Every few months, my local newspaper The Gainesville Sun puts out a special section in which every convicted sex offender living in the county is prominently displayed, with their pictures and current addresses. There are some pretty vicious types included here, but there are also plenty of borderline cases as well. For example, often it happens that a young adult male will have a sexual relationship with a girl in her late teens (but under 18). Usually nothing comes of this, but if a disgruntled relative chooses to file a complaint, that young man can come out of the experience with his life essentially ruined, cast as a sex offender alongside the forcible rapists and child molesters. And usually, such a person is not in a position of wealth or influence to manipulate the legal system with high-priced attorneys or special plea deals. With this in mind, let's go look at Roman Polanski's legal situation.
Roman Polanski is a famous, critically-acclaimed, and award-winning film director whose personal life has been scarred by terrible tragedies. His mother was a victim of Hitler's atrocities at Auschwitz and his wife, actress Sharon Tate, was brutally murdered by the Manson gang in 1969. But in 1977, Polanski pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year old girl (which is statutory rape) in California. He claimed that he had struck a plea bargain with the presiding judge, who subsequently went back on the deal. Polanski then fled the country and hasn't returned since. This past weekend, the 76-year old director was arrested in Switzerland and will undergo extradition hearings for his return to the United States.
From what I have read in the Associated Press article in front of me, Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, had reached a settlement with him many years ago over the incident and wants all charges dropped. And that incident did happen 32 years ago, with Polanski now in his late seventies, by all accounts a reasonably-advanced age.
But what about the poorer and less-connected folks who have paid their debts to society but have to bear the stigma of their crimes for the rest of their humble lives? Sounds like a major example of a double standard here. I have nothing personally against Mr. Polanski, and I thought his 1974 movie Chinatown was one of the greatest films ever made. His tragic personal life elicits sympathy from me, as well it should from all of us. But justice should be blind and fair. If others are forced to carry an enormous burden for their crimes, even after they have served their sentences, then this fugitive should at least be forced to show some public accountability for his. Instead, I see him surrounded by slavish admirers who are indignant about their idol's arrest, and who apparently think (and may be correct) that there are two sets of laws: one for the "little people", and one for celebrities like Roman Polanski.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Slapstick Lost
Recently I was browsing the movies section of my local library. The pickings were slim, not that I'm complaining. After all, I'm grateful for whatever I can check out for free from my library. This time I came up with an old Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes flick (The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes) and a tape with three old Three Stooges shorts, all of them classics starring Curly Howard. The Holmes movie was predictable and passable, but when I got to Moe, Larry, and Curly, I ran into a wall.
As I watched the slapstick trio perform their stunts, I began to ask myself what I ever saw in them. They weren't funny at all; there was no depth to anything in the films. Finally, I had to shut off the tape because I couldn't stand it any more.
As a kid, I liked the Three Stooges. But it was a period in the fall of 1975 when I stopped being a fan of theirs and became a fanatic. Miami's then independent TV station WCIX/Channel 6 would offer a mid-afternoon hour-long show of Three Stooges shorts on weekdays. And I would sit there watching them all, cackling to high heaven in the process. I remember thinking then what talented artists the Three Stooges were and how they had such a pulse on what was really funny. What happened during the last 34 years?
Somewhere along the line, I got the idea that for something to be funny, it had to have some kind of intellectual or satirical value to it. I lost the capacity to perceive humor in simple, fun slapstick comedy. Sure, those old Three Stooges comedies were terribly flawed at times (sometimes playing up to racial stereotypes of that era). But they did have their hilarious moments. Example: the "boys" once had a job delivering ice to a ritzy home, situated at the summit of a long series of steps. Curly repeatedly struggled up the stairs lugging a big block of ice, only to have a tiny, dripping cube remaining when he reached the top. Doing this over and over again may have seemed pointless, but it was all in the timing and HOW it was done. The Stooges injected their infectious personalities into their comedy, and I think that, on some subconscious level, I regarded them as friends.
So I'm going back to that tape and trying to see things a little more as I did back when simple absurdities used to crack me up a lot more.
As I watched the slapstick trio perform their stunts, I began to ask myself what I ever saw in them. They weren't funny at all; there was no depth to anything in the films. Finally, I had to shut off the tape because I couldn't stand it any more.
As a kid, I liked the Three Stooges. But it was a period in the fall of 1975 when I stopped being a fan of theirs and became a fanatic. Miami's then independent TV station WCIX/Channel 6 would offer a mid-afternoon hour-long show of Three Stooges shorts on weekdays. And I would sit there watching them all, cackling to high heaven in the process. I remember thinking then what talented artists the Three Stooges were and how they had such a pulse on what was really funny. What happened during the last 34 years?
Somewhere along the line, I got the idea that for something to be funny, it had to have some kind of intellectual or satirical value to it. I lost the capacity to perceive humor in simple, fun slapstick comedy. Sure, those old Three Stooges comedies were terribly flawed at times (sometimes playing up to racial stereotypes of that era). But they did have their hilarious moments. Example: the "boys" once had a job delivering ice to a ritzy home, situated at the summit of a long series of steps. Curly repeatedly struggled up the stairs lugging a big block of ice, only to have a tiny, dripping cube remaining when he reached the top. Doing this over and over again may have seemed pointless, but it was all in the timing and HOW it was done. The Stooges injected their infectious personalities into their comedy, and I think that, on some subconscious level, I regarded them as friends.
So I'm going back to that tape and trying to see things a little more as I did back when simple absurdities used to crack me up a lot more.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Gainesville's Possum Creek Park
Last Friday, on my way back home from getting my flu shot, I finally decided to stop off at the city park closest to my home: Possum Creek Park, at 4009 NW 53 Avenue. This park, originally just a big field where soccer games were occasionally held, has evolved over the past few years into a multifaceted park, with an excellent children's play area, a covered picnic section, a vast field, the field's perimeter as a suitable jogging path, and a rudimentary hiking trail through the adjacent woods.
More work is still needed to make that hiking trail "work". Unlike the other three city parks I've been to so far [1][2][3], this trail has only a small, temporary sign marking its entrance. The path itself isn't very clear, either. And there were no benches along the path for visitors to rest on. But the biggest problem I saw with it was when I reached a small creek (presumably Possum Creek). Instead of a small wooden bridge over it, there were two small, very wobbly logs that even a raccoon might have second thoughts crossing. Beyond the "crossing", I could see the trail continuing further.
I love Possum Creek Park's gigantic field, and I'm confident that more work will be done on the trail. I plan to make a follow-up visit in a few weeks to see if I'm right about that. I've read in my local newspaper that plans are afoot to add a small skateboard practice area to the park. I support this, as the park has more than plenty of space to accommodate some skateboarding. But the proposal has elicited heated editorial letters opposing it. I can't understand why people who may never have had any inclination to write a letter to the editor suddenly feel that this is such a major issue in their lives, with all of the much more significant controversies surrounding us!
Here are some of the customary photos of my visit.
More work is still needed to make that hiking trail "work". Unlike the other three city parks I've been to so far [1][2][3], this trail has only a small, temporary sign marking its entrance. The path itself isn't very clear, either. And there were no benches along the path for visitors to rest on. But the biggest problem I saw with it was when I reached a small creek (presumably Possum Creek). Instead of a small wooden bridge over it, there were two small, very wobbly logs that even a raccoon might have second thoughts crossing. Beyond the "crossing", I could see the trail continuing further.
I love Possum Creek Park's gigantic field, and I'm confident that more work will be done on the trail. I plan to make a follow-up visit in a few weeks to see if I'm right about that. I've read in my local newspaper that plans are afoot to add a small skateboard practice area to the park. I support this, as the park has more than plenty of space to accommodate some skateboarding. But the proposal has elicited heated editorial letters opposing it. I can't understand why people who may never have had any inclination to write a letter to the editor suddenly feel that this is such a major issue in their lives, with all of the much more significant controversies surrounding us!
Here are some of the customary photos of my visit.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Minor, Embarrassing Blog Errors
I don't know whether or not you, the reader of this article, have your own blog or not. But if you do, you may be like me in that I like to occasionally go back and read previous blog articles I've written. And for the most part, I come away from my reading trip into the past with the eerie feeling that someone else wrote my stuff; I would not have been capable of it. But then something often appears to jerk me back into reality and convince myself of their true authorship.
That "something" is a goofup in my word usage or grammar that I should have picked up before my original publication. After all, I usually check over each article five or six times (along with spell check) before publishing it. Even after publication, I will often miss a mistake while re-reading it. But then I'll suddenly discover an error and be thoroughly embarrassed for a couple of minutes while I go about correcting it. While doing this, I am usually wondering how many people from different parts of the world noticed it and came to the conclusion that I was a completely uneducated doofus/klutz!
This leads me to wonder whether or not it would be more effective to have another proof-read my articles instead of doing it myself. For when I read my own work, I am reading it as my mind would want it to appear, not necessarily as it actually is. I've discovered the same phenomenon when proof-reading papers written by my wife or my children. They will have already checked their own work and then let me look at it, with me pointing out various obvious mistakes that they overlooked. It's almost as if, in the act of writing, we mentally save a copy of our product. And when reading what we've actually written, we instead read our intended product instead of what is actually on the screen or the paper.
I am definitely not of the same writing ilk as that of the late science fiction legend Robert Heinlein, who once claimed that he was so confident about his writing that he never went back over his manuscripts once he had written them; he would just send them straight to his publisher. But then again, I don't know that his publisher didn't employ some folks who discretely polished up the self-assured legend's rough spots!
That "something" is a goofup in my word usage or grammar that I should have picked up before my original publication. After all, I usually check over each article five or six times (along with spell check) before publishing it. Even after publication, I will often miss a mistake while re-reading it. But then I'll suddenly discover an error and be thoroughly embarrassed for a couple of minutes while I go about correcting it. While doing this, I am usually wondering how many people from different parts of the world noticed it and came to the conclusion that I was a completely uneducated doofus/klutz!
This leads me to wonder whether or not it would be more effective to have another proof-read my articles instead of doing it myself. For when I read my own work, I am reading it as my mind would want it to appear, not necessarily as it actually is. I've discovered the same phenomenon when proof-reading papers written by my wife or my children. They will have already checked their own work and then let me look at it, with me pointing out various obvious mistakes that they overlooked. It's almost as if, in the act of writing, we mentally save a copy of our product. And when reading what we've actually written, we instead read our intended product instead of what is actually on the screen or the paper.
I am definitely not of the same writing ilk as that of the late science fiction legend Robert Heinlein, who once claimed that he was so confident about his writing that he never went back over his manuscripts once he had written them; he would just send them straight to his publisher. But then again, I don't know that his publisher didn't employ some folks who discretely polished up the self-assured legend's rough spots!
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Dim View of UF Streetlights
I got off early from work the other night, around 11 pm. I decided to drive around the University of Florida campus and see whether I could find a well-lit stretch of sidewalk to run on. I had run in the past around the campus in the daytime and had a great time then. My reasoning was that running at night would be better: I could easily find a place to park my car and the temperature would be cooler and more pleasant for a good jog. I wanted at least to be able to have a visible surface to run on so that I could avoid obstacles (and injury).
Well, I drove and drove. Nothing was well-lit, but there were plenty of shadowy shapes (I'm presuming they were UF students) walking around the very dimly lit campus. If I were one of them, I wouldn't be too happy having to walk around late at night with such poor lighting. The street lamps seemed to be of a sickly dampened pink that did precious little to illuminate the area. I tell you, it may have been tough on the students, but it was tougher with me, since I had to be extremely careful to avoid running over some of the human shadows who seemed to leap out into the street from the darkness.
Just as I was getting close to ending my fruitless drive around campus, I approached Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, where the football team plays its home games (and the Goodyear blimp hovers overhead, and the deer and the antelope play). Suddenly, the lighting became very bright around the deserted pigskin coliseum. I looked over to my left at the O'Connell Center, where the basketball team plays its home games. Once again, bright lights bathed this entire deserted area. But once I got to University Avenue and turned right, the crappily-lit gloom returned, and with it, the many shadow figures scurrying about.
Why do I get the feeling that there are two UFs? One is the financially-strapped academic University of Florida with its budget cuts, departmental closings, higher tuition, curtailed student admission and enrollment, and staff layoffs. The other is the Gator Nation, rolling over in money with lavish sums spent on facilities, equipment, and staff.
I can't say whether or not the different emphases on quality night lighting is part of the dichotomy between academics and athletics there. It just struck me as being awfully stupid. What the hell is going on at my old alma mater? In any event, night running there is off. I did run around my block the other night, and I have a well-worn "micro"-course in my backyard that I've run on quite a lot late at night. I guess for the time being that'll have to do.
Oh, by the way, Gainesville city streetlights suck, too! Walking the streets around here at night is like walking through the setting for a horror movie. The only things missing are the zombies!
Well, I drove and drove. Nothing was well-lit, but there were plenty of shadowy shapes (I'm presuming they were UF students) walking around the very dimly lit campus. If I were one of them, I wouldn't be too happy having to walk around late at night with such poor lighting. The street lamps seemed to be of a sickly dampened pink that did precious little to illuminate the area. I tell you, it may have been tough on the students, but it was tougher with me, since I had to be extremely careful to avoid running over some of the human shadows who seemed to leap out into the street from the darkness.
Just as I was getting close to ending my fruitless drive around campus, I approached Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, where the football team plays its home games (and the Goodyear blimp hovers overhead, and the deer and the antelope play). Suddenly, the lighting became very bright around the deserted pigskin coliseum. I looked over to my left at the O'Connell Center, where the basketball team plays its home games. Once again, bright lights bathed this entire deserted area. But once I got to University Avenue and turned right, the crappily-lit gloom returned, and with it, the many shadow figures scurrying about.
Why do I get the feeling that there are two UFs? One is the financially-strapped academic University of Florida with its budget cuts, departmental closings, higher tuition, curtailed student admission and enrollment, and staff layoffs. The other is the Gator Nation, rolling over in money with lavish sums spent on facilities, equipment, and staff.
I can't say whether or not the different emphases on quality night lighting is part of the dichotomy between academics and athletics there. It just struck me as being awfully stupid. What the hell is going on at my old alma mater? In any event, night running there is off. I did run around my block the other night, and I have a well-worn "micro"-course in my backyard that I've run on quite a lot late at night. I guess for the time being that'll have to do.
Oh, by the way, Gainesville city streetlights suck, too! Walking the streets around here at night is like walking through the setting for a horror movie. The only things missing are the zombies!
Friday, September 25, 2009
Falling Through Musical Rabbit Holes
Back on September 9, I was tempted to write an article about the Beatles' strange White Album track Revolution 9 (I was going to title it "Numba Nine, Numba Nine, Numba Nine"). But since "9/9/09" has come and gone, I have to find a new excuse to write about this tight, upbeat melody. Just kidding. About the tight, upbeat melody, that is.
Revolution 9, a track that would more precisely be called a "collage of musical and audio images" instead of a song, represents more the solo abstract work that John Lennon had been doing with Yoko Ono at that time. The other Beatles reportedly opposed it being including on the White Album, but Lennon insisted on it. To my delight.
Revolution 9 is many things: sinister, mysterious, apocalyptic, conspiratorial (much of it is recorded backward, including the haunting "numba nine" rap which, when reversed, sounds like "turn me on dead man"), and sad. I appreciate all of that, but there is another element to this piece that I find myself looking for in other music: There are parts of Revolution 9 where I find myself falling into the musical equivalent of Alice in Wonderland's rabbit hole.
A musical rabbit hole, what is that? To me, it is a section within a piece where everything breaks down into chaos for a while. I've experienced this phenomenon listening to other songs as well. Here are a few:
Eight Miles High by the Byrds
Shapes of Things by the Yardbirds
Tomorrow Never Knows by the Beatles
Flaming by Pink Floyd
One of These Days by Pink Floyd
Echoes by Pink Floyd
The End by the Doors
When the Music's Over by the Doors
Sky Pilot (long version) by Eric Burdon & the Animals
Legend of a Mind by the Moody Blues
Dazed and Confused by Led Zeppelin
How Many More Times by Led Zeppelin
Roundabout by Yes
South Side of the Sky by Yes
Close to the Edge by Yes
The Gates of Delirium by Yes
Autobahn by Kraftwerk
Danse With Me George by Ambrosia
Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head by Sufjan Stevens
The trick with the sections of disorder in these songs (usually in their middle, but not always) is to somehow bring back some sense of order to the song, as a transformation brought about in large part by that chaotic period.
What is special about Revolution 9 is that the "rabbit hole" experience IS the body of the piece and periods of relative order are the exception rather than the rule. But for a period of time in the fall of 1972 (specifically the entire month of October), Revolution 9 (Paul, George and Ringo's objections notwithstanding) was the song that I listened to the most, often several times a day. And here I am, 37 years later, and still harboring fond thoughts of that wacky track. And still happily falling through musical rabbit holes.
Revolution 9, a track that would more precisely be called a "collage of musical and audio images" instead of a song, represents more the solo abstract work that John Lennon had been doing with Yoko Ono at that time. The other Beatles reportedly opposed it being including on the White Album, but Lennon insisted on it. To my delight.
Revolution 9 is many things: sinister, mysterious, apocalyptic, conspiratorial (much of it is recorded backward, including the haunting "numba nine" rap which, when reversed, sounds like "turn me on dead man"), and sad. I appreciate all of that, but there is another element to this piece that I find myself looking for in other music: There are parts of Revolution 9 where I find myself falling into the musical equivalent of Alice in Wonderland's rabbit hole.
A musical rabbit hole, what is that? To me, it is a section within a piece where everything breaks down into chaos for a while. I've experienced this phenomenon listening to other songs as well. Here are a few:
Eight Miles High by the Byrds
Shapes of Things by the Yardbirds
Tomorrow Never Knows by the Beatles
Flaming by Pink Floyd
One of These Days by Pink Floyd
Echoes by Pink Floyd
The End by the Doors
When the Music's Over by the Doors
Sky Pilot (long version) by Eric Burdon & the Animals
Legend of a Mind by the Moody Blues
Dazed and Confused by Led Zeppelin
How Many More Times by Led Zeppelin
Roundabout by Yes
South Side of the Sky by Yes
Close to the Edge by Yes
The Gates of Delirium by Yes
Autobahn by Kraftwerk
Danse With Me George by Ambrosia
Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head by Sufjan Stevens
The trick with the sections of disorder in these songs (usually in their middle, but not always) is to somehow bring back some sense of order to the song, as a transformation brought about in large part by that chaotic period.
What is special about Revolution 9 is that the "rabbit hole" experience IS the body of the piece and periods of relative order are the exception rather than the rule. But for a period of time in the fall of 1972 (specifically the entire month of October), Revolution 9 (Paul, George and Ringo's objections notwithstanding) was the song that I listened to the most, often several times a day. And here I am, 37 years later, and still harboring fond thoughts of that wacky track. And still happily falling through musical rabbit holes.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
So It's Paul Kirk
Now that I've gone back and changed "Charles" Kirk to "Paul" Kirk in yesterday's entry, I can begin today's. I was watching Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick at the podium, about to announce his selection for interim senator to the open seat formerly held by Edward Kennedy. I had wanted Dukakis to get it, but when the governor mentioned Paul Kirk by name early in his address, I knew this was not to be. But who is Paul Kirk? Oh, just the guy standing directly behind Governor Patrick, that's all.
I wish Paul Kirk a productive interim period as Massachusetts's junior senator. With him having worked previously on Senator Kennedy's staff, I'm confident that Mr. Kirk is attuned to the late senator's priorities and will support them during his brief, but important stint there. Of course, neither Paul Kirk, Michael Dukakis, nor anyone else could truly replace Ted Kennedy.
I also congratulate Al Franken for no longer being the supremely junior senator!
I wish Paul Kirk a productive interim period as Massachusetts's junior senator. With him having worked previously on Senator Kennedy's staff, I'm confident that Mr. Kirk is attuned to the late senator's priorities and will support them during his brief, but important stint there. Of course, neither Paul Kirk, Michael Dukakis, nor anyone else could truly replace Ted Kennedy.
I also congratulate Al Franken for no longer being the supremely junior senator!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Senator Dukakis?
I just read in my Gainesville Sun newspaper this morning that the Massachusetts state legislature has approved a measure granting authority for the governor to appoint an interim senator to replace the late Edward Kennedy until elections are held a few months from now.
Democratic Governor Deval Patrick is reportedly considering, among others, former governor, 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, and all-around good guy Michael Dukakis as one of the choices to fill this seat. Although I'm sure that there are plenty of good candidates for the temporary post, I think Dukakis would be a very welcome presence in the United States Senate. Whoever does get appointed, though, shouldn't be among any of the politicians expressing interest in running in the upcoming senate election. Although those might all be great senators, a distinguished interim senator like Dukakis with no further designs on the seat will keep an appointee from running with the advantage of incumbency, even if that is only for a few weeks.
I have always felt that Michael Dukakis would have made a wonderful president. During my long run (since 1976) of voting in presidential elections, I felt the most strongly in favor of Governor Dukakis over anyone else I supported in an election, before or since. But, alas, he was the first Democratic presidential nominee to run into a very slick, heavily financed, and brutal Republican campaign attack machine. Why, had he been elected, everyone would have dirty water and convicted murderers across the country would be furloughed en masse to kill everyone. And for those of you who survived? Well, you'd have to burn your American flags! What was so dismaying to me in 1988 (and in subsequent elections with their own mudslinging themes) was that millions of American voters actually bought into the crap being spewed out over the air about Willy Horton, Boston's water, and flag burning. Oh, and don't forget that Dukakis was a card-carrying member of the ACLU. That made him a communist, right?
As I have said, there are plenty of suitable possibilities for this interim post. The newspaper article mentioned three: Paul Kirk (a former Kennedy aide and DNC chairman), Evelyn Murphy (a former lt. governor), and Charles Ogletree (a Harvard law professor).
Onward to a full Senate body!
[Let's see if I can't get this published before the actual appointment is announced.]
Democratic Governor Deval Patrick is reportedly considering, among others, former governor, 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, and all-around good guy Michael Dukakis as one of the choices to fill this seat. Although I'm sure that there are plenty of good candidates for the temporary post, I think Dukakis would be a very welcome presence in the United States Senate. Whoever does get appointed, though, shouldn't be among any of the politicians expressing interest in running in the upcoming senate election. Although those might all be great senators, a distinguished interim senator like Dukakis with no further designs on the seat will keep an appointee from running with the advantage of incumbency, even if that is only for a few weeks.
I have always felt that Michael Dukakis would have made a wonderful president. During my long run (since 1976) of voting in presidential elections, I felt the most strongly in favor of Governor Dukakis over anyone else I supported in an election, before or since. But, alas, he was the first Democratic presidential nominee to run into a very slick, heavily financed, and brutal Republican campaign attack machine. Why, had he been elected, everyone would have dirty water and convicted murderers across the country would be furloughed en masse to kill everyone. And for those of you who survived? Well, you'd have to burn your American flags! What was so dismaying to me in 1988 (and in subsequent elections with their own mudslinging themes) was that millions of American voters actually bought into the crap being spewed out over the air about Willy Horton, Boston's water, and flag burning. Oh, and don't forget that Dukakis was a card-carrying member of the ACLU. That made him a communist, right?
As I have said, there are plenty of suitable possibilities for this interim post. The newspaper article mentioned three: Paul Kirk (a former Kennedy aide and DNC chairman), Evelyn Murphy (a former lt. governor), and Charles Ogletree (a Harvard law professor).
Onward to a full Senate body!
[Let's see if I can't get this published before the actual appointment is announced.]
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Obushama
In spite of the vicious, hateful, and highly personal attack campaign being carried out against President Obama by the far right, he has continued to surprise (and sometimes dismay) his supporters by the high degree of continuity he has shown with the previous Republican Bush administration. Sometimes this continuity has led to a curious situation in which Bush supporters have attacked Obama for carrying out policies originally enacted under Bush.
The economic bailout did not begin under Obama, but rather under Bush as a clear-headed, pragmatic response to a severely tanking economy. The abrupt change in our government's attitude about restraint with banks and corporations occurred not with the transfer of power from Bush to Obama, but rather in September 2008 under Bush. Now would George W. Bush have pushed for a stimulus bill and government management of General Motors as has Barack Obama? Probably not, but then again who would have predicted his actions back in September? And much to the former president's credit (and unlike others of his administration), he has avoided publicly second-guessing our current president. In other words, a class act.
Although President Obama is merely carrying out policies in Iraq decided on in the previous administration, he is nonetheless being criticized for the Americans turning police power to the Iraqis (in Iraq, their OWN country, outrage of all outrages). In Afghanistan, Obama is worrying the left, not the right, with his escalation of our intervention in their civil strife there. And who is his Secretary of Defense? None other than Bush's Secretary of Defense: General Robert Gates.
With all of this continuity from Bush to Obama, the current furor over health care reform must be quite a relief to those who want to paint our current president as an extreme leftist, even a socialist. But even though Obama expresses a desire to reform the health insurance system in America, he has always been relatively weak in his enthusiasm (compared to other Democrats, especially his 2008 presidential campaign opponent Hillary Clinton) and (in my opinion) has shown far too much flexibility with those who would alter any legislation to the point where it would end up serving the interests of the health insurance industry more than the American public. So even here, when all is said and done, we may find Obama and Bush closer than they are currently being painted.
I think that those on the political left who are disappointed and increasingly worried about Obama's perceived drift rightward are more in line with reality than are his conservative opponents who only seem to be interested in "Chicken Little" reactions to everything he says or does. And as a final comment regarding the similarities between Obama and Bush, consider the following.
A president is in his very first year of office. It is the second Tuesday in September. And, either for the purpose of political self-promotion (say his detractors) or to encourage young people to learn (say his supporters) that president makes a well-publicized visit to a public school. Now which president I am talking about? I think you know the answer: both! Obushama!
The economic bailout did not begin under Obama, but rather under Bush as a clear-headed, pragmatic response to a severely tanking economy. The abrupt change in our government's attitude about restraint with banks and corporations occurred not with the transfer of power from Bush to Obama, but rather in September 2008 under Bush. Now would George W. Bush have pushed for a stimulus bill and government management of General Motors as has Barack Obama? Probably not, but then again who would have predicted his actions back in September? And much to the former president's credit (and unlike others of his administration), he has avoided publicly second-guessing our current president. In other words, a class act.
Although President Obama is merely carrying out policies in Iraq decided on in the previous administration, he is nonetheless being criticized for the Americans turning police power to the Iraqis (in Iraq, their OWN country, outrage of all outrages). In Afghanistan, Obama is worrying the left, not the right, with his escalation of our intervention in their civil strife there. And who is his Secretary of Defense? None other than Bush's Secretary of Defense: General Robert Gates.
With all of this continuity from Bush to Obama, the current furor over health care reform must be quite a relief to those who want to paint our current president as an extreme leftist, even a socialist. But even though Obama expresses a desire to reform the health insurance system in America, he has always been relatively weak in his enthusiasm (compared to other Democrats, especially his 2008 presidential campaign opponent Hillary Clinton) and (in my opinion) has shown far too much flexibility with those who would alter any legislation to the point where it would end up serving the interests of the health insurance industry more than the American public. So even here, when all is said and done, we may find Obama and Bush closer than they are currently being painted.
I think that those on the political left who are disappointed and increasingly worried about Obama's perceived drift rightward are more in line with reality than are his conservative opponents who only seem to be interested in "Chicken Little" reactions to everything he says or does. And as a final comment regarding the similarities between Obama and Bush, consider the following.
A president is in his very first year of office. It is the second Tuesday in September. And, either for the purpose of political self-promotion (say his detractors) or to encourage young people to learn (say his supporters) that president makes a well-publicized visit to a public school. Now which president I am talking about? I think you know the answer: both! Obushama!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Gainesville Traffic Circles
During the past few years, my current home town of Gainesville has fallen head-over-heels in love with the concept of traffic circles, having them inserted all over town in various types of traffic flow. There are large circles and small circles, each demonstrated here by a photograph. There is supposedly a two-fold rationale behind the "drive" for circles. One, they are supposed to enhance safety and reduce accidents. Two, they are supposed to enhance the flow of traffic and reduce stops.
As far as safety is concerned, perhaps there are statistics out there which imply that traffic circles are superior to traditional intersections in preventing accidents. But in a relatively large circle, such as the one pictured above, pedestrians and bicyclists are in a precarious position when trying to cross the street. In a traditional intersection with stop signs or a traffic light, a pedestrian can take advantage of the signs and signals to safely cross in front of stopped traffic. Not so with a circle, where they often have to walk out of their way, look very carefully, cross their fingers, and sprint across! Note the crosswalk in the photograph, a few paces away from the circle. Cars are supposed to yield to pedestrians here, but in practice they are in a relatively blind position coming out of the circle and are accelerating.
Being in a small circle has a different drawback. Cars entering circles are supposed to travel to the circle's right. This means that a driver wanting to turn left would have to go three quarters of the way around. In a large circle, this is obvious. But with a small circle, such as the one pictured below, I see as the general practice cars simply turning to the left in front of the circle. Now if there is another car entering the circle from the opposite direction, this creates the potential for a head-on collision.
Regarding the argument for enhanced and speedier traffic flow, I would agree with the use of larger circles. But one problem I have observed is that cars, instead of approaching the circle by cautiously slowing down, will often speed up to insert themselves in the circle between other cars. Not exactly safe! In those areas with small circles, traffic is usually pretty light. Here, four-way stop signs would do just as well while reducing confusion.
I understand and appreciate the efforts of those who want to improve our system of traffic with innovations, such as the traffic circle. But this innovation can often lead to confusion and leave out important considerations for pedestrian traffic.
As far as safety is concerned, perhaps there are statistics out there which imply that traffic circles are superior to traditional intersections in preventing accidents. But in a relatively large circle, such as the one pictured above, pedestrians and bicyclists are in a precarious position when trying to cross the street. In a traditional intersection with stop signs or a traffic light, a pedestrian can take advantage of the signs and signals to safely cross in front of stopped traffic. Not so with a circle, where they often have to walk out of their way, look very carefully, cross their fingers, and sprint across! Note the crosswalk in the photograph, a few paces away from the circle. Cars are supposed to yield to pedestrians here, but in practice they are in a relatively blind position coming out of the circle and are accelerating.
Being in a small circle has a different drawback. Cars entering circles are supposed to travel to the circle's right. This means that a driver wanting to turn left would have to go three quarters of the way around. In a large circle, this is obvious. But with a small circle, such as the one pictured below, I see as the general practice cars simply turning to the left in front of the circle. Now if there is another car entering the circle from the opposite direction, this creates the potential for a head-on collision.
Regarding the argument for enhanced and speedier traffic flow, I would agree with the use of larger circles. But one problem I have observed is that cars, instead of approaching the circle by cautiously slowing down, will often speed up to insert themselves in the circle between other cars. Not exactly safe! In those areas with small circles, traffic is usually pretty light. Here, four-way stop signs would do just as well while reducing confusion.
I understand and appreciate the efforts of those who want to improve our system of traffic with innovations, such as the traffic circle. But this innovation can often lead to confusion and leave out important considerations for pedestrian traffic.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Current Personal Top Ten Favorite Songs
The following selections of mine are not from the pool of songs on the current music charts and I have never heard any of them on my radio. As a matter of fact, I'm doubtful that any one of these songs made any chart, unless it was indirectly as a track on a charted album. But they do represent my own personal favorites at this point of time in September, 2009. By the way, all of them belong to the genre of independent/alternative music and have come out within the past six years.
#10: Flint by Sufjan Stevens
I have already written in this blog my praises for Stevens, who grew up in Michigan, lived for a time in Illinois, and then moved to New York (where he now resides). And who then composed works relating to each of his "states" (New York's was a commissioned work specifically about a bridge). Flint (the full title is Flint (For the Unemployed and Underpaid) is about that Michigan city and the despair and hopelessness that descended on it when the auto manufacturing industry there began to decline. The tune is sad and simple, ... and very heartwrenching.
#9: Neighborhood #2 (Laika) by Arcade Fire
In 2007 I heard Arcade Fire's Black Mirror, which was the first song that I (thought I) had heard from this exciting band. But I never went further with them until my sister, whose musical tastes I have respected since early childhood (she's the one who introduced me to the Beatles in early 1964) one day raved to me about how great they were. So I obtained their albums Funeral and Neon Bible. And she's right: they ARE great. To me, a lot of their music has a mysterious, almost sinister, doomsday slant to it. Neighborhood #2, which I usually just call Laika, is an excellent example. But their music is uniformly good, so you probably couldn't miss with anything of theirs.
#8: A Sunday Smile by Beirut
Beirut reminds me a bit of that opening funeral scene in Godfather Part II when very young Vito Corleone and his mother are in the funeral march for his father, accompanied by a very rough-sounding band. Beirut's founder and creative force Zach Condon runs a much more disciplined and virtuoso band, but the genre is similar: Mediterranean, Balkan, Middle East, and French traditional music dominates Beirut. A Sunday Smile is a sweet, compelling tune that inspired me to explore other songs from this singular band.
#7: Cause=Time by Broken Social Scene
The first album of Broken Social Scene, a Canadian band founded and creatively dominated by Kevin Drew and Brendan Canning, was simply instrumental ambient alternative rock. Subsequently, the two decided to bring in other talent and make vocal albums. And then their popularity soared. From their acclaimed second album You Forgot it in People, the track Cause=Time is definitely not for anyone overly sensitive to profanity, especially to the use of the "f" word. But unlike the case with others songs I've heard sprinkled unnecessarily with profanity, "f#$&" figures strongly in its message, especially with how it is used in this great song's final line. One of the great cynical songs that I've heard recently.
#6: Merchants of Soul by Spoon
One of may favorite songs from 2006 was Spoon's hit I Turn My Camera On, but I haven't investigated this group until just recently. And now I can report that I haven't heard anything of theirs that I don't like! Merchants of Soul is a track that is marked by its relentless beat, gradually progressing to a crescendo reminiscent of Ravel's Bolero (but much shorter and simpler). Probably the most danceable tune on this list, it epitomizes most of Spoon's music, which is difficult to listen to without wanting to get up and dance to it.
#5: Pittsfield by Sufjan Stevens
The Pittsfield in this song is in Illinois, not Massachusetts. Stevens paints a poignant, sad lyrical picture of someone looking back at his childhood and the ghosts inhabiting his sometimes very bitter family memories. It is a very emotional and tender piece.
#4: Fiery Crash by Andrew Bird
Andrew Bird is quite a musician, both at creating and performing. He is an accomplished violinist and whistler. Imagine someone with the musical songwriting ability of Lennon and McCartney, the lyrical creativity of Dylan, the production skill of George Martin, and the voice of ... Ringo Starr! That's quite a mix (so maybe I exaggerate a little), but I think that Bird is terribly underrated. Fiery Crash is a scary and sad piece tackling human fate head on, with the "fiery crash" as the ultimate payoff. To me, it carries great undertones about 9/11 and the sometimes unexplainable circumstances and decisions that people experience and make which either put them in the center of a tragedy or fortuitously cause them to avoid it altogether.
#3: Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head by Sufjan Stevens
Some of Sufjan Stevens' tracks are showcases of his extraordinary ability to weave long, complex pieces around syncopated rhythms. I think Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head (from his Michigan album, duh) is the best of this type. Although I liked every part of this eight-minute-plus song, there is a part toward its end that sounds like a dying, off-key horn section, possibly a metaphor for the artist's feelings about his former hometown's decline. Incredible!
#2: Casimir Pulaski Day by Sufjan Stevens
Sufjan Stevens is also pursuing a career in writing. He already works as a literary critic and is reportedly soon to come out with a collection of his own short stories. But Casimir Pulaski Day is already one of his short stories, albeit in song form. The song's title, an Illinois state holiday falling on the first week of March, is only a point of departure from which Stevens presents his tale. This is one of the supreme tearjerker songs of all time, and I say that as a high compliment to Stevens.
#1: Calculation (Theme) by Metric
Metric is a Canadian group fronted by singer/songwriter Emily Haines. It reminds me a lot of the old new wave band Blondie (I like that: old new). I first heard of them through their 2005 hit track Combat Baby. I investigated them on YouTube earlier this spring and came across a very bizarre unofficial video to their song Calculation (Theme). Although this video actually had nothing to do with the song (as far as I could tell), it was so peculiar that when I got the album that it was on and listened to it, those images kept floating through my mind. Until I began to listen to the lyrics in earnest, that is. And I discovered that Calculation (Theme) is a treasure unto itself, with an especially mystical and ambiguous final line. As a matter of fact, it is that closing line, along with Haines' beautiful, personal singing style, that has made this my favorite.
#10: Flint by Sufjan Stevens
I have already written in this blog my praises for Stevens, who grew up in Michigan, lived for a time in Illinois, and then moved to New York (where he now resides). And who then composed works relating to each of his "states" (New York's was a commissioned work specifically about a bridge). Flint (the full title is Flint (For the Unemployed and Underpaid) is about that Michigan city and the despair and hopelessness that descended on it when the auto manufacturing industry there began to decline. The tune is sad and simple, ... and very heartwrenching.
#9: Neighborhood #2 (Laika) by Arcade Fire
In 2007 I heard Arcade Fire's Black Mirror, which was the first song that I (thought I) had heard from this exciting band. But I never went further with them until my sister, whose musical tastes I have respected since early childhood (she's the one who introduced me to the Beatles in early 1964) one day raved to me about how great they were. So I obtained their albums Funeral and Neon Bible. And she's right: they ARE great. To me, a lot of their music has a mysterious, almost sinister, doomsday slant to it. Neighborhood #2, which I usually just call Laika, is an excellent example. But their music is uniformly good, so you probably couldn't miss with anything of theirs.
#8: A Sunday Smile by Beirut
Beirut reminds me a bit of that opening funeral scene in Godfather Part II when very young Vito Corleone and his mother are in the funeral march for his father, accompanied by a very rough-sounding band. Beirut's founder and creative force Zach Condon runs a much more disciplined and virtuoso band, but the genre is similar: Mediterranean, Balkan, Middle East, and French traditional music dominates Beirut. A Sunday Smile is a sweet, compelling tune that inspired me to explore other songs from this singular band.
#7: Cause=Time by Broken Social Scene
The first album of Broken Social Scene, a Canadian band founded and creatively dominated by Kevin Drew and Brendan Canning, was simply instrumental ambient alternative rock. Subsequently, the two decided to bring in other talent and make vocal albums. And then their popularity soared. From their acclaimed second album You Forgot it in People, the track Cause=Time is definitely not for anyone overly sensitive to profanity, especially to the use of the "f" word. But unlike the case with others songs I've heard sprinkled unnecessarily with profanity, "f#$&" figures strongly in its message, especially with how it is used in this great song's final line. One of the great cynical songs that I've heard recently.
#6: Merchants of Soul by Spoon
One of may favorite songs from 2006 was Spoon's hit I Turn My Camera On, but I haven't investigated this group until just recently. And now I can report that I haven't heard anything of theirs that I don't like! Merchants of Soul is a track that is marked by its relentless beat, gradually progressing to a crescendo reminiscent of Ravel's Bolero (but much shorter and simpler). Probably the most danceable tune on this list, it epitomizes most of Spoon's music, which is difficult to listen to without wanting to get up and dance to it.
#5: Pittsfield by Sufjan Stevens
The Pittsfield in this song is in Illinois, not Massachusetts. Stevens paints a poignant, sad lyrical picture of someone looking back at his childhood and the ghosts inhabiting his sometimes very bitter family memories. It is a very emotional and tender piece.
#4: Fiery Crash by Andrew Bird
Andrew Bird is quite a musician, both at creating and performing. He is an accomplished violinist and whistler. Imagine someone with the musical songwriting ability of Lennon and McCartney, the lyrical creativity of Dylan, the production skill of George Martin, and the voice of ... Ringo Starr! That's quite a mix (so maybe I exaggerate a little), but I think that Bird is terribly underrated. Fiery Crash is a scary and sad piece tackling human fate head on, with the "fiery crash" as the ultimate payoff. To me, it carries great undertones about 9/11 and the sometimes unexplainable circumstances and decisions that people experience and make which either put them in the center of a tragedy or fortuitously cause them to avoid it altogether.
#3: Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head by Sufjan Stevens
Some of Sufjan Stevens' tracks are showcases of his extraordinary ability to weave long, complex pieces around syncopated rhythms. I think Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head (from his Michigan album, duh) is the best of this type. Although I liked every part of this eight-minute-plus song, there is a part toward its end that sounds like a dying, off-key horn section, possibly a metaphor for the artist's feelings about his former hometown's decline. Incredible!
#2: Casimir Pulaski Day by Sufjan Stevens
Sufjan Stevens is also pursuing a career in writing. He already works as a literary critic and is reportedly soon to come out with a collection of his own short stories. But Casimir Pulaski Day is already one of his short stories, albeit in song form. The song's title, an Illinois state holiday falling on the first week of March, is only a point of departure from which Stevens presents his tale. This is one of the supreme tearjerker songs of all time, and I say that as a high compliment to Stevens.
#1: Calculation (Theme) by Metric
Metric is a Canadian group fronted by singer/songwriter Emily Haines. It reminds me a lot of the old new wave band Blondie (I like that: old new). I first heard of them through their 2005 hit track Combat Baby. I investigated them on YouTube earlier this spring and came across a very bizarre unofficial video to their song Calculation (Theme). Although this video actually had nothing to do with the song (as far as I could tell), it was so peculiar that when I got the album that it was on and listened to it, those images kept floating through my mind. Until I began to listen to the lyrics in earnest, that is. And I discovered that Calculation (Theme) is a treasure unto itself, with an especially mystical and ambiguous final line. As a matter of fact, it is that closing line, along with Haines' beautiful, personal singing style, that has made this my favorite.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
New UF Study Center a No-Brainer
In Monday's Independent Florida Alligator, I read that the University of Florida is finally planning to build a 24-hour study center on campus. According to staff writer Thomas Stewart, UF President Bernie Machen said, "This is a project that is badly in need." To which I add a big "DUHHHH"!
Now various dorms at UF do have their own small study rooms for students who, for various reasons, find that environment more conducive to getting work done. But the great majority of students live off-campus. It can often be an ordeal for them to find a spot during their school day on campus to sit down and study. The libraries are terribly overcrowded, leaving either outside benches or eateries as study spots. And with laptop computers being such an essential part of a student's equipment nowadays, that just doesn't cut it anymore.
The study center project will take about $12 million in stimulus funds and will purportedly seat between 600-800 students at a time. It will be on the north side of campus, close to University Avenue and various eating spots nearby. Construction is slated to begin in July next year.
Since studying and learning are the main points behind going to college, one might have thought that making a priority of providing large, safe study locations around-the-clock on campus would have been a no-brainer. But it took Obama's stimulus funds, with their usage restrictions, to finally bring this self-evident need to fruition. Well, better late than never. But I think they could do with a couple more study centers as well.
Now various dorms at UF do have their own small study rooms for students who, for various reasons, find that environment more conducive to getting work done. But the great majority of students live off-campus. It can often be an ordeal for them to find a spot during their school day on campus to sit down and study. The libraries are terribly overcrowded, leaving either outside benches or eateries as study spots. And with laptop computers being such an essential part of a student's equipment nowadays, that just doesn't cut it anymore.
The study center project will take about $12 million in stimulus funds and will purportedly seat between 600-800 students at a time. It will be on the north side of campus, close to University Avenue and various eating spots nearby. Construction is slated to begin in July next year.
Since studying and learning are the main points behind going to college, one might have thought that making a priority of providing large, safe study locations around-the-clock on campus would have been a no-brainer. But it took Obama's stimulus funds, with their usage restrictions, to finally bring this self-evident need to fruition. Well, better late than never. But I think they could do with a couple more study centers as well.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Flashmob Hits Town, Feathers Fly
On the cover of Thursday's Gainesville Sun is a picture of a mass pillow fight taking place at Turlington Plaza on the University of Florida campus just before noon on Wednesday. Just before the event, participants seemed to arrive out of nowhere and suddenly came out swinging! A few minutes later, the battle abruptly ended and everyone dispersed from the scene as if nothing had happened. What did happen here?
It turns out that this was an example of a "flashmob", which is a planned event over the Internet (this one used Facebook) drawing participants from disparate parts to a specific location at a specific time to create a seemingly spontaneous event, usually doing something completely off the wall. And this pillow fight looked like a lot of fun. But I wonder.....
Suppose some evil mastermind resembling Lex Luther, Blofeld, or the Joker wants a mob at a particular place and at a particular time that suits his own secret nefarious designs (perhaps to serve as a diversion from a nearby "heist"). And he then plants one of these "flashmob" seeds on the Internet? I can see all hell breaking loose somewhere, drawing the attention of everyone (including the police). While the bad guys are pulling off their dastardly deed nearby unnoticed! But maybe this is just the cynical "goth" within me trying to paint a bleak picture out of simple fun!
One the other hand, mobilization through the Internet may already be used for bringing in mobs of protesters from the outside to attend town hall meetings of politicians and disrupt them. So my overtly cynical view of this practice may not be that far of a departure from reality, after all.
Flashmobs are definitely a phenomenon of our times, and one that bears a great deal of scrutiny. When a mass of people seems to come together out of nowhere and starts showing almost identical lines of behavior and speech, it's time to be suspicious. Especially if they're not carrying pillows!
It turns out that this was an example of a "flashmob", which is a planned event over the Internet (this one used Facebook) drawing participants from disparate parts to a specific location at a specific time to create a seemingly spontaneous event, usually doing something completely off the wall. And this pillow fight looked like a lot of fun. But I wonder.....
Suppose some evil mastermind resembling Lex Luther, Blofeld, or the Joker wants a mob at a particular place and at a particular time that suits his own secret nefarious designs (perhaps to serve as a diversion from a nearby "heist"). And he then plants one of these "flashmob" seeds on the Internet? I can see all hell breaking loose somewhere, drawing the attention of everyone (including the police). While the bad guys are pulling off their dastardly deed nearby unnoticed! But maybe this is just the cynical "goth" within me trying to paint a bleak picture out of simple fun!
One the other hand, mobilization through the Internet may already be used for bringing in mobs of protesters from the outside to attend town hall meetings of politicians and disrupt them. So my overtly cynical view of this practice may not be that far of a departure from reality, after all.
Flashmobs are definitely a phenomenon of our times, and one that bears a great deal of scrutiny. When a mass of people seems to come together out of nowhere and starts showing almost identical lines of behavior and speech, it's time to be suspicious. Especially if they're not carrying pillows!
Thursday, September 17, 2009
300 Million: 551: 1
When considering health care reform, the number "300 million Americans" is often bandied about to hammer home the point about how important this issue is and how many it will affect. But for those "in tune" with the politics of representational democracy, the crucial number is 551, which is the sum of those in government who will actually be in charge of passing and signing that reform (450 in the House of Representatives, 100 in the Senate, and the President). But no, we learn now that apparently there is only one person who gets to determine what will affect all of us so drastically in the next few years (and beyond): Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, who is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Senator Baucus wants to insure all Americans by MANDATING it, with fines levied on anyone not purchasing health insurance. And President Obama seems warm to this really bad idea, comparing it to mandated automobile insurance for drivers in many states (including my Florida). But driving is a choice and being alive is an inalienable human right. So I have to suspect a violation of our constitutional rights if anything like this is enacted. I mean, what about the homeless? Are the cops going to go around and start slapping fines on them?
As bad as this idea is, Baucus makes it much worse by scrapping the important public option that would allow for some true competition in the area of prices for insurance. Baucus believes more in the idea of a "pool/cooperative" option whereby the various insurance companies would voluntarily work together to create a list of choices. I think that it is unconscionable that a Democrat, representing a party supposedly looking out for the "little guy", would propose legally mandating expensive burdens on people who are already struggling to get by in life. The only winners in his perverse plan: the insurance companies, who by some strange coincidence happen to be enormous financial contributors to Senator Baucus!
I think it's time for the rest of the Democrats, including the President, to give the Montana senator's plan the boot and stop worrying about getting any Republican support for health care reform. Any plan that legally requires Americans to purchase health insurance (which to me seems very questionable constitutionally) MUST be accompanied by a strong public option that offers affordable plans. Otherwise, I think we would be better off with the status quo, as terribly flawed as it is. To me, the opponents of health care reform are railing about the wrong things. If they really want to kill health care reform and make it Obama's "Waterloo" (as GOP Senator DeMint has expressed), then they should seize upon the issue of mandated coverage and abandon all of this other nonsense they've been spouting. But I think I know why they won't: the health insurance companies, big friends to the Republicans, love mandated coverage with no public option that would have kept them honest with their prices. Talk about corporate welfare!
Senator Baucus wants to insure all Americans by MANDATING it, with fines levied on anyone not purchasing health insurance. And President Obama seems warm to this really bad idea, comparing it to mandated automobile insurance for drivers in many states (including my Florida). But driving is a choice and being alive is an inalienable human right. So I have to suspect a violation of our constitutional rights if anything like this is enacted. I mean, what about the homeless? Are the cops going to go around and start slapping fines on them?
As bad as this idea is, Baucus makes it much worse by scrapping the important public option that would allow for some true competition in the area of prices for insurance. Baucus believes more in the idea of a "pool/cooperative" option whereby the various insurance companies would voluntarily work together to create a list of choices. I think that it is unconscionable that a Democrat, representing a party supposedly looking out for the "little guy", would propose legally mandating expensive burdens on people who are already struggling to get by in life. The only winners in his perverse plan: the insurance companies, who by some strange coincidence happen to be enormous financial contributors to Senator Baucus!
I think it's time for the rest of the Democrats, including the President, to give the Montana senator's plan the boot and stop worrying about getting any Republican support for health care reform. Any plan that legally requires Americans to purchase health insurance (which to me seems very questionable constitutionally) MUST be accompanied by a strong public option that offers affordable plans. Otherwise, I think we would be better off with the status quo, as terribly flawed as it is. To me, the opponents of health care reform are railing about the wrong things. If they really want to kill health care reform and make it Obama's "Waterloo" (as GOP Senator DeMint has expressed), then they should seize upon the issue of mandated coverage and abandon all of this other nonsense they've been spouting. But I think I know why they won't: the health insurance companies, big friends to the Republicans, love mandated coverage with no public option that would have kept them honest with their prices. Talk about corporate welfare!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
El Niño, For Better Or For Worse
It looks as if the Atlantic will be spared for the rest of the 2009 hurricane season, as the "El Niño" effect that shears off the tops of Atlantic storms is expected to be strong, going into next year. I say great, but there is a flip side to this good news. And it's very, very bad news!
The last time I can remember the El Niño being this strong was during the 1997 hurricane system. As is the case this year, the tropical storm season then just seemed to peter out into nothing. The next thing we knew, we were getting those great, cooling autumn fronts coming down (to northern Florida) from the northwest. But the next spring, we had a severe drought. And then the disaster began.
April, 1998 marked the start of a terrible plague of forest fires that devastated large areas of northern and central Florida. Probably the worst hit area was Daytona Beach's Volusia county and Flagler county to its north. But my own home county of Alachua didn't escape fires then, either.
I also understand that El Niño has been responsible in the past for terrible flooding in the U.S. Pacific coast states. So I have an ominous feeling that, the light Atlantic hurricane season notwithstanding, we're in for a bumpy ride in the not-to-distant future with fires and flooding.
The last time I can remember the El Niño being this strong was during the 1997 hurricane system. As is the case this year, the tropical storm season then just seemed to peter out into nothing. The next thing we knew, we were getting those great, cooling autumn fronts coming down (to northern Florida) from the northwest. But the next spring, we had a severe drought. And then the disaster began.
April, 1998 marked the start of a terrible plague of forest fires that devastated large areas of northern and central Florida. Probably the worst hit area was Daytona Beach's Volusia county and Flagler county to its north. But my own home county of Alachua didn't escape fires then, either.
I also understand that El Niño has been responsible in the past for terrible flooding in the U.S. Pacific coast states. So I have an ominous feeling that, the light Atlantic hurricane season notwithstanding, we're in for a bumpy ride in the not-to-distant future with fires and flooding.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Representative Wilson's Outburst
Last Wednesday, President Obama delivered his anticipated health care reform speech to a joint session of Congress. He received, as expected, a very enthusiastic greeting from the Democrats there and a reserved-but-polite greeting from the Republicans. Until he began his debunking phase of the address, that is.
What got the Republicans in the audience to suddenly perk up their ears was Obama's passionate characterization, as lies, of fringe arguments from the political far right about "death panels". Then, once he had the GOP's attention, the President went to the issue of illegal immigrants possibly being able to obtain health insurance through the proposed plans. He described this idea as "false", pointing to a clause in the bills prohibiting "illegals" from receiving proposed benefits. And then the GOP side of the aisle disintegrated into loud murmurs and hoots. In the midst of this break with decorum, Representative Joe Wilson (R, South Carolina) angrily shouted out "You lie!"
Obama went on with his speech, but afterwards there were many on both sides of the aisle very critical of Wilson for his outburst. To me, it just seemed to be a logical continuation of the hateful, aggressive tone of the so-called tea parties, the "birthers", vicious talk radio (and television) hosts, and shout-'em-down angry town hall protesters. Too bad, for I believe that the obnoxious congressman may have a point. Kind of.
I've seen this happen before in legislation, where something is ostensibly written into a bill, but which is effectively nullified when the bill's body contains no provisions for enforcement or financing of that item. A few years ago, the George W. Bush administration touted its "No Child Left Behind" legislation, which on the surface sounded great but in reality didn't provide for its own funding. I don't know for sure whether or not there are mechanisms within the proposed health insurance reform bills to enforce prohibitions against illegal immigrants receiving proposed benefits, but it seems to be a perfectly legitimate issue to raise. After all, if not enforced, this could cause the costs of this bill to soar to unsustainable levels. And the President himself has said that he won't sign a bill that adds even one dime to the national debt.
But there are avenues through which an opposition party can express their disagreements, more than ever before in today's world of multiple cable news channels and the Internet. Representative Wilson deserves to be castigated, but so do the other Republicans who raised their voices during that time in the President's speech. After all, it was their outbursts that created the setting for Wilson's shout-out.
With this recent dumbing down of conservative rhetoric, it is not the political left that is suffering. There are some great principles to the conservative way of thinking which complement the liberal outlook to make a dynamic, constructive political environment. But they are being obscured by the current hate speech and fear-mongering. When I see hateful, aggressive commentators like Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck, I know that I will NOT be receiving an honest, conservative take on the issues. And it's sad to see elected representatives like Joe Wilson copy their tone.
What got the Republicans in the audience to suddenly perk up their ears was Obama's passionate characterization, as lies, of fringe arguments from the political far right about "death panels". Then, once he had the GOP's attention, the President went to the issue of illegal immigrants possibly being able to obtain health insurance through the proposed plans. He described this idea as "false", pointing to a clause in the bills prohibiting "illegals" from receiving proposed benefits. And then the GOP side of the aisle disintegrated into loud murmurs and hoots. In the midst of this break with decorum, Representative Joe Wilson (R, South Carolina) angrily shouted out "You lie!"
Obama went on with his speech, but afterwards there were many on both sides of the aisle very critical of Wilson for his outburst. To me, it just seemed to be a logical continuation of the hateful, aggressive tone of the so-called tea parties, the "birthers", vicious talk radio (and television) hosts, and shout-'em-down angry town hall protesters. Too bad, for I believe that the obnoxious congressman may have a point. Kind of.
I've seen this happen before in legislation, where something is ostensibly written into a bill, but which is effectively nullified when the bill's body contains no provisions for enforcement or financing of that item. A few years ago, the George W. Bush administration touted its "No Child Left Behind" legislation, which on the surface sounded great but in reality didn't provide for its own funding. I don't know for sure whether or not there are mechanisms within the proposed health insurance reform bills to enforce prohibitions against illegal immigrants receiving proposed benefits, but it seems to be a perfectly legitimate issue to raise. After all, if not enforced, this could cause the costs of this bill to soar to unsustainable levels. And the President himself has said that he won't sign a bill that adds even one dime to the national debt.
But there are avenues through which an opposition party can express their disagreements, more than ever before in today's world of multiple cable news channels and the Internet. Representative Wilson deserves to be castigated, but so do the other Republicans who raised their voices during that time in the President's speech. After all, it was their outbursts that created the setting for Wilson's shout-out.
With this recent dumbing down of conservative rhetoric, it is not the political left that is suffering. There are some great principles to the conservative way of thinking which complement the liberal outlook to make a dynamic, constructive political environment. But they are being obscured by the current hate speech and fear-mongering. When I see hateful, aggressive commentators like Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck, I know that I will NOT be receiving an honest, conservative take on the issues. And it's sad to see elected representatives like Joe Wilson copy their tone.
Monday, September 14, 2009
A Concert in Jacksonville
Yesterday I attended (with my son) a concert of original contemporary music at downtown Jacksonville's Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA). The concert, titled Sound Effects: Music With UNF, featured musicians who were instructors of music at the University of North Florida. The violin, flute, euphonium, trumpet, cello, clarinet, various percussion instruments, fine soprano singing, and even an electric violin were showcased by these very talented artists. It was an enlightening and entertaining experience for us.
Besides the concert, we enjoyed browsing through the nearby bookstore/coffee shop. Sandwiched between this and MOCA is the Jacksonville Public Library. And across the street? A pleasant city park that reminded me a little of Gainesville's Bo Diddley Community Plaza (formerly the downtown plaza). Before the concert, we walked through the MOCA art gallery. Unfortunately, their policy is against picture taking; my photos are thus of the outside, which I thought was interesting enough anyway. Here are some of them, including one of the bridge spanning St. John's River.
Besides the concert, we enjoyed browsing through the nearby bookstore/coffee shop. Sandwiched between this and MOCA is the Jacksonville Public Library. And across the street? A pleasant city park that reminded me a little of Gainesville's Bo Diddley Community Plaza (formerly the downtown plaza). Before the concert, we walked through the MOCA art gallery. Unfortunately, their policy is against picture taking; my photos are thus of the outside, which I thought was interesting enough anyway. Here are some of them, including one of the bridge spanning St. John's River.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Crashers
No, I'm not referring to those who crash parties or meetings uninvited, nor am I talking about folks with a propensity for automobile accidents or plane crashes. "Crashers", in the context of this article, are people who often express (usually with great passion and forcefulness) various personal goals but, while making a general effort to live up to their own words, will periodically suddenly abandon everything they purportedly stand for and behave in a completely opposite manner. I call this "crashing".
I see this pattern of behavior in others, but for the sake of this article, I'll confine the discussion to myself. Although I tend not to discuss my projects very much with others, I still have good habits I want to instill and bad habits to break.
For example, I want to manage money wisely by setting up budgets, recording financial transactions, saving money, always looking out for sales, and so on. But unfortunately, like many other people, I have a different side to myself, a side full of suppressed "wish lists" of expensive items and experiences that I have built up over my life.
Or take dieting. If I am so "into" a diet that every meal and snack is meticulously recorded and planned, day in and day out, that in itself can create some stress. But once again, a special occasion like a birthday or holiday may create opportunities for a "crash", as well as times of anxiety and negative emotional feelings. Suddenly, I have completely abandoned the diet and am the worse for it.
I could go on with other examples of "crashing". But instead of that, let me examine the phenomenon itself.
Crashers tend to rely a lot on reinforcing whatever project they happen to be on by talking almost incessantly about it to others, creating a "my way is the only way" scenario that makes it difficult for others to relate in a constructive and realistic way. For me, as I have mentioned before, this is one aspect of the phenomenon that doesn't seem to apply. When the crash finally does come around, the idea of the "now" being preeminently important pushes the project into the background. NOW is when the crasher needs to be relieved of emotional distress. NOW is when the big sale or big temptation is available, and it won't last forever (or so the crasher wants to believe).
I suppose that crashing is something that affects most of us to different degrees. I believe that people sometimes put standards and goals upon themselves that may be too severe and restricting. Instead, people should be less fanatical and more modest in their goal setting, while recognizing that others around them are individuals in their own right with most probably different outlooks on things and who deserve their respect. A change of attitude in these directions would give "crashers" the opportunity to live each day more fully without making them feel so deprived that they have to occasionally throw reason to the wind and suffer the consequences. And by respecting the others around them who may be on a different path, they will receive more open support and encouragement to stick with their goals. Perhaps my problem is that I don't talk ENOUGH with those I know concerning my goals for self-improvement, making their abandonment during a "crash" that much easier.
I see this pattern of behavior in others, but for the sake of this article, I'll confine the discussion to myself. Although I tend not to discuss my projects very much with others, I still have good habits I want to instill and bad habits to break.
For example, I want to manage money wisely by setting up budgets, recording financial transactions, saving money, always looking out for sales, and so on. But unfortunately, like many other people, I have a different side to myself, a side full of suppressed "wish lists" of expensive items and experiences that I have built up over my life.
Or take dieting. If I am so "into" a diet that every meal and snack is meticulously recorded and planned, day in and day out, that in itself can create some stress. But once again, a special occasion like a birthday or holiday may create opportunities for a "crash", as well as times of anxiety and negative emotional feelings. Suddenly, I have completely abandoned the diet and am the worse for it.
I could go on with other examples of "crashing". But instead of that, let me examine the phenomenon itself.
Crashers tend to rely a lot on reinforcing whatever project they happen to be on by talking almost incessantly about it to others, creating a "my way is the only way" scenario that makes it difficult for others to relate in a constructive and realistic way. For me, as I have mentioned before, this is one aspect of the phenomenon that doesn't seem to apply. When the crash finally does come around, the idea of the "now" being preeminently important pushes the project into the background. NOW is when the crasher needs to be relieved of emotional distress. NOW is when the big sale or big temptation is available, and it won't last forever (or so the crasher wants to believe).
I suppose that crashing is something that affects most of us to different degrees. I believe that people sometimes put standards and goals upon themselves that may be too severe and restricting. Instead, people should be less fanatical and more modest in their goal setting, while recognizing that others around them are individuals in their own right with most probably different outlooks on things and who deserve their respect. A change of attitude in these directions would give "crashers" the opportunity to live each day more fully without making them feel so deprived that they have to occasionally throw reason to the wind and suffer the consequences. And by respecting the others around them who may be on a different path, they will receive more open support and encouragement to stick with their goals. Perhaps my problem is that I don't talk ENOUGH with those I know concerning my goals for self-improvement, making their abandonment during a "crash" that much easier.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
My 2009 NFL Predictions
In the past, I have indulged myself by predicting not only the divisional and ultimately Super Bowl winners in each National Football League season, but also the orders of finish for each and every team within their divisions. Well, I really don't know that much about who is good and who isn't. But I have my hunches, so I will give it a "partial" go with my predictions. By this, I mean that this year I will predict the divisional winners and wild card teams (and Super Bowl participants and winner), but not the also-rans. Well, here goes my predictions for the 2009 NFL season, which is slated to begin this weekend.
My favorite team (by far) is Miami. The Dolphins made an incredible turnaround last year, going from 1-15 to 11-5 and winning a division title. But although I see them possibly making the playoffs this year as a wild card entry, I think that New England, with a healthy Tom Brady as quarterback, will be too much for the Dolphins and win the American Football Conference East this year. In the AFC South, I see Indianapolis coming back and taking their division back after finishing second in it in 2008. In the AFC North, Baltimore will continue its improvement and win going away. The AFC West will see San Diego repeating as champions with little serious competition. As for the two wild card teams for the AFC, I'm hoping the Dolphins make it, but I'm predicting that they will be Pittsburgh and Tennessee instead.
In the National Football Conference East, Dallas will make an unexpected comeback and live up to their previously failed expectations by winning the division. The same goes for New Orleans, my pick for the NFC South. I want Tampa Bay to win it, and win it they may in this (to me) balanced division. But I think that this is the Saints' year, finally. Minnesota simply looks too strong in the NFC North, while Arizona, last year's NFC champion, still looks like the cream of the crop in the West. I see Atlanta and Philadelphia making it as the NFC's wild card entries for the post-season playoffs.
And what about the playoffs for 2009? I'll just say who I predict will make it to the Super Bowl: Baltimore and Minnesota, with Baltimore winning it all.
If you're a gambler, you would be well-advised to take my predictions with a grain of salt; I have been horrendously off with them for the last couple of years! But still, I get a get of kick out of throwing in my "two cents' worth".
My favorite team (by far) is Miami. The Dolphins made an incredible turnaround last year, going from 1-15 to 11-5 and winning a division title. But although I see them possibly making the playoffs this year as a wild card entry, I think that New England, with a healthy Tom Brady as quarterback, will be too much for the Dolphins and win the American Football Conference East this year. In the AFC South, I see Indianapolis coming back and taking their division back after finishing second in it in 2008. In the AFC North, Baltimore will continue its improvement and win going away. The AFC West will see San Diego repeating as champions with little serious competition. As for the two wild card teams for the AFC, I'm hoping the Dolphins make it, but I'm predicting that they will be Pittsburgh and Tennessee instead.
In the National Football Conference East, Dallas will make an unexpected comeback and live up to their previously failed expectations by winning the division. The same goes for New Orleans, my pick for the NFC South. I want Tampa Bay to win it, and win it they may in this (to me) balanced division. But I think that this is the Saints' year, finally. Minnesota simply looks too strong in the NFC North, while Arizona, last year's NFC champion, still looks like the cream of the crop in the West. I see Atlanta and Philadelphia making it as the NFC's wild card entries for the post-season playoffs.
And what about the playoffs for 2009? I'll just say who I predict will make it to the Super Bowl: Baltimore and Minnesota, with Baltimore winning it all.
If you're a gambler, you would be well-advised to take my predictions with a grain of salt; I have been horrendously off with them for the last couple of years! But still, I get a get of kick out of throwing in my "two cents' worth".
Friday, September 11, 2009
Eleven Nine
Four days ago, I had the pleasure to write about my wedding anniversary. Now, though, we've returned in our calendar to an anniversary of tragedy, not necessarily as personal, but clearly on a greater historical scale. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon, and the hijacking and crashing of Flight 33 (not to mention the other three hijacked planes) have permanently stamped this date as one of sadness and anger. Although my wedding anniversary is uncomfortably close to 9/11, I am grateful that it doesn't fall on the same day.
But you know that many anniversaries and birthdays do fall on September 11. It must be difficult for people to feel comfortable going out and celebrating these important, legitimate milestones in their personal lives while the nation as a whole is in a much more somber state of reflection. This also applies to those whose special personal dates coincide with other infamous dates like December 7, November 22, or April 4. As for myself, a few years ago the young daughter of a couple we know died on my birthday in an ATV accident. So from then on, my birthday (at least to me) has always been (and will always be) a reminder of that tragedy and loss.
Speaking of the 9/11 attacks, they were so traumatic to our national consciousness that we don't need their anniversary to realize how much they affect our lives to this day. In particular, our current escalating war within Afghanistan stems directly from the fact that, in 2001, the terrorist Al-Qaeda organization, which planned and carried out the attacks, was operating freely there with the blessings of the Taliban-controlled government. So the U.S., with its NATO allies, justifiably set out in late 2001 to destroy Al-Qaeda, capture or kill its leaders, and punish the Taliban for giving them sanctuary.
But going so far as to overthrow the Taliban? I'm not sure that this goal was very well-thought out. At the time, the national political mood was so angry that some were even calling for nuclear attacks against Afghanistan. The thought of our national policy being to militarily punish the Taliban and then use leverage to separate them from Al-Qaeda would have been seen as too weak of a response to the attacks. But that was exactly how we got Sudan to expel Al-Qaeda out of its territory during the Clinton presidency. We didn't need to send US troops there to overthrow that Sudanese government, and no one is suggesting that we do so now (in spite of the ongoing Darfur tragedy in which that regime is complicit). But now, in Afghanistan, we've come around to where we were in Iraq. Our objectives have changed to "nation building".
We will not succeed in destroying the Taliban, which is an indigenous political/military movement popular among large sections of the population in certain regions, especially in the southern part of Afghanistan. The fact that their values offend many in the West (stoning for relatively minor crimes, persecution of minority religions, treatment of women as unequals, anti-education) may cloud the judgment of those who would like to improve life for Afghanis there. But we shouldn't digress from our original goals there, which were to eliminate Al-Qaeda as a security threat to us and to lay down the law that any regime harboring terrorists will be severely punished. For us to punish a governing regime somewhere is different than occupying their territory with our military while driving them out of power. All that accomplishes is to cast ourselves into the role of occupiers and to legitimize the overturned regime in the eyes of the people there. After all, the Taliban can now easily stigmatize whatever Afghan government is currently in power as "puppets" of the Americans as long as our military is there, very visible and in large numbers.
As for this article's title, I understand that dates are ordered differently in some countries, notably Great Britain. A few years ago, I had a little fun looking at a "Paul McCartney is dead" website that listed all of the reasons that the former Beatle supposedly died in 1966 from an automobile accident. Given as one of the clues was the date "9/11", reputedly appearing in some form on the Sgt. Pepper album cover. The website's author pointed out that this meant (to him) that the accident happened on November 9 [thanks for the correction, Barry], since in England the dates and months are switched in their conventional order of use. I don't know for sure whether or not that's true, but if it is it must be interesting for the British. After all, I'm sure that no one anywhere says "eleven nine" to refer to the 2001 terrorist attacks. Until now, that is.
But you know that many anniversaries and birthdays do fall on September 11. It must be difficult for people to feel comfortable going out and celebrating these important, legitimate milestones in their personal lives while the nation as a whole is in a much more somber state of reflection. This also applies to those whose special personal dates coincide with other infamous dates like December 7, November 22, or April 4. As for myself, a few years ago the young daughter of a couple we know died on my birthday in an ATV accident. So from then on, my birthday (at least to me) has always been (and will always be) a reminder of that tragedy and loss.
Speaking of the 9/11 attacks, they were so traumatic to our national consciousness that we don't need their anniversary to realize how much they affect our lives to this day. In particular, our current escalating war within Afghanistan stems directly from the fact that, in 2001, the terrorist Al-Qaeda organization, which planned and carried out the attacks, was operating freely there with the blessings of the Taliban-controlled government. So the U.S., with its NATO allies, justifiably set out in late 2001 to destroy Al-Qaeda, capture or kill its leaders, and punish the Taliban for giving them sanctuary.
But going so far as to overthrow the Taliban? I'm not sure that this goal was very well-thought out. At the time, the national political mood was so angry that some were even calling for nuclear attacks against Afghanistan. The thought of our national policy being to militarily punish the Taliban and then use leverage to separate them from Al-Qaeda would have been seen as too weak of a response to the attacks. But that was exactly how we got Sudan to expel Al-Qaeda out of its territory during the Clinton presidency. We didn't need to send US troops there to overthrow that Sudanese government, and no one is suggesting that we do so now (in spite of the ongoing Darfur tragedy in which that regime is complicit). But now, in Afghanistan, we've come around to where we were in Iraq. Our objectives have changed to "nation building".
We will not succeed in destroying the Taliban, which is an indigenous political/military movement popular among large sections of the population in certain regions, especially in the southern part of Afghanistan. The fact that their values offend many in the West (stoning for relatively minor crimes, persecution of minority religions, treatment of women as unequals, anti-education) may cloud the judgment of those who would like to improve life for Afghanis there. But we shouldn't digress from our original goals there, which were to eliminate Al-Qaeda as a security threat to us and to lay down the law that any regime harboring terrorists will be severely punished. For us to punish a governing regime somewhere is different than occupying their territory with our military while driving them out of power. All that accomplishes is to cast ourselves into the role of occupiers and to legitimize the overturned regime in the eyes of the people there. After all, the Taliban can now easily stigmatize whatever Afghan government is currently in power as "puppets" of the Americans as long as our military is there, very visible and in large numbers.
As for this article's title, I understand that dates are ordered differently in some countries, notably Great Britain. A few years ago, I had a little fun looking at a "Paul McCartney is dead" website that listed all of the reasons that the former Beatle supposedly died in 1966 from an automobile accident. Given as one of the clues was the date "9/11", reputedly appearing in some form on the Sgt. Pepper album cover. The website's author pointed out that this meant (to him) that the accident happened on November 9 [thanks for the correction, Barry], since in England the dates and months are switched in their conventional order of use. I don't know for sure whether or not that's true, but if it is it must be interesting for the British. After all, I'm sure that no one anywhere says "eleven nine" to refer to the 2001 terrorist attacks. Until now, that is.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Get With It, Virtual Reality!
I am not a gamer, neither in the gambling sense nor the video game application of the term. Aside from playing the state lottery (no more than $1 at a time) during the late eighties and early nineties, I have felt no desire to put my money on the line. Nor have I ever felt any kind of gambler's high as the result of a "win". I know the odds generally disfavor me, so why bother?
The same goes for video games. When my son was growing up in the nineties, he went through various stages of video games, starting with those slow ones on the desktop computer and then graduating into Sega Genesis, Nintendo, and beyond. I particularly remember enjoying watching him playing the Sonic the Hedgehog series. But me playing? It never captured my imagination (although I did for a time like to play a game called "Qix" on my brother-in-law's ancient Nintendo system). Even the games of today, with their superior, more realistic graphics, just don't duplicate reality enough for me. I need more. I need to be immersed within the game. I need virtual reality.
Tad Williams' grossly underrated four-volume science fiction Otherland series takes the development of virtual reality and gaming to its logical conclusion, a hundred years into the future. Gamers enter an extremely realistic alternate reality as the characters of their choice, instead of the current practice of watching a screen and manually manipulating controls. Like today's World of Warcraft game, participants meet up from all parts of the world, their true identities unknown to each other. This immersion in another "world" is what appeals to me.
But I see virtual reality technology not only for what it can bring to gaming. With the development of robotics and space propulsion technology, I see exploration of other worlds opening up for anyone to participate in as virtual "astronauts". And the locale for exploration need not be hospitable for human life. So one could fly through Jupiter's atmosphere or explore the extremely poisonous and hot surface of Venus this way.
I went to my county fair a few years ago. It had an exhibit promoting virtual reality that greatly disappointed me by its very primitive and unrealistic nature. Surely this must be something that computer software and hardware developers and gaming businesses can see as the future for their industries. Virtual reality is already being used to bring different parties together from distant points for conferences, with the participants assuming virtual identities for the meetings.
As a matter of fact, can I just go out on a limb and say that virtual reality will be the coming crucial element to the next great period of growth in our economy? It will make our current state of computer use look like the stone age and will cause those growing up within its culture to wander how people managed to survive in the early 21st century!
The same goes for video games. When my son was growing up in the nineties, he went through various stages of video games, starting with those slow ones on the desktop computer and then graduating into Sega Genesis, Nintendo, and beyond. I particularly remember enjoying watching him playing the Sonic the Hedgehog series. But me playing? It never captured my imagination (although I did for a time like to play a game called "Qix" on my brother-in-law's ancient Nintendo system). Even the games of today, with their superior, more realistic graphics, just don't duplicate reality enough for me. I need more. I need to be immersed within the game. I need virtual reality.
Tad Williams' grossly underrated four-volume science fiction Otherland series takes the development of virtual reality and gaming to its logical conclusion, a hundred years into the future. Gamers enter an extremely realistic alternate reality as the characters of their choice, instead of the current practice of watching a screen and manually manipulating controls. Like today's World of Warcraft game, participants meet up from all parts of the world, their true identities unknown to each other. This immersion in another "world" is what appeals to me.
But I see virtual reality technology not only for what it can bring to gaming. With the development of robotics and space propulsion technology, I see exploration of other worlds opening up for anyone to participate in as virtual "astronauts". And the locale for exploration need not be hospitable for human life. So one could fly through Jupiter's atmosphere or explore the extremely poisonous and hot surface of Venus this way.
I went to my county fair a few years ago. It had an exhibit promoting virtual reality that greatly disappointed me by its very primitive and unrealistic nature. Surely this must be something that computer software and hardware developers and gaming businesses can see as the future for their industries. Virtual reality is already being used to bring different parties together from distant points for conferences, with the participants assuming virtual identities for the meetings.
As a matter of fact, can I just go out on a limb and say that virtual reality will be the coming crucial element to the next great period of growth in our economy? It will make our current state of computer use look like the stone age and will cause those growing up within its culture to wander how people managed to survive in the early 21st century!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Pac-Ten Football Season Openers
This past weekend, my plan to earnestly "go west" and follow the Pacific-Ten NCAA football conference successfully kicked off, with me being able to watch four different games on my cable TV. But while watching the first game (and soon after its conclusion), I was wondering whether or not this league was really worth following.
When I got home from work last Thursday night, the Pac-10's Oregon Ducks were playing their season opener on the road against the Boise State Broncos (on their very weird dark-blue field). The fourth quarter was just beginning, and the Ducks, although behind, were still in the game, trailing 19-8 (which ended up as the final score). Oregon got the ball, the quarterback threw a long pass which was dropped, but wait... there was a penalty anyway against Oregon... then there was an interception...then Boise State fumbled away the ball and Oregon had it back...and then fumbled it back. In between these various screwups were assorted penalties. In other words, it was an extremely sloppy game, especially on the part of Oregon. But worst of all, after the game, one of their players, running back LeGarrette Blount, while walking off the field toward the locker rooms, responded to what was apparently a verbal taunt by one of the Boise State players by suddenly wheeling around and slugging him in the chin, sending him to the ground. The incident was aired repeatedly on television and was a news video highlight on the Net. Oregon responded to the incident by suspending the offender for the rest of the season from playing. But I was scratching my head, wondering to myself whether I had picked the wrong conference to follow!
That one player's unsportsmanlike conduct aside, Oregon did show some talent in spite of its sloppy play. And I'm sure that they will go into their future games with a mission to prove that they are really a better team. Despite this slow start of the Ducks, on Saturday I saw some other good Pacific-Ten teams in action. That gave me a needed sense of self-assurance.
USC drubbed San Jose State, California routed Maryland, and Washington played a close (but losing) game against LSU. Their quarterbacks (Matt Barkley, Kevin Riley, and Jake Locker respectively) gave impressive performances and should inspire confidence with their teams' fans in future games.
So, on two counts, I think I made the right decision to follow Pac-Ten football. One, many games are available on cable television for me to watch. And two, I can tell that (except for Oregon's sloppy play) their caliber of play matches up well with other major conferences.
I'm interested in seeing how UCLA does on the road next week against Tennessee, although I probably won't be able to see it on TV. And of course, there is that big matchup between USC and Ohio State. Right now, as things stand, my favorite Pacific-Ten team is California, particularly because of their impressive defensive performance against Maryland.
When I got home from work last Thursday night, the Pac-10's Oregon Ducks were playing their season opener on the road against the Boise State Broncos (on their very weird dark-blue field). The fourth quarter was just beginning, and the Ducks, although behind, were still in the game, trailing 19-8 (which ended up as the final score). Oregon got the ball, the quarterback threw a long pass which was dropped, but wait... there was a penalty anyway against Oregon... then there was an interception...then Boise State fumbled away the ball and Oregon had it back...and then fumbled it back. In between these various screwups were assorted penalties. In other words, it was an extremely sloppy game, especially on the part of Oregon. But worst of all, after the game, one of their players, running back LeGarrette Blount, while walking off the field toward the locker rooms, responded to what was apparently a verbal taunt by one of the Boise State players by suddenly wheeling around and slugging him in the chin, sending him to the ground. The incident was aired repeatedly on television and was a news video highlight on the Net. Oregon responded to the incident by suspending the offender for the rest of the season from playing. But I was scratching my head, wondering to myself whether I had picked the wrong conference to follow!
That one player's unsportsmanlike conduct aside, Oregon did show some talent in spite of its sloppy play. And I'm sure that they will go into their future games with a mission to prove that they are really a better team. Despite this slow start of the Ducks, on Saturday I saw some other good Pacific-Ten teams in action. That gave me a needed sense of self-assurance.
USC drubbed San Jose State, California routed Maryland, and Washington played a close (but losing) game against LSU. Their quarterbacks (Matt Barkley, Kevin Riley, and Jake Locker respectively) gave impressive performances and should inspire confidence with their teams' fans in future games.
So, on two counts, I think I made the right decision to follow Pac-Ten football. One, many games are available on cable television for me to watch. And two, I can tell that (except for Oregon's sloppy play) their caliber of play matches up well with other major conferences.
I'm interested in seeing how UCLA does on the road next week against Tennessee, although I probably won't be able to see it on TV. And of course, there is that big matchup between USC and Ohio State. Right now, as things stand, my favorite Pacific-Ten team is California, particularly because of their impressive defensive performance against Maryland.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Four Movies on TV, Part 4
As the last of the four movies I saw on that lazy evening a few weeks ago, The Spy Who Loved Me ranks somewhere in the middle of all the James Bond flicks I've seen (which is all of them minus the latest one A Quantum of Solace). It is the third Bond film with Roger Moore in the star role as the suave, womanizing, and very violent British secret agent of Ian Fleming's literary series. Not that the movies have accurately reflected Fleming's vision of James Bond; the movies have to be appreciated (or despised) as entities distinct from the books.
The Spy Who Loved Me introduced Ringo Starr's later wife Barbara Bach as well as reacquainting the TV/movie audience with giant actor Richard Kiel (an actor who happens to be a giant). Kiel, you may recall, played the alien in the classic Twilight Zone episode To Serve Man. In The Spy Who Loved Me, Kiel plays Jaws, a free-lance hit man with metal for teeth and an incredible knack for survival. Jaws would return for the following Bond movie Moonraker and add a pretty cool twist to its ending.
The Spy Who Loved Me, like many James Bond movies before and after, pits the protagonist not against other nations but rather against an evil genius who wants to wreck the planet for the rest of us. As Bond, Moore teams up with Russian spy Bach to thwart the evildoer, with the usual impossible scenes involving chases, explosions, and fights (and some lovemaking thrown in on the side).
Of all the James Bond portrayers in the series, Roger Moore isn't one of my favorites. But he isn't one of the worst either. Here is my ranking of the actors playing Bond:
1 Sean Connery
2 Daniel Craig
3 Timothy Dalton
4 Roger Moore
5 Pierce Brosnan
6 George Lazenby
I am particularly grateful for George Lazenby's decision to only play Bond once, in the movie On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I never could accept him as Bond, although I understand that others have praised Lazenby's onetime portrayal.
If you're a fan of the James Bond movie series, you can't be like Star Wars or Star Trek fans and get hung up over the continuity of each movie with the next. Here are some examples:
--In the fourth Bond movie You Only Live Twice, Bond meets arch-nemesis Blofeld face-to-face and has a conversation with him. In the next of the series, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond once again encounters Blofeld while pretending to be an expert on heraldry. Blofeld doesn't recognize him as Bond.
--In Casino Royale, the 22nd (my count) Bond movie (introducing Daniel Craig), we go back in time to the beginning, when Bond gets his "007" designation and his very first assignment as the super spy. But his superior "M" is the same as the "M" in the previous four Bond movies starring Brosnan. And "Q" and Moneypenny, two longtime trademark characters of the Bond series, are nowhere to be seen.
--The 1983 unofficial Bond movie Never Say Never Again, starring Connery in his return to the star role, is really a poor rendition of the much better 1965 movie Thunderball.
--In the fifth movie You Only Live Twice, Bond reveals that his major at Cambridge was in oriental languages. But in the 19th movie Tomorrow Never Dies, he is completely stymied by Chinese writing.
Also, I found it hilarious how the villains would capture Bond and, instead of simply shooting him and being done with him, would try to make his death something creative and possible to escape from (which Bond always naturally did). So in Goldfinger, he is chained to an atomic bomb, in Diamonds Are Forever he is placed unconscious in pipes that are soon laid underground, in Live and Let Die he is tied up and gradually lowered into a pool of sharks, and so on. This ploy of the bad guy devising an elaborate scheme of getting rid of the hero has been copied and parodied in Get Smart, Batman, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., and The Avengers, to name a few series.
I like the James Bond series as pure escapism and nothing more. There are definitely elements to Bond's personality that I find revolting, especially his cavalier attitude toward women. But, like the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns, I find myself coming back and watching these movies over and over again.
A side-note: Beware of the USA Channel's presentation of the James Bond movies. They have edited too much out of them, apparently in order to be able to put on more commercials. I have noticed revised, butchered versions of the original Star Trek episodes and Andy Griffith on other cable channels as well. I find this practice to be deplorable.
The Spy Who Loved Me introduced Ringo Starr's later wife Barbara Bach as well as reacquainting the TV/movie audience with giant actor Richard Kiel (an actor who happens to be a giant). Kiel, you may recall, played the alien in the classic Twilight Zone episode To Serve Man. In The Spy Who Loved Me, Kiel plays Jaws, a free-lance hit man with metal for teeth and an incredible knack for survival. Jaws would return for the following Bond movie Moonraker and add a pretty cool twist to its ending.
The Spy Who Loved Me, like many James Bond movies before and after, pits the protagonist not against other nations but rather against an evil genius who wants to wreck the planet for the rest of us. As Bond, Moore teams up with Russian spy Bach to thwart the evildoer, with the usual impossible scenes involving chases, explosions, and fights (and some lovemaking thrown in on the side).
Of all the James Bond portrayers in the series, Roger Moore isn't one of my favorites. But he isn't one of the worst either. Here is my ranking of the actors playing Bond:
1 Sean Connery
2 Daniel Craig
3 Timothy Dalton
4 Roger Moore
5 Pierce Brosnan
6 George Lazenby
I am particularly grateful for George Lazenby's decision to only play Bond once, in the movie On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I never could accept him as Bond, although I understand that others have praised Lazenby's onetime portrayal.
If you're a fan of the James Bond movie series, you can't be like Star Wars or Star Trek fans and get hung up over the continuity of each movie with the next. Here are some examples:
--In the fourth Bond movie You Only Live Twice, Bond meets arch-nemesis Blofeld face-to-face and has a conversation with him. In the next of the series, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond once again encounters Blofeld while pretending to be an expert on heraldry. Blofeld doesn't recognize him as Bond.
--In Casino Royale, the 22nd (my count) Bond movie (introducing Daniel Craig), we go back in time to the beginning, when Bond gets his "007" designation and his very first assignment as the super spy. But his superior "M" is the same as the "M" in the previous four Bond movies starring Brosnan. And "Q" and Moneypenny, two longtime trademark characters of the Bond series, are nowhere to be seen.
--The 1983 unofficial Bond movie Never Say Never Again, starring Connery in his return to the star role, is really a poor rendition of the much better 1965 movie Thunderball.
--In the fifth movie You Only Live Twice, Bond reveals that his major at Cambridge was in oriental languages. But in the 19th movie Tomorrow Never Dies, he is completely stymied by Chinese writing.
Also, I found it hilarious how the villains would capture Bond and, instead of simply shooting him and being done with him, would try to make his death something creative and possible to escape from (which Bond always naturally did). So in Goldfinger, he is chained to an atomic bomb, in Diamonds Are Forever he is placed unconscious in pipes that are soon laid underground, in Live and Let Die he is tied up and gradually lowered into a pool of sharks, and so on. This ploy of the bad guy devising an elaborate scheme of getting rid of the hero has been copied and parodied in Get Smart, Batman, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., and The Avengers, to name a few series.
I like the James Bond series as pure escapism and nothing more. There are definitely elements to Bond's personality that I find revolting, especially his cavalier attitude toward women. But, like the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns, I find myself coming back and watching these movies over and over again.
A side-note: Beware of the USA Channel's presentation of the James Bond movies. They have edited too much out of them, apparently in order to be able to put on more commercials. I have noticed revised, butchered versions of the original Star Trek episodes and Andy Griffith on other cable channels as well. I find this practice to be deplorable.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Happy Anniversary, Sweetheart
Today marks twenty-three years of marriage to my wonderful, beautiful wife Melissa. I cannot fathom where I would be now in my life without her. She has inspired me repeatedly over the years, both by her warm, enthusiastic encouragement and by her own example. And in my personal times of difficulty, she has cared for me with such a loving heart.
Were I to divide my life into two eras, it would be between everything that happened before September 7, 1986 and everything that happened afterward.
I love you, Melissa!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Health Care and Longevity
Before I relate what I did regarding my health insurance from 1979 to 1986, I need to make a disclaimer: I was lucky, so don't try this yourselves. Now that that's been taken care of, on with the show!
What was my relationship with the health insurance industry from 1979 to 1986? In mathematical terms: the "empty set"! In linguistic terms: nada, nyet, nichts! I was in my twenties and single. Other than a brief period of drinking (mostly light beer) from 1979 to 1981, I stayed completely clear of any drugs (well, I drank a lot of coffee). I generally ate healthful foods and kept in shape by pretty intense exercise (mainly bicycling). During this entire period, I made exactly three doctor's visits. And paid not one penny in health insurance premiums.
Since 1986, which not coincidentally coincides with the year I was married, I have been thoroughly covered with health insurance. And I see my doctor (and referrals) several times a year. But I have to ask myself: had I no health insurance, would I have seen them this often? And would my body have healed itself on its own without medical attention? But since someone else is footing the overwhelming amount of the medical bill, it is much easier to see a doctor for issues that I otherwise would have "gutted" out on my own (such as upper respiratory infections). Remember, I am not advocating that anyone (or myself) drop their own health insurance coverage.
The truth is, people need to regularly see their physician, especially as they grow older, in order to detect early signs of potentially serious (and even fatal) diseases such as heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure, and the many forms of cancer out there. In any of these areas, early detection and treatment can be the key to survival and a long, relatively healthy life.
But having said that, I need to temper things with a little common sense. As individuals, we, not our physicians, are the parties primarily responsible for the care and longevity of our bodies. We control what kind of food and drink we put into our mouths. We decide how physically active we are through the course of our days. We decide how involved we will be with drugs. We decide to put ourselves in varying degrees of stress and anxiety, and often it is our own inner conversations with ourselves that can produce the worst effects in this area. And we can decide what company to keep: nurturing, loving friends and family, hermit-like misanthropic isolation, or destructive, even violent relationships. Our personal choices are the front lines in our struggle to achieve longevity and good health.
But some health maintenance, as I have said before, is more in the realm of the health care profession. For this, universal health care (that doesn't bankrupt its users) is needed for our society, with an embedded component of preventative health education that can help some of us with destructive personal health lifestyles to alter them for the better.
What was my relationship with the health insurance industry from 1979 to 1986? In mathematical terms: the "empty set"! In linguistic terms: nada, nyet, nichts! I was in my twenties and single. Other than a brief period of drinking (mostly light beer) from 1979 to 1981, I stayed completely clear of any drugs (well, I drank a lot of coffee). I generally ate healthful foods and kept in shape by pretty intense exercise (mainly bicycling). During this entire period, I made exactly three doctor's visits. And paid not one penny in health insurance premiums.
Since 1986, which not coincidentally coincides with the year I was married, I have been thoroughly covered with health insurance. And I see my doctor (and referrals) several times a year. But I have to ask myself: had I no health insurance, would I have seen them this often? And would my body have healed itself on its own without medical attention? But since someone else is footing the overwhelming amount of the medical bill, it is much easier to see a doctor for issues that I otherwise would have "gutted" out on my own (such as upper respiratory infections). Remember, I am not advocating that anyone (or myself) drop their own health insurance coverage.
The truth is, people need to regularly see their physician, especially as they grow older, in order to detect early signs of potentially serious (and even fatal) diseases such as heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure, and the many forms of cancer out there. In any of these areas, early detection and treatment can be the key to survival and a long, relatively healthy life.
But having said that, I need to temper things with a little common sense. As individuals, we, not our physicians, are the parties primarily responsible for the care and longevity of our bodies. We control what kind of food and drink we put into our mouths. We decide how physically active we are through the course of our days. We decide how involved we will be with drugs. We decide to put ourselves in varying degrees of stress and anxiety, and often it is our own inner conversations with ourselves that can produce the worst effects in this area. And we can decide what company to keep: nurturing, loving friends and family, hermit-like misanthropic isolation, or destructive, even violent relationships. Our personal choices are the front lines in our struggle to achieve longevity and good health.
But some health maintenance, as I have said before, is more in the realm of the health care profession. For this, universal health care (that doesn't bankrupt its users) is needed for our society, with an embedded component of preventative health education that can help some of us with destructive personal health lifestyles to alter them for the better.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
When Is Adulthood Reached?
Back in the 1960s during the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of America's youth were conscripted into the armed forces, trained in combat, and then sent to the other side of the world into an alien and very hostile environment to put their lives and futures on the line as the political leaders of the time saw fit. But most of them were under 21, so they couldn't even vote for or against the political leaders who sent them there! This injustice was finally remedied in the 1970s when the national voting age was lowered to 18.
Eighteen years of age marks a generally recognized milestone into adulthood. Seventeen-year-olds are presumed to be minors and, legally-speaking, are incapable of having consensual sexual relations. But once they became eighteen, then they are presumed to be adults regarding sexual behavior. Being 18 means one can enlist in the armed forces and go off into combat. Once someone becomes eighteen and is charged with a crime, (s)he is subject to being prosecuted as a full adult. And yes, being 18 now does allow one to vote.
But across this country, the minimum legal age for purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages is 21! You may have already voted for nearly three years, be legally recognized as an adult regarding sexual matters or criminal prosecution, be a father or mother with the responsibility for caring for a child, and be in the armed forces putting your life on the line for your country. But you can't buy a Miller Lite at your local grocer!
There are those who feel that young people are not responsible enough to drink, due to the fact that the human brain is not fully developed until the mid-twenties. But it's apparently O.K. to recognize them as adults in all of the other aforementioned critically important areas!
Eighteen years of age marks a generally recognized milestone into adulthood. Seventeen-year-olds are presumed to be minors and, legally-speaking, are incapable of having consensual sexual relations. But once they became eighteen, then they are presumed to be adults regarding sexual behavior. Being 18 means one can enlist in the armed forces and go off into combat. Once someone becomes eighteen and is charged with a crime, (s)he is subject to being prosecuted as a full adult. And yes, being 18 now does allow one to vote.
But across this country, the minimum legal age for purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages is 21! You may have already voted for nearly three years, be legally recognized as an adult regarding sexual matters or criminal prosecution, be a father or mother with the responsibility for caring for a child, and be in the armed forces putting your life on the line for your country. But you can't buy a Miller Lite at your local grocer!
There are those who feel that young people are not responsible enough to drink, due to the fact that the human brain is not fully developed until the mid-twenties. But it's apparently O.K. to recognize them as adults in all of the other aforementioned critically important areas!
Friday, September 4, 2009
Local Church's Hateful Message Continues
This is a follow-up to an earlier story about Gainesville's Dove World Outreach Center. So far, three children of Dove members have been sent home from public school after sporting "Islam is of the devil" shirts, apparently custom-designed for the church by an Internet company (local companies refused to print shirts with this message). The church and its property, still with very visible signs on it condemning Islam, is also still up for sale. All of this raises a couple of questions.
First of all, it may be argued that the "Islam is of the devil" garbage being spewed out by this church is nothing more than a cynical ploy designed by its leader to publicize the fact that it is for sale, and to further give incentive for another party to buy it off in order to stop this embarrassment to the community. Second, any criticism of the provocative and hateful character of this message simply goes back into the church's feedback loop as "persecution" from "the world". They have openly styled themselves as an apostolic/prophetic church and rely on their own interpretation of the Bible for examples to follow. So as Jeremiah from the Old Testament and Paul from the New were ostracized, threatened, imprisoned, beat up, and run out of town for their religious activities, these folks at Dove see themselves the same way. The only problem with this viewpoint is that they are operating safely in an overwhelmingly Christian culture with enforced constitutional rights to freely practice their religion without persecution. The criticism is being directed at their intolerance.
There are Christians in other countries, especially in Africa and southern Asia, where they are truly persecuted by the majority non-Christian culture. And in these lands are extreme factions of the prevalent religions who, like Dove, take it upon themselves to incite others belonging to the majority religions there to scapegoat those within the small minority-religion families and communities for their societies' problems. How would Terry Jones, the pastor of Dove World Outreach Center and the instigator of this hateful provocation about Islam, like it if his church were in one of those countries and his congregation's children, going to school there, encountered other children wearing shirts with the slogan "Christianity is of the devil"?
But there is no convincing these people that what they are doing is wrong. Except for Jones, who may have his own motives for his actions, they are stuck in a feedback loop that has ready-made answers supplying derogatory motives to any reactions anyone may have to their provocative actions. And ready-made rationalizations for whatever their leader instructs them to do. Criticizing them just feeds back into this loop. On the other hand, having seen how dangerous cults have developed in the past, it is still necessary to spotlight and expose this disturbing behavior in the press. So here is my thanks to my local paper The Gainesville Sun for publishing stories about this sad affair. And here is my article about it as well.
First of all, it may be argued that the "Islam is of the devil" garbage being spewed out by this church is nothing more than a cynical ploy designed by its leader to publicize the fact that it is for sale, and to further give incentive for another party to buy it off in order to stop this embarrassment to the community. Second, any criticism of the provocative and hateful character of this message simply goes back into the church's feedback loop as "persecution" from "the world". They have openly styled themselves as an apostolic/prophetic church and rely on their own interpretation of the Bible for examples to follow. So as Jeremiah from the Old Testament and Paul from the New were ostracized, threatened, imprisoned, beat up, and run out of town for their religious activities, these folks at Dove see themselves the same way. The only problem with this viewpoint is that they are operating safely in an overwhelmingly Christian culture with enforced constitutional rights to freely practice their religion without persecution. The criticism is being directed at their intolerance.
There are Christians in other countries, especially in Africa and southern Asia, where they are truly persecuted by the majority non-Christian culture. And in these lands are extreme factions of the prevalent religions who, like Dove, take it upon themselves to incite others belonging to the majority religions there to scapegoat those within the small minority-religion families and communities for their societies' problems. How would Terry Jones, the pastor of Dove World Outreach Center and the instigator of this hateful provocation about Islam, like it if his church were in one of those countries and his congregation's children, going to school there, encountered other children wearing shirts with the slogan "Christianity is of the devil"?
But there is no convincing these people that what they are doing is wrong. Except for Jones, who may have his own motives for his actions, they are stuck in a feedback loop that has ready-made answers supplying derogatory motives to any reactions anyone may have to their provocative actions. And ready-made rationalizations for whatever their leader instructs them to do. Criticizing them just feeds back into this loop. On the other hand, having seen how dangerous cults have developed in the past, it is still necessary to spotlight and expose this disturbing behavior in the press. So here is my thanks to my local paper The Gainesville Sun for publishing stories about this sad affair. And here is my article about it as well.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
German Donald Duck & Stale News
I was reading my Gainesville Sun last Thursday when I came upon its weekly feature titled News of the Weird. This feature, as its title indicates, relates various stories that its editor/author Chuck Shepherd deems to be offbeat and unusual in nature, picked up through the world media.
Now why did I decide to look deeper into News of the Weird? Last Thursday, one of the articles in it was about how Donald Duck is treated in Germany. First of all, Donald Duck is mainly a print phenomenon there, with sales of "his" comics very popular. Second, German Donald is much more erudite and intellectual than his ordinary "regular guy" American counterpart.
So what, you may say. And I'd agree and not even bother with it, except for the fact that, in delving into "deutsche Donald", I discovered a couple of other peculiarities in how News of the Weird is printed in the Gainesville Sun. On the Net, Shepherd takes stories he gleans from different media sources and cites those sources with the dates of their publications. By the time any of these articles gets to the Gainesville Sun's version of the feature, all citations and dates have been omitted. They do give Shepherd's News of the Weird URL, but I really don't think that encouraging the reader to access the Web for citations that they should have provided is a very good strategy for promoting sales of their newspaper's hard copy. After all, if the website is better, then why read the Sun in the first place?
Take the German Donald Duck article. It was reported on the website News of the Weird on August 30. It gave as its source for the story an article in the Wall Street Journal from back on May 23, more than three months earlier (none of which was revealed in the Sun)! I looked at other stories and found some even older (although there were some that were relatively recent).
Here is my problem with News of the Weird as the Gainesville Sun reports it: I read a story and have no idea where it came from or when it was first reported, so how can I feel comfortable bringing it up in conversation with others? For all I know, the original sources are illegitimate. It reminds me of that Chinese journalist who lifted an article from The Onion and reported it as fact, much to his later humiliation. The oldness of the news also reminds me of a newspaper that circulated around a few years ago: Old News. But Old News was deliberately old, featuring articles portraying significant historical events as ongoing in the present, and tailored to appear like modern newspaper journalism.
I'll leave intellectual Donald Duck to the Germans, danke schön. I much prefer silly, American Donald with his emotions on his sleeve, even though I can never understand a damned thing he's saying!
Now why did I decide to look deeper into News of the Weird? Last Thursday, one of the articles in it was about how Donald Duck is treated in Germany. First of all, Donald Duck is mainly a print phenomenon there, with sales of "his" comics very popular. Second, German Donald is much more erudite and intellectual than his ordinary "regular guy" American counterpart.
So what, you may say. And I'd agree and not even bother with it, except for the fact that, in delving into "deutsche Donald", I discovered a couple of other peculiarities in how News of the Weird is printed in the Gainesville Sun. On the Net, Shepherd takes stories he gleans from different media sources and cites those sources with the dates of their publications. By the time any of these articles gets to the Gainesville Sun's version of the feature, all citations and dates have been omitted. They do give Shepherd's News of the Weird URL, but I really don't think that encouraging the reader to access the Web for citations that they should have provided is a very good strategy for promoting sales of their newspaper's hard copy. After all, if the website is better, then why read the Sun in the first place?
Take the German Donald Duck article. It was reported on the website News of the Weird on August 30. It gave as its source for the story an article in the Wall Street Journal from back on May 23, more than three months earlier (none of which was revealed in the Sun)! I looked at other stories and found some even older (although there were some that were relatively recent).
Here is my problem with News of the Weird as the Gainesville Sun reports it: I read a story and have no idea where it came from or when it was first reported, so how can I feel comfortable bringing it up in conversation with others? For all I know, the original sources are illegitimate. It reminds me of that Chinese journalist who lifted an article from The Onion and reported it as fact, much to his later humiliation. The oldness of the news also reminds me of a newspaper that circulated around a few years ago: Old News. But Old News was deliberately old, featuring articles portraying significant historical events as ongoing in the present, and tailored to appear like modern newspaper journalism.
I'll leave intellectual Donald Duck to the Germans, danke schön. I much prefer silly, American Donald with his emotions on his sleeve, even though I can never understand a damned thing he's saying!
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Gator Football Schedule Embarrassing
Aside from their annual game against Florida State, the University of Florida football team has consistently avoided non-conference challenges on the gridiron. In 1992, early in the Steve Spurrier era, the Gators played an early-season game against Syracuse (at Syracuse) and were thoroughly creamed. Since then, their only truly challenging opponents outside of the Southeastern Conference have been Florida State and a small numbers of engagements against the Miami Hurricanes.
Florida is opening its schedule against Charleston Southern. Yes, I said Charleston Southern. Is there a Charleston Northern, too? I really don't think that Charleston is all that big a city to begin with! To illustrate the discrepancy between this school and the UF team, I heard that the Gators are favored by 73 points. Which means that they have to score a touchdown every six minutes in order to live up to expectations. And that's without Charleston Southern scoring any points! Anything less will be considered as a failure.
With Tim Tebow vying for another Heisman Trophy this year, what good will a game like this do? Most likely, he'll rack up some impressive statistics in the first half and then backup quarterback John Brantley will replace him. But Tebow could stay in the the whole game, set all kinds of records, and nobody would be fooled.
Meanwhile, the University of Tennessee will continue its admirable tradition of playing meaningful non-conference games early in the season by playing UCLA the following week. Although this game is at Knoxville, Tennessee has in the past played many of its early season against tough opponents on the road, too. The Gators, I understand, haven't played a non-conference regular season game outside of Florida since that 1992 debacle in Syracuse (I watched it; it was really BAD).
The University of Florida's fans and the local press may like to ridicule Tennessee and the Gators may get a kick out of running up the score on them late in the fourth quarter to look good on paper. But were it not for schools like Tennessee with their boldness in playing quality out-of-conference opponents, the SEC as a whole would have less stature in the national polls, making it more difficult for anyone in the conference, including UF, to make it to the National Championship game.
The Gator basketball team has been shunned for the last two seasons by the NCAA Tournament selection committee because of their ultra-wimpy non-conference schedule. This year they finally learned their lesson and have beefed up their schedule with some tough early opponents. Sooner or later, the football team will have to follow suit unless they want to suffer the same fate as the hoops squad.
Florida is opening its schedule against Charleston Southern. Yes, I said Charleston Southern. Is there a Charleston Northern, too? I really don't think that Charleston is all that big a city to begin with! To illustrate the discrepancy between this school and the UF team, I heard that the Gators are favored by 73 points. Which means that they have to score a touchdown every six minutes in order to live up to expectations. And that's without Charleston Southern scoring any points! Anything less will be considered as a failure.
With Tim Tebow vying for another Heisman Trophy this year, what good will a game like this do? Most likely, he'll rack up some impressive statistics in the first half and then backup quarterback John Brantley will replace him. But Tebow could stay in the the whole game, set all kinds of records, and nobody would be fooled.
Meanwhile, the University of Tennessee will continue its admirable tradition of playing meaningful non-conference games early in the season by playing UCLA the following week. Although this game is at Knoxville, Tennessee has in the past played many of its early season against tough opponents on the road, too. The Gators, I understand, haven't played a non-conference regular season game outside of Florida since that 1992 debacle in Syracuse (I watched it; it was really BAD).
The University of Florida's fans and the local press may like to ridicule Tennessee and the Gators may get a kick out of running up the score on them late in the fourth quarter to look good on paper. But were it not for schools like Tennessee with their boldness in playing quality out-of-conference opponents, the SEC as a whole would have less stature in the national polls, making it more difficult for anyone in the conference, including UF, to make it to the National Championship game.
The Gator basketball team has been shunned for the last two seasons by the NCAA Tournament selection committee because of their ultra-wimpy non-conference schedule. This year they finally learned their lesson and have beefed up their schedule with some tough early opponents. Sooner or later, the football team will have to follow suit unless they want to suffer the same fate as the hoops squad.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Goth Culture and Vampires
Until just recently, I have regarded South Park's Manbearpig episode lampooning Al Gore as my all-time favorite episode of that series (actually, I like the former VP and his underrated sense of humor). Now, Manbearpig has a competitor for the "title": Season 12's The Ungroundable, examining (and naturally poking much-needed fun at) the subcultures of the Gothic (or "goth") and vampires, flourishing mainly within the youth demographic.
In case you don't know what Gothic culture is, basically it's a form of social presentation and outlook in which its adherents tend to dress in black, dye their hair black, make their skin pale, wear idiosyncratic jewelry, listen to certain types of music (like Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Cure, Depeche Mode), tend to skip classes, watch Gothic horror flicks, hang out in coffee shops drinking a lot of coffee, smoke cigarettes liberally, and take an openly cynical view of just about everything that the majority population holds up in esteem. Vampires are more of a fad that has recently sprung up (promoted by Stephanie Meyer's equally faddish Twilight series of novels/movies) that mimics the goth "look" but whose adherents pretend to be vampires.
In the South Park episode, South Park School's goth clique, offended at the "vampires" for copying their appearance, goes about to destroy that movement by discerning its source. Which turns out to be a new store in the local mall that sells vampire "gear" (like fake vampire teeth).
When I first saw The Ungroundable, something unexpected (and a little disturbing) happened to me: I began to find myself identifying with the goths! No, I don't dye my hair black (or least I haven't yet) and I don't smoke (nor do I ever plan to). But I have always preferred wearing dark clothing, often dressing completely in black. Although black is technically the absence of color and I have usually mentioned other hues when asked what my favorite color is, I honestly prefer black over all the others. Even recently, when looking for paint for my home's interior walls, I found myself drawn to the darker shades, even black. I am not only a confirmed coffee drinker, but as in goth culture, I hang out regularly in coffee shops (I am hanging out in a Starbucks writing this). And I challenge anyone to find a more cynical attitude toward humanity and society than the one I have.
Goths don't fit in and don't want to. And neither do I, on both counts. When I went to high school in the early 1970s, I might have identified with the goth culture there, had there actually been one at the time (although they might not have cared for the fact that I wouldn't "light up"). Who knows, maybe there were people like that around, but they couldn't find me (since I tended to try to make myself as invisible as possible). But I don't recall any cliques of this sort happening back then. We had our groups, to be sure: the jocks, the brains/geeks (I was a marginal member here),the performers, the bullies/toadies, the preppies/snobs, and so on. But no goths.
I like the Gothic subculture, but I doubt that this subculture likes me. I'm 52, gray-haired, steadily employed (with a good attendance record), with a beautiful wife, two great kids (one at college and one entering high school), a house, two cars, and two slobberingly-sweet dogs. And no smokers anywhere to be seen (except for in-laws). Oh yeh...and I like Al Gore, too. But I do love to listen to the very gloomy musical groups Depeche Mode and The Cure. I have an affinity for the night. And I sometimes have to strain a bit on this blog to present my opinions without weighing them down with too much cynicism. I guess I was just born ahead of my time!
As for vampires, I say just stick with Stephanie Meyer and South Park!
In case you don't know what Gothic culture is, basically it's a form of social presentation and outlook in which its adherents tend to dress in black, dye their hair black, make their skin pale, wear idiosyncratic jewelry, listen to certain types of music (like Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Cure, Depeche Mode), tend to skip classes, watch Gothic horror flicks, hang out in coffee shops drinking a lot of coffee, smoke cigarettes liberally, and take an openly cynical view of just about everything that the majority population holds up in esteem. Vampires are more of a fad that has recently sprung up (promoted by Stephanie Meyer's equally faddish Twilight series of novels/movies) that mimics the goth "look" but whose adherents pretend to be vampires.
In the South Park episode, South Park School's goth clique, offended at the "vampires" for copying their appearance, goes about to destroy that movement by discerning its source. Which turns out to be a new store in the local mall that sells vampire "gear" (like fake vampire teeth).
When I first saw The Ungroundable, something unexpected (and a little disturbing) happened to me: I began to find myself identifying with the goths! No, I don't dye my hair black (or least I haven't yet) and I don't smoke (nor do I ever plan to). But I have always preferred wearing dark clothing, often dressing completely in black. Although black is technically the absence of color and I have usually mentioned other hues when asked what my favorite color is, I honestly prefer black over all the others. Even recently, when looking for paint for my home's interior walls, I found myself drawn to the darker shades, even black. I am not only a confirmed coffee drinker, but as in goth culture, I hang out regularly in coffee shops (I am hanging out in a Starbucks writing this). And I challenge anyone to find a more cynical attitude toward humanity and society than the one I have.
Goths don't fit in and don't want to. And neither do I, on both counts. When I went to high school in the early 1970s, I might have identified with the goth culture there, had there actually been one at the time (although they might not have cared for the fact that I wouldn't "light up"). Who knows, maybe there were people like that around, but they couldn't find me (since I tended to try to make myself as invisible as possible). But I don't recall any cliques of this sort happening back then. We had our groups, to be sure: the jocks, the brains/geeks (I was a marginal member here),the performers, the bullies/toadies, the preppies/snobs, and so on. But no goths.
I like the Gothic subculture, but I doubt that this subculture likes me. I'm 52, gray-haired, steadily employed (with a good attendance record), with a beautiful wife, two great kids (one at college and one entering high school), a house, two cars, and two slobberingly-sweet dogs. And no smokers anywhere to be seen (except for in-laws). Oh yeh...and I like Al Gore, too. But I do love to listen to the very gloomy musical groups Depeche Mode and The Cure. I have an affinity for the night. And I sometimes have to strain a bit on this blog to present my opinions without weighing them down with too much cynicism. I guess I was just born ahead of my time!
As for vampires, I say just stick with Stephanie Meyer and South Park!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
