I've noticed, from time to time, that a newspaper's editorial page will pick up a letters-to-the-editor viewpoint about an issue that doesn't really merit discussion and bat it around for weeks at a time. I've experienced an example of this recently in my hometown "newspaper" The Gainesville Sun, whose editor seems determined to bring its standards down to the level of a high school newspaper. A few days ago, a letter was printed decrying the local PBS radio station, 89.1/WUFT. The writer complained about listening to slave-trading dead white men's music. And what was he referring to? Classical music!
The inflammatory (and asinine) tone of this letter revealed, by its printing, an ulterior motive by The Sun's editor: whip up a torrent of responding letters to artificially create an issue that heretofore didn't exist. And for several days thereafter, just I suspected, the newspaper printed letter after letter taking sides on whether or not WUFT should play classical music. The original letter complained that by playing classical music, WUFT wasn't being "diverse" enough, when the truth is that they have long stretches of programming where they play jazz and the blues. Not to mention the incredible variety of other music that they broadcast, along with informative news shows. And the editor knew this "no-brainer", of course.
I don't mind a real issue being discussed. But putting the local PBS station under scrutiny, especially when considering the relative homogeneity of commercial broadcasting across the radio dial, is ridiculous.
Let me give another example. From time to time, a motorist will write (and get printed) an editorial letter complaining about bicyclists who disobey traffic laws. Or a bicyclist will write complaining about motorists who don't respect their presence on the road. And this goes back and forth for a while.
Or how about the tried-and-true (and tired and old) argument about evolution vs. creationism? That's always good for a few days at a time on the editorial page. As if public opinion should decide what is "science" and what isn't, based on twitter-length editorial letters!
Sometimes I think that my local newspaper's editorial page isn't much better than those exploitative television talk show hosts like Maury Povich and Jerry Springer, who create a divisive topic in advance, invite people involved in that topic as guests on the show, and then "objectively" sit back and watch them heatedly argue with each other, with the "concerned" studio audience weighing in. All of which is phony and contrived! Can't we do better than that with our journalism?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Late Night Television
I usually get home from work at about 12:20 AM. Sometimes I turn on the television to see if there is anything worthwhile to watch. Unfortunately, the vast majority of channels are thoroughly worthless to me. But there are a few that suit my peculiar tastes.
On our digital TV service here in Gainesville, we can pick up the various Encore movie channels. Quite often, I'll find at least one movie on them that's good. On BBC-America, which recently had a marathon of James Bond movies, I can also watch episodes from the old, hilarious Monty Python's Flying Circus series. Bravo and AMC (American Movie Classics) are other good movie channels carrying some good films. And the Sci-Fi Channel and Spike occasionally show something interesting.
Besides movies, I like watching old series. Especially cartoon series. Niktoons currently shows old SpongeBob SquarePants episodes late at night. Also, I've grown somewhat attached to their cute My Life As a Teenage Robot series as well. But my current cartoon favorite is the side-splitting South Park, a series that I only discovered less than a year ago. My favorite episodes so far? Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes, obviously a satire on the negative reaction many have to Wal-Mart stores opening in their towns, and Manbearpig, which parodied Al Gore. My favorite South Park character? Who else but the villainous brat Eric Cartmen! I can pick up South Park on two different stations, as well as the Web.
Sometimes C-Span has an interesting replay of an interview or hearing (but usually not). Sometimes I can watch the end of a west-coast basketball game, or just a recap of the day's sports news. But sometimes the programming is pretty dried up for me. It is then that I flick over to MSNBC and watch the replays of their three "liberal" shows: Hardball (with Chris Matthews), Countdown (with Keith Olbermann), and Rachel Maddow. It's too bad that I can't receive this type of liberal commentary programming on my radio, which has been taken over by right-wing talk shows . And (like most other working human beings), I'm not allowed to watch TV on my job. However, I've recently discovered the many choices I have with downloadable podcasts, ranging the entire political spectrum, and to which I can listen almost anywhere on my MP3 player.
Finally, if the worst happens and all late-night programming stinks (or if I'm just in the mood), I turn my cable channels to the music stations they offer. My preferences? Alternative Rock, Soundscapes (new age music), Classical, and Retro Alternative.
Of course, the ultimate option in the absence of anything good on TV is to just turn it off and go on to bed!
But, wait! I've just discovered the ultimate soothing late-night channel: PBS's Sprout, which is aimed at pre-school audiences and is simple and sweet throughout its programming. It's obviously not very intellectually stimulating, but it has a very positive tone which is very relaxing to me.
On our digital TV service here in Gainesville, we can pick up the various Encore movie channels. Quite often, I'll find at least one movie on them that's good. On BBC-America, which recently had a marathon of James Bond movies, I can also watch episodes from the old, hilarious Monty Python's Flying Circus series. Bravo and AMC (American Movie Classics) are other good movie channels carrying some good films. And the Sci-Fi Channel and Spike occasionally show something interesting.
Besides movies, I like watching old series. Especially cartoon series. Niktoons currently shows old SpongeBob SquarePants episodes late at night. Also, I've grown somewhat attached to their cute My Life As a Teenage Robot series as well. But my current cartoon favorite is the side-splitting South Park, a series that I only discovered less than a year ago. My favorite episodes so far? Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes, obviously a satire on the negative reaction many have to Wal-Mart stores opening in their towns, and Manbearpig, which parodied Al Gore. My favorite South Park character? Who else but the villainous brat Eric Cartmen! I can pick up South Park on two different stations, as well as the Web.
Sometimes C-Span has an interesting replay of an interview or hearing (but usually not). Sometimes I can watch the end of a west-coast basketball game, or just a recap of the day's sports news. But sometimes the programming is pretty dried up for me. It is then that I flick over to MSNBC and watch the replays of their three "liberal" shows: Hardball (with Chris Matthews), Countdown (with Keith Olbermann), and Rachel Maddow. It's too bad that I can't receive this type of liberal commentary programming on my radio, which has been taken over by right-wing talk shows . And (like most other working human beings), I'm not allowed to watch TV on my job. However, I've recently discovered the many choices I have with downloadable podcasts, ranging the entire political spectrum, and to which I can listen almost anywhere on my MP3 player.
Finally, if the worst happens and all late-night programming stinks (or if I'm just in the mood), I turn my cable channels to the music stations they offer. My preferences? Alternative Rock, Soundscapes (new age music), Classical, and Retro Alternative.
Of course, the ultimate option in the absence of anything good on TV is to just turn it off and go on to bed!
But, wait! I've just discovered the ultimate soothing late-night channel: PBS's Sprout, which is aimed at pre-school audiences and is simple and sweet throughout its programming. It's obviously not very intellectually stimulating, but it has a very positive tone which is very relaxing to me.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
NCCA Men's Basketball Down to Four Teams
Now we're down to the Final Four in the NCAA men's basketball tournament for 2009. North Carolina, one of my favorites, has done well to advance. They will play Villanova in the semifinals, while Connecticut will play Michigan State. I predict a North Carolina-Connecticut final. It's too bad that none of the teams from the Southeastern Conference advanced far into the tournament.
When all is said and done, the Southeastern Conference really didn't do all that well this year in men's college basketball. None of the three SEC teams in the NCAA tournament made the "Sweet Sixteen" and none of their four teams in the National Invitation Tournament (including two number one seeds, Florida being one of them) made the "Final Four". Pretty sorry year for the conference! Why was this?
I can only speak about the UF Gators when I say that this was a very young team, with only one starting senior (Walter Hodge) and no starting juniors. The acknowledged "star", if you can use that term with this team, is sophomore guard Nick Calathes. Other returning starters for next year are Dan Werner, Alex Tyus, and Chandler Parsons. Erving Walker also was a factor in what success the Florida had this year, and he will be returning as well. So the Gators promise to be much improved next year. But unlike the national championship squads of 2006 and 2007, they seem to get stressed out in close games and don't play together as a close-knit team whose members fully understand each other and their strengths and limitations (in my amateur opinion). They seemed to keep repeating the same mistakes during play without learning from them. Coach Billy Donovan has a lot of work ahead of him if he wants the 2010 edition of the University of Florida men's basketball team to get back to making the NCAA tournament instead of once again being relegated to the "runner up" NIT.
One final note: one of the factors that the NCAA tournament selection committee held against Florida (and some other SEC schools) was the extremely soft non-conference schedule they played, effectively padding their win-loss record to make them look better than they really were. The message is clear: UF and other schools need to schedule more competitive games in December if they want more serious consideration in March!
When all is said and done, the Southeastern Conference really didn't do all that well this year in men's college basketball. None of the three SEC teams in the NCAA tournament made the "Sweet Sixteen" and none of their four teams in the National Invitation Tournament (including two number one seeds, Florida being one of them) made the "Final Four". Pretty sorry year for the conference! Why was this?
I can only speak about the UF Gators when I say that this was a very young team, with only one starting senior (Walter Hodge) and no starting juniors. The acknowledged "star", if you can use that term with this team, is sophomore guard Nick Calathes. Other returning starters for next year are Dan Werner, Alex Tyus, and Chandler Parsons. Erving Walker also was a factor in what success the Florida had this year, and he will be returning as well. So the Gators promise to be much improved next year. But unlike the national championship squads of 2006 and 2007, they seem to get stressed out in close games and don't play together as a close-knit team whose members fully understand each other and their strengths and limitations (in my amateur opinion). They seemed to keep repeating the same mistakes during play without learning from them. Coach Billy Donovan has a lot of work ahead of him if he wants the 2010 edition of the University of Florida men's basketball team to get back to making the NCAA tournament instead of once again being relegated to the "runner up" NIT.
One final note: one of the factors that the NCAA tournament selection committee held against Florida (and some other SEC schools) was the extremely soft non-conference schedule they played, effectively padding their win-loss record to make them look better than they really were. The message is clear: UF and other schools need to schedule more competitive games in December if they want more serious consideration in March!
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Economic Recovery Perception Danger
As we look for signs of recovery from our current recession, we may see different trends that may not correlate too well. This past week, the stock market has had a small-scale surge. Whether or not this continues remains to be seen, but I believe that eventually the market will recover and long-term investors (especially in those all-important retirement accounts) will recoup their losses. However, one important fact needs to be taken into consideration.
In a recovery following a recession, one of the last statistics to turn around is the unemployment rate. In fact, unemployment may continue to rise for a while at the same time that businesses are starting to show profitability again. While this tends to bother some people, the current situation dictates restraint on their part.
During this recession, our federal government, under both the previous and current administrations, has pumped more than a trillion dollars worth of economic stimulus and recovery money into the economy and stands to take much of the credit (and responsibility) for ending the recession. With this may come the temptation to criticize profitable businesses who had benefited from the various "stimuli" but haven't rehired their laid-off employees. And some may be continuing to down-size their payroll as they make their comeback. I know that this criticism is on the way, and government officials may be tempted to try to dictate, through hearings and legislation, that businesses take back workers. This would be a horrendous mistake, in my opinion. Some of those businesses needed to change their directions in order to remain viable. As they begin to grow, they will increase their staff to fit their needs. And the unemployment rate will naturally go down. As it has done in the previous five (my own count) post-World War II recessions. As Al Gore has stated (regarding a different topic), this is "an inconvenient truth".
In a recovery following a recession, one of the last statistics to turn around is the unemployment rate. In fact, unemployment may continue to rise for a while at the same time that businesses are starting to show profitability again. While this tends to bother some people, the current situation dictates restraint on their part.
During this recession, our federal government, under both the previous and current administrations, has pumped more than a trillion dollars worth of economic stimulus and recovery money into the economy and stands to take much of the credit (and responsibility) for ending the recession. With this may come the temptation to criticize profitable businesses who had benefited from the various "stimuli" but haven't rehired their laid-off employees. And some may be continuing to down-size their payroll as they make their comeback. I know that this criticism is on the way, and government officials may be tempted to try to dictate, through hearings and legislation, that businesses take back workers. This would be a horrendous mistake, in my opinion. Some of those businesses needed to change their directions in order to remain viable. As they begin to grow, they will increase their staff to fit their needs. And the unemployment rate will naturally go down. As it has done in the previous five (my own count) post-World War II recessions. As Al Gore has stated (regarding a different topic), this is "an inconvenient truth".
Friday, March 27, 2009
Big Bro' Don't Know Drugs
I'm looking at a headline in today's Independent Florida Alligator newspaper: SMOKERS, BUSINESSES PREPARE FOR CIGARETTE TAX INCREASE. According to the writer Jacquelyne Smith, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau says the tax for small cigarettes will increase from 39 cents to $1.01 for each pack and from $3.90 to $10.07 for each carton. Although the increased tax is certain to cause a spike in prices, local business owners were reportedly unconcerned that cigarette sales would suffer in the long run. I say, of course, that's because cigarette smoking is an addiction! And I wonder about the wisdom of conveniently laying this "sin tax" on an officially-frowned upon commodity.
I've already revealed my opinion about smoking, never having lit up even once and having undergone death in my own family, caused by smoking. Smoking cigarettes is a nasty, dangerous thing to do. But nicotine is a very highly addictive drug and its regular users are addicts. And should be treated as such. If the price gets too high for them to get their cigarette "fix", then they will behave as addicts to illegal drugs behave: they will seek their drug through the black market.
And don't think that this isn't going on right now. When are politicians going to understand that you can't legislate people out of addictions, be it proscribing the responsible drugs or levying impossibly high taxes on them? All this does is create a criminally-based alternate economy that exploits and brutalizes its own consumers and diminishes our law-based civil society.
I've heard the argument that having a high tax on cigarettes will encourage users to finally "kick the habit". But as I have said, it isn't a habit; it's an addiction! Yes, people can overcome addictions, but this ain't gonna do the trick, bro'. Otherwise, why not legalize and heavily tax cocaine, heroin, and any other currently banned addictive drug?
I believe that our "War on Drugs" has been an unmitigated disaster. All it has accomplished is to empower criminal elements across the world, who in turn have empowered hostile governments and terrorist movements. Hillary Clinton was right to apologize to Mexico for U.S. complicity in their drug/crime problems. For our own laws and their enforcement have created the very market that these foreign-based cartels exist to satisfy. Legalization of these drugs, without "sin taxes" and with a concomitant stringent regulatory process overseeing their provision to users, would completely undercut those crime organizations and send THEM into a severe economic downturn! But I'm afraid that this will never happen, with all of the pious self-righteous moral goody-goodies running around reacting in a knee-jerk negative manner to any proposed reasonable reforms on this topic while demonizing anyone who would advocate such reforms.
I've already revealed my opinion about smoking, never having lit up even once and having undergone death in my own family, caused by smoking. Smoking cigarettes is a nasty, dangerous thing to do. But nicotine is a very highly addictive drug and its regular users are addicts. And should be treated as such. If the price gets too high for them to get their cigarette "fix", then they will behave as addicts to illegal drugs behave: they will seek their drug through the black market.
And don't think that this isn't going on right now. When are politicians going to understand that you can't legislate people out of addictions, be it proscribing the responsible drugs or levying impossibly high taxes on them? All this does is create a criminally-based alternate economy that exploits and brutalizes its own consumers and diminishes our law-based civil society.
I've heard the argument that having a high tax on cigarettes will encourage users to finally "kick the habit". But as I have said, it isn't a habit; it's an addiction! Yes, people can overcome addictions, but this ain't gonna do the trick, bro'. Otherwise, why not legalize and heavily tax cocaine, heroin, and any other currently banned addictive drug?
I believe that our "War on Drugs" has been an unmitigated disaster. All it has accomplished is to empower criminal elements across the world, who in turn have empowered hostile governments and terrorist movements. Hillary Clinton was right to apologize to Mexico for U.S. complicity in their drug/crime problems. For our own laws and their enforcement have created the very market that these foreign-based cartels exist to satisfy. Legalization of these drugs, without "sin taxes" and with a concomitant stringent regulatory process overseeing their provision to users, would completely undercut those crime organizations and send THEM into a severe economic downturn! But I'm afraid that this will never happen, with all of the pious self-righteous moral goody-goodies running around reacting in a knee-jerk negative manner to any proposed reasonable reforms on this topic while demonizing anyone who would advocate such reforms.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Assorted Musings
--I've been recalcitrant with this blog, but I think things will most likely begin to kick back up again soon...
---Anyone around me (including myself) who has problems with respiratory allergies is suffering greatly, with all of the pollen currently floating around in the air...
---I recently tried something interesting: watching two movies at the same time. They were Clint Eastwood's Oscar-winning Unforgiven and Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. They were simultaneously on two different channels (Bravo and Encore Mystery) and I sat there, switching back and forth on my remote. I've done this before with movies that I've already seen, but I think this is the first time for two first-runs (for me). The result? I came out of it feeling as if I watched two movies in their entirety! And they were both quite good (and very different from each other)...
---The University of Florida women's basketball team bowed out of the NCAA championship tournament with an expected loss to #1 Connecticut. Meanwhile the men's team lost to Penn State in the NIT quarterfinals. Congratulations to both teams (although I'm sure they are pretty disappointed right now). Next year, the women's team will need to rebuild, but the men's should be much stronger, with almost everyone returning.
---The US Postal Service has been in the news lately, announcing plans to cut its workforce. My only comment is that they would be better served to invest a little in offering some tangible incentives for early retirement. I believe that many longtime employees are currently refraining from retiring due to uncertainty about the economy and the plunging value of their retirement accounts...
---Once I get over my present health issues mainly concerning allergies, I plan to resume my running. I'm already doing much more this year than I had since 1975. And back then, I lived in South Florida and encountered ZERO hills. Here in Gainesville, I have been running a course that involves running up and down several hills. And the surrounding trees should provide some much needed shade during the summer months. Much better training!
---Hopefully, we'll begin to get more rainfall, starting this week. If not, we're due for a disastrous fire season here in north central Florida...
---Anyone around me (including myself) who has problems with respiratory allergies is suffering greatly, with all of the pollen currently floating around in the air...
---I recently tried something interesting: watching two movies at the same time. They were Clint Eastwood's Oscar-winning Unforgiven and Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. They were simultaneously on two different channels (Bravo and Encore Mystery) and I sat there, switching back and forth on my remote. I've done this before with movies that I've already seen, but I think this is the first time for two first-runs (for me). The result? I came out of it feeling as if I watched two movies in their entirety! And they were both quite good (and very different from each other)...
---The University of Florida women's basketball team bowed out of the NCAA championship tournament with an expected loss to #1 Connecticut. Meanwhile the men's team lost to Penn State in the NIT quarterfinals. Congratulations to both teams (although I'm sure they are pretty disappointed right now). Next year, the women's team will need to rebuild, but the men's should be much stronger, with almost everyone returning.
---The US Postal Service has been in the news lately, announcing plans to cut its workforce. My only comment is that they would be better served to invest a little in offering some tangible incentives for early retirement. I believe that many longtime employees are currently refraining from retiring due to uncertainty about the economy and the plunging value of their retirement accounts...
---Once I get over my present health issues mainly concerning allergies, I plan to resume my running. I'm already doing much more this year than I had since 1975. And back then, I lived in South Florida and encountered ZERO hills. Here in Gainesville, I have been running a course that involves running up and down several hills. And the surrounding trees should provide some much needed shade during the summer months. Much better training!
---Hopefully, we'll begin to get more rainfall, starting this week. If not, we're due for a disastrous fire season here in north central Florida...
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Gainesville Coffee Shops Pros and Cons
At the beginning of Roger Moore's stint portraying James Bond, in the 1973 movie Live and Let Die, he invites his superior, M, into his flat to receive his new assignment. And then treats him to coffee, using his extremely (then) complicated looking espresso-making apparatus. M can only stand there, looking befuddled at the trouble that Bond is going through for a cup of coffee.
Nowadays, of course, this is all "old hat" with the various espresso coffee shops everywhere, especially those with the Starbucks trademark. I welcome the new culture of coffee drinking, especially that part of it that encourages customers to bring their laptops, books, and (with me) word processors to sit around for lengthy time periods without the fear of being run out of the shop for loitering. This lazier, informal environment is what I imagined (correctly or not) about street cafés in Europe. It represents for me a positive shift in the attitudes of (some) businesses in favor of customer service and away from the notion of seeing customers as a tool to extract money from, then sending them off (and away) on their merry way. So that trend I totally dig.
But there is, alas, a different trend I see, at least here in Gainesville. In large cities like New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, there may be a culture of around-the-clock places to drink coffee and study, but not here. But we used to have several places where I could go in at any time of the night, get a cup of coffee, and study or write. Now, I could still go to certain restaurants like Steak N' Shake, Waffle House, or Perkins late at night, but they all have the idea of getting their customers seated, getting them fed, getting them to pay, and then getting them out (and the sooner the better). We used to have doughnut shops that stayed open around the clock, but that number has dwindled down to one, Krispy Kreme on US 441 three block north of the University of Florida campus.
My work schedule is such that I don't feel the need to go out in the wee hours of the night/morning, but sometimes, around 11pm-1am, if I do happen to be out at that time, it would be nice to be able to stop off somewhere and sit for a few minutes and enjoy a decaf coffee. But the Starbucks shops around here close up by 10 pm. Oh well, you win some and you lose some.
Nowadays, of course, this is all "old hat" with the various espresso coffee shops everywhere, especially those with the Starbucks trademark. I welcome the new culture of coffee drinking, especially that part of it that encourages customers to bring their laptops, books, and (with me) word processors to sit around for lengthy time periods without the fear of being run out of the shop for loitering. This lazier, informal environment is what I imagined (correctly or not) about street cafés in Europe. It represents for me a positive shift in the attitudes of (some) businesses in favor of customer service and away from the notion of seeing customers as a tool to extract money from, then sending them off (and away) on their merry way. So that trend I totally dig.
But there is, alas, a different trend I see, at least here in Gainesville. In large cities like New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, there may be a culture of around-the-clock places to drink coffee and study, but not here. But we used to have several places where I could go in at any time of the night, get a cup of coffee, and study or write. Now, I could still go to certain restaurants like Steak N' Shake, Waffle House, or Perkins late at night, but they all have the idea of getting their customers seated, getting them fed, getting them to pay, and then getting them out (and the sooner the better). We used to have doughnut shops that stayed open around the clock, but that number has dwindled down to one, Krispy Kreme on US 441 three block north of the University of Florida campus.
My work schedule is such that I don't feel the need to go out in the wee hours of the night/morning, but sometimes, around 11pm-1am, if I do happen to be out at that time, it would be nice to be able to stop off somewhere and sit for a few minutes and enjoy a decaf coffee. But the Starbucks shops around here close up by 10 pm. Oh well, you win some and you lose some.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Bad "Feel Good" Legislation
Back in 2005, the case of a brain-dead woman named Terri Schiavo dominated the news. Her husband, consistently supported by the courts (even by ardently conservative judges), wanted her to be allowed to die, while her parents (and the religious right with their political clout) fought to keep her body alive. The struggle continued to the U.S. Senate, where the Republicans, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist, pushed a special bill, called the Terri Schiavo Bill, specifically designed to determine the outcome of that one single case. Democrats roundly criticized it, claiming that this was poor, knee-jerk legislation. Now let's fast forward to the present.
After losing so much money and procuring so much bailout assistance from the federal government, AIG Corporation infuriated the president and congress by handing out lavish bonuses to its top executives. The only problem was that this was perfectly legal. So the Democrats in the House of Representatives, along with some Republicans, just passed a bill levying a 90% tax specifically on those AIG bonuses. AFTER it was learned that they were being given. Now it is the Republican Party leadership's turn to "stand on principle" and denounce this as knee-jerk legislation targeted at only one circumstance. And they are right; they're just hypocrites, that's all.
I deplore those bonuses as well. And I generally support what the Democrats are trying to do in government. But this time they missed the boat and committed the same after-the-fact faux pas that their political rivals committed four years earlier by enacting legislation retroactively affecting a single party. It may carry popular support and make people feel good, but it's bad legislation. Better to simply recognize the loophole that AIG exploited and fill it in any future bailouts in order to prevent this from happening again.
After losing so much money and procuring so much bailout assistance from the federal government, AIG Corporation infuriated the president and congress by handing out lavish bonuses to its top executives. The only problem was that this was perfectly legal. So the Democrats in the House of Representatives, along with some Republicans, just passed a bill levying a 90% tax specifically on those AIG bonuses. AFTER it was learned that they were being given. Now it is the Republican Party leadership's turn to "stand on principle" and denounce this as knee-jerk legislation targeted at only one circumstance. And they are right; they're just hypocrites, that's all.
I deplore those bonuses as well. And I generally support what the Democrats are trying to do in government. But this time they missed the boat and committed the same after-the-fact faux pas that their political rivals committed four years earlier by enacting legislation retroactively affecting a single party. It may carry popular support and make people feel good, but it's bad legislation. Better to simply recognize the loophole that AIG exploited and fill it in any future bailouts in order to prevent this from happening again.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Crichton and Gore on Global Warming
Continuing with my discussion of Michael Crichton, I have to comment on his method of presenting his opposition to the theory of global warming in the novel State of Fear. Crichton uses a completely fictional story with completely fictional characters to refute this theory, referencing apparently real scientific and academic journal articles with extensive footnotes throughout the book (making this work of fiction appear like an academic article). And different characters, especially the mysterious Kenner, spout out detailed statistic after statistic from the tops of their heads demonstrating how global warming is a scare tactic designed to control people, put in place by the "PLM" (political-legal-media). [How do you like that nice touch of his, making all of this sound like the PLO?]
How does Crichton portray believers in global warming? They are either fanatical terrorists or are shallow, vain, hypocritical dupes who want to hold on to their creature comforts while depriving most of the world's population of the same. Sounds like a real rap from me against Crichton, doesn't it?
Well, not completely. For one, I don't want to disparage the recently deceased too much. For another, Michael Crichton brings up some good points (if you can stand his ranting through the mouths of his characters, that is). Assuming his revealed research isn't part of his fiction, temperatures in various places across the world haven't really been following any discernible pattern for the past 150 years. Crichton opines that much of the measured warming comes from urbanization and deforestation, not increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plus, he shows that the amount of added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is actually very minuscule. But the best argument I got is the chaos argument: you can't linearly change an element of a chaotic, untested system and then expect to get a predictable outcome from it. And our atmosphere, from our many frustrated years of trying to predict and control the weather, is the essence of a chaotic system. So Crichton's views, albeit expressed in a distasteful manner, did make an impact on me. And they reminded me of another voice on global warming: Al Gore.
Former Vice-President Al Gore, as most people know, is famous for his movie An Inconvenient Truth, which sounds the big alarm about global warming and advocates drastic changes in how we run our economies worldwide and use energy. One of Gore's biggest arguments is to make a direct correlation between increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increasing temperatures. And it's here that I simultaneously have a problem with Gore's approach and begin to scratch my head in confusion. For urbanization and deforestation, which skeptic Crichton acknowledges as warming factors, also correlate with increased carbon dioxide. So what caused the warming then? And what about those figures denoting increasing global temperatures, and how are they reconciled with Crichton's mixed figures? Just because two trends correlate, that doesn't automatically imply a cause and effect relationship between them.
Aside from this confusion, I was a bit taken aback by Gore's flagrant bouts of self-adulation in An Inconvenient Truth. Those rosy autobiographical parts detracted from his message by making Gore appear (to me) as being narcissistic and opportunistic. It's this aspect of Gore that the television series South Park seized upon in its merciless Manbearpig episode about him a few years ago.
So both Michael Crichton and Al Gore have presented their opposing opinions on the subject of global warming, each in their own personally obnoxious and irritating manner. What do I think on the subject? I'm not sure, but if Crichton and Gore can cash in on the subject while making complete nuisances out of themselves in the process, there has to be something in it for me! Let me put on my thinking cap and I'll get back to you on it......O.K., I'm back. I just figured out what I have to do: first, like Crichton and Gore, I have to become famous for entirely something else, and then I can present my alternative theory as an "expert" and reap in the rewards!
How does Crichton portray believers in global warming? They are either fanatical terrorists or are shallow, vain, hypocritical dupes who want to hold on to their creature comforts while depriving most of the world's population of the same. Sounds like a real rap from me against Crichton, doesn't it?
Well, not completely. For one, I don't want to disparage the recently deceased too much. For another, Michael Crichton brings up some good points (if you can stand his ranting through the mouths of his characters, that is). Assuming his revealed research isn't part of his fiction, temperatures in various places across the world haven't really been following any discernible pattern for the past 150 years. Crichton opines that much of the measured warming comes from urbanization and deforestation, not increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plus, he shows that the amount of added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is actually very minuscule. But the best argument I got is the chaos argument: you can't linearly change an element of a chaotic, untested system and then expect to get a predictable outcome from it. And our atmosphere, from our many frustrated years of trying to predict and control the weather, is the essence of a chaotic system. So Crichton's views, albeit expressed in a distasteful manner, did make an impact on me. And they reminded me of another voice on global warming: Al Gore.
Former Vice-President Al Gore, as most people know, is famous for his movie An Inconvenient Truth, which sounds the big alarm about global warming and advocates drastic changes in how we run our economies worldwide and use energy. One of Gore's biggest arguments is to make a direct correlation between increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increasing temperatures. And it's here that I simultaneously have a problem with Gore's approach and begin to scratch my head in confusion. For urbanization and deforestation, which skeptic Crichton acknowledges as warming factors, also correlate with increased carbon dioxide. So what caused the warming then? And what about those figures denoting increasing global temperatures, and how are they reconciled with Crichton's mixed figures? Just because two trends correlate, that doesn't automatically imply a cause and effect relationship between them.
Aside from this confusion, I was a bit taken aback by Gore's flagrant bouts of self-adulation in An Inconvenient Truth. Those rosy autobiographical parts detracted from his message by making Gore appear (to me) as being narcissistic and opportunistic. It's this aspect of Gore that the television series South Park seized upon in its merciless Manbearpig episode about him a few years ago.
So both Michael Crichton and Al Gore have presented their opposing opinions on the subject of global warming, each in their own personally obnoxious and irritating manner. What do I think on the subject? I'm not sure, but if Crichton and Gore can cash in on the subject while making complete nuisances out of themselves in the process, there has to be something in it for me! Let me put on my thinking cap and I'll get back to you on it......O.K., I'm back. I just figured out what I have to do: first, like Crichton and Gore, I have to become famous for entirely something else, and then I can present my alternative theory as an "expert" and reap in the rewards!
Friday, March 20, 2009
NIT and NCAA Tournaments
The last time I wrote about the Florida Gators men's basketball team, they had a chance to make the NCAA tournament, but only if they met certain conditions. It turns out they met NONE OF THEM and consequently didn't make the championship tournament. Instead they're back in the "runner-up" National Invitation Tournament this year. They started off well Wednesday night, winning their first game against Jacksonville 84-62. Tonight they play the University of Miami, a tough team from the very tough Atlantic Coast Conference. But the Gators will have the decided advantage of playing at home (and for the following game, should they win).
As for the main NCAA championship tournament, I'm still following it and rooting for various teams. I am unhappy at how unfairly UF's Southeastern Conference was treated, with only three teams selected for the tournament. So I'm rooting for those three teams to do well and prove the NCAA wrong (unfortunately, Mississippi State lost their first-round game last night, although LSU managed a win; Tennessee plays today). Also Florida State is having one of their best basketball seasons ever and stands to advance in the tournament. I traditionally root for North Carolina as well, and the Tarheels have a good shot at winning it all this year. Plus, I was impressed with Syracuse's tenacity in pulling out a recent six-overtime victory over impressive Connecticut a few days ago. So there's still plenty of interesting games for me to follow in the NCAA tournament even though the Gators aren't in it. Hopefully, they'll make it next year.
As for the main NCAA championship tournament, I'm still following it and rooting for various teams. I am unhappy at how unfairly UF's Southeastern Conference was treated, with only three teams selected for the tournament. So I'm rooting for those three teams to do well and prove the NCAA wrong (unfortunately, Mississippi State lost their first-round game last night, although LSU managed a win; Tennessee plays today). Also Florida State is having one of their best basketball seasons ever and stands to advance in the tournament. I traditionally root for North Carolina as well, and the Tarheels have a good shot at winning it all this year. Plus, I was impressed with Syracuse's tenacity in pulling out a recent six-overtime victory over impressive Connecticut a few days ago. So there's still plenty of interesting games for me to follow in the NCAA tournament even though the Gators aren't in it. Hopefully, they'll make it next year.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Writing Fiction From a Pedestal
I've recently been reading some of the late Michael Crichton's novels. Crichton, who rose to fame for his exciting science fiction novel The Andromeda Strain, wrote his stories with the idea of introducing the reader to specific trends in scientific and engineering research and then extrapolating those trends to usually calamitous results. Thus the fusing of computer technology with the human nervous system creates a homicidal monster, dinosaurs grown from DNA containing their genetic codes get loose and wreck havoc, nano-machines create their own swarms and plot to take over the world, and now, in State of Fear (the book I've just finished reading), the author reveals his skepticism about global warming. Crichton apparently believed that, regarding the environmental movement, the politics came first and the scientific research was then tailored to fit those political positions.
In the Michael Crichton novels that I've read so far (The Andromeda Strain, The Terminal Man, Timeline, Congo, and Prey), the author did extensive research on the topics and then cluttered the stories with intimidating technical details, apparently with the aim of enforcing his authority on the subject in the reader's mind. I am not very enthusiastic about this tactic of writing (a reason I don't feel like reading Jack Clancy novels, either). I instead prefer a relatively minimalist approach that emphasizes characters and the story. Sure, it's necessary to lay out some technical details in a story in order to create in the reader's imagination the "new world" that the author is using as the story's setting. For example, in the Harry Potter series, author J.K. Rowling naturally did her own research on magic and mythology in order to create an alternative, exotic world. But she didn't drown the reader in details either. And that's what I appreciate in a writer.
In the realm of science fiction, during the middle of the twentieth century, there were three writers who were generally considered to be the top three science fiction writers around: Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, and Isaac Asimov. All three of these (especially Asimov) wrote their fiction with the aim of staying true to the principles of science in their writing (and often painfully making a major point about this to the reader). And then there was Ray Bradbury, a contemporary of the "big three" who enjoyed a higher level of respect as a general writer and who sometimes wrote science fiction. But when I read Bradbury, I don't get the feeling that I am some lowly student in an undergraduate science class, being talked down to by some professor (as is often the case with Crichton/Heinlein/Clarke/Asimov).
When I read a story, I want to feel that the author and I are communicating on the same general level, and that I am not expected to just take in whatever slop (s)he decides to shovel in, just because it is dressed with extensive technical jargon. Reading for me is almost an act of conspiracy between two kindred souls. If one of those souls insists on standing up on a high pedestal, then I'm not going to read with the same enthusiasm that I would have if that same writer had just written like an ordinary person with no pretensions of grandeur. An author has to reveal enough knowledge of the subject to make the story believable, but there's no point in being a complete smartass about it!
In the Michael Crichton novels that I've read so far (The Andromeda Strain, The Terminal Man, Timeline, Congo, and Prey), the author did extensive research on the topics and then cluttered the stories with intimidating technical details, apparently with the aim of enforcing his authority on the subject in the reader's mind. I am not very enthusiastic about this tactic of writing (a reason I don't feel like reading Jack Clancy novels, either). I instead prefer a relatively minimalist approach that emphasizes characters and the story. Sure, it's necessary to lay out some technical details in a story in order to create in the reader's imagination the "new world" that the author is using as the story's setting. For example, in the Harry Potter series, author J.K. Rowling naturally did her own research on magic and mythology in order to create an alternative, exotic world. But she didn't drown the reader in details either. And that's what I appreciate in a writer.
In the realm of science fiction, during the middle of the twentieth century, there were three writers who were generally considered to be the top three science fiction writers around: Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, and Isaac Asimov. All three of these (especially Asimov) wrote their fiction with the aim of staying true to the principles of science in their writing (and often painfully making a major point about this to the reader). And then there was Ray Bradbury, a contemporary of the "big three" who enjoyed a higher level of respect as a general writer and who sometimes wrote science fiction. But when I read Bradbury, I don't get the feeling that I am some lowly student in an undergraduate science class, being talked down to by some professor (as is often the case with Crichton/Heinlein/Clarke/Asimov).
When I read a story, I want to feel that the author and I are communicating on the same general level, and that I am not expected to just take in whatever slop (s)he decides to shovel in, just because it is dressed with extensive technical jargon. Reading for me is almost an act of conspiracy between two kindred souls. If one of those souls insists on standing up on a high pedestal, then I'm not going to read with the same enthusiasm that I would have if that same writer had just written like an ordinary person with no pretensions of grandeur. An author has to reveal enough knowledge of the subject to make the story believable, but there's no point in being a complete smartass about it!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Still Learning Piano
I am still practicing piano and taking weekly lessons. I am progressing with my playing skill, but I'm not satisfied at the rate of that progress. My goals are still pretty much the same: (1) to able to play melodies from memory as I have heard them and (2) seamlessly read and play music from the printed page. I think the main thing holding me back is that I don't put in enough time practicing, pure and simple. But I'm still plugging along, nevertheless.
One thing that I'm having a little fun with regarding music is the study of keys and chords. The chromatic scale consists of 12 notes, so a decimal system of modeling simply doesn't work. Neither does the traditional, convoluted "A through G" system of notation, with its flats and sharps. To me, it makes more sense to start with a "base 12" system and go from there. And that's not really such a difficult thing to do: we all are pretty comfortable with base 12, seeing that our clocks are based on it! As a matter of fact, to aid me in understand various chords, I am imagining them as combinations of numbers on a clock face, and then remember them by their shapes. Works for me, at least.
For the individual notes, I have assigned each a number:
0/12: C
1: C sharp/ D flat
2: D
3: D sharp/ E flat
4: E
5: F
6: F sharp/ G flat
7: G
8: G sharp/ A flat
9: A
10: A sharp/B flat
11: B
I realize that I still must deal with musical notation in the form that it is written, but it sometimes helps me to understand things better using this alternative system.
One thing that I'm having a little fun with regarding music is the study of keys and chords. The chromatic scale consists of 12 notes, so a decimal system of modeling simply doesn't work. Neither does the traditional, convoluted "A through G" system of notation, with its flats and sharps. To me, it makes more sense to start with a "base 12" system and go from there. And that's not really such a difficult thing to do: we all are pretty comfortable with base 12, seeing that our clocks are based on it! As a matter of fact, to aid me in understand various chords, I am imagining them as combinations of numbers on a clock face, and then remember them by their shapes. Works for me, at least.
For the individual notes, I have assigned each a number:
0/12: C
1: C sharp/ D flat
2: D
3: D sharp/ E flat
4: E
5: F
6: F sharp/ G flat
7: G
8: G sharp/ A flat
9: A
10: A sharp/B flat
11: B
I realize that I still must deal with musical notation in the form that it is written, but it sometimes helps me to understand things better using this alternative system.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Veterans Memorial Flagpole
Here are some shots of the gigantic Veterans Memorial Flagpole, located at the south end of the Santa Fe College campus next to the track.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Ominous Fire Season Signs
At this writing, a fire is raging, uncontained, in the Ocala National Forest about forty miles southeast of Gainesville. There are other fires beginning to break out in various spots in north and central Florida, portending a crisis situation in this extremely dry time of the year. We've received very little rain over the past few weeks. And if we don't begin to get some on a regular basis and in large quantities, I'm afraid that we in Florida will suffer a similar fate to that which we underwent in the disastrous 1998 "fire season".
You don't have to be directly threatened by a wildfire in order to suffer its effects. A fire can be hundreds of miles away. But if the wind is blowing its smoke in your direction, your air will become full of it (and even ashes), making it more difficult to breathe (and impossible for some).
Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic. But you know you're in a bad situation when it does rain and, while discussing the weather with others, someone almost always chimes in with "yes, but we need the rain"!
Sometimes, during these fires, the smoke gets so bad that I get the urge to go dump a ring into a volcano (with a hobbit carrying me there and an eagle flying me back). And then I would wake up breathing fresh air, with a kindly old wizard grinning at me. Yes, it can get that bad. Mordor in Florida!
You don't have to be directly threatened by a wildfire in order to suffer its effects. A fire can be hundreds of miles away. But if the wind is blowing its smoke in your direction, your air will become full of it (and even ashes), making it more difficult to breathe (and impossible for some).
Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic. But you know you're in a bad situation when it does rain and, while discussing the weather with others, someone almost always chimes in with "yes, but we need the rain"!
Sometimes, during these fires, the smoke gets so bad that I get the urge to go dump a ring into a volcano (with a hobbit carrying me there and an eagle flying me back). And then I would wake up breathing fresh air, with a kindly old wizard grinning at me. Yes, it can get that bad. Mordor in Florida!
Friday, March 13, 2009
Senator Byrd's Joke
I was watching the U.S. Senate on C-Span2 a few days ago. A vote was going on regarding an amendment submitted by Senator Wicker (R-Mississippi). It aimed to deny funding to any United Nations agency offering or promoting abortion services. Naturally, the pro-life senators supported the amendment while the pro-choice senators opposed it. There were, at my count, three "cross-over" votes from each party, canceling each other out and ensuring the amendment's defeat. But what I was most interested in was the voting process itself.
Apparently, senators can vote from their offices while the role call is going on for their vote. But afterwards, those yet to vote will go to the front desks in the Senate chamber and register their "ay" or "no" with one of the clerks there (who then will call out their names and how they voted).
As this vote was approaching its conclusion, I saw a woman pushing 91 year old Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) in a wheelchair up to the clerk's desk. Naturally, I expected Byrd to signal how he would vote to the clerk. But instead, the woman leaned over, said something to the clerk, and then proceeded to wheel the Senator away and off the screen, up the ramp to the area where the Senate body sat. I then forgot about this until about a minute later when the clerk called out "Senator Byrd", to which was heard a loud, thundering "NO-O-O-O!!!" coming from the rear of the chamber. Everyone stopped what they were doing for a second and then a few snickered. About another minute or two later, here comes Byrd back down in his wheelchair, grinning and once again closely passing by the clerk's desk (and then out of the chamber, presumably back to his office).
It will certainly be a sad day when Robert Byrd no longer graces the United Senate with his personality, rhetoric, and special sense of humor. But I thought the same of him eight years ago and here he still is, while many others have come and gone from this prestigious body.
Apparently, senators can vote from their offices while the role call is going on for their vote. But afterwards, those yet to vote will go to the front desks in the Senate chamber and register their "ay" or "no" with one of the clerks there (who then will call out their names and how they voted).
As this vote was approaching its conclusion, I saw a woman pushing 91 year old Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) in a wheelchair up to the clerk's desk. Naturally, I expected Byrd to signal how he would vote to the clerk. But instead, the woman leaned over, said something to the clerk, and then proceeded to wheel the Senator away and off the screen, up the ramp to the area where the Senate body sat. I then forgot about this until about a minute later when the clerk called out "Senator Byrd", to which was heard a loud, thundering "NO-O-O-O!!!" coming from the rear of the chamber. Everyone stopped what they were doing for a second and then a few snickered. About another minute or two later, here comes Byrd back down in his wheelchair, grinning and once again closely passing by the clerk's desk (and then out of the chamber, presumably back to his office).
It will certainly be a sad day when Robert Byrd no longer graces the United Senate with his personality, rhetoric, and special sense of humor. But I thought the same of him eight years ago and here he still is, while many others have come and gone from this prestigious body.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Gator Hoops Tourney Prospects
The University of Florida men's basketball team is in danger of being shut out of the NCAA Championship tournament for the second year in a row after finishing their regular season at 22-9 and Southeastern Conference play at 9-7. Not bad on the surface, but their overall record was enhanced by scheduling smaller colleges that they were relatively assured of beating. And the SEC as a conference doesn't do much better in the national rankings. Only two teams, LSU and Tennessee, are reasonably assured of a spot in the NCAA tournament. A third team from the conference will probably also be added, but a fourth is highly questionable this year. And South Carolina is widely regarded as the "third" team, Florida "fourth", and Auburn "fifth". The UF Gators still have a chance to pass ahead of South Carolina, though, because the SEC tournament is beginning today. And depending on the outcome of that tournament, Florida may either find itself back in the NCAA tournament in which it won the national championship in 2006 and 2007 or it may be relegated to playing in the "second fiddle" National Invitation Tournament, in which it did well last year.
Here is how I see Florida possibly making it to the NCAA tournament this year, based on the outcome of the SEC tournament:
(A) If Florida wins the conference tournament outright, they automatically qualify for the NCAA. And they can potentially do this, if they play up to the level that they have demonstrated at different times during the season.
(B) If Florida doesn't win the SEC tournament then three things have to happen:
[1] Either Tennessee or LSU must win the SEC tournament, keeping another conference team from becoming the third team to go to the NCAA tourney.
[2] Florida needs to outlast South Carolina in the tournament, preferably beating them head on.
[3] Florida needs to avoid being outlasted by Auburn.
Even if the Florida Gators fulfill the conditions for (B), that still doesn't guarantee that they'd be selected. But I think that it would put them ahead of other conference teams competing for that important "third" selection.
Well, the fun starts today. Win or lose, I've enjoyed following the Gators this year. They'd have nothing to be ashamed of if they went back to the NIT this year again instead of the NCAA Championship tournament. But of course, I would be very disappointed if that happened, nevertheless.
Here is how I see Florida possibly making it to the NCAA tournament this year, based on the outcome of the SEC tournament:
(A) If Florida wins the conference tournament outright, they automatically qualify for the NCAA. And they can potentially do this, if they play up to the level that they have demonstrated at different times during the season.
(B) If Florida doesn't win the SEC tournament then three things have to happen:
[1] Either Tennessee or LSU must win the SEC tournament, keeping another conference team from becoming the third team to go to the NCAA tourney.
[2] Florida needs to outlast South Carolina in the tournament, preferably beating them head on.
[3] Florida needs to avoid being outlasted by Auburn.
Even if the Florida Gators fulfill the conditions for (B), that still doesn't guarantee that they'd be selected. But I think that it would put them ahead of other conference teams competing for that important "third" selection.
Well, the fun starts today. Win or lose, I've enjoyed following the Gators this year. They'd have nothing to be ashamed of if they went back to the NIT this year again instead of the NCAA Championship tournament. But of course, I would be very disappointed if that happened, nevertheless.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Bulls and Cleods
Here's an idea for a fun, little no-expense, no-tech game that you can play with another, needing only paper and pen. It's a good game to play while stuck waiting in lines or in waiting rooms. When I learned it as a kid, it was called "bulls and cleods". [I'm not sure how to spell "cleods", having looked up the word in the dictionary and the Internet with no success.]
Each side in bulls and cleods imagines a four-digit string of non-repeating numbers (e.g. 2345, 6452). They then take turns submitting "guesses" to each other in order to finally determine the other's number. The first to do this wins the game.
The terms "bulls" and "cleods" come into play regarding the hints the "holder" of the number gives the "guesser" each time around. For example, suppose I have imagined the number "1234" and my worthy opponent guesses "2614". I see that "2614" contains three digits in my number of "1234". "4" is present in the exact correct position (a "bull") while "1" and "2" are also present, but in the wrong places ("cleods"). So my response to my opponent's guess of "2614" would be "one bull and two cleods". Using logical reasoning, eventually someone hits upon the exact number and wins.
This game can be played among most age groups. Naturally, little children may find it too challenging, but here it can be used as a teaching tool for logical reasoning.
Each side in bulls and cleods imagines a four-digit string of non-repeating numbers (e.g. 2345, 6452). They then take turns submitting "guesses" to each other in order to finally determine the other's number. The first to do this wins the game.
The terms "bulls" and "cleods" come into play regarding the hints the "holder" of the number gives the "guesser" each time around. For example, suppose I have imagined the number "1234" and my worthy opponent guesses "2614". I see that "2614" contains three digits in my number of "1234". "4" is present in the exact correct position (a "bull") while "1" and "2" are also present, but in the wrong places ("cleods"). So my response to my opponent's guess of "2614" would be "one bull and two cleods". Using logical reasoning, eventually someone hits upon the exact number and wins.
This game can be played among most age groups. Naturally, little children may find it too challenging, but here it can be used as a teaching tool for logical reasoning.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Some News Observations: 3/09
--I keep hearing conservatives wailing about how President Obama is hurting business by having the government take over the economy, transforming the United States into a socialist country. But I ask, wasn't it the banks, brokerage firms, insurance companies, and manufacturing corporations who have been going to Washington seeking out scandalously high bailouts from the government? In order to be able to remain "in business"? Seems to me that the CONservatives have this one backwards: the federal government is SAVING business and capitalism, not supplanting them.
--So news has been released (or leaked) that President Obama is interested in seeking out some sort of contact and potential agreement with more moderate and reasonable elements of the Taliban. Well, it's about time! I have been saying that for months.
--Hopefully, Illinois Senator Roland Burris will be able to stay in office until January 2011, when the winner of the 2010 election for that seat will be sworn in. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley seems to be interested in it as are several others. To me, the 2010 election is where opponents of Burris need to focus their attention on. The ironic thing about it is that whoever wins in 2010 will probably be much more beholden to the special interests that helped finance his/her campaign than Burris ever would (I am presuming that Burris won't win next year).
--Why, oh why, won't the judges in Minnesota get around to deciding the lawsuit surrounding the bitterly contested Senate seat from Minnesota between Republican Norm Coleman and Democratic Al Franken and let that state get its constitutionally-mandated second senator? It is scandalous how long this has been dragged out. The winner should have been sworn in two months ago!
--So news has been released (or leaked) that President Obama is interested in seeking out some sort of contact and potential agreement with more moderate and reasonable elements of the Taliban. Well, it's about time! I have been saying that for months.
--Hopefully, Illinois Senator Roland Burris will be able to stay in office until January 2011, when the winner of the 2010 election for that seat will be sworn in. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley seems to be interested in it as are several others. To me, the 2010 election is where opponents of Burris need to focus their attention on. The ironic thing about it is that whoever wins in 2010 will probably be much more beholden to the special interests that helped finance his/her campaign than Burris ever would (I am presuming that Burris won't win next year).
--Why, oh why, won't the judges in Minnesota get around to deciding the lawsuit surrounding the bitterly contested Senate seat from Minnesota between Republican Norm Coleman and Democratic Al Franken and let that state get its constitutionally-mandated second senator? It is scandalous how long this has been dragged out. The winner should have been sworn in two months ago!
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Down on Blog Right Now
I haven't been writing much in this blog lately. Part of the reason is that I have lost some interest. Part of the reason is that I wonder whether I am selecting my topics based on who I think is going to read it. And a huge part of the reason is that I am currently undergoing something in my life I call a "contraction" of sorts: a drawing in upon myself and reassessment of different things that I have been emphasising in my daily life.
Writing a blog is a good activity of self-expression and self-discipline. But there are other areas in my life that I feel, at least in this "season" of my life, a higher calling for me to concentrate on.
Writing a blog is a good activity of self-expression and self-discipline. But there are other areas in my life that I feel, at least in this "season" of my life, a higher calling for me to concentrate on.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Running Longer Distances
When I was a little kid growing up in the sixties (strange how so many of my articles start this way), I was super-scrawny and super-fast. I could out-sprint anyone. It wasn’t until I got into my mid-teens that my running skill began to fall behind others. Sadly, this was the very time that I could have actually gotten something useful from it (like high school athletic recognition and respect). I went out for track in my junior year and decided then that I would concentrate my efforts on distance running. This emphasis continued past high school, with me training by running several miles at a stretch. I never did get to the point of being what most people would call an “athlete”, but I did get to be a pretty doggone good runner anyway. And I discovered that running long distances can do something positive for one’s spirit.
Ever go to the beach and begin to wade out into the ocean? Often, the water gets deeper and deeper until you’re almost certain that you’ll have to soon turn back or else get completely immersed. And then, as you continue to wade out toward the sea, the water level begins to drop and before you know it, you’re standing knee-deep in water. Looking back to the shore, the people standing there are so far away that they look like ants. Now apply this analogy to running.
When I begin a long run, the first couple of miles are usually a struggle, with my body trying to adjust itself to this shocking activity. This is like the initial wading out into the ocean. At a certain point, though, I reach a “groove” and rhythm to my running and it begins to smoothen out, much like that sandbar I reach so far from the shore. But then, I keep running and the analogy fails. For in the ocean, the water begins to deepen again beyond the sandbar. However, with running, something commonly referred to as “second wind” kicks in and puts my mind and body in a completely different state. After about five or six miles, instead of feeling that I’m about to drop from exhaustion, I get the light (albeit not dizzy) feeling that I am “soaring” and could continue running like this from miles on end. This sensation is also called “runner’s high” by some. And is a big reason why so many seem to be “addicted” to running long distance. But if you have never “waded” that far from shore to experience it yourself, you wouldn’t really know what I’m talking about.
In this seemingly paradoxical state of mental/physical relaxation and bliss after running so many miles, I have in the past felt detached from the world in the sense that I was more an observer than a participant. That physical life itself was something completely independent from who I essentially was. Sure, I was bound to my body in time and space, but whatever I really was transcended it and would endure beyond its eventual demise.
When in this state, I have been completely “tuned in” to what was going on around me. So if a car looked as if it were about to plow into me or a vicious looking dog made its presence known, I would be completely aware and ready to properly react, if need be. But at the same time, I would feel freely in control of my thoughts and completely liberated from the stresses and anxieties normally plaguing me during everyday living. Freeing my imagination in the process as well.
I have to admit that, during my latest foray into running that I’ve been doing for the last two years, I have rarely reached this desired second wind/runner’s high state. But that’s because I have usually been running for too short of a distance. I think that getting it going past six miles should do the trick, though. I think it’s just about time for a little more “running spirituality”. And I have devised my own personal "dream course" (with plenty of hills) to do my distance running on. Today I just finished running 4.15 miles on it. I plan to gradually increase my distance to about 7-8 miles at a time. Others can have their five-kilometer races. I’m taking the “long road”!
Ever go to the beach and begin to wade out into the ocean? Often, the water gets deeper and deeper until you’re almost certain that you’ll have to soon turn back or else get completely immersed. And then, as you continue to wade out toward the sea, the water level begins to drop and before you know it, you’re standing knee-deep in water. Looking back to the shore, the people standing there are so far away that they look like ants. Now apply this analogy to running.
When I begin a long run, the first couple of miles are usually a struggle, with my body trying to adjust itself to this shocking activity. This is like the initial wading out into the ocean. At a certain point, though, I reach a “groove” and rhythm to my running and it begins to smoothen out, much like that sandbar I reach so far from the shore. But then, I keep running and the analogy fails. For in the ocean, the water begins to deepen again beyond the sandbar. However, with running, something commonly referred to as “second wind” kicks in and puts my mind and body in a completely different state. After about five or six miles, instead of feeling that I’m about to drop from exhaustion, I get the light (albeit not dizzy) feeling that I am “soaring” and could continue running like this from miles on end. This sensation is also called “runner’s high” by some. And is a big reason why so many seem to be “addicted” to running long distance. But if you have never “waded” that far from shore to experience it yourself, you wouldn’t really know what I’m talking about.
In this seemingly paradoxical state of mental/physical relaxation and bliss after running so many miles, I have in the past felt detached from the world in the sense that I was more an observer than a participant. That physical life itself was something completely independent from who I essentially was. Sure, I was bound to my body in time and space, but whatever I really was transcended it and would endure beyond its eventual demise.
When in this state, I have been completely “tuned in” to what was going on around me. So if a car looked as if it were about to plow into me or a vicious looking dog made its presence known, I would be completely aware and ready to properly react, if need be. But at the same time, I would feel freely in control of my thoughts and completely liberated from the stresses and anxieties normally plaguing me during everyday living. Freeing my imagination in the process as well.
I have to admit that, during my latest foray into running that I’ve been doing for the last two years, I have rarely reached this desired second wind/runner’s high state. But that’s because I have usually been running for too short of a distance. I think that getting it going past six miles should do the trick, though. I think it’s just about time for a little more “running spirituality”. And I have devised my own personal "dream course" (with plenty of hills) to do my distance running on. Today I just finished running 4.15 miles on it. I plan to gradually increase my distance to about 7-8 miles at a time. Others can have their five-kilometer races. I’m taking the “long road”!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Ideological Drivel on the Senate Floor
I saw a Senate floor debate the other day concerning the Fairness Doctrine. No, it’s not being reinstated, nor is anyone pushing for its reinstatement. In fact, President Obama has repeatedly made the point that he is opposed to the Fairness Doctrine, which the assorted right wing radio talk show hosts keep insisting that he favors anyway, truth be damned.
The Senate exchange I witnessed was between extreme right wing conservative Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and liberal Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). DeMint, whose constituency is supposedly the state of South Carolina but which is in reality the one person of Rush Limbaugh, proposed an amendment (to another, completely unrelated bill) that prohibited the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. For those of you unfamiliar with it, this was a federal regulation, in effect from 1949 to 1987, that required licensed broadcasting stations (using public radio frequencies) to reasonably present diverse sides to discussions, a well-informed public and electorate being the aim. There were also regulations promoting news, weather, religious and children’s programming on stations. When the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded, these other rules remained in effect. But the language of DeMint’s amendment hinted that these rules would also go by the wayside. So Senator Durbin submitted an amendment to DeMint’s amendment (both amendments passed) restating what was already in the law books concerning these other rules so as to avoid any future misinterpretation of DeMint's amendment. And then DeMint spoke out a flood of ideological invective in opposition to Durbin’s amendment, calling it socialist, communist, and a “back door” attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
When I was a kid, I would often encounter communist ideological propaganda emanating from those totalitarian states behind the Iron Curtain or in the Far East. Those promulgating this stuff had their own specialized vocabulary as well as their own completely revised version of history that supported their propaganda. This was all coming from the left. On the right, there was also an ideology of racism in this country that decreed segregation and which accused those in favor of integration and civil rights of having loose morals and being pro-communist. Nowadays, I’m hearing ideological drivel as well, but it all seems to be coming from the right, and is found in talk shows hosted by the likes of Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin. And some of our elected politicians (like Senator DeMint, but he’s not the only one) have decided to take this dead-end road and spout this garbage. Sad, so sad!
The Senate exchange I witnessed was between extreme right wing conservative Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and liberal Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). DeMint, whose constituency is supposedly the state of South Carolina but which is in reality the one person of Rush Limbaugh, proposed an amendment (to another, completely unrelated bill) that prohibited the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. For those of you unfamiliar with it, this was a federal regulation, in effect from 1949 to 1987, that required licensed broadcasting stations (using public radio frequencies) to reasonably present diverse sides to discussions, a well-informed public and electorate being the aim. There were also regulations promoting news, weather, religious and children’s programming on stations. When the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded, these other rules remained in effect. But the language of DeMint’s amendment hinted that these rules would also go by the wayside. So Senator Durbin submitted an amendment to DeMint’s amendment (both amendments passed) restating what was already in the law books concerning these other rules so as to avoid any future misinterpretation of DeMint's amendment. And then DeMint spoke out a flood of ideological invective in opposition to Durbin’s amendment, calling it socialist, communist, and a “back door” attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
When I was a kid, I would often encounter communist ideological propaganda emanating from those totalitarian states behind the Iron Curtain or in the Far East. Those promulgating this stuff had their own specialized vocabulary as well as their own completely revised version of history that supported their propaganda. This was all coming from the left. On the right, there was also an ideology of racism in this country that decreed segregation and which accused those in favor of integration and civil rights of having loose morals and being pro-communist. Nowadays, I’m hearing ideological drivel as well, but it all seems to be coming from the right, and is found in talk shows hosted by the likes of Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin. And some of our elected politicians (like Senator DeMint, but he’s not the only one) have decided to take this dead-end road and spout this garbage. Sad, so sad!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Stephen King’s Christine
I just finished reading Christine, an old Steven King novel about an old car, a teenager’s obsession with it, and the usual supernatural goings-on, set in western Pennsylvania in 1978-79. Since King usually chose Maine to place his stories in, I was struck by the fact that a later novel of his about an unusual “car” (From a Buick 8) that I had already read was set in the same general location. Apparently, there’s something in the author’s mind connecting old cars with western Pennsylvania!
I have to admit to some difficulty in the beginning with motivating myself to read through Christine. For one, I never was into the old fifties/sixties pop tunes about cars (I did think Jan and Dean’s 1964 Dead Man’s Curve was a classic), various lyrics of which open each chapter. And I never was into cars themselves, as a few of my classmates throughout my elementary and high school years were. But my overriding problem for most of the novel was my difficulty in identifying or sympathizing with any of its characters. Christine, written in the first person from the viewpoint of Dennis, a star high school jock, is about how his best friend, who happens to be the school “nerd” with a special proclivity to auto mechanics, comes across an old, beat-up Plymouth (named “Christine”), buys it, and becomes increasingly possessed by it. And then, as in other Stephen King works, very inexplicable and very, very bad things begin to happen. At this point, for me at least, the novel became more interesting and more disturbing. For I had finally come across a character that I could identify with. And it wasn’t a very compelling character, either. This forced me to examine my own attitudes and personality, not always a pleasant task.
So my interest in reading Christine began to increase until I flew through to the finish. And, in a peculiar (and equally disturbing) way, it had a happy ending. Of sorts. If you want to call its ending an ending. Anyway, whatever you might call it, I thought the ending was stupendous.
Christine is a novel whose attraction for the reader depends greatly on his/her interests and personality. It would be interesting to see which characters different readers identified with the most. And why. I wouldn’t rank Christine among Stephen King’s best novels, but it certainly wasn’t one of his worst, either.
I understand a movie was made about Christine. For the most part, though, I have been disappointed with film enactments of King’s works (The Shining being the worst), although there have been some notable exceptions (such as It and Stand By Me). So I suggest that you would probably be better off either checking out Christine from the library or purchasing a cheap used paperback copy instead of watching the movie.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Me and My Blog, Again
One thing that you may have noticed with this blog is that it isn’t a detailed information source. There are good reasons for this. When I initially write out an entry, I am usually away from home and my desktop computer there. I don’t personally own a laptop and don’t currently see the need for one (if I go back to college, I’m sure that will change). Instead, I write out my blog articles either with pen and scratch paper or (like I’m doing now) using my handy-dandy ultra cheap, AA-battery powered AlphaSmart word processor. So no Internet access while I’m writing the body of my work. Later, I often use the Net (usually starting with Google or Wikipedia) to clear up factual questions I have about specific items. But the orientation here is to present a (usually) reasoned and relatively informed OPINION about whatever the topic happens to be.
A couple of years ago, I wanted to research the advantages and disadvantages of exclusively using a treadmill for my running training, without ever actually going outside and running on a hard, stationary surface. I searched my topic on Google and came up with a variety of sources about the merits and drawbacks of treadmill running. And I discovered something curious: many of my sources, claiming to be informative in nature, were repeating the exact same article on treadmills, word for word, and taking complete credit for it without any acknowledgement of where their article came from! It reminded me of gossip circles (a form of social feedback loop) where a small group of people keep repeating and reinforcing the same (often completely false) “news” item until it is accepted as truth without question. So I am just a little bit skeptical about using search engines as a primary information source, although I still do searches all the time.
But in writing this blog, I have already made the assumption that my esteemed readers can use Google or Wikipedia anytime they want to get more detailed information. I suspect that, in regard to my writings about songs, TV shows, or movies, some readers may be looking for a link to access the material they may want to listen to or watch. But then again, why hit on my blog for this when Google or Wikipedia can give quicker and more detailed results and choices? No, the value that I am pushing on this blog is more akin to a newspaper column. Sometimes it’s like an editorial article, sometimes it would fit better in the sports or entertainment section. And sometimes it would belong in the same part of the paper that folks like Dave Barry reside in.
If my facts do ever seem out of line with your understanding of them, please feel free to correct me on them. I’m not too deep on presenting facts, but judging from my experience in listening to callers on radio and television talk show, I don’t think I’m being too prideful in stating that that my expressed opinions in different matters carry more weight and validity than most of what I hear out there. And the bulk of what I write (and what you read) is coming from me, personally, and not lifted from other sources.
A couple of years ago, I wanted to research the advantages and disadvantages of exclusively using a treadmill for my running training, without ever actually going outside and running on a hard, stationary surface. I searched my topic on Google and came up with a variety of sources about the merits and drawbacks of treadmill running. And I discovered something curious: many of my sources, claiming to be informative in nature, were repeating the exact same article on treadmills, word for word, and taking complete credit for it without any acknowledgement of where their article came from! It reminded me of gossip circles (a form of social feedback loop) where a small group of people keep repeating and reinforcing the same (often completely false) “news” item until it is accepted as truth without question. So I am just a little bit skeptical about using search engines as a primary information source, although I still do searches all the time.
But in writing this blog, I have already made the assumption that my esteemed readers can use Google or Wikipedia anytime they want to get more detailed information. I suspect that, in regard to my writings about songs, TV shows, or movies, some readers may be looking for a link to access the material they may want to listen to or watch. But then again, why hit on my blog for this when Google or Wikipedia can give quicker and more detailed results and choices? No, the value that I am pushing on this blog is more akin to a newspaper column. Sometimes it’s like an editorial article, sometimes it would fit better in the sports or entertainment section. And sometimes it would belong in the same part of the paper that folks like Dave Barry reside in.
If my facts do ever seem out of line with your understanding of them, please feel free to correct me on them. I’m not too deep on presenting facts, but judging from my experience in listening to callers on radio and television talk show, I don’t think I’m being too prideful in stating that that my expressed opinions in different matters carry more weight and validity than most of what I hear out there. And the bulk of what I write (and what you read) is coming from me, personally, and not lifted from other sources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
