Focusing on American League Central

I have had a great deal of difficulty getting up any enthusiasm for Major League Baseball this year, even when I have a tradition of rooting for two teams (Atlanta Braves and New York Yankees), as well as having the Florida Marlins and the Tampa Bay Rays based in my home state. So I decided to do something radically different about it.

Instead of concerning myself about the 30 teams in the American and National Leagues or living or dying by how "my team" is doing, I decided to focus on one division in one league, without giving preference to any one particular team in that division. I deliberately picked out one that didn't have any of my aforementioned "favorites" in it, too. The choice? The American League Central division, with its five teams Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Kansas City Royals, and Minnesota Twins. My aim is to watch any game that is available on TV (during my "free" time, of course) involving any of them (or on the radio, for that matter). I want to become familiar with each team's players and their positions, something that I haven't done too well in recent years. As far as who I will root for in a particular game is concerned, here is my policy: if an AL Central team is playing outside of their division, I will root for that Central team. Even if the opponent is one of my old-time favorites. If two Central Division teams are playing each other, then I root for the defensive (pitching and fielding) team in each half-inning. This way, I believe that I will be more involved in games as they are going on and less with the more extraneous trapping of the sport (like statistics, standings, and steroids).

I already have had an opportunity to try this new "system" out, as the Chicago White Sox just recently played a televised road game with the Los Angeles Angels, thoroughly beating them 17-3. In watching the game, I got to know the White Sox lineup, some of which were present during their World Series Championship run of 2005.

Oh yes, this is gonna be fun!

Leisure is Important

In my hectic life, I live (and die) by the clock. At least, I think my life is hectic (sometimes). And I (sometimes) live by the clock. Truth be told, I abhor being held to tight schedules and deadlines. Having free, open time lying ahead of me is something I cherish. Not that I always take advantage of that time to do something self-fulfilling. Sometimes doing nothing can be rewarding!

I look at other people and their lifestyles and I wonder why they choose to allow themselves to be so boxed in with their time. Some appear to have the notion that always being busy, busy, busy is a virtue. I've even known a couple of colleagues who have regularly, voluntary forgone work breaks, and not because there was crucial work to do either. They either don't know how to chill out for even just a few minutes or they equate rest and/or leisure with laziness.

One of my new all-time favorite songs is a sad, introspective song by Sufjan Stevens that he put on his The Avalanche album. Titled Pittsfield (after an Illinois town), the lyrics reveal an individual whose childhood was less than idyllic; apparently, a parent or guardian would put in long working hours away from home and then guilt-ride him (while he was still a child) about his perceived laziness:

You can remind me of it that I was lazy and tired
You can work all your life as I'm not afraid of you anymore

As adults of course, we need to be responsible regarding our obligations to ourselves, our dependents, and the society at large. But this doesn't imply that we should beat ourselves down with work, as if we are paying penance for simply being alive! And worse, using our perception of our own "virtue" to put down others.

Once, I was having (I thought) a light conversation with one of my co-workers. I mentioned that I liked to go the theme parks with my family and ride roller coasters. To which he replied that, yes, he used to like those sorts of things, but he's grown up now and has gone on to more important things. He didn't say this in meanness toward me; he really believed that, at his age (he was about 10-15 years younger than me) that engaging in fun, leisure activities was immature and irresponsible. I hope that this individual, who since left to work elsewhere, will "grow up" out of this potentially self-destructive delusion (well, I think it's a delusion). For occasionally breaking away from tight schedules and enjoying some leisure activity (or inactivity) is important for our health, both mental or physical. And I don't have to be a physician to know that: I have lived it, and have seen this in others as well!

A Tale of Two MP3 Players

Back in early 2007, I began to load my new Philips MP3 player with my all-time favorite songs. Eventually, I amassed more than 200 of these, most of which I have listed as all-time favorites in earlier blog articles. And I would take this MP3 with me to work and happily listen to them!

Late last year, I bought a Sansa MP3 player with more memory space (but occupying much less physical space). I hadn't put too many songs on it until this year, when I discovered several great independent/alternative acts (like Sufjan Stevens, Andrew Bird, Iron and Wine, Metric, and Broken Social Scene). And this MP3 player is loaded with their works (although it is rather incomplete, it still has 300+ songs on it). It is this player, not the former with my all-time favorites, that I have regularly been listening to.

One day last week, I accidentally left the Sansa MP3 player at home and was left with the options of listening to my "all-time favorites" or nothing at all. Of course, I tried out the old Philips MP3 playlist, thinking that it would be fun to hear the old classics again. I didn't expect what happened.

I could only listen to my old MP3 a few minutes before I had to turn it off! Why? The songs that I had come to love through the years were grating on my ears and sounded almost strange in their dissonance. Sure, I knew all of them almost by heart from earlier repetitive listening, but my tastes had drastically changed over the past three months.

In February this year, I began to refine my exposure to the enormous variety of music available by using the Internet. Specifically, AOL Radio and LastFM.com, which sets up personalized radio stations based on preferred artists. On AOL Radio, I listened to their Indie Rock station, which introduced me to Sufjan Stevens. From there, I plugged this artist's name into the LastFM setup search engine and generated a station that introduced me to the others that I now enjoy (and greatly prefer) listening to.

So now I have two MP3's: one plays the old favorites and one plays a narrow, Web-defined genre of music that is tailored to my tastes. And I find myself now greatly preferring obscure tracks from obscure albums by obscure artists over my beloved lifetime favorites.

From 1964 to the beginning of 2009, I picked my favorite songs from the pool of music that radio programmers deemed fit to broadcast. Sure, some of those songs were deep tracks from albums, but although the radio didn't play them, they still originated from acts receiving air play. So in a way I was a sort of "musical scavenger" picking my way through material others had left to choose from. In the process, I sometimes made favorites out of songs that were just the best of the sometimes mediocre pool of songs selected for airplay.

But now, with the Internet, I can forge my own tastes and "conjure up" acts that fit them best. Radio has become almost completely irrelevant to me, at least as far as music is concerned!

The time for me to purchase a third MP3 player is approaching, for I have almost filled the second one. I wonder whether the content of the third will be as different in nature from the second (Sansa) as that one is from the first (Philips)?

TV Sports Biased Toward Cavs in Series

I am getting quite tired of the general national media bias being expressed against the National Basketball Association's Orlando Magic in favor of superstar Lebron James and his Cleveland Cavaliers in the Eastern Conference championship series. The Magic, who are leading three games to one, are getting relatively little attention or praise for their success so far. In fact, far more attention was given to Cleveland's one victory, only accomplished through a last-second desperation three-point shot by James. You would think that Cleveland had won the series (and the whole NBA Championship to boot) by dint of that one shot.

After the one Cleveland win, sports announcers on TV were all excited and happy. After Orlando's big THIRD win, they all seem sad, subdued, and worried. They have been quick to pin Cleveland's losses on its own players instead of given the very talented Orlando team the credit that they justly deserve for their victories.

Well, I have a message to all of the so-called sports journalists who ply their trade on television. You don't write the scripts: the players do that! And Lebron James, as good as he is, isn't the whole team, either. He deserves the Most Valuable Player award this year hands down, in my opinion. But his Cleveland Cavaliers? Sure they're a good team; they had the best regular season record in the league this year. And they could well come back and win the series against Orlando. But I have yet to be convinced of their greatness. Certainly they don't deserve the weighted attention that they are getting on the air. At least that's how this admittedly biased pro-Orlando viewer sees it.

Sonia for the Supreme Court

President Barack Obama has chosen Justice David Souter's replacement on the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor, a federal appeals court judge from New York. Much is being made of the fact that she is a Latina, with some on the (bitter) right complaining that this was why she was wrongly (to them) picked in the first place. And already the nitpicking against her has commenced, with Fox News and its commentator, former Bush Administration sludge-master Karl Rove, taking the lead. All I heard on the "fair and balanced" channel was a procession of critics to this nomination. So I switched over to MSNBC to hear Andrea Mitchell interview a right-wing legal think tank spokesman rail against it as well. And his number one reason to oppose Obama's nomination? Because it was Obama's nomination!

It may be useful to remind some of these people that Obama is the elected President and will be making nominations for a while, thank you. From what I see of Sonia Sotomayor, she is a very capable, accomplished jurist who will make the Supreme Court a better institution. I wish the best for her confirmation and am keenly interested in seeing whether the Senate Republicans will allow the confirmation to proceed or whether they will decide to decimate their own party by rejecting such a highly qualified candidate from the increasingly politically powerful Hispanic community.

But now I hear that right wing extremist Rush Limbaugh, the de facto leader of the Republican Party and an authority on racist comments (he is a master at making them), has publicly pronounced Judge Sotomayor as being "racist". Now that their "master" has spoken, it will be interesting to see how many Republican senators pander to Limbaugh on this viewpoint!

Planned Running Detour Blocked

As I wrote on April 14, I had a great idea for a personal running course that ran directly past my home. The only problem was that a .46 mile section of it involved running on someone else's possibly private land. Since there were no "no trespassing" signs around, I decided that I would chance running through this stretch, which was directly behind two subdivisions (mine and the one adjacent) which, unfortunately had no connecting street between them. Hence the necessity of taking this detour behind them.

Anyone who knows me well is aware of the sometimes extreme lag time between my expressed desire to do something and me finally getting up off my butt and doing it. But last Tuesday, we were in a freaky weather pattern, very stormy with daytime temperatures dipping into the fifties (this in late May in northern Florida). I thought hey, this is a good opportunity to try out this course, and I set out intrepidly on my adventure. I entered the "mystery stretch" from my own subdivision, running between two homes down a public pathway and then turning west (left). I then ran about .11 mile past the backs of the houses in my subdivision and then encountered a thick patch of trees and brush, blocking any further advance. I couldn't go around it, because there was a drainage canal running parallel to my course, cutting that option off. So I walked into the Mirkwood-like "forest", looking around to find any way through. And then I heard loud barking. I turned to my left and saw a fenced-in back yard to the first house in the next subdivision, with two large, angry dogs growling, barking, and running toward the low fence that separated them from me. Not panicking, I quietly turned around, picked my way through the brush, and backtracked into my own subdivision.

So that option is out. But at least I finally tried it! Actually, I have plenty of good places to run, so perhaps I'm just trying too much to add a little more variety to my routine by exploring new courses in places where they are nonexistent.

Memorial Day Salute

On this year's Memorial Day, I express my appreciation for those Americans who died while protecting their country in all of our armed conflicts, past and present, popular and unpopular. And I wish the best for their survivors, be they fellow soldiers, friends or family.

It takes a special brand of courage to step out into harm's way and be willing to sacrifice oneself for the sake of a mission, or to save a fellow soldier. Many, many more have done this and survived than were killed in action. And many who have survived sustained injuries causing varying degrees of incapacitation to them, some injuries being permanent in effect. To me, they are all heroes and deserve recognition and respect for their service. And we should collectively, as a society, make sure that no combat veteran or his/her family is lacking for a home, food, or medical care. That's the LEAST we can do for these brave men and women!

Mid-Sixties Transition to Color TV

When I was a child, my family always had a black and white television set. As a matter of fact, I didn't begin to regularly watch color television at home until the year 1986! So it was relatively later on in my life when I discovered a phenomenon that occurred on television in the mid-sixties: the transformation to color programming.

Some series, like The Honeymooners or The Twilight Zone, were all done in black and white. Such series ended their runs before 1964-1965, which seem to be the years of the general transformation to color regarding programming. So shows like The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and the original Star Trek series, which started in 1964 and 1966 respectively, had all of their episodes in color. But there were many series that began in black and white and ended in color. And I noticed something curious about some of them.

When I think of classic television comedy series like The Beverly Hillbillies, Andy Griffith, and Bewitched, I almost always prefer the black and white period vastly over the color period. With Andy Griffith, the explanation is simple: coincidentally, the time of transition to color also marked the time when co-star Don Knotts, who played the crucial comic character of Barney Fife, left the series to try his hand at the movies. Neither The Beverly Hillbillies and Bewitched faced such an immediate change, though. But the quality of their shows suffered anyway. With The Beverly Hillbillies, more and more scripts were written with the idea of ridiculing the backwoods Clampetts (especially Jethro) instead of satirizing the pretentious high society of Beverly Hills, which was the original driving force behind the series' appeal. In Bewitched, I think something different happened: the plots became too predictable: Darrin would be with Samantha at the beginning of a show, Endora (the mother-in-law witch) would show up, Darrin would insult her, she would put a spell on Darrin, he would do "funny" things, and then the spell would be lifted at the end. So funny that I forgot to laugh.

Whenever I see one of these series on TV and it's in color, I instinctively switch the channel to something else. This phenomenon may have engendered a little anti-color-television prejudice on my part, as I still tend to look askance at the Rod Sterling-inspired color series Night Gallery and exalt his earlier black and white Twilight Zone. But Night Gallery has some pretty good episodes, and some of the Twilight Zone episodes are downright pathetic!

Jackie Chan's Remark

Actor and martial arts expert Jackie Chan recently committed a major gaffe (or at least that's how it is being reported), stating in essence that the Chinese people are better off without democracy because they need someone in control telling them what to do. Reading this story takes me in two different directions: one, what is a gaffe, and two, Chan's remark isn't unprecedented.

Is it really a gaffe if someone honestly expresses a heartfelt opinion about something, just because that opinion may be generally unpopular? I bet that I entertain all sorts of unpopular opinions about many things. The fact that, even with this blog going out to "all-points" on the globe, I am still relatively anonymous is the only essential difference between me and Jackie Chan in this regard. Apparently, fame can bring a strong demand to practice self-censorship in the interest of political correctness. All of us, I believe, entertain beliefs which, should they come out, would cause others to think less of us.

As far as Chan's implication that some people are better off under autocratic rule than under a democracy is concerned, many in the West have long embraced this notion, which I think is flawed but understandable. The usual rationale is that people in any country need to have their most basic needs, such as food, water, shelter, sanitation, and general civil order (i.e. no war or anarchy) met before they can understand and effectively participate in democratic self-government. The most glaring examples of the past century have been the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba under Communism, Italy under Mussolini's Fascism, and Germany under Hitler's Nazi rule. James Robeson, in the 1930s, extolled Stalin's Soviet Union as being good for its people. Charles Lindbergh (at least before World War II) expressed admiration for how Hitler had transformed Germany's economy in the 1930s. And John Lennon, in the 1970s, sympathized with Mao's China for the similar reasons.

Another reason that some prioritize other factors over democracy in foreign countries is that countries like the United States have gotten themselves embroiled in long-term military conflicts while "promoting democracy" in lands with little or no democratic tradition for their people to rely on. Hence we have South Vietnam in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. And Iraq and Afghanistan in our present time.

I say let's give Jackie Chan a break. He meant well, but the words just didn't come out right. And that's another problem with our world nowadays: any awkward sounding quote from any person with name recognition gets instantly spread over the planet and blown up completely out of proportion.

As for my own view on the subject, here it is: it isn't necessarily a simple choice between Western democracy and autocracy. Each society has its own historical traditions regarding how its people can express themselves politically. And that doesn't always involve periodic secret ballot elections and government structures patterned after our own. But on the other hand, there is absolutely nothing endemic to a society that would indicate that it could not incorporate Western democratic concepts into its system of government. Cases in point: Japan's radical transformation into a Western-style democracy after World War II and Eastern Europe's general embrace of the same after the Cold War. With Japan, it was nearly destroyed at the end of that terrible conflict and the U.S. had almost complete control over it for several years, thus enabling it to transform Japan's system of government. But in the midst of a war, it seems to me to be unrealistic to try to impose a new system on a society so embroiled in conflict. And that's what we're sadly seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What Year and Decade is It?

So what year is it? Sounds simple, but it isn't. Is it "two thousand and nine" or "twenty-oh-nine"? If we were to ever get over our millennium fever and return to our original way of designating years, we would do what CBS commentator Charles Osgood has been doggedly doing over the years and say we're in "twenty-oh-nine". And, from a perspective in the future, looking back on this time, people will most probably say it like that. But while we're walking through it, we're generally sticking to the "two thousand and nine" pattern. Which brings up another question: When reviewing this decade, how does one refer to it? Before, we had the nineties, eighties, seventies, etc. But the first decade of the 2000's? Do we call it the "oh's"? Or the "zero's"? Or the "units plus 2000"? Or maybe just say "2000's"? Or even "that crappy decade"?

How we designate years isn't set in stone; other languages have other systems. Many, such as Spanish or Russian, treat the year as a mathematical number and say it like that. Chinese tends to just say the individual digit values, followed by 年 (nian), their word for year. With German, they follow the English "four-and-twenty blackbirds" model with years, e.g. calling 1946 "neunzehnhundertsechsundvierzig" (nineteen hundred six-and forty). In French, 1976 is "thousand nine hundred sixty sixteen", 1980 is "thousand nine hundred four twenties", and 1999 is "thousand nine hundred four twenties nineteen"! But at least with these, they actually KNOW what to call the years they are living through!

Personally, I prefer the designation "twenty-oh-whatever" to describe the first few years of the 2000's. And then go straight into the "twenty-teens"! Continually saying "two-thousand-this" and "two-thousand-that" keeps bringing up to me the specter of Stanley Kubrick and Arthur Clarke's 1967 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, and how far short we fell from its projection for our space program's progress by that time, now in our increasingly distant past. How depressing!

Ticket Article: Follow-Up

On Monday, I wrote about a letter to the editor in Sunday's Gainesville Sun in which a local high school student decried a police stakeout at the exit to his school's student parking lot where they issued several $104 citations to students for seat belt violations. In the letter, the student opined that if this were a campaign on the part of the police to educate teenagers on the necessity to buckle up, then why couldn't they simply have given warnings? After all, isn't that why there is a "warning" option anyway? Instead, those ticketed are faced with higher insurance costs because of this, unless they elect to spend more money for the traffic safety class option. By Tuesday, the newspaper devoted its entire editorial letter page to responses to this young man's letter. And I was initially shocked at their general tone, but ultimately not surprised.

Except for one letter, all of them criticized the ticketed student and praised the police. I don't know the ages of the writers, but they seemed to be coming from more elderly people who were intent on putting down teenagers. And then it hit me: these folks weren't objecting to the writer's driving behavior. They objected to him expressing his independent opinion openly in society.

I say this because of the harsh tone of many of the letters. The student was, to them, a child to whom life was one big series of lessons that benevolent adults had the unrestricted privilege of dishing out to them whenever THEY felt the urge. And speaking out against this was, to these respondents, an act of insolence, if not rebellion.

I want everyone, not just adolescents, to buckle up. And for everyone, not just adolescents, to be held accountable for following traffic laws, not just this one. Which is the whole point: if high school students are going to be ticketed like adults regarding their driving, then they should also have the recourse to protest their treatment in the media as well. None of the negative letters answered the question of why warnings weren't issued instead of tickets; neither did they have an adequate answer to the objection of the police camped out outside the school with their ticket pads and agenda already preset. Unless the "answer" was that teenagers need to be kept in their place, so anything to that effect goes!

I have a mixed record on this blog regarding the police. True, they are important protectors of the public. The officer who risked his life toward that purpose here in Gainesville last week is a great, heroic example. They are a glue holding our society together, keeping it from deteriorating into gang/militia zones (just look at the deplorable civil strife in some other countries). And they need to enforce traffic laws as well. Being a driver, I see more and more fellow drivers running red lights, driving severely distracted, and engaging in similar reckless behavior, threatening both me and other drivers and their passengers. Police need to watch out for these transgressors and deal with them appropriately.

But this profiling, this staking out, this hiding to catch people for violations: do we really need that much of it? Why do some police seem to be so insecure with their authority that they are so quick to resort to Taser stun guns and even firearms to subdue suspects? And why do they seem to get a free ride in the courts, with their testimonies rarely being challenged?

Perhaps the answers to these questions lie with the attitudes of a large segment of our population, which seems to hold that anyone in uniform has de facto social superiority and authority, and to question that authority is unsocial behavior. Especially if you're a teenager. At least Tuesday's editorial letters seem to indicate that.

*******
I don't plan to belabor this topic, but in today's Gainesville Sun editorial section, several letters were published that were in favor of the ticketed student, including another letter by the student himself. Making me wonder (but not too much) whether the newspaper itself was manipulating how the comments were published in order to create a scenario for keeping it going for several days as an ongoing topic (Note: while this has been going on, letters to the editor about the diversity of the programming of Gainesville's Public Radio station have "mysteriously" dropped off.)

NBA Conference Finals Starting

So now we are down to four teams left in the National Basketball Association playoffs: Los Angeles Lakers and Denver Nuggets in the West, and Cleveland Cavaliers and Orlando Magic in the East. Both series promise to be competitive and full of exciting action. The talent on these teams is phenomenal. Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony, Lebron James, and Dwight Howard are the big names highlighting each team, but they are much, much more than their leaders, with so many playing major roles in getting them this far in the playoffs. I especially respect the remarkable team effort of the Denver Nuggets, with Chauncey Billups stepping up to play a crucial role in their success. Now they are in a rematch of last year's first-round series with the Lakers, who swept the Nuggets in four games then. But Billups wasn't with Denver last year. I'm looking forward to rooting for them against Los Angeles. Unfortunately, last night they lost game one at Los Angeles to the Lakers 105-103. Kobe had one of his trademark hall-of-fame games. The Magic and Cavaliers square off for their first game tonight.

Orlando is naturally the closest NBA team to me geographically, and I am proud of how they were able to come from behind in their series with the defending champion Boston Celtics and win the seventh game on the road to get to play Cleveland, which sports the best regular season record in the league this year and has arguably the best player in basketball in Lebron.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to watch these games until Sunday, since I'll be at work while they're being played. I hope that the series are close and exciting. I greatly respect all four teams, but I am pulling for Orlando and Denver in this round.

Miami Radio Could Stand Improvement

On my recent brief visit to South Florida, I had the opportunity to explore the state of radio down there. And, as in Gainesville, I am generally disappointed. At least in the English-language radio stations.

Musically, I see no more variety in what is being offered in that much larger listening market than I get here in Gainesville, at least regarding English-language programming. They have the same prepackaged, formulated formats as we do, which tend to omit huge sections of music that would be appealing to listen to. How boring!

The English-language talk show stations, if anything, are worse. Not only did I not hear moderate/liberal shows anywhere (I know they used to exist on 940/WINZ), but even the conservative shows seem to be crowded out by sports talk radio. I really don't need sports ralk radio across my entire AM radio dial, do you?

While driving out of South Florida, I turned on my radio and found myself eschewing the English-language prgramming in favor of the Spanish and Haitian. Not that it was any more diverse than the English, but it was stimulating to see how much I could understand. Coupled with the caffeine in my coffee, that helped me greatly with the early morning driving!

I suppose that a few of my millions of loyal readers may be tiring of this shameless wringing out of articles about my very brief trip to South Florida. For those, relief is at hand: I have run out of material! But I'm not guaranteeing that something else about the experience won't come to mind in the next few days or so. So be warned!

Fewer Barney Fifes, Please

In last Sunday's Gainesville Sun, a local public high school student (at Buchholz High) wrote a letter protesting the Alachua County Sheriff's Department's recent actions at his school. According to him, police were ticketing students for seat belt violations ($104) as they were leaving the school parking lot at the end of the school day. As many as twenty students (including the miffed letter writer) received these tickets. And he mused: if this was supposed to educate the violators concerning seat belt laws, why couldn't simple warnings have been issued?

As I see it, what was educated is that the police prey upon ordinary citizens in order to increase revenue and "enhance" their own work records by showing a larger number of citations having been issued. Assuming that the writer had his facts straight, I feel that this only confirms what I have been saying all along: the police unwittingly project an image by actions, true or false, of themselves as public bullies, not public servants. They have Taser stun guns and loaded firearms at their disposal. They have the power to issue costly citations and to send people to jail at will, and their testimony is rarely ever refuted in court. In fact, often it takes contradicting video evidence to overturn their testimony. And even then THAT sometimes doesn't work (remember Rodney King's recorded beating in Los Angeles many years ago?).

At the exits of both my subdivision and my workplace, I have observed police cars parked in inconspicuous places that enable them to observe drivers coming in and out. It is patently clear that they are profiling residents and workers respectively to "catch" anyone not coming to complete stops at the stop signs in these two places. In doing this, they are, like the example at Buchholz High, profiling a specific group of citizens for scrutiny.

I wrote a couple of days ago how police should be patrolling streets more and playing "gotcha" less with the public that they are mandated to protect, not persecute. I keep thinking of the old image of the big city cop walking up and down the street on his beat, making himself visible both to law-abiders and potential criminals alike and available to assist anyone in need. What kind of image do you suppose that cop what have created had he instead hid behind a bush, jumping out whenever he caught someone jaywalking or littering? I imagine we all know the answer to that one! The image would have been tarnished, just as it being tarnished today by petty, bullying behavior. We need fewer Barney Fifes and more Andy Taylors!

Childhood Perceptions of Distance and Size

I wrote on Tuesday how the 2.87 mile block in Davie that I used to jog around in my late teens (about 35 years ago) seemed to have shrunk a bit when I ran it on Monday. Naturally, the obvious conclusion to this is that I have grown since then, so things would seem smaller. But I had already grown up to the bodily dimensions I now have, so that isn't so.

The same can be said for just about any place that I am familiar with in South Florida, especially my old house that I lived in from 1960 to 1977. The back yard, which seemed huge when I was twenty, now seems very confined and cramped. The residential block on which my old house stands seems now to be incredibly small.

Distances from one point to another seem to have shrunk as well. I used to think that it was very far between my old home and my school. But it really isn't anymore!

Of course, nothing has shrunk. My perception of this points to an interesting (to me) conclusion. We tend to form, early in childhood, conclusions about distances and size that we are reluctant to abandon, even as we grow up (as long as the exposure to that setting is continuous). So even though I was no longer five years old, a part of that experience was still within me as I viewed my back yard at age twenty. As a fourth-grader going by bus to my (then) distant school in 1965, it seemed like quite a trek (although I wouldn't learn the word "trek" until the following year on television). But it was only five miles, a very moderate distance, from my house.

Now, at age 52, I can still remember my old perceptions, but can now apply my more realistic interpretations of distance and size to my old childhood settings.

Local Shooting Tragedy

When I arrived at work around 3pm yesterday afternoon, I received a cell phone call from my wife, who was also at her workplace. It seemed that a terrible disturbance had occurred not very far from our home, on the road that I usually travel on go to work (but not this time). It seemed that a man was walking up and down the street, yelling at people in cars, sometimes attacking them, and banging on the cars' windows. And he was apparently beating up a woman he knew in one of the cars. A Sheriff's Department officer, who had been in the area only to serve subpeonas, tried to calm down the disturbed individual, a young man. But he became more aggressive and angry, so the officer used his Taser on him. But the effect was only temporary, for this enraged person lunged at the officer and both tried to strangle him and reach for his gun. Whereas the officer had to shoot him, resulting in his death.

This was a major news story for Gainesville and raises several questions. First of all, as far as I am concerned, the officer's actions were exemplary and in the line of duty, protecting the public. There were many witnesses to what happened. But we are left with a death, along with the loudly grieving family members. They were very quick to arrive at the scene and express their closeness to the killed individual. But really how close? What was the connection, if any, between them and the young man's rage? And if they knew what was going on in his mind, why didn't they do anything to help alleve his distress? Or did they?

None of the passengers in the various involved cars pulled out a gun, as far as I know. There may have been someone (or more) who had one handy should the need have arisen. By all accounts, the news outlets are putting a very pro-police spin on this story. But I'm seeing this slightly differently. Let me explain.

Everywhere I have worked, management puts the pressure on its employees to always be "busy" doing something. On my present job, a part of my responsibilities is to observe how mail is being processed through a very large, complex, and expensive sorting machine. I have to be vigilant in this so that parcels won't jam in the machine, for not only can the parcels become damaged, but the machine can be damaged as well. There is also a personal safety factor involved here. But as I am calmly walking back and forth observing the running machine, it appears to some supervisors that perhaps I am not "busy" enough, and should go do something else. Management, as a rule, tends to make its employees engage in what I call "busywork": doing things that don't really contribute to productivity, but "look" good to anyone passing by.

Now let's go back to the police. They are also under pressure by their management to engage in the "busywork" of cranking up citation numbers and "enhancing" revenue by pulling over citizens for minor traffic violations. When I see a police car parked anywhere (away from the coffee shop, that is), it is usually in a spot designed either to clock motorists' speeds or to catch motorists not coming to complete stops at stop signs. They also tend to congregate at public parks, apparently hoping to catch some poor soul engaging in "suspicious" activity there (whatever that's supposed to be). Instead, they should be concentrating on their primary mandate, which is to protect the public. It was just happenstance that the officer in this tragic local story was driving by at the exact moment that he was needed.

We can't expect our police to be everywhere all the time, nor would we want that type of scenario. Sure, we have cell phones and 911, which can greatly speed up police reaction time. But we would have a better level of protection if the police were freed from their busywork and allowed to perform their primary function, which is to protect the people by patrolling regularly throughout the city without agendas. This would involve a more passive, observing type of job behavior and would not necessarily look "busy" to management. But it's what we need more of, not less.

Otherwise, we may see a rise in citizens who take the law into their own hands, all under the umbrella of their own interpretation of the Second Amendment. If this happens, expect little restraint on their part!

But that having been said, I salute and greatly appreciate that very brave officer who stood up the protect the people. He suffered injuries during the incident, and my hopes and wishes are with him and his family. As well as those aggrieved by the young man's death.

Southern Cross Eludes Me Again

When I visited my father in Hollywood, Florida earlier this week, it was naturally my time spent with him that highlighted the all-too-short stay. But I did manage to get out and do some other fun things (for me, that is). I already wrote about a couple of them: running my old school "block" and riding a super-cool, excellent wooden roller coaster (the Dania Beach Hurricane). But there was one other endeavor that I wanted to accomplish on my stay: to observe the constellation Crux (the Southern Cross) and the star Alpha Centauri (a.k.a. Toliman, in the constellation Centaurus), only visible in the continental U.S. from the southern tips of Florida and Texas.

My original idea was to get in my car at night and drive out to southern Dade County and find a spot away from the city lights with a clear view of the southern horizon where these celestial sights would be visible in the evening at this time of the year. Looking from my father's house in Hollywood would present too much difficulty, since it is further north and the view would be badly hindered by greater Miami's city lights on the southern horizon.

But my stay was only for two nights. The first night I was too tired after driving down there from Gainesville. And the second night was plagued by overcast skies. Oh well.

I think, anyway, I would prefer to be in a setting that was much more conducive to observing the southern celestial sky at night. And that means only one thing: go visit somewhere south of the Equator with generally clear skies. Then I could take it all in!

But then again, I have never visited the Florida Keys, even though I grew up not that far from them. Maybe a family excursion down there might do the trick. And I could rack up some southern star sightings to boot!

[Star chart courtesy of Wikipedia]

Dania Beach Hurricane Coaster

In spite of South Florida's determination to promote itself as a vacationland for tourists, it has done precious little in the area of theme parks and thrill rides. Tampa has Busch Gardens with its great rides (especially the roller coasters). Orlando is loaded with parks, chief among them Disney World, Universal, and Sea World. Winter Haven has Cypress Gardens and Valdosta, Georgia has Wild Adventures. All of which have good thrill rides. But South Florida? Just one place exists, and that place, Boomer's of Dania, has just one ride: the Dania Beach Hurricane wooden roller coaster. And I rode on it this past Monday (after doing the run I wrote about yesterday, as a matter of fact).

It is very easy to miss Boomer's, especially if you don't know it's there. Even when I knew its location, which is just on the east side of I-95 a few blocks north of Stirling Road, I kept turning at the wrong streets and having to backtrack. Finally, I reached this little amusement park, which is at the back of an undeveloped industrial park area.

The parking lot was small, almost empty, and (best of all) free. Compare this with the seven bucks I have to shell out to park at Busch Gardens (even with my annual pass). As I walked toward the main building (actually, I think there was only one building), I looked to the left and saw a miniature golf course. Once inside, I saw many arcade games on the right and a restaurant/diner on the left. I got in line at the ticket desk and bought my ticket for the roller coaster ride ($6.75 for one ride and $12 for unlimited rides in a day). I just bought one ride and walked out the back of the building down the walkway to the roller coaster.

The Dania Beach Hurricane, although the only coaster in this part of Florida, is now overall my favorite wooden roller coaster that I have ridden, surpassing even Dollywood's exciting-but-comparatively-small Thunderhead and Busch Gardens' twin coaster Gwazi. What I liked the most about the Hurricane were its exciting drops, leaving me floating in my seat on several occasions. And it was quite a long ride as well.

I picked a good day to try out Boomer's. School was in session and the place was almost deserted, except for employees. When I did my one ride on the Hurricane, I was the only one on it and sat a couple of seats from the front.

The next time I visit Hollywood, I will definitely ride the Dania Beach Hurricane again. My son and daughter both like riding roller coasters, and should they go with me the next time they'll enjoy the experience as well.

I was thinking how sad it was that South Florida had only one coaster. And then I realized that not only doesn't a big city like Jacksonville have any, but neither does my home town of Gainesville. I have to drive about a hundred miles (or more) from home if I want to ride one (although I have some great choices of places to go should I do this).

There's one other wooden roller coaster that I'd like to ride at some future date. I don't know the name of the park that it's in, but I do know that it's in Muskegon, Michigan and is legendary among thrill ride enthusiasts.

Ran Old Davie "Block" Again

This past Monday, while in South Florida to visit my father, I decided to drive back to my old main running course of my late teens, a 2.87 mile circuit around schools I once attended in Davie that I refer to simply as "The Block". I wanted to see what had changed and what hadn't. And I was curious to see how I would handle it some 35 years later.

This block is bordered by College Avenue on the west, Nova Drive on the north, Davie Road on the east, and SW 39 Avenue on the south. Before I ran it, I drove around it, becoming increasingly dismayed in the process. Chain link fencing seemed to be everywhere. Nova High School was so completely fenced in that it looked more like a low-security prison than a high school. Broward College (formerly Broward Community College) had a lot of construction work going on at its College Avenue side, presenting a bit of a challenge that I would have to run through. West of College Avenue, Nova University was unrecognizable, having completely transformed itself over the years. And its vast, open blacktop area, where I had gone in December 1972 to watch the Apollo 17 final moon mission launch, was completely gone, with a street (SW 30 Avenue) cutting through where it had been. North of "Broward College" (that just does not sound right to me), where there had before been wonderful, open fields, was a campus of Florida Atlantic University. But here I'll accept the tradeoff: FAU being here is thoroughly cool. The former field lying along Nova Drive in the north is gone, with buildings and chain link fences replacing it. On the street's north side is a shopping center containing Publix and Blockbuster Video (and many, many little stores). There's also now a Ruby Tuesday at the corner of Nova Drive and Davie Road. Going down Davie Road was also a disappointment. Broward {Community} College had developed here and plugged up most of the formerly wide-open space with buildings and parking lots (but what should I have expected after 30+ years?), but they did line their eastern side with some beautiful landscaping. The duck pond was still there, essentially unchanged. And the two Nova elementary schools, other than their chain link fences enclosing them, were largely the same as well.

Google Maps, at the southwest corner of the "block" where Nova High School should be, instead shows something it calls "Bill Gessner Sports Complex". But when I drove (and later ran) by, all I saw were the old Nova phys-ed field, baseball diamond, and their old track with the football field inside it.

I was probably nuts for doing this, but I set out on my run at about one in the afternoon, on a very sunny and hot day, temperatures being in the low to mid nineties. Public school was in session, so I drove down to the nearly empty Broward College parking lot (they must have been on break, or else business is really bad now). I began my run there northward along College Avenue, almost immediately encountering the construction work but running through it without any real trouble. As in the early years of the seventies, I tried to run on grass when possible. And I noticed something interesting: the ground in South Florida is different from that in my home town of Gainesville. While down south the soil is pretty hard and sturdy, in Gainesville the surface has treacherous little holes under the top where it can be very easy for a runner to twist his/her ankle.

I managed the run well, always finding a place to run on. Unlike Gainesville, there were no hills, so that made it even easier. The only real problem I had was with the wilting heat and sun, but that didn't get to me and I finished the run at an easy pace, doing it in 24:38. Which was pretty much the pace I used to run for my jogs back in the 1970's.

I had the distinct impression that this entire area had shrunken over the years, as the distance I ran didn't seem to be anywhere near as formidable as it had in the past. Even when I was much younger, lighter (by about forty pounds), and in better general physical shape. So go figure. But although the area wasn't as pretty as it used to be, I'm not surprised. It's been a long, long time. Actually, I probably should be marvelling about how little things have changed over the years!

The Golden Compass: Reading Adventure Begins

How's this for coincidence: this past Wednesday afternoon, before work, I went to my local public library and, on impulse, checked out Philip Pullman's fantasy novel The Golden Compass. Later that evening, I called home to see how things were going, only to find that my family had rented out The Golden Compass on DVD. None of us had mentioned this to each other, and The Golden Compass has been out for some time. How freaky can it get?!!

I have begun reading The Golden Compass (it took a few days for me to able to get started) and have read Chapter One (naturally, I'm avoiding the movie right now). And just that one chapter is enough for me to know that this is one good book! Just the first few pages alone contain a wealth of intriguing ideas and mysteries. It also brings to mind an old science-fiction short story I once read titled The Wall Around the World.

Anyway, it looks as if my reading will be focusing on The Golden Compass, and then the other two volumes of this, Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy.

Unions and the "S" Word

[No, I am not referring to the word "strike".]
I am very happy to be employed at a job that gives me the opportunity to join a labor union and work under a collective bargaining contract. Although nothing is certain in this world, it does add a little to my sense of security to know that, by contract at least, I cannot be laid off from my job ("no-layoff" provision for six continuous years of employment). I have excellent benefits, including low-cost health insurance for myself and my family, life insurance, a great retirement plan, and a generous paid leave benefit. My union representatives are also available on the workroom floor to insure that workers are being treated fairly, according to contractual provisions. And they are very good at keeping working conditions safe.

I joined my union back in 1987, before I had even received my first paycheck. I didn't have to do this. I could have worked for these past twenty-one years here without ever having joined the union and would have received all of the benefits of the contracts it has negotiated with management over the years. And I would have saved a tidy accumulated sum as well, not having paid union dues. But I recognized from the beginning the union's role in making this, my job, desirable in the first place. So I felt quite honored to be able to be a dues paying union member.

Of course, many of my colleagues are very happy working here as well, and they know that collective bargaining was a crucial factor in that. There are a few, though, that have chosen not to join the union. Personally, I think that they should, for the reason I have already given. My union officers and stewards, like me, also believe that everyone working under the contract and enjoying its benefits should join up. And most have an encouraging, positive attitude toward those non-members. But not all is positive.

I recently read in my union local's newspaper an article by a union steward in which he referred to non-members as "scabs". I understand that referring to workers who don't pay dues or who cross picket lines as "scabs" is a time-honored tradition in the labor movement. I agree with this steward that enjoying the labors of others without helping to pay for it is a little less than honorable, but I shudder at the use of this epithet.

The American labor movement has experienced difficult times in the past few decades, with much of this country's manufacturing base being outsourced to foreign, non-unionized companies, and with our own government's blessings. Unions also suffer a bad, only partially-deserved reputation as being heavy-handed and coercive when it comes to trying to unionize companies. We finally have a friendly congress and president who are willing to make it easier for workers to form unions in their workplaces, if that is what they desire. But tossing around hurtful words like "scab" only feeds into the perception that workers are being intimidated by unions, when it is often management that presents to them the most problems.

Because of this, I strongly wish for anyone who loves the labor movement and wants to promote it among the general population to avoid calling people scabs. This isn't self-censorship: you can express anything you want without using loaded epithets. And by "loaded", I mean this: epithets like "scab" have a strong connotation of condemnation about the one so called and strong connotations of anger, hate, and aggression about the one doing the calling. Not a very good way to practice positive persuasion, would you agree?

Children Processing Scary News

Adults need to be more responsible about how they discuss the news with children. It is bad enough to see how different stories are sensationalized over the airwaves. The motive behind this, as I see it, is to drive up viewer interest and keep the ratings up. But the result can often be a "Chicken Little" scenario where it seems that disaster is imminent all around.

I remember hearing the story a couple of years ago about how children in Britain were having difficulty sleeping at night over worries about impending doom over global warning. And from where were they getting this input? From teachers at their schools!

A few days ago, my piano teacher was greeted with tears by one of her students, a little boy. Why was he crying? Because he was certain that he would catch the swine flu and die from it! I don't know where he got those notions from or whether his child's mind derived its own conclusions after seeing news on TV.

The above two examples point to two different problems that adults need to remedy regarding how to present news to children. The global warming example shows that possibly frightening news needs to be given in a very careful manner, without the doomsday trappings common in the mass media. And the swine flu example points to the need for parents and teachers to understand that it may be necessary to tell some of the bad news to their children or students in order to make sure, in case those children had heard about the bad news from the media or perhaps other children secondhand, that they are able to process the information without suffering trauma or panic.

It can sometimes be difficult, as adults, to remember how it was to be a little child. Children have to take life as it comes and do not have the convenience of a lifetime of accumulated knowledge and learning to filter through the news. They are also very emotionally and physically dependent on adults for their well-being. If adults who are responsible for the care of children come across potentially traumatic news, they should try to make sure that those children can process the news with the assurance that they will be protected. Even if the adults don't believe it themselves! Children are not little adults; they need to be nurtured and respected in a compassionate manner according to their immature level of development.

A Cease-Fire Isn't Peace

It never ceases to amaze me how, in the midst of a vicious war between two hardened opponents, cease-fire agreements are arrived at. Naturally, they are almost always broken, and why not? The war is still continuing. The recent breaking of the cease-fire between the Taliban and the Pakistani government is just the latest example.

I recently saw a show on The History Channel about the Chinese general Sun Tzu and his classic work The Art of War. The premise of the program was that, by showing examples of military conflicts in the past and how they were conducted, the degree of success or failure by a warring side depended greatly on how closely that side fought the war according to Sun Tzu's precepts. One example was the way the U.S. and North Vietnam executed the Vietnam War: specifically, the Tet Offensive in early 1968.

Catching the enemy off-guard is a common tactic of war; one doesn't need to be versed in Sun Tzu to know this. The North Vietnamese gave assurances to the South in early 1968 that the national holiday of Tet, beginning on January 31, would be allowed to proceed peacefully. Going under the assumption that there would be a temporary cease-fire, South Vietnam and U.S. relaxed their guard. But North Vietnam, under their able general Nguyen Giap, had intricately planned a Tet attack for months and struck on a massive scale throughout the South on January 31.

Year after year, we hear about fighting breaking out between Israel and one or more of its militant armed opponents across its border. Inevitably, a cease-fire is arranged and the fighting tapers off. But the war continues.

The problem with cease-fires is that many people equate a cease-fire with peace, when in reality it is a mutually-agreed-upon "timeout" from open warfare. The war is still there; when one of the parties to the conflict deems it to their advantage, they will end it, pure and simple. And usually accuse the other side of violating the terms of the cease-fire. This is precisely what is going on in Pakistan with the surging Taliban.

Both sides have accused the other of breaching the terms of the cease-fire. And lo and behold, they are back at war against each other again. But I hold that this was the purpose for the cease-fire all along: each side used it to carefully reassess their positions and to prepare themselves for success in the next stage of the fighting.

The bottom line on this is that a cease-fire should never be confused with peace. And when two sides are locked together in mortal combat, with their political systems and even the collective survival of their people at stake, the last thing anyone involved is going to worry about is the relatively trivial matter of "honoring" a cease-fire.

Harsh, but true.

Justice Souter Retiring, Who's Next?

Now that Supreme Court Justice David Souter has announced his impending retirement in June, President Obama is getting a lot of advice from different quarters about what criteria he should use in choosing a successor. Some of his political opposition to the right are already criticizing him before he's even made a decision, this in spite of assurances by the President that he "would appoint a pragmatist, not a radical, to this important position."

Barack Obama was a legal scholar before he became a politician, with his specialty being constitutional law. Were he not President, he himself would be qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He also understands very clearly the history of the Court, in particular the ongoing philosophical dispute between justices interpreting the Constitution according to its perceived (by them) original intent and justices who regard the Constitution as a living, breathing document that needs to adapt itself to the vastly different society that we live in today. My gut instinct is that Obama will select someone who is liberal, but more in the line of a Stephen Breyer or a John Paul Stevens instead of previous judicial "activists" like William Brennan or William Douglas.

Also figuring heavily in the President's appointment is whether he will select a woman or a minority to fill the upcoming vacancy. I've heard some stating that it would be sexist to simply choose a woman for the seat because of her gender. But the Supreme Court needs to be representative of the society at large, and the legal profession is no longer dominated by men as before. There is another consideration mitigating in favor of Obama choosing a woman.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman currently serving on the Supreme Court, is having serious health problems as she is fighting cancer. It may be possible that she is only staying on the Court because she is the only woman on it. Having another woman as a Supreme Court Justice might allow her to retire with her mind more at ease. If this is so, then President Obama's first two Supreme Court appointments may both be women. And that's all right with me.

Will the Supreme Court's newest addition be also a Latino or an African-American? Will the appointee be an experienced appeals court judge with a long history of past decisions and opinions? Or perhaps a judge with a record too short and limited to gage his/her views on hot-button issues? Or perhaps could it be a legal scholar from a law school? Or maybe a politician (as Earl Warren, Charles E. Hughes, and William H. Taft were)? The trend lately has been to tap the pool of appeals court judges for the Supreme Court. But Obama has laid down some subtle hints that he may broaden his scope in search for the best candidate. I wish him great success. I only hope that he finally will choose someone without tax problems (as some of his cabinet selections have experienced)!

The New Star Trek Movie

I'm looking forward to eventually seeing the new Star Trek movie, which apparently seeks to go back in time to the old TV series' "generation" and examine its characters in their youth. Naturally, with the original cast either deceased or aging, different, younger actors play the old roles. From the previews, they seem to fit them well. But the special effects seem so well done that they are bound to belittle the original series that inspired the movie.

The original Star Trek television series aired from 1966 to 1968. The set designs, props, and special effects today look very primitive. But back then, they were "cutting edge", at least for television. When Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out in 1979, it finally renewed the Enterprise's "quest" after an eleven year hiatus. During this time, space movies underwent a dramatic change in their appearance, starting with 1967's 2001: A Space Odyssey and continuing with 1977's Star Wars. Those responsible for the 1979 Star Trek movie were apparently very self-conscious about this gap between the old series and the current special effects technology. For they went to excess, trying to dazzle the movie audience with their new (for 1979) special effects. Even the Enterprise crew, during the movie, were portrayed for long periods standing there in astonishment, mouths agape and eyes bulging, at the impressive sights that the special effects department had produced. This hurt the flow of the story, and many (myself included) consider this movie to have been the worst of all the Star Trek movies.

I'm hoping that those responsible for the new "retro" Star Trek movie didn't get carried away with their own self-consciousness and instead concentrated on producing a good, memorable story with characters that resonated reasonably with the old sixties series. Without getting carried away with "perfection". The original TV series certainly didn't.

One problem with making "retro" movies (like Star Wars): you already know pretty much how they're going to end. If Captain Kirk is hanging on a cliff thousands of feet in the air, then ho-hum, the only mystery will be how he gets out of the predicament. This makes it more like a MacGyver episode than a singular movie. The only characters whose lives may be in peril are the "guest" characters who don't appear in "later" movies or episodes. Of course, the same can be said for other movie series as well (such as the James Bond series).

I usually don't go to see a new movie at the theatre on its first run, instead waiting for it to come out on DVD or on a television movie channel. But I would like to shell out a few bucks and go out to see Star Trek.

Putrid Gainesville Radio Reeks

I like variety on my radio. But, unfortunately, my radio doesn't agree:

The one FM station I could get that had sports programming late at night just recently decided to abandon that format in favor of being just another loony bird right wing extremist talk show station around the clock. Making two stations of this type, right next to each other on the radio dial. Whoopee! All of the hate, derision, and conspiracy talk you care to listen to!

I used to be able to listen to an alternative rock station, but a year ago it decided to copy another mainstream/hard rock station, leaving those two right next to each other on the radio dial. Whoopee!

There used to be a station that played hits from the 70's, 80's, and 90's. But it recently decided to change its programming to today's Top Forty, just like another station--you guessed it-- right next to it on the radio dial. Whoopee!

Now we come to 89.1/WUFT Public Radio, the ONLY FM station that makes a concerted effort to offer diverse programming. It plays classical music, jazz, blues, new age, African music, 70's soul, Celtic music, news and analysis, interviews, local news, old time radio broadcasts, alternative political radio, summaries of the week in the Florida legislature, and The Prairie Home Companion Saturday evening show. And I'm leaving other stuff out, too. Naturally, it's THIS station that my increasingly despicable local newspaper The Gainesville Sun is scrutinizing as an ongoing debate topic in its editorial section.

I think it is sad that the public at large seems to feel that they can only hold Public Radio accountable for its programming. They seem to have bought into the notion promoted by the political right that commercial radio stations, although they are licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves, have little or no responsibility to offer diverse programming any more.

Recently, I discovered a few good independent/alternative musical acts on the Internet: Sufjan Stevens, Andrew Bird, Iron and Wine, Beirut, and Broken Social Scene, to name a few. They produce really good, high quality material. But I have never heard ANYTHING of theirs on my radio, and probably never will. To say that Gainesville radio is of poor quality is to make a gross understatement: it reeks!

The Sprout Channel Late Night

I have discovered a new television channel to enjoy late at night: PBS's Sprout, which is aimed at a pre-school audience. So how am I able to watch this type of programming at one in the morning? Showing programs targeted at young children this late at night may be explained in three ways: one, maybe we have a lot of little night owls who burn the midnight oil. Two, maybe Sprout has discovered that grown-ups like this type of programming, too. Or three, Sprout gives little children who have gone off to bed something that gives them a sense of security (and a kind of night light as well).

Regarding the first explanation, I really don't think that there are many kids out there in the wee hours of the morning watching Sprout. If they did have a TV set available to them, they would most likely watching the evening programming, since it is just repeated after midnight. So either Sprout's late night showing of this programming is either aimed at an older audience or it is used as a "sleep enhancer" for youngsters.

I stand for at least one adult who likes Sprout at night. For one, I'm human like everyone else and sometimes like to watch and hear others speaking in a very friendly, positive manner (even if it's from the impersonal television set). On Sprout, Nina (the token human adult) and Star (a cute stuffed pillow-sized star puppet with a face) sit together on a comfortable-looking sofa in an "astral" setting, amiably conversing and introducing different short episodes (like Thomas the Tank Engine or the Berenstain Bears, for example). They show several of these over the course of the night, always returning to their sofa "base of operations". The end of the show always has Star falling asleep. What appeals to me about this is the idea of being able to accomplish different things by working out of a base. Well, I get it if no one else does!

But probably the greatest use the "viewing" audience gets out of Sprout late at night is its usefulness at lulling children to sleep and keeping them from being in the sometimes scary darkness. While I understand this, I wonder a little whether or not that's such a wise idea, at least in the long run. After all, while their brains are growing and developing in complexity at this early age, don't young children need to learn how to come to grips with natural fears, such as the normal fear of the dark? I know I did, but I wonder whether I would have adjusted as well had I had soothing television programming like that offered on Sprout.

Sprout is now my current default channel, when I've run out of reasonably interesting programming on the others. I recommend it to anyone regardless of their age, not because it is intellectually stimulating or terribly exciting (it is neither). No, watch it for its good vibes! One warning, though: you stand a risk of being overcome by its excruciating cuteness.

Doing Endeavors Whenever, Wherever

The late, very prolific writer Isaac Asimov once wrote that he was always writing (when awake, that is), even when he wasn't physically producing some text. While simply going about his daily life, he would come up with ideas and could plan out stories in advance and in pretty good detail. And with his extraordinary memory, he would often do this and then later sit down and type out what he had conceived.

Although I possess neither the memory nor the writing talent of Dr. Asimov, I do think there is something here of universal application. For if I am involved in an endeavor of any significance, I will need to make it something that I can engage in, at least to some degree, at any time or place I find myself in.

Take running, for example. If it's the middle of summer (which can get unbearably hot here in Florida) I can choose to run in the early morning hours around 1 or 2 AM if I like. I feel uncomfortable running up and down public streets at this time, but I do have a reasonably-sized back yard that I can run around for indefinite periods of time. I don't need to tailor my running for when the YMCA treadmill is available either. But of course, if I find myself wanting to run and the YMCA is open, then I can surely avail myself of that opportunity.

Practicing piano is another area. I don't need to physically be sitting at the piano in my house to make progress here. I own a portable keyboard that I can lug around to other places, even possibly carrying it in my car. But even without a keyboard, I can study music theory, as well as various pieces that I am practicing. I can also imagine a keyboard in front of me and try playing different pieces (of course without the helpful audio feedback of a real keyboard).

Or take studying Chinese. I have a small MP3 that I carry around with me in my pocket. On it are several Chinese language podcasts. Also, I am memorizing a rather lengthy list of Chinese characters that I can review at any time, either by writing them down or by visualizing them. If opportunities for speaking with Chinese speakers arise, then so much the better.

I can extend this idea to other areas as well. The point is to deeply convince myself of an endeavor's importance by making it something to do whenever and wherever I decide to do it. This makes it a priority and facilitates learning, retention, motivation, and ultimately, greater progress. Of course, I can't be engaging myself with too many different endeavors at one time, either. After all, Asimov was an admitted fanatic about his writing!

GOP's Heavy Ideology a Mistake

A few months ago, I had the opportunity to view Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention. Goldwater represented the conservative wing of the GOP and had defeated liberal Nelson Rockefeller to win the presidential nomination. The acceptance speech, though, was bizarre, full of ideology and divisive language. It must have made the same impact on the voters at that time that it made on me, for Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson in the general election by one of the biggest landslides ever.

Nowadays, I'm hearing the same kind of ideological talk emanating from the Republicans. There are ideologues on the left as well, but these are not part of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, which seems to have been transformed into the party of pragmatism.

After the 1964 debacle, the Republican Party abandoned ideology as its driving force and presented more pragmatic leaders, like Michigan Governor George Romney and former Vice-President Richard Nixon. By the 1968 election, the GOP had reinvented itself and was able to win back the presidency, largely by emphasizing issues of popular concern like law and order and ending the Vietnam War.

Today, though, the Republicans seem to be going in the opposite direction. They seem to be going out of their way to pander to the assorted right-wing extremist radio talk show hosts while alienating more moderate Republicans and their supporters. The result: a regional (mainly southern) and heavily ideological party. Should Obama falter during his first term in office, the Republican Party will not be in any sort of position to take back the White House like it did in 1968, in my opinion.