadays, with the omnipresent media-induced catch-phrases, clichés, and prepackaged talking points, to walk around thinking I’ve figured out everything. But once I begin to write things out, my viewpoints often appear shallow to me, and alternative directions to the discussion begin to make themselves known.
One of the rules of thumb that I write with is to imagine myself as someone like Larry King, and I am interviewing an expert in the topic that I’m writing about. In this role, I’d never presume my own expertise in the area, but I instead would be trained to ask pertinent and interesting questions. With this blog though, instead of an expert guest giving me feedback to my questions, I have the whole world to draw upon (if they're willing readers, that is)!
In sum, I do write in part to make myself think more about the topics I am interested in. It serves to increase my understanding, both in terms of what to believe and what to be skeptical of.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Finally, Some Cooler Weather
Well, we finally had a “cold” night in this new year, smack in the middle of winter. Yes, the temperatures actually dipped down into the upper thirties (Fahrenheit). B-r-r-r! But all in all, this has been an incredibly disappointing, unusually warm winter here in north-central Florida. For those of you afflicted with heavy snow, freezing rain, and extreme cold, this may seem like an asinine thing for me to be complaining about. Sure, I’m glad for the fact that, at my latitude, cold temperatures are usually associated with dry conditions. And I don’t particularly enjoy sub-freezing temperatures, either.
But for most of the year, the temperature is usually much warmer than I’d like it to be. And during July and August, it can get to be unbearable. Especially when it rises to the upper nineties and is coupled with high humidity. At those times, it’s best to just find an adequately air-conditioned place and “chill out”. Even the night time can difficult to endure at that time of the year, with mosquitoes dominating the outdoor fauna (bring on the bats!).
At this writing (not publication), it is mid-afternoon and the temperatures have climbed into the low 60s. To me, this is the ideal range: lows in the upper thirties and highs in the low sixties, with low humidity. And no mosquitoes! But alas! My meteorological pleasure is destined to be only temporary; in a couple of days, we’re bound to right back up there in the “unpleasant zone”.
But for most of the year, the temperature is usually much warmer than I’d like it to be. And during July and August, it can get to be unbearable. Especially when it rises to the upper nineties and is coupled with high humidity. At those times, it’s best to just find an adequately air-conditioned place and “chill out”. Even the night time can difficult to endure at that time of the year, with mosquitoes dominating the outdoor fauna (bring on the bats!).
At this writing (not publication), it is mid-afternoon and the temperatures have climbed into the low 60s. To me, this is the ideal range: lows in the upper thirties and highs in the low sixties, with low humidity. And no mosquitoes! But alas! My meteorological pleasure is destined to be only temporary; in a couple of days, we’re bound to right back up there in the “unpleasant zone”.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
College Football Title Game Tonight
Tonight the college football national championship game is being played in Miami between my hometown University of Florida Gators (under head coach Urban Meyer) and the University of Oklahoma Sooners (under head coach and former Gator defensive coach Bob Stoops). My own U.S. Representative (whom I’ve steadfastly avoided ever voting for), Republican Cliff Stearns, asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi to adjourn and postpone voting during what he called “this historic game.” And what votes would be postponed? Oh, nothing important--just the certification of Barack Obama’s election to the presidency through the electoral college! Pelosi thankfully denied the request. Way to go, Cliffo!
Florida and Oklahoma each has a very strong football team that is fully capable of beating the other. The game promises to be very exciting, although more often than not, one team ends up dominating the other in these types of games. Each team is led by a Heisman Trophy winner (UF’s Tim Tebow and Okla.’s Sam Bradford) and is practiced in the art of running up the score against weaker teams, long after a game’s outcome has been assured. All of the big-shot media sports pundits have put their more-than-two-cents’ worth in on this game. For me, I’m guessing that the outcome will depend on four factors: how Florida’s offense does against Oklahoma’s defense, how Oklahoma’s offense does against Florida’s defense, who turns the ball over more, and how the special teams play for the two teams. Which pretty much covers the entire game (I’m taking no chances). Who’s going to win? Who knows, but of course I’ll be rooting for Florida, although I think they tend to take themselves way too seriously in the general scheme of things. Especially their coach and their star quarterback (and too many of their fans).
In April 2007, during the local celebrations following the University of Florida’s national championship game victory in basketball, a drunk driver hit and killed a Gainesville police officer, Corey Dahlem. We’re a bit concerned at what may happen tonight should the Gators prevail. I have nothing against others celebrating, even if it involves drinking (legally, that is). But absolutely no one should get behind the wheel impaired. Especially with the shadow of 2007’s tragedy still hanging over us.
But I’m looking forward to the fun and excitement of tonight’s game. I’ll be at work, listening to it on my radio. May the best Gator win!
Florida and Oklahoma each has a very strong football team that is fully capable of beating the other. The game promises to be very exciting, although more often than not, one team ends up dominating the other in these types of games. Each team is led by a Heisman Trophy winner (UF’s Tim Tebow and Okla.’s Sam Bradford) and is practiced in the art of running up the score against weaker teams, long after a game’s outcome has been assured. All of the big-shot media sports pundits have put their more-than-two-cents’ worth in on this game. For me, I’m guessing that the outcome will depend on four factors: how Florida’s offense does against Oklahoma’s defense, how Oklahoma’s offense does against Florida’s defense, who turns the ball over more, and how the special teams play for the two teams. Which pretty much covers the entire game (I’m taking no chances). Who’s going to win? Who knows, but of course I’ll be rooting for Florida, although I think they tend to take themselves way too seriously in the general scheme of things. Especially their coach and their star quarterback (and too many of their fans).
In April 2007, during the local celebrations following the University of Florida’s national championship game victory in basketball, a drunk driver hit and killed a Gainesville police officer, Corey Dahlem. We’re a bit concerned at what may happen tonight should the Gators prevail. I have nothing against others celebrating, even if it involves drinking (legally, that is). But absolutely no one should get behind the wheel impaired. Especially with the shadow of 2007’s tragedy still hanging over us.
But I’m looking forward to the fun and excitement of tonight’s game. I’ll be at work, listening to it on my radio. May the best Gator win!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Who’s the Governor (of Illinois)?
I must make the disclaimer that I am not an expert on law. Having said that, I have to admit to some confusion regarding the case of Roland Burris as he unsuccessfully tries to take his U.S. Senate seat after being duly appointed by current Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for the position vacated by President-Elect Barack Obama.
Governor Blagojevich, it is true, has been arrested and charged with trying to sell that very Senate seat earlier to other interested parties. And the Illinois state legislature is currently undertaking impeachment proceedings against him for this. But at this moment, Blagojevich is the full governor of the state of Illinois, with all of the authority and responsibility which that position entails. And since we supposedly still have something in this country known as due process, at this moment he (at least legally) has done nothing wrong.
I remember two different occasions in the past when U.S. presidents were under clouds of scandals. In the 1970s, Nixon was on the verge of impeachment when the damaging tape was released, unequivocally connecting him with the Watergate cover-up and ushering in his resignation. And in 1999, Clinton actually underwent a full impeachment trial in the Senate for perjury and obstruction of justice. IN NEITHER CASE was the embattled president specially restricted regarding what he could or could not do as president. And with the presidency, we’re talking about a lot more than what a governor could do. Including the ability to make war, even nuclear war!
Just because someone in a position of authority has been charged with something, that does not give those affected by his/her decisions in that position the right to pick and choose which actions to accept and which to defy. I would be very careful if I were the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate. For they obviously have their own political conflict of interest in deciding to deny Burris his seat: There will be an election in 2010 for a full six-year term for this seat and Burris, even as an incumbent, would be a relatively weak candidate for the Democrats against a probably insurgent Republican opposition. The Democrats would prefer to have a politically stronger senator there instead.
Also, that leadership needs to take into consideration the fact that Obama has been going out of his way to build an image of himself as being squeaky-clean ethically and is doing everything he can to delegitimize the actions of the Illinois governor regarding his vacated seat. But as I said, the governor is the duly constituted authority, while he/she is in office, to fill Senate vacancies, and no one, even the President-Elect, has the right to pick and choose which actions to obey and which to ignore. After all, how would Obama like it if, down the road, various parties accused him of impropriety in office and used that as a pretext to defy unfavorable (to them) presidential decisions?
Well, as I said before, I’m no expert in law. But Illinois either has a governor or it doesn’t. So who’s the governor? At last check, I believe it was Rod Blagojevich. He appointed Burris, and there has been no hint of scandal regarding this particular appointment. So Roland Burris should be seated. In my opinion.
Governor Blagojevich, it is true, has been arrested and charged with trying to sell that very Senate seat earlier to other interested parties. And the Illinois state legislature is currently undertaking impeachment proceedings against him for this. But at this moment, Blagojevich is the full governor of the state of Illinois, with all of the authority and responsibility which that position entails. And since we supposedly still have something in this country known as due process, at this moment he (at least legally) has done nothing wrong.
I remember two different occasions in the past when U.S. presidents were under clouds of scandals. In the 1970s, Nixon was on the verge of impeachment when the damaging tape was released, unequivocally connecting him with the Watergate cover-up and ushering in his resignation. And in 1999, Clinton actually underwent a full impeachment trial in the Senate for perjury and obstruction of justice. IN NEITHER CASE was the embattled president specially restricted regarding what he could or could not do as president. And with the presidency, we’re talking about a lot more than what a governor could do. Including the ability to make war, even nuclear war!
Just because someone in a position of authority has been charged with something, that does not give those affected by his/her decisions in that position the right to pick and choose which actions to accept and which to defy. I would be very careful if I were the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate. For they obviously have their own political conflict of interest in deciding to deny Burris his seat: There will be an election in 2010 for a full six-year term for this seat and Burris, even as an incumbent, would be a relatively weak candidate for the Democrats against a probably insurgent Republican opposition. The Democrats would prefer to have a politically stronger senator there instead.
Also, that leadership needs to take into consideration the fact that Obama has been going out of his way to build an image of himself as being squeaky-clean ethically and is doing everything he can to delegitimize the actions of the Illinois governor regarding his vacated seat. But as I said, the governor is the duly constituted authority, while he/she is in office, to fill Senate vacancies, and no one, even the President-Elect, has the right to pick and choose which actions to obey and which to ignore. After all, how would Obama like it if, down the road, various parties accused him of impropriety in office and used that as a pretext to defy unfavorable (to them) presidential decisions?
Well, as I said before, I’m no expert in law. But Illinois either has a governor or it doesn’t. So who’s the governor? At last check, I believe it was Rod Blagojevich. He appointed Burris, and there has been no hint of scandal regarding this particular appointment. So Roland Burris should be seated. In my opinion.
The Talisman, Black House, and Beyond
Over the past few months, I have read the novels The Talisman and Black House, both collaborations by Stephen King and Peter Straub. The two stories are connected through their common protagonist, Jack Sterling, and the concept of an alternate reality called “The Territories”. And the ending of Black House strongly suggests another sequel in the future. But then I see some problems.
When I caught “Harry Potter fever” and began to read this excellent series in 2001, the fourth book (The Goblet of Fire) had already been out for more than a year and loyal readers were expecting the fifth book soon. I took advantage of the waiting period to breeze through the first four books of the series. Then I was “standing” alongside the other die-hard Potter enthusiasts, eagerly awaiting the next book in the series. Only its release was delayed until 2003. The idea that the next book in this popular series had been delayed one year irritated a lot of people, including me. And the release of the sixth Harry Potter movie, The Half-Blood Prince, has caused widespread consternation after it was delayed from this past November to July this year, a period of almost eight months.
But let’s go over now to Stephen King’s history of writing a series. He conceived of the Dark Tower series during the late 1960s, beginning writing on the first installment, The Gunslinger, in 1968. The finished first volume was published in 1982. He built up a loyal readership with this series although the next three books were relatively spaced apart in publication: 1987, 1991, and 1997. Then, following the fourth book of the series, The Wizard and Glass, no more books came out for a while. Finally, after King was almost killed by a distracted motorist while walking down a Maine road in 1999, he resolved to complete the series. And in a torrent of writing, he rushed out the last three (lengthy) volumes in 2003 (#5), 2004 (#6), and 2004 (#7)!
Now let’s go over to King and Straub’s slightly less ambitious Talisman/Black House series. The Talisman came out in 1984. It wasn’t until 2001 that Black House was published, a gap of 17 years. How can any reader entertain any reasonable hope of expecting a next installment of this series, based on King’s erratic track record?
I understand that Stephen King has his own methodology of writing, and this extends to how he dips into his inner creative resources and chooses what he will write about at any particular time. Unlike with Harry Potter’s author J.K. Rowling, King is all over the map with his writing, prolifically producing novels, short stories, and screenplays. And I am one of his fans, one of his “Constant Readers” as he likes to put it. But once an author begins a series, be it something like The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, Otherland, Harry Potter, The Dark Tower, or The Talisman/Black House, (s)he has given an implicit promise to the reader to continue that series to its proper resolution in a reasonably timely manner. To just write a volume this time or that, whenever the mood hits, creates the impression that the author has a low regard for the reader.
I recommend The Talisman and Black House as good fantasy/science fiction, but only with the caveat that the reader may have a long wait for the next volume of this series. A long, long wait. Or maybe they need to travel to “The Territories” themselves to pick up the next book in the series!
When I caught “Harry Potter fever” and began to read this excellent series in 2001, the fourth book (The Goblet of Fire) had already been out for more than a year and loyal readers were expecting the fifth book soon. I took advantage of the waiting period to breeze through the first four books of the series. Then I was “standing” alongside the other die-hard Potter enthusiasts, eagerly awaiting the next book in the series. Only its release was delayed until 2003. The idea that the next book in this popular series had been delayed one year irritated a lot of people, including me. And the release of the sixth Harry Potter movie, The Half-Blood Prince, has caused widespread consternation after it was delayed from this past November to July this year, a period of almost eight months.
But let’s go over now to Stephen King’s history of writing a series. He conceived of the Dark Tower series during the late 1960s, beginning writing on the first installment, The Gunslinger, in 1968. The finished first volume was published in 1982. He built up a loyal readership with this series although the next three books were relatively spaced apart in publication: 1987, 1991, and 1997. Then, following the fourth book of the series, The Wizard and Glass, no more books came out for a while. Finally, after King was almost killed by a distracted motorist while walking down a Maine road in 1999, he resolved to complete the series. And in a torrent of writing, he rushed out the last three (lengthy) volumes in 2003 (#5), 2004 (#6), and 2004 (#7)!
Now let’s go over to King and Straub’s slightly less ambitious Talisman/Black House series. The Talisman came out in 1984. It wasn’t until 2001 that Black House was published, a gap of 17 years. How can any reader entertain any reasonable hope of expecting a next installment of this series, based on King’s erratic track record?
I understand that Stephen King has his own methodology of writing, and this extends to how he dips into his inner creative resources and chooses what he will write about at any particular time. Unlike with Harry Potter’s author J.K. Rowling, King is all over the map with his writing, prolifically producing novels, short stories, and screenplays. And I am one of his fans, one of his “Constant Readers” as he likes to put it. But once an author begins a series, be it something like The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, Otherland, Harry Potter, The Dark Tower, or The Talisman/Black House, (s)he has given an implicit promise to the reader to continue that series to its proper resolution in a reasonably timely manner. To just write a volume this time or that, whenever the mood hits, creates the impression that the author has a low regard for the reader.
I recommend The Talisman and Black House as good fantasy/science fiction, but only with the caveat that the reader may have a long wait for the next volume of this series. A long, long wait. Or maybe they need to travel to “The Territories” themselves to pick up the next book in the series!
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Favorite Songs of 2008
The year 2008 was marked with my somewhat-forced drift away from independent/alternative rock, with the one local radio station that carried that format switching to mainstream rock. I had to find other sources for this music, which I did. But they were harder to come by and I heard fewer songs of this genre. Still, there were a few out there that were noteworthy. I also began to listen more to mainstream rock as well as top forty pop music, finding some excellent songs being played on those stations as well. And Georgia’s REM came out with a “winner” album in 2008 titled Accelerate, which contained several very good songs. Well, here are the songs I liked the most from last year:
Rogue Wave had a great early-year hit with Lake Michigan. But I had difficulty hearing them again after that one station abandoned alternative rock. Puddle of Mudd had a funny comeback song in Psycho. Sara Bareilles had a catchy pop/piano hit with Love Song. There were two songs from an earlier time that I “discovered” in 2008: The White Stripes’ screeching, soulful Icky Thump and My Chemical Romance’s theatrical and beautiful Welcome to the Black Parade. Death Cab For Cutie’s I Will Possess Your Heart included a four-plus minute instrumental lead-in that somehow worked. Southern rockers Saliva produced a crashing-loud classic in Ladies and Gentlemen. REM’s release Accelerate contained several good tracks, among them Man-Sized Wreath, Supernatural Superserious, Hollow Man, and I’m Gonna DJ. Coldplay continued in their soft melodic groove with their Viva La Vida. The Foo Fighters came out with Let It Die, another of those tunes of theirs that make me wonder exactly whom singer/songwriter Dave Grohl was singing about. Estelle and Kanye West teamed up to produce American Boy, a beautiful synthesis of old-style romantic song with rap. Jordin Sparks had One Step At a Time, a very upbeat, positive tune. Kaisercartel’s Season Song was grossly underplayed, but I somehow managed to “catch” it a few times during the course of the year. British band Oasis “stormed” back onto the hit rock scene with their Shock of the Lightning (my #5 favorite song of the year). Seether’s Rise Above This was a very emotional piece upholding the noble idea of not giving up on life. Slipknot, their outrageous costumes and all, continued to produce interesting material, this time their Psychosocial. Wassiyé was an upbeat African song by Mali musician Habib Koité and the accompanying band Bamada. Beyoncé had two wonderful songs in 2008: the danceable Single Ladies and her masterpiece (in my opinion) If I Were A Boy (which is my #4 song of 2008). Beck’s relentless Timebomb, which I heard at the beginning of 2008, was good enough to make my #3 song of the year. The T.I./Rihanna collaboration Live Your Life has been a song that I haven’t been able to get enough of, no matter how often I hear it. It is my #2 song of the year. And for #1? MGMT’s Time to Pretend, a song that I have written about earlier on this blog. And there you have it, my favorite songs from 2008!
Rogue Wave had a great early-year hit with Lake Michigan. But I had difficulty hearing them again after that one station abandoned alternative rock. Puddle of Mudd had a funny comeback song in Psycho. Sara Bareilles had a catchy pop/piano hit with Love Song. There were two songs from an earlier time that I “discovered” in 2008: The White Stripes’ screeching, soulful Icky Thump and My Chemical Romance’s theatrical and beautiful Welcome to the Black Parade. Death Cab For Cutie’s I Will Possess Your Heart included a four-plus minute instrumental lead-in that somehow worked. Southern rockers Saliva produced a crashing-loud classic in Ladies and Gentlemen. REM’s release Accelerate contained several good tracks, among them Man-Sized Wreath, Supernatural Superserious, Hollow Man, and I’m Gonna DJ. Coldplay continued in their soft melodic groove with their Viva La Vida. The Foo Fighters came out with Let It Die, another of those tunes of theirs that make me wonder exactly whom singer/songwriter Dave Grohl was singing about. Estelle and Kanye West teamed up to produce American Boy, a beautiful synthesis of old-style romantic song with rap. Jordin Sparks had One Step At a Time, a very upbeat, positive tune. Kaisercartel’s Season Song was grossly underplayed, but I somehow managed to “catch” it a few times during the course of the year. British band Oasis “stormed” back onto the hit rock scene with their Shock of the Lightning (my #5 favorite song of the year). Seether’s Rise Above This was a very emotional piece upholding the noble idea of not giving up on life. Slipknot, their outrageous costumes and all, continued to produce interesting material, this time their Psychosocial. Wassiyé was an upbeat African song by Mali musician Habib Koité and the accompanying band Bamada. Beyoncé had two wonderful songs in 2008: the danceable Single Ladies and her masterpiece (in my opinion) If I Were A Boy (which is my #4 song of 2008). Beck’s relentless Timebomb, which I heard at the beginning of 2008, was good enough to make my #3 song of the year. The T.I./Rihanna collaboration Live Your Life has been a song that I haven’t been able to get enough of, no matter how often I hear it. It is my #2 song of the year. And for #1? MGMT’s Time to Pretend, a song that I have written about earlier on this blog. And there you have it, my favorite songs from 2008!
Monday, January 5, 2009
Monday Newsbreak: 1/5
--It is starting to look as if Al Franken will be the next senator from Minnesota, with the state election board prepared to announce his narrow 225-vote victory. After an appeal to the state supreme court from the presumed loser Norm Coleman, Franken will most likely be sworn in and seated, possibly after everyone else who was elected in ’08.
--New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is withdrawing his name for Commerce Secretary in Obama’s cabinet due to an ongoing grand jury investigation of his conduct as governor. Well, being a governor is a pretty cool job. If you can keep it, that is. Just ask Rod Blagojevich.
--Speaking of the embattled Illinois governor, his appointment to fill Obama’s vacated Senate seat, Roland Burris, at this writing seems determined to go to Washington and be seated there in defiance of the expressed statement of the Democrats in that body in opposition to seating any Blagojevich appointments. The reason? Obviously that Blagojevich, although still legally the Illinois governor, as been arrested and charged with trying to sell that very seat to others.
--The Israeli/Hamas war continues to escalate in the Gaza Strip. Casualties continue to mount in this tragic conflict, both civilian and military. When I turn my TV on to the news, I keep hearing people clamoring for Israel to stop its attack on Hamas and withdraw, citing these casualty figures. But where were these concerned people when Hamas missiles were falling on Israel, killing its civilians?
--In professional football, the Miami Dolphins ended their Cinderella-like run with a 27-9 first round playoff loss to the Baltimore Ravens. Now I will root for the San Diego Chargers in the AFC and the New York Giants in the NFC (and the Giants to win it all).
--New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is withdrawing his name for Commerce Secretary in Obama’s cabinet due to an ongoing grand jury investigation of his conduct as governor. Well, being a governor is a pretty cool job. If you can keep it, that is. Just ask Rod Blagojevich.
--Speaking of the embattled Illinois governor, his appointment to fill Obama’s vacated Senate seat, Roland Burris, at this writing seems determined to go to Washington and be seated there in defiance of the expressed statement of the Democrats in that body in opposition to seating any Blagojevich appointments. The reason? Obviously that Blagojevich, although still legally the Illinois governor, as been arrested and charged with trying to sell that very seat to others.
--The Israeli/Hamas war continues to escalate in the Gaza Strip. Casualties continue to mount in this tragic conflict, both civilian and military. When I turn my TV on to the news, I keep hearing people clamoring for Israel to stop its attack on Hamas and withdraw, citing these casualty figures. But where were these concerned people when Hamas missiles were falling on Israel, killing its civilians?
--In professional football, the Miami Dolphins ended their Cinderella-like run with a 27-9 first round playoff loss to the Baltimore Ravens. Now I will root for the San Diego Chargers in the AFC and the New York Giants in the NFC (and the Giants to win it all).
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Hamas, Israel, and War
Some personal observations and reflections on the Israel-Hamas conflict, now exploded into full-scale war in the Gaza Strip:
--There are two different manipulative propaganda devices used by both sides (Arab and Israeli) to justify their stances and accusations. One: “we were here first, so it’s our land”. Instead, they should be looking at where “we” are NOW (and who “we” really are as well) and trying to make things better for all parties involved. Two: whenever one side attacks the other, the “victims” zero out time and behave as if the attack were something unprovoked and spontaneous, not as the consequence of a long-term exchange of assaults. So the current Israeli attack is based on the “unprovoked” Hamas missile attacks, while those protesting the Israeli incursion were nowhere to be heard objecting to the earlier Hamas missile attacks.
--Hamas leaders are often characterized as being irrational and acting according to hate. But I see an additional reason for their refusal to reasonably behave in a peaceful manner with their neighbor Israel (knowing in advance that they will most assuredly be attacked in retaliation). I believe that the leaders of Hamas are most interested in holding on to power over their own people. To achieve this, they employ the time-tested manipulative tool of setting up an evil enemy as a scapegoat to unite their people behind them. And the enemy? Why Israel, of course. Just look at America for another example of this. The Bush administration was able to enjoy enough popular support to achieve reelection in 2004, largely done by scaring enough of the population with their hysterical color alerts and terror warnings.
--I see Hamas as more analogous to the organized crime families that dominated immigrant neighborhoods during the last century in the U.S., claiming to be “protecting” their own people, but instead bleeding their energy like vampires. This type of behavior is rational, but also very malevolent. It has been pointed out the the Palestinians actually elected Hamas into power in a free democratic election (observed and endorsed by former President Jimmy Carter). But I’d like people to ask themselves whether Hamas will ever allow any more open, free elections (with or without Carter) once they perceive their hold on the people diminishing.
--It can correctly be said that Israel has been on a war footing since its independence in 1948. In 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, other Arab nations have engaged in war against Israel. A loss by Israel in any of these would have meant the end of its existence as a state. But since peace was made between Israel and its chief historical antagonist Egypt in 1979, the nature of war there has changed. There have been no more direct attacks from other Arab countries since 1973 (unless you count the diversionary scud missile attacks from Iraq during the Persian Gulf War in 1991). But within the Palestinian Arab territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with southern Lebanon, Israel has fought their enemies in response to terrorist and missile attacks launched by extremist opponents. And the scenario for this seems to be a continual, dreadful process: Israel gets attacked, they bomb and invade the attackers, they occupy the land a while, and then leave. Then, after a while, the attacks resume and Israel repeats the process. This chain must end.
--In the interests of protecting civilians and civil society, different parties across the world (and quite naturally the Arab parties) want Israel to agree to a truce and withdraw. But the way I see it, they are in a war. War is a terrible thing which should be avoided as something to resort to only when all other options are exhausted. The never-resolved situation that has been going on in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon for the past three decades reminds me of the Star Trek episode I saw where two different planets had been in a war with each other for 500 years. To protect their “civil” society, they agreed to combat through computer attacks, where those “hit” voluntarily reported to special chambers to be killed. In this way, “civil” society was protected but the sanitized war went on unresolved for centuries. Right now, I see those clamoring for a cease-fire and withdrawal by Israel as enabling a similar “sanitized”, unresolved situation. War IS terrible and should be avoided. But one side in this war really does seem to be largely a criminal element that is deliberately aiming their aggression at civilians on the other side. And their actions need to be dealt with.
--Having said all this, is this all really a dance that the various leaders (not just those directly involved) are performing with each other in order to enhance their own political standings among their own peoples?
--I believe that most of the people living in Israel and Palestine want to put aside their conflicts with each other and go about living their lives. There are some very serious civil rights issues that pertain to how the Palestinian population stands in relation to Israel. But these issues will only be resolved in an environment of peace and security. Israel and Palestine really should be one unified nation. Unfortunately, in this part of the world, the peacemakers desperately needed to bring this about tend to be vilified (and sometimes assassinated) as “traitors”.
--There are two different manipulative propaganda devices used by both sides (Arab and Israeli) to justify their stances and accusations. One: “we were here first, so it’s our land”. Instead, they should be looking at where “we” are NOW (and who “we” really are as well) and trying to make things better for all parties involved. Two: whenever one side attacks the other, the “victims” zero out time and behave as if the attack were something unprovoked and spontaneous, not as the consequence of a long-term exchange of assaults. So the current Israeli attack is based on the “unprovoked” Hamas missile attacks, while those protesting the Israeli incursion were nowhere to be heard objecting to the earlier Hamas missile attacks.
--Hamas leaders are often characterized as being irrational and acting according to hate. But I see an additional reason for their refusal to reasonably behave in a peaceful manner with their neighbor Israel (knowing in advance that they will most assuredly be attacked in retaliation). I believe that the leaders of Hamas are most interested in holding on to power over their own people. To achieve this, they employ the time-tested manipulative tool of setting up an evil enemy as a scapegoat to unite their people behind them. And the enemy? Why Israel, of course. Just look at America for another example of this. The Bush administration was able to enjoy enough popular support to achieve reelection in 2004, largely done by scaring enough of the population with their hysterical color alerts and terror warnings.
--I see Hamas as more analogous to the organized crime families that dominated immigrant neighborhoods during the last century in the U.S., claiming to be “protecting” their own people, but instead bleeding their energy like vampires. This type of behavior is rational, but also very malevolent. It has been pointed out the the Palestinians actually elected Hamas into power in a free democratic election (observed and endorsed by former President Jimmy Carter). But I’d like people to ask themselves whether Hamas will ever allow any more open, free elections (with or without Carter) once they perceive their hold on the people diminishing.
--It can correctly be said that Israel has been on a war footing since its independence in 1948. In 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, other Arab nations have engaged in war against Israel. A loss by Israel in any of these would have meant the end of its existence as a state. But since peace was made between Israel and its chief historical antagonist Egypt in 1979, the nature of war there has changed. There have been no more direct attacks from other Arab countries since 1973 (unless you count the diversionary scud missile attacks from Iraq during the Persian Gulf War in 1991). But within the Palestinian Arab territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with southern Lebanon, Israel has fought their enemies in response to terrorist and missile attacks launched by extremist opponents. And the scenario for this seems to be a continual, dreadful process: Israel gets attacked, they bomb and invade the attackers, they occupy the land a while, and then leave. Then, after a while, the attacks resume and Israel repeats the process. This chain must end.
--In the interests of protecting civilians and civil society, different parties across the world (and quite naturally the Arab parties) want Israel to agree to a truce and withdraw. But the way I see it, they are in a war. War is a terrible thing which should be avoided as something to resort to only when all other options are exhausted. The never-resolved situation that has been going on in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon for the past three decades reminds me of the Star Trek episode I saw where two different planets had been in a war with each other for 500 years. To protect their “civil” society, they agreed to combat through computer attacks, where those “hit” voluntarily reported to special chambers to be killed. In this way, “civil” society was protected but the sanitized war went on unresolved for centuries. Right now, I see those clamoring for a cease-fire and withdrawal by Israel as enabling a similar “sanitized”, unresolved situation. War IS terrible and should be avoided. But one side in this war really does seem to be largely a criminal element that is deliberately aiming their aggression at civilians on the other side. And their actions need to be dealt with.
--Having said all this, is this all really a dance that the various leaders (not just those directly involved) are performing with each other in order to enhance their own political standings among their own peoples?
--I believe that most of the people living in Israel and Palestine want to put aside their conflicts with each other and go about living their lives. There are some very serious civil rights issues that pertain to how the Palestinian population stands in relation to Israel. But these issues will only be resolved in an environment of peace and security. Israel and Palestine really should be one unified nation. Unfortunately, in this part of the world, the peacemakers desperately needed to bring this about tend to be vilified (and sometimes assassinated) as “traitors”.
Friday, January 2, 2009
New Year's Day at Busch Gardens Tampa
Yesterday for New Year's Day, I took my family to Busch Gardens, where we enjoyed the park, along withs its rides, animals, and generally pleasant ambiance. Here are some photos of our experience there.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Happy New Year 2009
I want to take this time to wish my readers, family, and old friends a very happy, prosperous, and healthy new year. You mean a lot to me and have enriched my life by being in it.
Since I try to make this blog an honest reflection of my own thoughts, and since I am quite an imperfect person, I'm sure that, from time to time, you have come across something here that you disagreed with. And sometimes that disagreement may have been on a "grand scale"! Thank you for keeping the faith and continuing to read my paltry attempts at writing. And for leaving your well-appreciated comments!
Since I try to make this blog an honest reflection of my own thoughts, and since I am quite an imperfect person, I'm sure that, from time to time, you have come across something here that you disagreed with. And sometimes that disagreement may have been on a "grand scale"! Thank you for keeping the faith and continuing to read my paltry attempts at writing. And for leaving your well-appreciated comments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
