Talk show host Glenn Beck, for whom I actually felt some respect when he worked at HLN, has gone completely off the deep end ever since he switched his employment to Fox News Network. It seems that Beck has been trying to out-Hannity right wing extremist Sean Hannity with his hateful comments about anything and anyone whose political sentiments are anything left of far right. Now he has gone and called our president a racist because he had the audacity to question a Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer's arresting of a prominent scholar in that scholar's own home. Wait, let me fill in the blanks: the officer was white, the scholar was black, and our president is black. Oh yeh, Glenn, that's got to be racist!
Now comes the news that in Boston (lying next to Cambridge) one of their police officers circulated a mass e-mail calling that black scholar a "banana-eating jungle monkey". But hey, when he was confronted with his words, Officer Justin Barrett said, "I am not a racist". And Barrett, who as an officer "of the law" carries a gun and Taser and handcuffs and whose testimony against suspects as a policeman carries undue weight in court, retained an attorney who said that his "comments were taken out of context".
Yes, attorney, let me read a little more of the e-mail to put it in better "context". Your client stated in it that had he "been the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey [Barrett] would have sprayed him in the face with OC [pepper spray] deserving of his belligerent non-compliance." You're right, attorney, the context does change the meaning. It makes it worse.
Barrett was placed on administrative leave after the e-mail and may lose his job. Who wants anyone to lose their job? But shouldn't there at least be some accountability expected for the officer's actions? Nevertheless, I see ahead in my crystal ball the following events happening:
---Glenn Beck not only refuses to call Barrett or his comments racist; he turns it all around and further accuses President Obama somehow of causing Barrett to lose his job or suffer whatever disciplinary action he incurs.
---Sean Hannity gets (possibly former) Officer Barrett on his show and turns the racial-epithet spouting cop into a folk hero for the far right wing nuts, with the policeman having allegedly been hounded out of his job for political incorrectness by the intolerant left.
---Heads of various police and law enforment organizations hold another press conference, once again full of indignance and arrogance, and once again demanding apologies from whatever party they think that they can accuse of something. Without finding fault with Officer Barrett, for whom they collectively demand full reinstatement.
---President Obama DOESN'T invite this sorry dude to the White House for beer and pleasant chatter.
---The GOP targets for fund-raising white supporters of theirs with mass mailings capitalizing on their racial fears exploiting this sad incident, making it out to be an example of the administration behaving in a racist manner against whites. And making whatever happens to Barrett an example of political correctness gone wild.
Who knows what actually will happen. I do have a pretty cynical regard, though, for the right wing press. As well as for the way the police ominously seem to be setting themselves apart as a class superior to the rest of Americans. As for the Republican Party, well, that's the sorry state of politics nowadays. But I am pretty sure of my Obama/no beer prediction being a "slam dunk"!
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Resumed Bicycling
A few minutes ago [when I wrote this at 10:30 AM on Wednesday], I dragged my cheap bicycle out of the back storage shed, pumped some air into the completely deflated tires, wiped off the accumulated grime, put on my new helmet, and pedaled off for the first time in months. My destination? The nearest Starbucks, of course! The ride took about 15 minutes but it was quite a workout, going up a few hills to get here. Now I have to duplicate the feat going back home.
Although bicycling has many similarities to running, it does use different combinations and motions of muscles, especially in the legs. I'm probably going to feel a little sore for the next day or two, but I won't be riding my bicycle every day. At least not for now.
What brought on my decision to resume bicycling? Well, two things. One, there are places around Gainesville that are very hard to get to because it is difficult to find a place to park my car. But a bicycle can go just about anywhere. Two, my left foot ached yesterday and today, making me take a short break from my running for a few days. Enter the bicycle!
Actually, from 1975 through 1995, bicycling had been my primary source of exercise. I would like to integrate it into a more balanced exercise plan, combined with swimming and perhaps a little weight training. My local YMCA, which I have been neglecting since I stopped using their treadmills for running, can fulfill the latter two with its swimming pool and workout room.
The way I see it, it will be a kind of broken-down triathlon: bicycling, swimming, and running. I have never been a very fast swimmer, but I do need some upper-body exercise and swimming is fun on top of being good exercise! I have to be even more careful, though, in easing into swimming to avoid overdoing it at the beginning. I'm not all that sure about weight training, but I may start with that later in the future. I also may take up rock climbing at some time. But now, it's time to huff and puff homeward on my bike!
Although bicycling has many similarities to running, it does use different combinations and motions of muscles, especially in the legs. I'm probably going to feel a little sore for the next day or two, but I won't be riding my bicycle every day. At least not for now.
What brought on my decision to resume bicycling? Well, two things. One, there are places around Gainesville that are very hard to get to because it is difficult to find a place to park my car. But a bicycle can go just about anywhere. Two, my left foot ached yesterday and today, making me take a short break from my running for a few days. Enter the bicycle!
Actually, from 1975 through 1995, bicycling had been my primary source of exercise. I would like to integrate it into a more balanced exercise plan, combined with swimming and perhaps a little weight training. My local YMCA, which I have been neglecting since I stopped using their treadmills for running, can fulfill the latter two with its swimming pool and workout room.
The way I see it, it will be a kind of broken-down triathlon: bicycling, swimming, and running. I have never been a very fast swimmer, but I do need some upper-body exercise and swimming is fun on top of being good exercise! I have to be even more careful, though, in easing into swimming to avoid overdoing it at the beginning. I'm not all that sure about weight training, but I may start with that later in the future. I also may take up rock climbing at some time. But now, it's time to huff and puff homeward on my bike!
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Change of Heart About 89.1/WUFT
I have been thinking about it more and more, and I have now come to the conclusion that I am looking forward to 89.1/WUFT's (Gainesville's Public Radio station) format change to "all" news/talk. If that's what they're really planning to do, that is. After all, it would be pretty questionable for them to get rid of their late morning, afternoon, and evening classical music programming while retaining their 11pm-5am nightly jazz slot. I say, get rid of all the music if you're going to drop classical music "on principle".
Even if they keep that jazz lineup, though, I think that I will be listening more to this station. I have recently tuned in to the Jacksonville Public Radio station 89.9/WJCT, which carries more talk/news programming. And I found myself enjoying the shows more than I had the classical music. Unfortunately, WJCT's signal is much too weak for me to pick up on my MP3 player or headset radio.
I have obtained a few classical music CDs and will probably get a few more. I have transferred to one of my MP3 players works by Debussy, Mussorgsky/Ravel, Schubert, Schumann, Mahler, Prokofiev, Bartok, and Bruckner. And I'm looking to add more. So I have plenty of opportunities now to listen to classical music. And beginning on August 3, I will have a strong local radio station that will offer a much higher standard of talk and news programming than do the pathetic commercial talk radio stations I am currently stuck with.
WUFT gave their classical music audience an option to continue hearing that programming on HD radio and as live streaming on the Internet. But HD radio technology is for the car and home, and is still lagging in its portability. Still, although I understand the laments of those listeners, I think that the future talk shows will be more interesting, at least for me.
Even if they keep that jazz lineup, though, I think that I will be listening more to this station. I have recently tuned in to the Jacksonville Public Radio station 89.9/WJCT, which carries more talk/news programming. And I found myself enjoying the shows more than I had the classical music. Unfortunately, WJCT's signal is much too weak for me to pick up on my MP3 player or headset radio.
I have obtained a few classical music CDs and will probably get a few more. I have transferred to one of my MP3 players works by Debussy, Mussorgsky/Ravel, Schubert, Schumann, Mahler, Prokofiev, Bartok, and Bruckner. And I'm looking to add more. So I have plenty of opportunities now to listen to classical music. And beginning on August 3, I will have a strong local radio station that will offer a much higher standard of talk and news programming than do the pathetic commercial talk radio stations I am currently stuck with.
WUFT gave their classical music audience an option to continue hearing that programming on HD radio and as live streaming on the Internet. But HD radio technology is for the car and home, and is still lagging in its portability. Still, although I understand the laments of those listeners, I think that the future talk shows will be more interesting, at least for me.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
SEC Pre-Season All-Star Team: Huh?
A few days ago, the All-Southeastern Conference Coaches' Football Team for 2009 was announced. Each SEC head coach got to vote for which player they liked the most at each position. As expected, Florida quarterback Tim Tebow was the pick for the first team, but his selection wasn't unanimous: one of the twelve coaches selected another quarterback. Instead of feeling good about Tebow's honor, Florida diehards expressed outrage and wanted to know which coach voted against him. Coach after coach then came out stating that they voted for Tebow. Finally, it looked as if former Gator (and now South Carolina) coach Steve Spurrier was identified as "the one". Spurrier admitted to the foul deed and said that it was just a mistake and that Tebow was the best quarterback around. Spurrier then had his voted changed to make the selection unanimous.
I don't understand why it was so important for some to complain about Tim Tebow's less-than-unanimous selection. Especially when there is a much more overriding issue with this entire 2009 All-SEC Team process being done in July: nobody's played any games yet this season! How does anybody know who the best players are going to be? There are always surprises each year, with new stars coming onto the scene and old ones having disappointing seasons. Wouldn't it have made more sense until the Southeastern Conference schedule was finished in early December and then hold the vote? I suspect the reason for the July vote was to stir up fan interest in anticipation of the coming season. I find that rationale laughable, though. SEC football fans are already almost insane in their fanaticism for the sport.
This preseason voting for the best players is especially asinine when you consider the extremely transitory nature of college football "careers". Athletes usually see little or no action in their freshman seasons. The big stars usually begin to make their mark in their sophomore year, but some sophomores are still second-string to junior and senior players on their teams. And when players reach their junior years, who knows which ones will step out into greatness? Only by watching them perform through the season can anyone decide who the "all-stars" are.
Well, that's my regional big conference: the SEC. But as I have written earlier, I'm trying something different this year and will be focusing on the Pacific Ten Conference. Hopefully, I'll be able to catch some late-night games on TV (after getting off from work).
I don't understand why it was so important for some to complain about Tim Tebow's less-than-unanimous selection. Especially when there is a much more overriding issue with this entire 2009 All-SEC Team process being done in July: nobody's played any games yet this season! How does anybody know who the best players are going to be? There are always surprises each year, with new stars coming onto the scene and old ones having disappointing seasons. Wouldn't it have made more sense until the Southeastern Conference schedule was finished in early December and then hold the vote? I suspect the reason for the July vote was to stir up fan interest in anticipation of the coming season. I find that rationale laughable, though. SEC football fans are already almost insane in their fanaticism for the sport.
This preseason voting for the best players is especially asinine when you consider the extremely transitory nature of college football "careers". Athletes usually see little or no action in their freshman seasons. The big stars usually begin to make their mark in their sophomore year, but some sophomores are still second-string to junior and senior players on their teams. And when players reach their junior years, who knows which ones will step out into greatness? Only by watching them perform through the season can anyone decide who the "all-stars" are.
Well, that's my regional big conference: the SEC. But as I have written earlier, I'm trying something different this year and will be focusing on the Pacific Ten Conference. Hopefully, I'll be able to catch some late-night games on TV (after getting off from work).
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Professor and the Policeman
On the night of July 16, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was probably very tired from his trip to China and was also probably not in very good spirits when, upon finally reaching his house in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he discovered that his front door was jammed. With the assistance of his driver, though, Gates was able to finally enter his home. Meanwhile, a neighbor, seeing two men apparently trying to break into a house, called the police (wouldn’t you?). The Cambridge police responded in the person of Sgt. James Crowley, who entered the house and asked Gates for identification. The situation, which called for politeness and restraint on the part of both parties, escalated when Professor Gates began to accuse Crowley of racial profiling. Even when the matter had been settled and Sgt. Crowley was leaving the house, Gates wouldn’t let up and followed him, ranting angrily. Finally, Crowley arrested Gates on the charge of disorderly conduct. So an honest misunderstanding that could have been resolved in less than a minute has blown up into a national news story, with even President Obama weighing in (and later probably regretting that he did).
On Friday, heads of different police organizations held a press conference. They all appeared to have hurt feelings because Obama had offhandedly commented before that the arresting officer had acted “stupidly”. The various police representatives then went on to weave the sometimes-fictional narrative about how great, professional, and enlightened the police were and how Obama owed every policeman an apology for his careless remark. And Officer Crowley was there too, appearing stone-faced and offended.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Professor Gates could have defused the situation by trying to be a bit more understanding and a little less combative. But as far as I can tell, there was no reason for the officer to handcuff Gates in his own home and take him to jail when the incident had already been resolved and the professor obviously posed no threat to anyone.
Once I got a job working at a large hospital. Regardless of what type of work that new employees were engaged in there, they all had to attend an orientation meeting. In that meeting, the one thing that was heavily stressed was that, since the hospital was a place of very high stress and anxiety for its patients, their families, and visitors, all employees should take great care in exercising compassion and restraint when dealing with anyone who displays anger toward them. Because, after all, people are often not quite themselves in a hospital and often have some very unpleasant things weighing on their minds. In other words, we new employees were advised to soften our reactions to verbally abusive patients and visitors.
In like manner, Officer Crowley should have recognized the very sensitive matter of entering someone’s private domicile (which he had to do as part of his response to the reported break-in) and then making that person justify his residence there. And yes, also recognize that the resident was an African-American who was honestly convinced that he was being racially profiled. And yet this policeman held this obviously emotionally-upset citizen whom he was supposed to be protecting to the same standard of behavior that someone standing out in public would be expected to conform to. And that is unreasonable.
After seeing the public demonstration of self-righteousness and arrogance displayed across the board by the policemen at the press conference, it is not surprising to me that the police in America have a very serious public relations problem. And not just among African-Americans. As I have written before on this blog, my perception of them is that they tend to regard the general population as a “suspect pool” instead of as the people that they are being paid to protect. And if a policeman is so thin-skinned that he can’t take a little verbal abuse from someone after entering their own home without their permission, then he should find another profession. But if he does, then he should probably stay away from hospitals as well!
On Friday, heads of different police organizations held a press conference. They all appeared to have hurt feelings because Obama had offhandedly commented before that the arresting officer had acted “stupidly”. The various police representatives then went on to weave the sometimes-fictional narrative about how great, professional, and enlightened the police were and how Obama owed every policeman an apology for his careless remark. And Officer Crowley was there too, appearing stone-faced and offended.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Professor Gates could have defused the situation by trying to be a bit more understanding and a little less combative. But as far as I can tell, there was no reason for the officer to handcuff Gates in his own home and take him to jail when the incident had already been resolved and the professor obviously posed no threat to anyone.
Once I got a job working at a large hospital. Regardless of what type of work that new employees were engaged in there, they all had to attend an orientation meeting. In that meeting, the one thing that was heavily stressed was that, since the hospital was a place of very high stress and anxiety for its patients, their families, and visitors, all employees should take great care in exercising compassion and restraint when dealing with anyone who displays anger toward them. Because, after all, people are often not quite themselves in a hospital and often have some very unpleasant things weighing on their minds. In other words, we new employees were advised to soften our reactions to verbally abusive patients and visitors.
In like manner, Officer Crowley should have recognized the very sensitive matter of entering someone’s private domicile (which he had to do as part of his response to the reported break-in) and then making that person justify his residence there. And yes, also recognize that the resident was an African-American who was honestly convinced that he was being racially profiled. And yet this policeman held this obviously emotionally-upset citizen whom he was supposed to be protecting to the same standard of behavior that someone standing out in public would be expected to conform to. And that is unreasonable.
After seeing the public demonstration of self-righteousness and arrogance displayed across the board by the policemen at the press conference, it is not surprising to me that the police in America have a very serious public relations problem. And not just among African-Americans. As I have written before on this blog, my perception of them is that they tend to regard the general population as a “suspect pool” instead of as the people that they are being paid to protect. And if a policeman is so thin-skinned that he can’t take a little verbal abuse from someone after entering their own home without their permission, then he should find another profession. But if he does, then he should probably stay away from hospitals as well!
Sunday, July 26, 2009
My Running Groove
It has been more than six weeks since I ran on a treadmill. Instead, I’ve taken to the road, especially to the streets around my home neighborhood. And it hasn’t been that bad! I just walk out my front door, set my wristwatch timer to zero, and set out on my run. So far, I have devised various lengths of running courses (in miles: .67, 1.27, 1.69, 2.87, and 3.6) that I can tailor to different conditions, internal (my health, how I feel, how much time I have) and external (how hot it is, whether or not it’s raining, road and traffic conditions).
I have discovered, in exclusively doing my running on road and sidewalk, what I call my “running groove”: a pace that floats around 8:20 to 8:30 per mile. And this pace seems to hold no matter how far I run. Initially with my training, I usually experience discomfort with my running for upwards to the first mile, and then the “groove” kicks in and I’m on autopilot. I credit with staying off the treadmill for this important accomplishment. (Maybe 8:30 doesn’t sound like an impressive mile pace, but I am 52 and holding on to this pace works wonders for me.)
For the longest time in 2007, when I resumed running for the first time since 1998, I only ran on the treadmill. The treadmill has its own advantages: if you own one, then you can disregard the time of day or the weather when you run. It gives you instant distances and times to let you precisely increase your speed according to your own goals. I used the treadmills at my local YMCA (about a mile from my house). The only disadvantage, besides the membership fees, was that the YMCA was often closed when I wanted to run.
When I finally did try running on “hard stationary ground” after running for so long on the treadmill, I was stunned at how difficult it was. Every step was jarring and my brain, having been trained to let the treadmill do all of the pacing, was not in a state to take on that arduous task. But I gradually increased my road training and decreased my treadmill training. I also ran in three local five kilometer road races. And thus this is how your distinguished blog author “got his groove”!
Now, with an improved ability to pace myself, I believe I’m in a position to increase my running distances. The only limiting factor right now is the very hot summertime weather here in north central Florida. I could try to remedy that by running at night, but then I’m confronted with other problems: poor road visibility, (possibly) paranoid neighbors reacting to a man running down their street at 2 AM, and possibly overreacting police. But "possibly" doesn't mean "actually", and I need to stop limiting my choices and instead step out and take advantage of my opportunities.
I have discovered, in exclusively doing my running on road and sidewalk, what I call my “running groove”: a pace that floats around 8:20 to 8:30 per mile. And this pace seems to hold no matter how far I run. Initially with my training, I usually experience discomfort with my running for upwards to the first mile, and then the “groove” kicks in and I’m on autopilot. I credit with staying off the treadmill for this important accomplishment. (Maybe 8:30 doesn’t sound like an impressive mile pace, but I am 52 and holding on to this pace works wonders for me.)
For the longest time in 2007, when I resumed running for the first time since 1998, I only ran on the treadmill. The treadmill has its own advantages: if you own one, then you can disregard the time of day or the weather when you run. It gives you instant distances and times to let you precisely increase your speed according to your own goals. I used the treadmills at my local YMCA (about a mile from my house). The only disadvantage, besides the membership fees, was that the YMCA was often closed when I wanted to run.
When I finally did try running on “hard stationary ground” after running for so long on the treadmill, I was stunned at how difficult it was. Every step was jarring and my brain, having been trained to let the treadmill do all of the pacing, was not in a state to take on that arduous task. But I gradually increased my road training and decreased my treadmill training. I also ran in three local five kilometer road races. And thus this is how your distinguished blog author “got his groove”!
Now, with an improved ability to pace myself, I believe I’m in a position to increase my running distances. The only limiting factor right now is the very hot summertime weather here in north central Florida. I could try to remedy that by running at night, but then I’m confronted with other problems: poor road visibility, (possibly) paranoid neighbors reacting to a man running down their street at 2 AM, and possibly overreacting police. But "possibly" doesn't mean "actually", and I need to stop limiting my choices and instead step out and take advantage of my opportunities.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Local Church Feedback Loop
Dove World Outreach Center, a small local nondenominational Christian church located about two miles from my house, received some negative media publicity when its leaders decided to place roadside signs proclaiming that “Islam is of the devil”. The Gainesville Sun published stories, editorials, and letters to the editor decrying the prejudice implicit in this message. The church itself came under scrutiny for what some termed as cult-like practices. Also, it didn’t help that this church, protected by its religious status from paying taxes, was running an E-Bay-based furniture store out of one of its buildings. Finally, in last Thursday’s paper, it was announced that the church had placed a new sign out by the road: FOR SALE.
I don’t want to appear to be defending the folks running this rather insignificant church. I actually know the people running it, and I have no problem saying that they deserve some of the criticism that they are receiving (although I was unaware of the furniture store). The sign that sparked this major (local) controversy has, I believe, been a bit misinterpreted, though.
I have been in Sunday schools and informal “family” group meeting held by various conservative evangelical churches in the past, long before the 9/11 attacks. And I noticed some behaviors that may have more to do with universal human behavior than with one group’s particular prejudices.
People in general, I believe, have a tendency to huddle in groups that in turn tend to reflect their own most deeply (and sometimes most irrationally) held views about various topics. One can see a little of this on the Internet with the various blog circles and carnivals out there. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again that my blog has such a diversity of content and opinion (not necessarily making it better than others) that it would inevitably contain material that would automatically disqualify it from anyone else’s carnival. And that’s cool with me. But the huddling instinct has a much stronger effect in person when the involved people keep meeting together over and over again and keep saying the same things to each other over and over again. Famous skeptic Michael Shermer (one of my favorite people out there in the media) has called this a feedback loop (a phenomenon with many other scientific and engineering applications).
When something is said enough times, without objective contradicting input due to the group’s insulation, those within the feedback loop will reach a point when they accept it as unchallenged truth. In the conservative evangelistic Christian doctrine, ANY belief system that doesn’t explicitly recognize that belief in Jesus Christ is the ONLY way for a person to avoid eternal torment in hell after death is in some way or another “of the devil”. And what are the most influential non-Christian belief systems around? Islam and something called “secular humanism”. I’ve come to the conclusion that “secular humanism” is basically just western society with explict Christian religious doctrine removed, but those within conservative Christian feedback loops tend to regard it as a conspiratorial movement that is also “of the devil”. Also, any criticisms coming from the outside regarding the notions dearly held by the participants in such a feedback loop themselves are “of the devil” and only serve to bolster its members’ feeling of nobility (since, you see, that means they are being “persecuted”, a sign of an effective church).
So this “Islam is of the devil”, to me at least, reflects more the effects of people huddling together in their feedback loop, rejecting outside sources of objective input, adopting some outlandish ideas, and then suffering the criticisms levied on them when they come to light outside of the “huddle”.
I don’t want to appear to be defending the folks running this rather insignificant church. I actually know the people running it, and I have no problem saying that they deserve some of the criticism that they are receiving (although I was unaware of the furniture store). The sign that sparked this major (local) controversy has, I believe, been a bit misinterpreted, though.
I have been in Sunday schools and informal “family” group meeting held by various conservative evangelical churches in the past, long before the 9/11 attacks. And I noticed some behaviors that may have more to do with universal human behavior than with one group’s particular prejudices.
People in general, I believe, have a tendency to huddle in groups that in turn tend to reflect their own most deeply (and sometimes most irrationally) held views about various topics. One can see a little of this on the Internet with the various blog circles and carnivals out there. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again that my blog has such a diversity of content and opinion (not necessarily making it better than others) that it would inevitably contain material that would automatically disqualify it from anyone else’s carnival. And that’s cool with me. But the huddling instinct has a much stronger effect in person when the involved people keep meeting together over and over again and keep saying the same things to each other over and over again. Famous skeptic Michael Shermer (one of my favorite people out there in the media) has called this a feedback loop (a phenomenon with many other scientific and engineering applications).
When something is said enough times, without objective contradicting input due to the group’s insulation, those within the feedback loop will reach a point when they accept it as unchallenged truth. In the conservative evangelistic Christian doctrine, ANY belief system that doesn’t explicitly recognize that belief in Jesus Christ is the ONLY way for a person to avoid eternal torment in hell after death is in some way or another “of the devil”. And what are the most influential non-Christian belief systems around? Islam and something called “secular humanism”. I’ve come to the conclusion that “secular humanism” is basically just western society with explict Christian religious doctrine removed, but those within conservative Christian feedback loops tend to regard it as a conspiratorial movement that is also “of the devil”. Also, any criticisms coming from the outside regarding the notions dearly held by the participants in such a feedback loop themselves are “of the devil” and only serve to bolster its members’ feeling of nobility (since, you see, that means they are being “persecuted”, a sign of an effective church).
So this “Islam is of the devil”, to me at least, reflects more the effects of people huddling together in their feedback loop, rejecting outside sources of objective input, adopting some outlandish ideas, and then suffering the criticisms levied on them when they come to light outside of the “huddle”.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Baseball Fan Behavior: Two Examples
Recently the Florida Marlins, one of the teams that I’m following, were playing a road series at San Diego. The Padres are having a very disappointing season after initial high hopes (well, everybody has high hopes at the beginning). They are dead last in their division, and the large number of empty seats at their ball park is an obvious reflection of this. It may be argued that those fans who do choose to pay today’s currently high ticket prices must literally be “fanatics” of the San Diego Padres. But fanaticism cuts in both a positive and negative sense.
When a batter hits a ball into the spectators’ section of the park, be it from a foul ball or a home run, it is always understood, at least in Major League Baseball, that whoever gets their hands on the ball owns it. So it was that once, when a Marlin batter hit a foul ball, it landed in a large section of empty seats. A somewhat heavyset, middle-age man and a little boy raced toward the ball from opposite ends. They arrived at where the ball was at the same time. The man then physically backed into the boy, pushing the kid back so that he could pick up the ball unchallenged. The little boy went back to his seat, and the jerk who took the ball in this manner went back to sit with his laughing party of adults (who all seemed to think that the whole incident was a big hoot). I don’t think that they realized, though, that they were on the ball park’s video screen the entire time. The park erupted in boos, and the TV announcers had some choice words to say about the ball-napper. Then the Marlins bullpen pitchers called the boy over and gave him a ball that they were throwing, eliciting cheers from the crowd.
The very next day, in the very same park, a Marlins batter swung at a pitch and his bat slipped from his hands, flying into the fans section. Again (fortunately), the seats were mostly empty and the bat hit no one. But some dude (I won’t quite call him a jerk) then picked up the very expensive, personal bat of this player and sat back down with it, grinning and holding on to it as if it were now his own personal property. One of the Marlins coaches coaxed him to come over and talk with him, but those responsible for televising this game then panned away from that conversation and the matter was dropped from discussion. Regardless of what eventually happened, I thought it was pretty brazen of that fan to presume ownership of that bat.
Does this sort of rude fan behavior always happen at games, or does having a nearly empty ball park tend to bring out the worst in spectators? Or is there a disproportionate number of jerks among the diehards following lousy teams? Maybe the mindset is like this: this team sucks and here I am, a big victim paying this high admission and watching my home team lose. I’m entitled to anything that comes in my general direction and no one’s stopping me!
Oh, by the way, the Marlins won both games (and the following game as well). I will say this about Florida Marlins fans: they’re not as fickle as others. Even when their team is winning, their home ball games are poorly attended!
When a batter hits a ball into the spectators’ section of the park, be it from a foul ball or a home run, it is always understood, at least in Major League Baseball, that whoever gets their hands on the ball owns it. So it was that once, when a Marlin batter hit a foul ball, it landed in a large section of empty seats. A somewhat heavyset, middle-age man and a little boy raced toward the ball from opposite ends. They arrived at where the ball was at the same time. The man then physically backed into the boy, pushing the kid back so that he could pick up the ball unchallenged. The little boy went back to his seat, and the jerk who took the ball in this manner went back to sit with his laughing party of adults (who all seemed to think that the whole incident was a big hoot). I don’t think that they realized, though, that they were on the ball park’s video screen the entire time. The park erupted in boos, and the TV announcers had some choice words to say about the ball-napper. Then the Marlins bullpen pitchers called the boy over and gave him a ball that they were throwing, eliciting cheers from the crowd.
The very next day, in the very same park, a Marlins batter swung at a pitch and his bat slipped from his hands, flying into the fans section. Again (fortunately), the seats were mostly empty and the bat hit no one. But some dude (I won’t quite call him a jerk) then picked up the very expensive, personal bat of this player and sat back down with it, grinning and holding on to it as if it were now his own personal property. One of the Marlins coaches coaxed him to come over and talk with him, but those responsible for televising this game then panned away from that conversation and the matter was dropped from discussion. Regardless of what eventually happened, I thought it was pretty brazen of that fan to presume ownership of that bat.
Does this sort of rude fan behavior always happen at games, or does having a nearly empty ball park tend to bring out the worst in spectators? Or is there a disproportionate number of jerks among the diehards following lousy teams? Maybe the mindset is like this: this team sucks and here I am, a big victim paying this high admission and watching my home team lose. I’m entitled to anything that comes in my general direction and no one’s stopping me!
Oh, by the way, the Marlins won both games (and the following game as well). I will say this about Florida Marlins fans: they’re not as fickle as others. Even when their team is winning, their home ball games are poorly attended!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Gainesville's Loblolly Woods
As I had written in this past Monday's blog article, Gainesville has many "green" spots within its borders where one can go to get away from it all. One of these places is the Loblolly Woods section of the Hogtown Creek Greenway, which runs along Hogtown Creek in west-central Gainesville.
Yesterday, I parked behind Westside Park on NW 31st Drive and ran to NW 16th Avenue. I then ran four blocks east on 16th until I found the north entrance to the Loblolly Woods trail. I ran down it to 8th Avenue (where the planetary statues are lined up), crossed that street, and entered the southern part of the trail. I didn't know of this part until my daughter explored it with some of her friends on Monday. The southern trail exits on NW 34 Street around NW 5th Avenue.
There was no spectacular scenery to describe along the trail, but I found it to be quite a refreshing departure from road and sidewalk running. I didn't actually go to Hogtown Creek itself, but there were some trails that looked as if they branched off in that direction. My chief concern while running was to take care to avoid tripping over the many tree roots that jutted out into the trail.
Here are some pictures I took of my run/walk through the Loblolly Woods trail.
Yesterday, I parked behind Westside Park on NW 31st Drive and ran to NW 16th Avenue. I then ran four blocks east on 16th until I found the north entrance to the Loblolly Woods trail. I ran down it to 8th Avenue (where the planetary statues are lined up), crossed that street, and entered the southern part of the trail. I didn't know of this part until my daughter explored it with some of her friends on Monday. The southern trail exits on NW 34 Street around NW 5th Avenue.
There was no spectacular scenery to describe along the trail, but I found it to be quite a refreshing departure from road and sidewalk running. I didn't actually go to Hogtown Creek itself, but there were some trails that looked as if they branched off in that direction. My chief concern while running was to take care to avoid tripping over the many tree roots that jutted out into the trail.
Here are some pictures I took of my run/walk through the Loblolly Woods trail.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Health Care Reform Revisited
Now that the Obama administration is pushing health care reform through Congress, it’s time again to look at where I stand on this issue. (Here is an article I wrote on the subject last year.)
I believe in our capitalist system and the spirit of entrepreneurship that fuels it with innovation, energy, and boldness. Unfortunately, the way our health care system is structured in the United States works against this. Businesses are burdened with the great expense of providing health insurance to its employees. Many are moving to other countries where health care is government-run and funded through taxation. Small businesses here also find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with larger corporations, who can afford to lure more talented employees by offering more and better health care benefits. Small business owners often have difficulty in insuring themselves and their families, and often have to pay high rates for coverage. As employees grow older, they often find themselves trapped in their jobs for fear of losing health insurance coverage due to preexisting health problems pertaining to them or their dependents. And the elderly often find themselves financially devastated when having to pay out-of-pockets costs of medical care not covered by their insurance when their inevitable health problems associated with the aging progress.
Any plan of the President and Congress must effectively address these concerns if it is to win my support. So far, I have my doubts that they are succeeding. I am particularly concerned with the idea of imposing additional burdens on businesses. Even the idea of making every business pay for their employee’s health insurance, argued by its supporters as leveling the competitive playing field (which it doesn’t), still puts American businesses at a marked disadvantage when competing with foreign-based businesses.
As for individuals with preexisting conditions or those who want to change careers or start their own businesses, I’m lacking information as to whether their needs will be met by the proposed legislation. Having a public option available to all and which doesn’t penalize those with preexisting conditions is an absolute requirement, but it is uncertain at this time how much of a public option is going to be passed by the Senate, which seems to be dragging its feet on health care reform.
I am glad, though, that Al Franken, an advocate of meaningful health care reform, has finally been seated as a senator and can serve as a possible crucial vote in this very complex and crucial matter.
I believe in our capitalist system and the spirit of entrepreneurship that fuels it with innovation, energy, and boldness. Unfortunately, the way our health care system is structured in the United States works against this. Businesses are burdened with the great expense of providing health insurance to its employees. Many are moving to other countries where health care is government-run and funded through taxation. Small businesses here also find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with larger corporations, who can afford to lure more talented employees by offering more and better health care benefits. Small business owners often have difficulty in insuring themselves and their families, and often have to pay high rates for coverage. As employees grow older, they often find themselves trapped in their jobs for fear of losing health insurance coverage due to preexisting health problems pertaining to them or their dependents. And the elderly often find themselves financially devastated when having to pay out-of-pockets costs of medical care not covered by their insurance when their inevitable health problems associated with the aging progress.
Any plan of the President and Congress must effectively address these concerns if it is to win my support. So far, I have my doubts that they are succeeding. I am particularly concerned with the idea of imposing additional burdens on businesses. Even the idea of making every business pay for their employee’s health insurance, argued by its supporters as leveling the competitive playing field (which it doesn’t), still puts American businesses at a marked disadvantage when competing with foreign-based businesses.
As for individuals with preexisting conditions or those who want to change careers or start their own businesses, I’m lacking information as to whether their needs will be met by the proposed legislation. Having a public option available to all and which doesn’t penalize those with preexisting conditions is an absolute requirement, but it is uncertain at this time how much of a public option is going to be passed by the Senate, which seems to be dragging its feet on health care reform.
I am glad, though, that Al Franken, an advocate of meaningful health care reform, has finally been seated as a senator and can serve as a possible crucial vote in this very complex and crucial matter.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Unauthorized Stephen King Biography
I was reading through Haunted Heart: The Life and Times of Stephen King, Lisa Rogak’s unauthorized biography of longtime bestselling fiction writer Stephen King. The book contained a lot of interesting information, but I became stuck in my reading when I came across a disturbing statement.
Rogak was discussing how, when writing under the pseudonym Richard Bachman, King’s fiction tended to be darker, with usually bad endings. She then pointed out, though, that the Bachman novel Thinner did have an upbeat ending. What??!!
Either Lisa Rogak didn’t read Thinner or she did and completely misread it. This novel, which I personally consider to be one of Stephen King’s greatest, had a very, very dark ending! And this ending was what made this novel a masterpiece examination of how a person’s feeling of guilt over a past incident can be transformed into scapegoating of others, and ultimately, hatred. And how this hatred can consume one if left unchecked.
Thinner is literally a “thinner” book than most of Stephen King’s works, and is a quick and easy read. If his unauthorized biographer either can’t take the time to read it or can’t remember or understand what she read, then how can I trust any of the other information she’s doling out in her book? I have read almost everything that King has published, and doubtless many of his fans have done the same. I should think that someone who wants to make money out of writing a biography of Stephen King would have at least made the effort to thoroughly examine his works. Especially when a great part of that biography purports to examine how King’s personal life was reflected in his writings! Still, I don’t feel that I wasted my money on this book: I checked it out from the library!
Rogak was discussing how, when writing under the pseudonym Richard Bachman, King’s fiction tended to be darker, with usually bad endings. She then pointed out, though, that the Bachman novel Thinner did have an upbeat ending. What??!!
Either Lisa Rogak didn’t read Thinner or she did and completely misread it. This novel, which I personally consider to be one of Stephen King’s greatest, had a very, very dark ending! And this ending was what made this novel a masterpiece examination of how a person’s feeling of guilt over a past incident can be transformed into scapegoating of others, and ultimately, hatred. And how this hatred can consume one if left unchecked.
Thinner is literally a “thinner” book than most of Stephen King’s works, and is a quick and easy read. If his unauthorized biographer either can’t take the time to read it or can’t remember or understand what she read, then how can I trust any of the other information she’s doling out in her book? I have read almost everything that King has published, and doubtless many of his fans have done the same. I should think that someone who wants to make money out of writing a biography of Stephen King would have at least made the effort to thoroughly examine his works. Especially when a great part of that biography purports to examine how King’s personal life was reflected in his writings! Still, I don’t feel that I wasted my money on this book: I checked it out from the library!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Gainesville's Aggressive Flora
[In the spirit of Pottermania surrounding the release of the sixth Harry Potter movie The Half-Blood Prince, I'm making a reference to the series.]
Have you seen the fourth Harry Potter movie The Goblet of Fire? Toward the movie's end, Potter, competing in a contest with three others, finds himself in an elaborate maze of hedges. From time to time the hedges suddenly close in on him, forcing him to run to avoid becoming engulfed in green. I don't recall this aggressive trait of the maze hedges in the book, but seeing this in the movie reminds me of Gainesville. In the summer.
I grew up in south Florida and was accustomed to wide-open outdoor spaces with relatively few trees. In Gainesville, however, the environment is quite different. This is definitely a "forest" town, dominated by trees and bushes. And in the summer, it sometimes appears that they are trying to close in on everything with their accelerated growth. This probably isn't too beneficial to me, as I tend to suffer from respiratory allergies. But it does serve give a more three-dimensional sense to the outdoors, in contrast to south Florida's flatness (despite their asinine naming of places like "Hollywood Hills" and "Boulevard Heights").
Gainesville may be a city of more than 100,000 residents, but it is nevertheless immersed in nature. There are patches of wilderness all over the place, even in the heart of the city. Gainesville is crisscrossed by little creeks, many of which flow hidden underneath roads, but which elsewhere provide a more primeval environment around them.
Actually, it's possible to get more of a flavor of the wilderness experience by exploring Gainesville's particular little nature spots than by traveling into the surrounding countryside (which is often dominated by farms and ranches). There are several nature trails to follow, many of which border areas of heavy development. Perhaps I will explore some of these in future articles.
Have you seen the fourth Harry Potter movie The Goblet of Fire? Toward the movie's end, Potter, competing in a contest with three others, finds himself in an elaborate maze of hedges. From time to time the hedges suddenly close in on him, forcing him to run to avoid becoming engulfed in green. I don't recall this aggressive trait of the maze hedges in the book, but seeing this in the movie reminds me of Gainesville. In the summer.
I grew up in south Florida and was accustomed to wide-open outdoor spaces with relatively few trees. In Gainesville, however, the environment is quite different. This is definitely a "forest" town, dominated by trees and bushes. And in the summer, it sometimes appears that they are trying to close in on everything with their accelerated growth. This probably isn't too beneficial to me, as I tend to suffer from respiratory allergies. But it does serve give a more three-dimensional sense to the outdoors, in contrast to south Florida's flatness (despite their asinine naming of places like "Hollywood Hills" and "Boulevard Heights").
Gainesville may be a city of more than 100,000 residents, but it is nevertheless immersed in nature. There are patches of wilderness all over the place, even in the heart of the city. Gainesville is crisscrossed by little creeks, many of which flow hidden underneath roads, but which elsewhere provide a more primeval environment around them.
Actually, it's possible to get more of a flavor of the wilderness experience by exploring Gainesville's particular little nature spots than by traveling into the surrounding countryside (which is often dominated by farms and ranches). There are several nature trails to follow, many of which border areas of heavy development. Perhaps I will explore some of these in future articles.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Robert McNamara Dies at 93
Robert McNamara has died at the advanced age of 93. He was the former “whiz kid” who transformed Ford Motor Company in the late 1950s into a viable, modern corporation. McNamara introduced systems analysis into business and government, revolutionizing how these institutions are run. Later in his career he served several years a president of the World Bank. But it is his tenure as U.S. Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson from 1961 to 1968 that Robert McNamara is most known for.
It is always interesting for me to see how differently Presidents Kennedy and Johnson treated American involvement in Vietnam, even though they both had essentially the same Departments of State and Defense (with the same Cabinet Secretaries). Kennedy, although very anti-communist, approached the area in a more clandestine manner, using the CIA and advisers. Johnson, on the other hand, decided to make a major stand in Vietnam, sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops there. For years after the tragic Vietnam War, criticisms against Johnson were basically that he just misjudged the situation in Indochina. But tapes released of his discussions with his advisers and cabinet indicate that not only did he know early on of the futility of the conflict, but also that the Gulf of Tonkin incident that he used to politically rally the nation behind him and the coming war was completely fabricated. And Secretary of Defense McNamara was with Johnson every step of the way, both with the Gulf of Tonkin deception and the early judgment about the war’s infeasibility. And yet both went on with it, sentencing millions of Vietnamese and almost sixty thousand Americans (many of them conscripts, not volunteers) to their deaths. Not to mention the horrible physical and psychological injuries to so many of the surviving soldiers.
I was watching an interview that Brian Lamb of C-Span had taped with him a few years ago. McNamara was very talkative, lucid and charming with just about any subject about his life. Except for Vietnam. Then he just wanted to talk about something else. Yes, I can understand that.
Robert McNamara did some pretty incredible things for this country, his systems analysis contributions being one of them. Had there been no Vietnam War, who knows; his image might even have been on a postage stamp some day. But the fact that HE KNEW, very early on, that launching a full-scale war in Vietnam would not work, and then having the gall to have Americans sent over there to their deaths anyway, is one of the most despicable things that anyone in government has ever done. It is very convenient to try to lay the blame for everything at the feet of the later Nixon administration, which to be sure committed some very bad mistakes regarding Indochina (especially with the invasion and bombing of Cambodia). But Nixon inherited the full-blown, escalated conflict that Johnson and McNamara so cynically and hopelessly began.
It is always interesting for me to see how differently Presidents Kennedy and Johnson treated American involvement in Vietnam, even though they both had essentially the same Departments of State and Defense (with the same Cabinet Secretaries). Kennedy, although very anti-communist, approached the area in a more clandestine manner, using the CIA and advisers. Johnson, on the other hand, decided to make a major stand in Vietnam, sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops there. For years after the tragic Vietnam War, criticisms against Johnson were basically that he just misjudged the situation in Indochina. But tapes released of his discussions with his advisers and cabinet indicate that not only did he know early on of the futility of the conflict, but also that the Gulf of Tonkin incident that he used to politically rally the nation behind him and the coming war was completely fabricated. And Secretary of Defense McNamara was with Johnson every step of the way, both with the Gulf of Tonkin deception and the early judgment about the war’s infeasibility. And yet both went on with it, sentencing millions of Vietnamese and almost sixty thousand Americans (many of them conscripts, not volunteers) to their deaths. Not to mention the horrible physical and psychological injuries to so many of the surviving soldiers.
I was watching an interview that Brian Lamb of C-Span had taped with him a few years ago. McNamara was very talkative, lucid and charming with just about any subject about his life. Except for Vietnam. Then he just wanted to talk about something else. Yes, I can understand that.
Robert McNamara did some pretty incredible things for this country, his systems analysis contributions being one of them. Had there been no Vietnam War, who knows; his image might even have been on a postage stamp some day. But the fact that HE KNEW, very early on, that launching a full-scale war in Vietnam would not work, and then having the gall to have Americans sent over there to their deaths anyway, is one of the most despicable things that anyone in government has ever done. It is very convenient to try to lay the blame for everything at the feet of the later Nixon administration, which to be sure committed some very bad mistakes regarding Indochina (especially with the invasion and bombing of Cambodia). But Nixon inherited the full-blown, escalated conflict that Johnson and McNamara so cynically and hopelessly began.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Burning Down a Village to Save It
There is a common theme, especially in religion, which is that in order for true transformation to come about, it is first necessary to destroy the existing order before the new, improved system can be implemented. This is definitely true with Christianity, which expresses the doctrine that one must first “die to sin” in order to be “reborn” through Christ. And the fact that Christianity is the predominant faith in America may partially explain a disturbing tendency that has been embedded within popular opinion about American foreign policy.
Recently, our national policy has been to bomb, occupy, and generally make war against Afghanistan and Iraq. But our government’s rationale is that we are not fighting their people. No, we are actually liberating them from previous oppressive governments by going over there, bombing their cities and countryside, occupying their streets, supplanting their civil authority, operating under a different set of laws than their people have to live under, treating their people like suspects instead of citizens, and overruling their “properly-elected” governments whenever it suits U.S. policy. Because we’re helping them, right?
I am convinced that there is a lot of xenophobia present in American society, and that this has been the case since possibly the inception of our nation. And wily, demagogic politicians seize upon this to enhance their prospects with the voters. But you can’t just come out and say that we should wreak havoc on our enemies abroad. No, instead we are destroying the old orders there in order to build a better society for their peoples.
But still, that old xenophobia comes out from time to time, often with a subtle wink of an eye or a chuckle. Take presidential candidate John McCain’s appeal in last year’s campaign to the xenophobic element in the electorate with his takeoff of the 1965 Beach Boys’ hit Barbara Ann: “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” (while he was dancing across the stage). This was (as I see it) McCain’s way of saying “Yes, I’m saying all of this high-sounding stuff about helping democracy and freedom for other people, but behind it all I’m just a regular, foreigner-hating dude like all of you (so vote for me)”.
In the Vietnam War, the U.S. often burned down Vietnamese villages that were suspected of harboring or supporting the enemy Viet-Cong. The fact that the Viet-Cong may have actually been the most popular political movement among the people there was brushed aside by the argument that the people had no choice in the matter. And for true democracy to exist, the influence of the Viet-Cong had to be eradicated. Hence destroying the people’s homes, a naked act of aggression, was clothed in high-sounding, benign rhetoric.
And now here we are in Afghanistan. Why did we go there anyway? Wasn’t it twofold: (1) To root out and destroy Al-Qaeda and those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and (2) to punish the Taliban in Afghanistan for giving sanctuary and support for Al-Qaeda within their borders? But now, oh-no, here we are again, “helping” the Afghanis build a “democracy” against the “bad guys” the Taliban. But the Taliban, as unpalatable their politics may be to Western sensibilities (especially their attitudes about women’s rights, education, intolerance of other beliefs, and capital punishment), is an indigenous and popular political force in that part of the world. To eliminate the Taliban there would necessitate either destroying the people there or destroying their way of life to the point where they would have to move somewhere else. In former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, this was called “ethnic cleansing” and was almost universally condemned.
We will not win a land war against a popular indigenous movement like the Taliban (just as we couldn’t against the Viet Cong). They need to be separated from their ally Al-Qaeda and then recognized and left alone. Otherwise we are going to be “burning a lot a villages” to supposedly save democracy!
We also need to get over our evangelistic-redemptive ideology of “helping” others abroad with whom we have a bone to pick by turning their societies upside-down with military force. We may think that we’re doing good, but others in the world see it as simple, naked aggression and imperialism. And simply saying that we don’t care what others think about us won’t wash in a world where we are up to our necks in debt to other countries.
Recently, our national policy has been to bomb, occupy, and generally make war against Afghanistan and Iraq. But our government’s rationale is that we are not fighting their people. No, we are actually liberating them from previous oppressive governments by going over there, bombing their cities and countryside, occupying their streets, supplanting their civil authority, operating under a different set of laws than their people have to live under, treating their people like suspects instead of citizens, and overruling their “properly-elected” governments whenever it suits U.S. policy. Because we’re helping them, right?
I am convinced that there is a lot of xenophobia present in American society, and that this has been the case since possibly the inception of our nation. And wily, demagogic politicians seize upon this to enhance their prospects with the voters. But you can’t just come out and say that we should wreak havoc on our enemies abroad. No, instead we are destroying the old orders there in order to build a better society for their peoples.
But still, that old xenophobia comes out from time to time, often with a subtle wink of an eye or a chuckle. Take presidential candidate John McCain’s appeal in last year’s campaign to the xenophobic element in the electorate with his takeoff of the 1965 Beach Boys’ hit Barbara Ann: “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” (while he was dancing across the stage). This was (as I see it) McCain’s way of saying “Yes, I’m saying all of this high-sounding stuff about helping democracy and freedom for other people, but behind it all I’m just a regular, foreigner-hating dude like all of you (so vote for me)”.
In the Vietnam War, the U.S. often burned down Vietnamese villages that were suspected of harboring or supporting the enemy Viet-Cong. The fact that the Viet-Cong may have actually been the most popular political movement among the people there was brushed aside by the argument that the people had no choice in the matter. And for true democracy to exist, the influence of the Viet-Cong had to be eradicated. Hence destroying the people’s homes, a naked act of aggression, was clothed in high-sounding, benign rhetoric.
And now here we are in Afghanistan. Why did we go there anyway? Wasn’t it twofold: (1) To root out and destroy Al-Qaeda and those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and (2) to punish the Taliban in Afghanistan for giving sanctuary and support for Al-Qaeda within their borders? But now, oh-no, here we are again, “helping” the Afghanis build a “democracy” against the “bad guys” the Taliban. But the Taliban, as unpalatable their politics may be to Western sensibilities (especially their attitudes about women’s rights, education, intolerance of other beliefs, and capital punishment), is an indigenous and popular political force in that part of the world. To eliminate the Taliban there would necessitate either destroying the people there or destroying their way of life to the point where they would have to move somewhere else. In former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, this was called “ethnic cleansing” and was almost universally condemned.
We will not win a land war against a popular indigenous movement like the Taliban (just as we couldn’t against the Viet Cong). They need to be separated from their ally Al-Qaeda and then recognized and left alone. Otherwise we are going to be “burning a lot a villages” to supposedly save democracy!
We also need to get over our evangelistic-redemptive ideology of “helping” others abroad with whom we have a bone to pick by turning their societies upside-down with military force. We may think that we’re doing good, but others in the world see it as simple, naked aggression and imperialism. And simply saying that we don’t care what others think about us won’t wash in a world where we are up to our necks in debt to other countries.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Krispy Kreme Doug
Yes, ma'am, I'm ready with my order...I'll take two dozen of the General MacArthurs, three of the Hennings......and yes, a couple of Fairbanks Juniors from the dollar menu!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Handling Third Party Disputes
Have you ever had an ongoing quarrel with someone else in the workplace, school, or any place that you attended regularly? Most honest people would say yes (unless they just told me to mind my own business). And most of us, from time to time, will complain about said troublesome person to another. Now when I do this (I try to avoid it as much as possible), I am not seeking an ally against the individual with whom I have the disagreement. Rather I am doing two things: venting my feelings out while also getting a third party’s perspective on the situation. That party doesn’t have to agree with my stand, but I do expect a bit of empathy (or even sympathy).
However, I do try to get along with everyone as much as humanly possible without becoming undignified about it. And that includes those whom others openly dislike. Often others will come to me expressing a criticism about a third party. And the object of the criticism is often someone whom I like and work well with. But I don’t feel the need to take sides in others’ disputes, and this is a good thing in general.
If every time people fell out with each other all of the surrounding people had to choose sides, we’d quickly find ourselves in very polarized situations with groups of people clinging together, bound by their mutual dislike of others outside their group. This is neither healthy on the scale of individual people or on the scale of nations.
And speaking of the scale of nations, our current president seems to believe as I do that (1) our friends’ foes don’t automatically have to be our foes and (2) we shouldn’t expect other countries to automatically fall in line with us and shun nations that we disapprove of. How refreshing and different from the previous administration’s overbearing international attitude! And how much better for our world as well!
However, I do try to get along with everyone as much as humanly possible without becoming undignified about it. And that includes those whom others openly dislike. Often others will come to me expressing a criticism about a third party. And the object of the criticism is often someone whom I like and work well with. But I don’t feel the need to take sides in others’ disputes, and this is a good thing in general.
If every time people fell out with each other all of the surrounding people had to choose sides, we’d quickly find ourselves in very polarized situations with groups of people clinging together, bound by their mutual dislike of others outside their group. This is neither healthy on the scale of individual people or on the scale of nations.
And speaking of the scale of nations, our current president seems to believe as I do that (1) our friends’ foes don’t automatically have to be our foes and (2) we shouldn’t expect other countries to automatically fall in line with us and shun nations that we disapprove of. How refreshing and different from the previous administration’s overbearing international attitude! And how much better for our world as well!
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Creative Environments: The Beatles
I have always marveled at how much the quality of the individual Beatles members’ musical output suffered after they broke up and went solo. The most striking cases were those of Paul McCartney and George Harrison.
George Harrison was, of the three members who wrote songs, the one consigned to obscurity with usually only one or two tracks per album attributed to him. But as the band grew in fame, Harrison also grew in his songwriting ability, producing an ever-increasing quantity and quality of music. Most of it remained unheard during the Beatles’ span as an intact band. But in late 1970, many of Harrison’s works came together on his blockbuster solo triple-album release All Things Must Pass. Beatles fans marveled at how talented Harrison was, and looked forward to his future releases. But afterward, nothing of his came close to the level of music from that first album. His fall was so complete that some of his subsequent albums actually went “out of print”. And my favorite George Harrison solo song, You, from his 1976 Extra Texture album, was actually originally a 1970 piece rejected from All Things Must Pass (there was just only so much space, even on three discs). What happened?
Paul McCartney underwent a similar change. His music with the Beatles was incredible with its beauty and simple appeal. But once he went solo and became comfortable with that lifestyle, his music (at least to me) went south.
Part of the explanation for these changes in creative output may be the change in personal environments that these two artists experienced. When they were together as the Beatles, there was much more creative tension, with more opportunities for collaboration, competition, and immediate critical feedback regarding compositions. Once alone, though, surrounded by adoring family members and “yes” people, McCartney and Harrison lost those elements that had refined their music into such great works during the Beatles era (and with Harrison, his first solo work following their breakup). When McCartney collaborated with Elvis Costello on an album, the latter chided McCartney on not having been willing in the past to accept criticisms in a constructive, collaborative spirit on his previous solo albums (I tend to regard McCartney’s Wings albums as solo works).
Now you may note that I didn’t mention John Lennon in this. And there’s a good reason: Lennon never (well, at least for the first few years after the Beatles breakup) got away from that state of creative tension by living in a creatively-insulated bubble. Both his personal and creative life were in a more or less constant state of turmoil from the Beatles time until 1976, when he decided to retire from music to raise his son Sean full-time. Ironically, once Lennon did return to music in 1980, many were critical of his album Double Fantasy as having lost that earlier edge to his sound.
The point to all of this is that a good, working creative environment may be just the opposite of what the artist envisions as being ideal. Often it is very uncomfortable, cramped conditions with often disagreeable, hypercritical people that can be an incubator of great works. And when these artists finally get some control of their creative environment, their output also may suffer.
George Harrison was, of the three members who wrote songs, the one consigned to obscurity with usually only one or two tracks per album attributed to him. But as the band grew in fame, Harrison also grew in his songwriting ability, producing an ever-increasing quantity and quality of music. Most of it remained unheard during the Beatles’ span as an intact band. But in late 1970, many of Harrison’s works came together on his blockbuster solo triple-album release All Things Must Pass. Beatles fans marveled at how talented Harrison was, and looked forward to his future releases. But afterward, nothing of his came close to the level of music from that first album. His fall was so complete that some of his subsequent albums actually went “out of print”. And my favorite George Harrison solo song, You, from his 1976 Extra Texture album, was actually originally a 1970 piece rejected from All Things Must Pass (there was just only so much space, even on three discs). What happened?
Paul McCartney underwent a similar change. His music with the Beatles was incredible with its beauty and simple appeal. But once he went solo and became comfortable with that lifestyle, his music (at least to me) went south.
Part of the explanation for these changes in creative output may be the change in personal environments that these two artists experienced. When they were together as the Beatles, there was much more creative tension, with more opportunities for collaboration, competition, and immediate critical feedback regarding compositions. Once alone, though, surrounded by adoring family members and “yes” people, McCartney and Harrison lost those elements that had refined their music into such great works during the Beatles era (and with Harrison, his first solo work following their breakup). When McCartney collaborated with Elvis Costello on an album, the latter chided McCartney on not having been willing in the past to accept criticisms in a constructive, collaborative spirit on his previous solo albums (I tend to regard McCartney’s Wings albums as solo works).
Now you may note that I didn’t mention John Lennon in this. And there’s a good reason: Lennon never (well, at least for the first few years after the Beatles breakup) got away from that state of creative tension by living in a creatively-insulated bubble. Both his personal and creative life were in a more or less constant state of turmoil from the Beatles time until 1976, when he decided to retire from music to raise his son Sean full-time. Ironically, once Lennon did return to music in 1980, many were critical of his album Double Fantasy as having lost that earlier edge to his sound.
The point to all of this is that a good, working creative environment may be just the opposite of what the artist envisions as being ideal. Often it is very uncomfortable, cramped conditions with often disagreeable, hypercritical people that can be an incubator of great works. And when these artists finally get some control of their creative environment, their output also may suffer.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
All-Star Break Standings
We’ve reached the midpoint in the Major League Baseball season, traditionally marked by (today's) all-star game. I couldn’t care less about the all-star game, but I do like to stop and take a look at the standings to see how well (or badly) the teams I am following are doing.
The American League Central Division, which I’m focusing on, continues to surprise me with the Detroit Tigers, a flop last year, holding on to their division lead at 48-39. But the Chicago White Sox, last year’s winner, are close behind at 45-43 and the Minnesota Twins just behind them at 45-44. Bringing up the rear are usually-bad Kansas City at 37-51 and the very disappointing Cleveland Indians at 35-54.
I’m also following three other teams closely because of their television coverage in my area: the Chicago Cubs, the Florida Marlins, and the Tampa Bay Rays. All three teams are thick in the hunt for a playoff spot, but none are “in the lead”. The Cubs are tied for third in their division at 43-43, Florida is in second in theirs at 46-44, and defending American League Champion Tampa Bay is in third in their division at 48-41. Any of these teams are capable of surging to get to the playoffs, but I’m realistic enough to know that not all of them are going to accomplish this.
Right now, it looks as if the Boston Red Sox and the Los Angeles Dodgers are the best teams in each league. But the season is long, and who knows how it will end.
The American League Central Division, which I’m focusing on, continues to surprise me with the Detroit Tigers, a flop last year, holding on to their division lead at 48-39. But the Chicago White Sox, last year’s winner, are close behind at 45-43 and the Minnesota Twins just behind them at 45-44. Bringing up the rear are usually-bad Kansas City at 37-51 and the very disappointing Cleveland Indians at 35-54.
I’m also following three other teams closely because of their television coverage in my area: the Chicago Cubs, the Florida Marlins, and the Tampa Bay Rays. All three teams are thick in the hunt for a playoff spot, but none are “in the lead”. The Cubs are tied for third in their division at 43-43, Florida is in second in theirs at 46-44, and defending American League Champion Tampa Bay is in third in their division at 48-41. Any of these teams are capable of surging to get to the playoffs, but I’m realistic enough to know that not all of them are going to accomplish this.
Right now, it looks as if the Boston Red Sox and the Los Angeles Dodgers are the best teams in each league. But the season is long, and who knows how it will end.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Moral Hypocrisy in Politics
Recently, following the revelations about South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s extramarital affair with an Argentine woman, many have charged this politician with hypocrisy. After all, wasn’t it Sanford who, as a congressman in the late 1990s, voted for then-President Clinton’s impeachment on moral grounds? And furthermore, after rejecting stimulus plan funds allocated for the state that he is charged with taking care of, he used taxpayer money for transportation to and from his illicit trysts. Such hypocrisy!
But wait, according to Rush Limbaugh recently, hypocrisy is good! He stated that hypocritical behavior, when exposed, reveals that a society does have moral standards and that they matter. Limbaugh then went further to state that, since Democrats unfortunately tend not to have moral standards, this leads to Republicans being the only party whose politicians suffer from being exposed as hypocrites.
Oh yeah? Then how is it that in New York, arguably one of the most liberal and Democratic states in the country, the elected governor Eliot Spitzer had to resign his post after revelations that he had solicited a prostitute? Folks there were then mighty peeved at Spitzer’s hypocrisy, since he attained the governorship largely on his reputation as a moral, ethical State Attorney. Or what about John Edwards, whose political ambitions disintegrated after it was revealed that he was having an affair while his wife was undergoing treatment for cancer?
But Limbaugh has a convenient (for his profession) capacity to remember what he wants and to forget what he wants. And how many times over the years has he passionately employed the “h” word in reference to those (always politically moderate or liberal) with whom he had ideological differences? But, no, whenever a conservative get into the news and screws up, then it’s a different line: we’re all human, let’s forgive and move on!
I couldn’t care less whether Sanford or Spitzer had affairs or not. It is the question of whether or not they used public money to fund their “outings”. And it’s here that I feel that the charge of hypocrisy is proper, regardless of which party is in power.
But wait, according to Rush Limbaugh recently, hypocrisy is good! He stated that hypocritical behavior, when exposed, reveals that a society does have moral standards and that they matter. Limbaugh then went further to state that, since Democrats unfortunately tend not to have moral standards, this leads to Republicans being the only party whose politicians suffer from being exposed as hypocrites.
Oh yeah? Then how is it that in New York, arguably one of the most liberal and Democratic states in the country, the elected governor Eliot Spitzer had to resign his post after revelations that he had solicited a prostitute? Folks there were then mighty peeved at Spitzer’s hypocrisy, since he attained the governorship largely on his reputation as a moral, ethical State Attorney. Or what about John Edwards, whose political ambitions disintegrated after it was revealed that he was having an affair while his wife was undergoing treatment for cancer?
But Limbaugh has a convenient (for his profession) capacity to remember what he wants and to forget what he wants. And how many times over the years has he passionately employed the “h” word in reference to those (always politically moderate or liberal) with whom he had ideological differences? But, no, whenever a conservative get into the news and screws up, then it’s a different line: we’re all human, let’s forgive and move on!
I couldn’t care less whether Sanford or Spitzer had affairs or not. It is the question of whether or not they used public money to fund their “outings”. And it’s here that I feel that the charge of hypocrisy is proper, regardless of which party is in power.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
My Running, Of Late
Lately I have been continuing at my running, but not at the longer distances that I had been hoping for. One reason for this is that the weather here has been heating up terribly as it usually does during the summertime. And when it is not overbearingly hot, then it is either raining with wet, slippery surfaces or is at nighttime, with poor visibility. I had been leaning toward running at night, even running at times back and forth in my own back yard after midnight. But running down a street at night? Even beyond the paranoid notion that anyone may think a man running down the street at night could only be up to no good, it is truly very difficult then for me to see the surface that I’m running on. And it would take just one trip-up or a step into a hole to cause a serious injury.
When I do run, I almost always run around my neighborhood. I have a 2.87 mile (exactly the same distance as my old Davie “block”) course I’ve laid out over my neighborhood. I’ve found this extremely convenient as I can just step out of my house, run, and then come back in. Also, the course is designed so that, should I need to cut short my running for any reason, I can just walk a relatively short distance back to my house. And so far, I’ve experienced no problems at all with dogs running around loose (as I had feared). When the weather finally does cool down, I can extend my distance by running down other streets. I have extensively used the website MapMyRun to help me design my running courses.
This past Fourth of July, Gainesville had a three mile running race at Westside Park. I didn’t run it, but I was gratified to see the Gainesville Sun newspaper actually feature an article about it the next day, complete with results for all the finishers. If they can just keep up that local sports coverage!
When I do run, I almost always run around my neighborhood. I have a 2.87 mile (exactly the same distance as my old Davie “block”) course I’ve laid out over my neighborhood. I’ve found this extremely convenient as I can just step out of my house, run, and then come back in. Also, the course is designed so that, should I need to cut short my running for any reason, I can just walk a relatively short distance back to my house. And so far, I’ve experienced no problems at all with dogs running around loose (as I had feared). When the weather finally does cool down, I can extend my distance by running down other streets. I have extensively used the website MapMyRun to help me design my running courses.
This past Fourth of July, Gainesville had a three mile running race at Westside Park. I didn’t run it, but I was gratified to see the Gainesville Sun newspaper actually feature an article about it the next day, complete with results for all the finishers. If they can just keep up that local sports coverage!
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Sarah Palin Resigns as Governor
So Sarah Palin is resigning from being governor of Alaska. Had John McCain not mistakenly picked her as his running mate in the 2008 presidential campaign, she would probably be gearing up for reelection in 2010 instead of quitting her post. But it appears that she has become starstruck; the lure of national media exposure, along with the existence of a hardcore right-wing ideological following (like Ann Coulter), has changed this formerly pragmatic and unifying regional politician to a divisive and polarizing presence on the national level.
If Sarah Palin is leaving office because she wants to focus her undivided attention on campaigning for president in 2012, then I understand this. Being governor is much more of a demanding day-to-day job than is being a senator. A governor, like the president on a national level, is the chief executive of an entire state, with many decisions and responsibilities affecting its people. Part of being a chief executive, whether it be of a state or of a nation, is also just being there, making sure that everything is going O.K. and that the government that the governor or president has been elected to lead is functioning effectively in the interests of the people. So Palin’s resignation can be seen as a realization of this and a responsible act from someone who does care about her own state’s interests. The new governor, now-Lt-Governor Parnell, will be able to devote his full attention to taking care of Alaska’s interests.
On the other hand, it may be argued that Palin didn’t even come close to completing one term as governor. And her political résumé is very short to begin with. Plus, the only reason she was picked as McCain’s running mate was to attract disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters from the Democrats in the general presidential election. On top of all this, many conservatives are scratching their heads wondering why she couldn’t have just served the remainder of her one term, which would have ended in January 2011.
Apparently, nowadays it is necessary to begin campaigning for president the minute that the previous election has just ended (although it could be argued that Mitt Romney began campaigning for 2012 the minute he conceded the Republican nomination to McCain in the spring of ’08). I think that Sarah Palin wants to do much as Ronald Reagan successfully did in the mid-to-late seventies.
Ronald Reagan left office as governor of California in January 1975 after his second term expired. He immediately set his sights on taking the 1976 Republican presidential nomination from sitting President Gerald Ford, coming very close to pulling this off. For the next four years, Reagan became a columnist and a media commentator, which kept him in the spotlight without labeling him as a perpetual campaigner. And this is the mold in which Palin is trying to fit.
But it won’t work, in my opinion. Reagan was a very genial soul who laughed off criticisms and befriended ideological opponents. Palin, on the other hand, takes all criticisms very personally and uses what she regards as humor to personally attack others. She may want to emulate Reagan, but I see her in reality as emulating one of Reagan’s contemporaries: Richard Nixon, the master of the “enemies list”.
If Sarah Palin is leaving office because she wants to focus her undivided attention on campaigning for president in 2012, then I understand this. Being governor is much more of a demanding day-to-day job than is being a senator. A governor, like the president on a national level, is the chief executive of an entire state, with many decisions and responsibilities affecting its people. Part of being a chief executive, whether it be of a state or of a nation, is also just being there, making sure that everything is going O.K. and that the government that the governor or president has been elected to lead is functioning effectively in the interests of the people. So Palin’s resignation can be seen as a realization of this and a responsible act from someone who does care about her own state’s interests. The new governor, now-Lt-Governor Parnell, will be able to devote his full attention to taking care of Alaska’s interests.
On the other hand, it may be argued that Palin didn’t even come close to completing one term as governor. And her political résumé is very short to begin with. Plus, the only reason she was picked as McCain’s running mate was to attract disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters from the Democrats in the general presidential election. On top of all this, many conservatives are scratching their heads wondering why she couldn’t have just served the remainder of her one term, which would have ended in January 2011.
Apparently, nowadays it is necessary to begin campaigning for president the minute that the previous election has just ended (although it could be argued that Mitt Romney began campaigning for 2012 the minute he conceded the Republican nomination to McCain in the spring of ’08). I think that Sarah Palin wants to do much as Ronald Reagan successfully did in the mid-to-late seventies.
Ronald Reagan left office as governor of California in January 1975 after his second term expired. He immediately set his sights on taking the 1976 Republican presidential nomination from sitting President Gerald Ford, coming very close to pulling this off. For the next four years, Reagan became a columnist and a media commentator, which kept him in the spotlight without labeling him as a perpetual campaigner. And this is the mold in which Palin is trying to fit.
But it won’t work, in my opinion. Reagan was a very genial soul who laughed off criticisms and befriended ideological opponents. Palin, on the other hand, takes all criticisms very personally and uses what she regards as humor to personally attack others. She may want to emulate Reagan, but I see her in reality as emulating one of Reagan’s contemporaries: Richard Nixon, the master of the “enemies list”.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Not Rooting For the Superstar
Lance Armstrong is back in business, pursuing the lead in his comeback bid during the Tour de France bicycle race. And now the media is putting out long articles and news segments on this race. The French Tour has been largely ignored since Armstrong’s past “retirement” from the sport after he achieved his seventh Tour title.
I have seen Armstrong training, and he uses a lot of expensive technology that employs computers analyzing his bicycling movements to give him feedback as to the most efficient way to pedal. Other bicyclists possessing less wealth or who don’t have the connections that Armstrong has are not able to compete at this level. So what we see on the race course, where hundreds of bicyclists are apparently on the same course and also apparently are on an equal “footing”, is just an illusion: those with the advantages of advanced, expensive training will succeed while the others will drop back into the field.
I will not be rooting for Lance Armstrong in this year’s Tour de France. Nor will I be following it on television (there is a channel that has continuous coverage). Why? Because when Armstrong isn’t in the race, there is more spread out coverage of the race. But when Armstrong is in it, the attention focuses on him and his supporting team. The unspoken presumption is that he is the only bicyclist that anyone cares about!
Bicycling is a sport of margins. There isn’t very much difference between a champion and an also-ran. Getting the edge over other competitors not only requires special training; apparently a team of self-sacrificial bicyclists needs to be there to help the “champ” pace himself and strategically place himself in relation to his opponents. So when I’m watching the race, I see that many of the participants aren’t in it to win; they’re just sycophants of the team leader! And I have a problem with that. I’m not judging Armstrong, either. He is simply taking advantage of the considerably better resources available to him to optimize his performance.
The whole idea of bicycle riding, as I see it, is based on the notion that, in the midst of our technology-crazed society, a person can still get on a relatively simple vehicle and get around pretty doggone fast! I like to at least pretend that this is also true when applied to high-level athletic competition. But it seems that athletics, which I would have thought championed human performance as being separate from technology, has instead embraced that technology, even to the point of merging with it.
At this writing, it looks as if Lance Armstrong has a good chance to win the Tour de France again. So why should I root for this already extremely-wealthy glory seeker? Or even for any fellow American? Why not just pick out someone from another country and root for him instead?
I have seen Armstrong training, and he uses a lot of expensive technology that employs computers analyzing his bicycling movements to give him feedback as to the most efficient way to pedal. Other bicyclists possessing less wealth or who don’t have the connections that Armstrong has are not able to compete at this level. So what we see on the race course, where hundreds of bicyclists are apparently on the same course and also apparently are on an equal “footing”, is just an illusion: those with the advantages of advanced, expensive training will succeed while the others will drop back into the field.
I will not be rooting for Lance Armstrong in this year’s Tour de France. Nor will I be following it on television (there is a channel that has continuous coverage). Why? Because when Armstrong isn’t in the race, there is more spread out coverage of the race. But when Armstrong is in it, the attention focuses on him and his supporting team. The unspoken presumption is that he is the only bicyclist that anyone cares about!
Bicycling is a sport of margins. There isn’t very much difference between a champion and an also-ran. Getting the edge over other competitors not only requires special training; apparently a team of self-sacrificial bicyclists needs to be there to help the “champ” pace himself and strategically place himself in relation to his opponents. So when I’m watching the race, I see that many of the participants aren’t in it to win; they’re just sycophants of the team leader! And I have a problem with that. I’m not judging Armstrong, either. He is simply taking advantage of the considerably better resources available to him to optimize his performance.
The whole idea of bicycle riding, as I see it, is based on the notion that, in the midst of our technology-crazed society, a person can still get on a relatively simple vehicle and get around pretty doggone fast! I like to at least pretend that this is also true when applied to high-level athletic competition. But it seems that athletics, which I would have thought championed human performance as being separate from technology, has instead embraced that technology, even to the point of merging with it.
At this writing, it looks as if Lance Armstrong has a good chance to win the Tour de France again. So why should I root for this already extremely-wealthy glory seeker? Or even for any fellow American? Why not just pick out someone from another country and root for him instead?
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Home in the Savanna
[In the morning]
My lawn is turning into a savanna of high grass. Why? I had let it grow for about a week after the previous mowing and was going to mow it again. But for the past few days, we've been getting rain. And rain. And more rain. And I'm really not keen on mowing sopping wet grass! And since the rain just speeds up its growth, the grass just keeps getting higher and higher.
I know people who get up in the morning just to work in their yards all day, gardening and maintaining their lawns with tender, loving care. And I respect them for that, as it is their passion in life to do this. But it's not mine. Yes, I live in a house with a lawn and some bushes and trees, but I'm definitely a minimalist when it comes to lawn maintenance. I have quite a healthy mix of different varieties of grass comprising my lawn. Others may call them "weeds"; I refer to them as "indigenous flora". When I see a fire ant hill, I calmly put some fire ant killer on it and then ignore it. When I see evidence of a mole's activity just under the surface, it matters not to me. And use treatments or fertilizers on my lawn? Forget it!
I really don't like the grass getting this high, though. Although I don't like my lawn mower blades getting wet, I may just have to go ahead and mow some, thoroughly wiping the blades dry afterward.
Although I'm not a lawn and garden enthusiast, I actually usually do enjoy mowing the lawn (with my gasoline-powered push mower). I either put on my radio headset or my MP3 and I'm good to go! This time around, though, I'd better be on guard for wild animals lurking in the savanna!
***************************
[Later in the afternoon]
Hooray, I just mowed my front lawn! The rain actually stopped for a little while. The ground under the surface was so saturated with water that my lightweight lawn mower's wheels cut deep grooves into the ground. There, that should keep the codes enforcement people at bay for a while. Next, the back yard (which is twice the size of the front).
My lawn is turning into a savanna of high grass. Why? I had let it grow for about a week after the previous mowing and was going to mow it again. But for the past few days, we've been getting rain. And rain. And more rain. And I'm really not keen on mowing sopping wet grass! And since the rain just speeds up its growth, the grass just keeps getting higher and higher.
I know people who get up in the morning just to work in their yards all day, gardening and maintaining their lawns with tender, loving care. And I respect them for that, as it is their passion in life to do this. But it's not mine. Yes, I live in a house with a lawn and some bushes and trees, but I'm definitely a minimalist when it comes to lawn maintenance. I have quite a healthy mix of different varieties of grass comprising my lawn. Others may call them "weeds"; I refer to them as "indigenous flora". When I see a fire ant hill, I calmly put some fire ant killer on it and then ignore it. When I see evidence of a mole's activity just under the surface, it matters not to me. And use treatments or fertilizers on my lawn? Forget it!
I really don't like the grass getting this high, though. Although I don't like my lawn mower blades getting wet, I may just have to go ahead and mow some, thoroughly wiping the blades dry afterward.
Although I'm not a lawn and garden enthusiast, I actually usually do enjoy mowing the lawn (with my gasoline-powered push mower). I either put on my radio headset or my MP3 and I'm good to go! This time around, though, I'd better be on guard for wild animals lurking in the savanna!
***************************
[Later in the afternoon]
Hooray, I just mowed my front lawn! The rain actually stopped for a little while. The ground under the surface was so saturated with water that my lightweight lawn mower's wheels cut deep grooves into the ground. There, that should keep the codes enforcement people at bay for a while. Next, the back yard (which is twice the size of the front).
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
WUFT Drops Classical Music
Now that my local Public Radio station, 89.1/WUFT, has decided to cave in to a few loud voices and stop broadcasting classical music in favor of talk and news, The Gainesville Sun, which was responsible for creating this phony controversy in the first place through its editorial pages, is now printing letter after letter decrying the change (which takes effect August 3).
In Monday’s editorial section, they printed a long letter by Mickie Edwardson (a retired UF professor) opposing the programming change. She notes that the biggest contributions to WUFT during fund drives always come during the times that they play classical music. And that the proposed added news/talk shows are very, very expensive. Edwardson, like me in a previous blog article, also points out that WUFT was already providing a great diversity of programming, not just classical music. And finally, she gives as an example the case of the Jacksonville Public Radio station, which (according to her) had done what WUFT is planning to do and then found out that it needed to restore some classical music in its programming.
Regarding the Jacksonville station (its call letters are WJCT), it is definitely airing talk/news programming most of the day and evening. But late at night, it does play classical music. WUFT, on the other hand, has always played jazz in the late night hours. I often listen to WJCT on my car radio when driving home from work, but its signal is generally not strong enough for other radios of mine.
It is true that Gainesville is a cultural center in north central Florida, and that many of its residents are patrons of the arts, especially classical music. But Gainesville is also an academic center as well as a more politically liberal “island” in a vast sea of conservative political sentiments. And all of the available commercial talk radio stations are either sports talk or extreme right-wing conservative talk. It would be nice to tune in to a station that at least displayed a sense of objectivity in its political outlook.
Once again, here is my lament: everybody picks on the one Public Radio station to criticize and ignores the many commercial stations that are dropping the ball with their programming, apparently because the public has now bought the line that the marketplace alone should determine what their programming is. But there are still laws on the books that mandate programming that serves the public interests on these stations as well, even with the Fairness Doctrine having been revoked.
In the middle of her article, Mickie Edwardson asks, “If Classic 89 doesn’t provide this music, where will people get it?” I have to presume that she meant “from off the radio dial”, because I can still gain access to classical music through other means. My local public library has an enormous number and variety of classical music CDs that I can check out for listening. My desktop computer has access to the Internet, which has many free classical music web stations to listen to. And my television service has some music channels on it as well, two of which are solely devoted to playing classical music.
I think that the question Mickie Edwardson was asking was posed in the sense of introducing and exposing the general public to classical music in the most accessible manner possible. And this would have been through the radio. But I have already pretty much written off radio anyway, getting more and more of what it used to provide from the Internet.
In Monday’s editorial section, they printed a long letter by Mickie Edwardson (a retired UF professor) opposing the programming change. She notes that the biggest contributions to WUFT during fund drives always come during the times that they play classical music. And that the proposed added news/talk shows are very, very expensive. Edwardson, like me in a previous blog article, also points out that WUFT was already providing a great diversity of programming, not just classical music. And finally, she gives as an example the case of the Jacksonville Public Radio station, which (according to her) had done what WUFT is planning to do and then found out that it needed to restore some classical music in its programming.
Regarding the Jacksonville station (its call letters are WJCT), it is definitely airing talk/news programming most of the day and evening. But late at night, it does play classical music. WUFT, on the other hand, has always played jazz in the late night hours. I often listen to WJCT on my car radio when driving home from work, but its signal is generally not strong enough for other radios of mine.
It is true that Gainesville is a cultural center in north central Florida, and that many of its residents are patrons of the arts, especially classical music. But Gainesville is also an academic center as well as a more politically liberal “island” in a vast sea of conservative political sentiments. And all of the available commercial talk radio stations are either sports talk or extreme right-wing conservative talk. It would be nice to tune in to a station that at least displayed a sense of objectivity in its political outlook.
Once again, here is my lament: everybody picks on the one Public Radio station to criticize and ignores the many commercial stations that are dropping the ball with their programming, apparently because the public has now bought the line that the marketplace alone should determine what their programming is. But there are still laws on the books that mandate programming that serves the public interests on these stations as well, even with the Fairness Doctrine having been revoked.
In the middle of her article, Mickie Edwardson asks, “If Classic 89 doesn’t provide this music, where will people get it?” I have to presume that she meant “from off the radio dial”, because I can still gain access to classical music through other means. My local public library has an enormous number and variety of classical music CDs that I can check out for listening. My desktop computer has access to the Internet, which has many free classical music web stations to listen to. And my television service has some music channels on it as well, two of which are solely devoted to playing classical music.
I think that the question Mickie Edwardson was asking was posed in the sense of introducing and exposing the general public to classical music in the most accessible manner possible. And this would have been through the radio. But I have already pretty much written off radio anyway, getting more and more of what it used to provide from the Internet.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Michael Jackson’s Death
I have tended to downplay the recent death of Michael Jackson. I am sorry that he died, but I am generally sorry when people die anyway. He was a very successful entertainer who surrounded himself with “yes” people and came to regard himself as a messiah figure and his fans as “his children”. That I just couldn’t take. I don’t care one way or another about his repeated surgeries and skin treatments that drastically altered his physical appearance. If he wanted to look a certain way, then that was his own business. And I’m not at all convinced that he ever had any designs on children that exceeded the most purely innocent of intentions. But since he was accused in the past of such nefarious designs, in the eyes of many in our society, he stands convicted solely on account of those accusations. Not from me, though.
I never cared too much for Michael Jackson’s stage performance, which even with my limited knowledge of dancing seemed to me to be overly repetitive. And I didn’t care at all for most of his over-produced and over-hyped videos. No, I was interested in his well-crafted studio music. And his best works by far were his Off the Wall and Thriller albums. But although I liked them, they still don’t figure as personal favorites of mine. I can pretty much count on one hand the Michael Jackson songs that really “grabbed” me: I Want to Be Where You Are (from 1972), Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough and Rock With You (from Off the Wall), P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing, from Thriller), and Man in the Mirror (from Bad). True, Off the Wall and Thriller had a continuity of good music in them, but most of the tracks were good, not super-great, listening.
Hopefully, all of the legal wrangling falling out from Michael Jackson’s death won’t wreck too many lives. Like many, the only party that I really care about is his children and that they are properly cared for. But this excessive public outpouring I’m seeing over him borders on the creepy (to me).
I never cared too much for Michael Jackson’s stage performance, which even with my limited knowledge of dancing seemed to me to be overly repetitive. And I didn’t care at all for most of his over-produced and over-hyped videos. No, I was interested in his well-crafted studio music. And his best works by far were his Off the Wall and Thriller albums. But although I liked them, they still don’t figure as personal favorites of mine. I can pretty much count on one hand the Michael Jackson songs that really “grabbed” me: I Want to Be Where You Are (from 1972), Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough and Rock With You (from Off the Wall), P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing, from Thriller), and Man in the Mirror (from Bad). True, Off the Wall and Thriller had a continuity of good music in them, but most of the tracks were good, not super-great, listening.
Hopefully, all of the legal wrangling falling out from Michael Jackson’s death won’t wreck too many lives. Like many, the only party that I really care about is his children and that they are properly cared for. But this excessive public outpouring I’m seeing over him borders on the creepy (to me).
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Happy Fourth of July
I'm taking a little time off from this blog, starting today. In a few days I should be back. Happy Independence Day!
Friday, July 3, 2009
Climbing Radio Towers
Although my instincts for self-preservation are very strong and probably would prevent me from doing this, I have a very strong desire, whenever I pass a tall radio tower (or any tower with those little built-in ladders extending to its summit), to scale the usually barbed-wire fence surrounding it and climb the tower to the top. And I also wonder how long (assuming I made it over the fence, that is) I could climb the ladder on one of these towers before people on the outside would notice. Also, do they all have someone there guarding the place, or is it assumed that (1) the barbed wire is enough of a deterrent and (2) no one would be foolhardy enough to try to scale the tower, anyway?
I think that my main reason for this attraction to high towers is the complete lack of thrill rides and theme parks in the Gainesville area in which I live. The closest thing to a thrill ride is the swivel chair that I sit on at my computer, (if you discount the little water slide at my municipal pool, that is).
Still, even when I’m actually at a theme park looking up at the imposing roller coasters, I sometimes feel that it would be more of a thrill were I a maintenance worker there with the duty of climbing up the flimsy-looking ladders on these rides to inspect them.
Wanting to climb things goes way back in my life to my childhood, when I would habitually climb the furniture around the house. Once, when I was very little, I was climbing a large chest of drawers when I pulled it down on top of me. I just quietly lay there with the chest of drawers sitting on top of me until my mother came back to see what caused the crash. I also used to, as a kid (and without my parents ever finding out) climb the hallway walls up to the ceiling by pushing my feet against either side. I also became an avid tree-climber, taking chances at times up there in the high branches that now make me shake my head at my own youthful foolishness.
Maybe I need to investigate rock-climbing as a hobby, starting with those plastic rocks. There are a couple of places in town with them. Or…wait, Williston, a few miles southwest of Gainesville, does have a skydiving club!
I think that my main reason for this attraction to high towers is the complete lack of thrill rides and theme parks in the Gainesville area in which I live. The closest thing to a thrill ride is the swivel chair that I sit on at my computer, (if you discount the little water slide at my municipal pool, that is).
Still, even when I’m actually at a theme park looking up at the imposing roller coasters, I sometimes feel that it would be more of a thrill were I a maintenance worker there with the duty of climbing up the flimsy-looking ladders on these rides to inspect them.
Wanting to climb things goes way back in my life to my childhood, when I would habitually climb the furniture around the house. Once, when I was very little, I was climbing a large chest of drawers when I pulled it down on top of me. I just quietly lay there with the chest of drawers sitting on top of me until my mother came back to see what caused the crash. I also used to, as a kid (and without my parents ever finding out) climb the hallway walls up to the ceiling by pushing my feet against either side. I also became an avid tree-climber, taking chances at times up there in the high branches that now make me shake my head at my own youthful foolishness.
Maybe I need to investigate rock-climbing as a hobby, starting with those plastic rocks. There are a couple of places in town with them. Or…wait, Williston, a few miles southwest of Gainesville, does have a skydiving club!
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Cops and Gator Football Jocks Team Up
I read in the local newspaper a few days ago that the Gainesville Police Department and the University of Florida football team were going to “team up”, with Gator players riding with the police on their patrols. This is apparently a public relations stunt designed to repair the reputations of the two sides, both of which have received some bad press recently. The police have been implicated in an egg-throwing vandalism incident and several UF players have been arrested for various crimes recently.
Which brings me to the following potential scenario: Tim Tebow is riding next to Officer Smith, and Officer Smith gets a call that leads to…you guessed it…a physically unruly teammate of Tebow’s caught breaking the law. And the policeman calls out for Tebow to help in subduing the suspect. Now I ask, “WWTD” in this type of situation?
Or take another scenario. An irate motorist has been pulled over speeding a little over the limit or for some other minor infraction. How is seeing a University of Florida football player sitting next to the ticketing officer going to improve the police’s standing with that motorist? Wouldn’t that just serve to diminish UF’s standing instead?
It also sets up a dilemma at coffee shops. Do the employees offer free coffees to both the police and the football players, or do the jocks alone have to pay for their drinks? And if they’re given free drinks, isn’t this a violation of the NCAA’s asinine rules about material compensation for their supposedly “amateur” athletes? Wait until that new obnoxious, tattletale Tennessee coach hears about this!
Well, I read about this teaming up of Gator pigskin jocks with cops a while back and I haven’t seen any such pairings. But then again, other than with Tebow, how would I recognize an individual as being a Gator football player anyway unless he was in his uniform, complete with helmet and shoulder pads? Now seeing them like that in police cars would definitely change the public’s attitude toward both parties. Toward extreme laughter.
Which brings me to the following potential scenario: Tim Tebow is riding next to Officer Smith, and Officer Smith gets a call that leads to…you guessed it…a physically unruly teammate of Tebow’s caught breaking the law. And the policeman calls out for Tebow to help in subduing the suspect. Now I ask, “WWTD” in this type of situation?
Or take another scenario. An irate motorist has been pulled over speeding a little over the limit or for some other minor infraction. How is seeing a University of Florida football player sitting next to the ticketing officer going to improve the police’s standing with that motorist? Wouldn’t that just serve to diminish UF’s standing instead?
It also sets up a dilemma at coffee shops. Do the employees offer free coffees to both the police and the football players, or do the jocks alone have to pay for their drinks? And if they’re given free drinks, isn’t this a violation of the NCAA’s asinine rules about material compensation for their supposedly “amateur” athletes? Wait until that new obnoxious, tattletale Tennessee coach hears about this!
Well, I read about this teaming up of Gator pigskin jocks with cops a while back and I haven’t seen any such pairings. But then again, other than with Tebow, how would I recognize an individual as being a Gator football player anyway unless he was in his uniform, complete with helmet and shoulder pads? Now seeing them like that in police cars would definitely change the public’s attitude toward both parties. Toward extreme laughter.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Senator Franken, Finally
The Minnesota Supreme Court has finally gotten around to voting, at their unreasonably (to me) leisurely pace, 5-0 to affirm Democrat Al Franken as Minnesota's junior U.S. Senator yesterday. GOP loser Norm Coleman, soon after the ruling, conceded the election to Franken, averting an even longer drawn-out appeal process to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the Gopher State's Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty has said that he will promptly sign the necessary certificate to allow the winner into the Senate.
Well, it's about time! A lot of the blame can be pinned on Coleman for being a sore loser. Certainly those Republicans (and others) who thought this about Al Gore in 2000 (who caused George W. Bush to miss not even one minute in office) can see this. Al Franken has missed six crucial months in office when he could have been an important factor in a new president's legislative agenda. How would Coleman have liked it if the shoe were on the other foot and it was Franken holding HIM up from taking his Senate seat?
But I think there is more to this delay than Norm Coleman. The Republican Party has embarked on an obstructionist strategy ever since the new Congress and President have taken office this year. In Congress, especially the Senate, they have used every trick in the rules book to hold up bills and presidential nominations. This even includes bills and nominees that the GOP had no particular objection to. The idea, apparently, is to slow down everything in order to keep as much legislation they disagree with from becoming law. Well, once again I say them, "You guys lost the election! The American people chose the Democrats and their agenda this time around. Better luck next time!"
I think Al Franken will be an excellent senator. I've read a couple of his books and, if they are any indication as to which issues matter the most to him and how he will vote, then his tenure in office will be a pleasure for me to follow.
I can't wait for the moment when I tune in to C-Span2 and see Senator Al Franken sitting up there, presiding over the United States Senate with a gavel in his hand and his trademark infectious grin stretching from ear to ear!
Well, it's about time! A lot of the blame can be pinned on Coleman for being a sore loser. Certainly those Republicans (and others) who thought this about Al Gore in 2000 (who caused George W. Bush to miss not even one minute in office) can see this. Al Franken has missed six crucial months in office when he could have been an important factor in a new president's legislative agenda. How would Coleman have liked it if the shoe were on the other foot and it was Franken holding HIM up from taking his Senate seat?
But I think there is more to this delay than Norm Coleman. The Republican Party has embarked on an obstructionist strategy ever since the new Congress and President have taken office this year. In Congress, especially the Senate, they have used every trick in the rules book to hold up bills and presidential nominations. This even includes bills and nominees that the GOP had no particular objection to. The idea, apparently, is to slow down everything in order to keep as much legislation they disagree with from becoming law. Well, once again I say them, "You guys lost the election! The American people chose the Democrats and their agenda this time around. Better luck next time!"
I think Al Franken will be an excellent senator. I've read a couple of his books and, if they are any indication as to which issues matter the most to him and how he will vote, then his tenure in office will be a pleasure for me to follow.
I can't wait for the moment when I tune in to C-Span2 and see Senator Al Franken sitting up there, presiding over the United States Senate with a gavel in his hand and his trademark infectious grin stretching from ear to ear!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
