Here I am, sitting off in a corner of a Starbucks next to the Oaks Mall here in Gainesville, across the street from the North Florida Regional medical offices where I am currently between appointments for routine medical tests and consultations. For which my excellent health insurance, provided by my employer, USPS, gives coverage with a very reasonable premium. This is the same general type of coverage that our lawmakers in Washington enjoy. And many of them, Republicans for the most part but also several Democrats, evidently think that they are so superior to the American people that they would deprive the rest of the country's population of the same benefits that they enjoy themselves. By opposing health care reform.
As far as the public option that we have heard so much about over the past few months is concerned, it doesn't explicitly exist in the pool of choices I have for health insurance. Instead, insurance companies and FHOs have negotiated special policies with the government to cover federal employees, with their prices being relatively low. So, in a sense, there is already a degree of "public" in the available private options, at least for federal employees.
I have been opposed to efforts put forth by a few Democrats (and Independent Joe Lieberman) to pass a bill without a public option. I can handle that, provided that any mandated health insurance is not beyond the means of the people to pay for. Especially poor people. The only problem is that there is no guarantee that this won't happen, and I am strongly opposed to creating a new class of criminals, based on a new unreasonable mandate to carry health insurance. If there are provisions within the bill to lessen the load on the poor (and I've heard that there are), then those poor Americans should not have to jump through any bureaucratic hoops to obtain that relief and avoid fines or prosecution. After all, there are many living in poverty right now who don't receive available public assistance simply because they are averse to the red tape involved in it or are simply ignorant of their options.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Blog Entering Patchy Period
I am anticipating a period of a few days in which my blog entries may be sporadic. Or relatively short. Things should pick up, though, sooner or later.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Dip Into Thirties, Finally
This morning the local temperatures here in Gainesville dipped down into the thirties for the first time since early April. Although meteorologists have predicted a wet and cold winter due to the El Niño effect, we have been experiencing a rather warm, dry autumn so far. Lows in the upper thirties, highs in the fifties: that is "my" optimum weather!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Philip K. Dick's In Milton Lumky Territory
In Milton Lumky Territory is a realism novel by Philip K. Dick (1928-82), known primarily for his science fiction. The setting is the American Pacific Northwest, mostly in the state of Idaho. The three main characters, Bruce Stevens, Susan Faine, and Milton Lumky, are struggling with their jobs and businesses in the area. Bruce joins Susan's typewriter/office services business and tries to improve on it by concentrating on selling higher-quality typewriters. To accomplish this, he searches the Pacific area from San Francisco to Seattle for a supplier of a certain Japanese electric typewriter that he feels will sell well and turn the business around. Lumky, on the other hand, is a travelling office paper salesman who knew Susan from earlier and is getting to know Bruce. He reveals a supplier who has a large stock of the typewriters in question. There is a clash of personalities and values between Lumky and Stevens, as the former accuses the latter of lacking in spirituality and concern for others. Lumky asks Stevens if he believed in God, and Stevens can only laugh back uncontrollably in response. Lumky becomes angry at him, not only for his atheism but for the fact that Stevens, unlike himself, thrives being on long road trips.
This novel, not one of my favorites of Dick's, does examine closely how people think and relate to one another. It paints no favorable picture of anyone, as all of the story's main characters are really pretty disagreeable and miserable people. Which makes reading through it a somewhat depressing experience.
The bleak, ugly description of Idaho that Dick lays out is also rather depressing. The roads are bad, the weather is miserable, and there are these nasty flying, biting bugs that get in your face and clog up your car's radiator.
I suppose that if you are a glutton for punishment, you may want to read In Milton Lumky's Territory. I for one didn't particularly enjoy it, although it did provide some insight into what motivates some people to behave in a petty manner regarding money. And like other Philip K. Dick realism novels such as Humpty Dumpty in Oakland and Voices From the Street, it exposes the mindset of people running small businesses, at least as Dick sees it. And a not-so-favorable portrayal at that.
I am currently reading a science fiction novel of Dick: The World Jones Made. Much, much more enjoyable and interesting (I'm about two thirds of the way through it). I think Philip K. Dick's strength was definitely in the genre of science fiction! The fact that many of his realism novels, including In Milton Lumky's Territory, were repeatedly rejected by publishers during his lifetime and were only published posthumously is just an affirmation of my own opinion.
This novel, not one of my favorites of Dick's, does examine closely how people think and relate to one another. It paints no favorable picture of anyone, as all of the story's main characters are really pretty disagreeable and miserable people. Which makes reading through it a somewhat depressing experience.
The bleak, ugly description of Idaho that Dick lays out is also rather depressing. The roads are bad, the weather is miserable, and there are these nasty flying, biting bugs that get in your face and clog up your car's radiator.
I suppose that if you are a glutton for punishment, you may want to read In Milton Lumky's Territory. I for one didn't particularly enjoy it, although it did provide some insight into what motivates some people to behave in a petty manner regarding money. And like other Philip K. Dick realism novels such as Humpty Dumpty in Oakland and Voices From the Street, it exposes the mindset of people running small businesses, at least as Dick sees it. And a not-so-favorable portrayal at that.
I am currently reading a science fiction novel of Dick: The World Jones Made. Much, much more enjoyable and interesting (I'm about two thirds of the way through it). I think Philip K. Dick's strength was definitely in the genre of science fiction! The fact that many of his realism novels, including In Milton Lumky's Territory, were repeatedly rejected by publishers during his lifetime and were only published posthumously is just an affirmation of my own opinion.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Urban Meyer and Notre Dame
With Notre Dame once again having a mediocre season at 6-5, talk is heating up about an impending head football coach vacancy up there in South Bend, with Charlie Weis on the way out after a string of disappointing seasons. And talk is also heating up about the possibility that Florida head coach Urban Meyer will step in to replace Weis.
Before coming to UF, Meyer has described coaching at Notre Dame, where he was previously an assistant coach for five years, as his "dream job". But he has become very comfortable here in Gainesville and has accomplished everything he would have wanted to at Notre Dame, particularly two national championships in four seasons and possibly a third this year. He can recruit more easily in the high schools of Florida and the South at large, and he doesn't have to overcome the stringent academic standards that Notre Dame has to bring in players who may have had enough difficulty just passing high school. Meyer is almost idolized in the Gainesville area, something that I have already written disturbs me to no end. If he went to Notre Dame, then winning the national championship occasionally and competing for it every season would be the minimum expectation among their fans. Of course, give Meyer a string of three or four seasons with three or four losses per season at UF and see much longer he would remain idolized here in Gainesville.
Urban Meyer has consistently and firmly denied rumors that he would be interested in coaching at Notre Dame, and has reiterated that he is very happy at the University of Florida. The only problem with that is that Alabama head coach Nick Saban was saying the same things while coaching the Miami Dolphins when the Alabama job became available. And once Alabama made him an "offer he couldn't refuse", Saban reneged on his commitment to the Dolphins and jumped over to Alabama. Meyer has "jumped ship" before, most recently leaving Utah for Florida following only his second season of coaching for them, after recruiting players there who believed that he would be with them for their college careers.
For me, I think Urban Meyer is a good coach with essentially no sense of humor, at least as far as it relates to him or his team. This whole mindset around here that it is somehow offensive to criticize Meyer, Tim Tebow, or any other UF player or coach is offensive in itself to me. I would rather have a less successful coach and a team to follow that had moderately successful seasons than a coach and team that are EXPECTED to win every game they play (and by large point margins at that). So Meyer is welcome to jump ship, as far as I'm concerned. Whether he does or not, I'll still root for the Gators. But it wouldn't hurt my feelings if he left, either. After all, Nick Saban has already conditioned me in this area!
Before coming to UF, Meyer has described coaching at Notre Dame, where he was previously an assistant coach for five years, as his "dream job". But he has become very comfortable here in Gainesville and has accomplished everything he would have wanted to at Notre Dame, particularly two national championships in four seasons and possibly a third this year. He can recruit more easily in the high schools of Florida and the South at large, and he doesn't have to overcome the stringent academic standards that Notre Dame has to bring in players who may have had enough difficulty just passing high school. Meyer is almost idolized in the Gainesville area, something that I have already written disturbs me to no end. If he went to Notre Dame, then winning the national championship occasionally and competing for it every season would be the minimum expectation among their fans. Of course, give Meyer a string of three or four seasons with three or four losses per season at UF and see much longer he would remain idolized here in Gainesville.
Urban Meyer has consistently and firmly denied rumors that he would be interested in coaching at Notre Dame, and has reiterated that he is very happy at the University of Florida. The only problem with that is that Alabama head coach Nick Saban was saying the same things while coaching the Miami Dolphins when the Alabama job became available. And once Alabama made him an "offer he couldn't refuse", Saban reneged on his commitment to the Dolphins and jumped over to Alabama. Meyer has "jumped ship" before, most recently leaving Utah for Florida following only his second season of coaching for them, after recruiting players there who believed that he would be with them for their college careers.
For me, I think Urban Meyer is a good coach with essentially no sense of humor, at least as far as it relates to him or his team. This whole mindset around here that it is somehow offensive to criticize Meyer, Tim Tebow, or any other UF player or coach is offensive in itself to me. I would rather have a less successful coach and a team to follow that had moderately successful seasons than a coach and team that are EXPECTED to win every game they play (and by large point margins at that). So Meyer is welcome to jump ship, as far as I'm concerned. Whether he does or not, I'll still root for the Gators. But it wouldn't hurt my feelings if he left, either. After all, Nick Saban has already conditioned me in this area!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Health Care Reform Bill, Prospects
Well, the health care reform bill has finally gotten into debate in the US Senate with the bare sixty votes needed. All of the Democrats (included the two Independents caucusing with them) voted for starting debate while all Republicans voted against it. This was to be expected. Now I'll predict what will happen next.
Now that debate on this bill, completely opposed by the GOP, has begun, several amendments will be put forth by Republican senators who have no intention whatsoever to vote for the bill, regardless whether or not their amendments are approved. And some of these amendments will be accepted. The task of the Democrats will be to alter the bill enough to give political cover to Independent Senator Joe Lieberman and more conservative Democrats Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson. This will be done by reinstating the "trigger" gimmick that would activate the public option should prices stay too high. But they'll call it something else and make it slightly different. In the end, cloture on the bill will pass with 60 or 61 votes, Maine Republican Olympia Snowe possibly returning with her support of it. And it will easily pass in this form in the final Senate vote.
The next step will see this legislation brought to conference, where the House and Senate versions will have to be reconciled into something of a compromise between them. Once that final version is produced, the two bodies will have to approve it. And if there is not a public option after conference, then there is a real danger of it not being approved in the House of Representatives, where support for a public option is stronger and more insistent.
Let's see how well I do with my prediction. I seem to be doing pretty well with my football prognosticating this year (well, the Ravens aren't doing as well I thought they would); maybe it will carry over into politics!
Now that debate on this bill, completely opposed by the GOP, has begun, several amendments will be put forth by Republican senators who have no intention whatsoever to vote for the bill, regardless whether or not their amendments are approved. And some of these amendments will be accepted. The task of the Democrats will be to alter the bill enough to give political cover to Independent Senator Joe Lieberman and more conservative Democrats Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson. This will be done by reinstating the "trigger" gimmick that would activate the public option should prices stay too high. But they'll call it something else and make it slightly different. In the end, cloture on the bill will pass with 60 or 61 votes, Maine Republican Olympia Snowe possibly returning with her support of it. And it will easily pass in this form in the final Senate vote.
The next step will see this legislation brought to conference, where the House and Senate versions will have to be reconciled into something of a compromise between them. Once that final version is produced, the two bodies will have to approve it. And if there is not a public option after conference, then there is a real danger of it not being approved in the House of Representatives, where support for a public option is stronger and more insistent.
Let's see how well I do with my prediction. I seem to be doing pretty well with my football prognosticating this year (well, the Ravens aren't doing as well I thought they would); maybe it will carry over into politics!
Sunday, November 22, 2009
My Running and Weight Training
During the past few days, I have decided to change my running regimen by alternating my running with weight training, done at my local YMCA workout room. I had noticed that running every day seemed to put more wear on my feet and ankles, but skipping a day gave them a better chance to recover and strengthen. I also want to develop my upper body strength anyway.
The weight training technology that is available nowadays is, in my opinion, vastly superior and safer than the old barbells and bars (still available at the "Y" for those masochists who prefer them). In the mid to late 1950s, my father developed an interest in weightlifting and purchased a complete set of Joe Weider weights. When I was twelve (and emaciated-looking, ribs prominently poking out of my chest), he gradually and cautiously introduced me to weight training. But it wasn't until I turned fifteen that my interest took off. By that time, I did all of my training on my own, which wasn't actually the safest thing to do. When you're bench-pressing heavy weights, there is a danger that you'll lose control of the bar and it could fall on top of you, possibly fatally. But since I am not "ghost writing" this, I obviously survived that sometimes foolhardy period. But it would have been more prudent to have a partner during workouts.
And now I'm making good use of the weight room. It's actually a lot of fun and adds a touch of variety to my exercising. I still do most of my running around my neighborhood, usually covering 3.4-3.6 miles each time. I like this distance because it doesn't take up too much time to accomplish while still keeping me accustomed to running a span of more than 5K (3.11 miles). After all, I may just get up one Saturday morning and decide to run one of those numerous 5K races held in town this time of year!
The weight training technology that is available nowadays is, in my opinion, vastly superior and safer than the old barbells and bars (still available at the "Y" for those masochists who prefer them). In the mid to late 1950s, my father developed an interest in weightlifting and purchased a complete set of Joe Weider weights. When I was twelve (and emaciated-looking, ribs prominently poking out of my chest), he gradually and cautiously introduced me to weight training. But it wasn't until I turned fifteen that my interest took off. By that time, I did all of my training on my own, which wasn't actually the safest thing to do. When you're bench-pressing heavy weights, there is a danger that you'll lose control of the bar and it could fall on top of you, possibly fatally. But since I am not "ghost writing" this, I obviously survived that sometimes foolhardy period. But it would have been more prudent to have a partner during workouts.
And now I'm making good use of the weight room. It's actually a lot of fun and adds a touch of variety to my exercising. I still do most of my running around my neighborhood, usually covering 3.4-3.6 miles each time. I like this distance because it doesn't take up too much time to accomplish while still keeping me accustomed to running a span of more than 5K (3.11 miles). After all, I may just get up one Saturday morning and decide to run one of those numerous 5K races held in town this time of year!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Paul Is Dead and JFK Plot Theories
In writing about various conspiracy theories that have been spun over the years, I could replicate the information that is readily available on the Internet. But seeing that those who read my blog are already either pretty intelligent and well-informed about performing searches or have found my blog through a search (proving that they are capable in this area), I decided to instead focus on my own circumstances and reflections regarding those "theories".
With conspiracies in general, I believe that human nature, along with the concept of chaos when as few as three variables come into play, make elaborate conspiracy/cover-up theories like the JFK assassination plot, the moon hoax, the 9/11 "inside job", and the "Paul is dead" cover-up preposterous. But it's still fun to "play" the game for a while, just as I may enjoy watching a far-fetched James Bond or science fiction movie or read a Stephen King or Philip K. Dick novel. And then return to the real world, none the worse for wear. Unfortunately, this return to reality after exposure to some of this stuff is beyond the means of some people.
Although John F. Kennedy was murdered on 1963, for me the first true immersion into conspiracy theories was of the contrived story that Beatles co-leader Paul McCartney had been killed in an automobile accident in 1966, occurring either on September 11 or November 9 (depending on how one interprets the "clues"). I first heard about this in the spring of 1970 at school in the eighth grade during morning televised announcements. Apparently, some upperclassman had picked up on the rumors begun the previous year by a pair of Detroit radio DJs and had put together a pretty compelling presentation at the end of the announcement show that morning. A couple of years later, a classmate friend of mind decided to make this his term paper topic. I began to listen to "clues" on Beatles songs and examine the albums. Why the other Beatles would go to all the trouble to bring in a replacement "look-alike" Paul to permit the band's continuity in the public eye and then furtively place these clues on their material never occurred to me, or to many others, apparently. But it was fun. It also made me wonder whether I could manufacture my own conspiracy/cover-up by first taking incidental lyrics and album design features and then constructing a secret "narrative" to fit them. This is, after all, what those DJs did with McCartney's premature demise.
Speaking of Kennedy's assassination, as I child in the 1960s I never heard of Jim Garrison's campaign to promote his view of it as a complex conspiracy involving right-wing extremists and secret agents (as shown in Oliver Stone's movie JFK). It was only in the 1970s when I caught wind of the notion that others beside Lee Harvey Oswald may have been in on the assassination. Three of the arguments promoting the idea of a conspiracy were (1) witnesses in the area reporting hearing more than the officially-established number of shots, (2) the single-bullet theory accounting for both the first bullet going through the President and then hitting Texas governor John Connally was too outlandish to believe, and (3) the real killers shot JFK from a hidden spot on a grassy knoll as he was passing by. But (1) I travelled to Dallas in 1994 and drove through the same area, past the places immortalized in those tragic scenes. And I noticed that in real life, everything is much more closed in, with tall buildings everywhere. Giving the idea that witnesses heard echoes instead of extra shots more credence. (2) The Discovery Channel investigated the single-bullet theory by meticulously recreating the parameters of the assassination, using the same type weapon that Oswald had, shooting from the same height, angle, and distance. They closely mimicked the bone structure of the victims by having models made with "skeletons". They placed the victims (models) in positions as close as possible to filmed records. And then shot the models and analyzed the results. By this, the one-bullet theory was CONFIRMED, not refuted. (3) One doesn't have to be a marksman to know that, in order to hit a moving target, you would need to reduce the effects of that motion on your aim. The way to do this is to align yourself with the direction of the motion, as Oswald did from his position at the Texas Schoolbook Depository in order to keep the angular change at a minimum. Those supposed assassins at the grassy knoll would have been shooting from the worst possible angle, perpendicular to the President's car as it passed by. Why would anyone plan it this way?!
In December 2000, I heard a late-night radio interview with the late muckraking journalist Jack Anderson. In it, Anderson laid out his own conspiracy theory about JFK's death. And like those who created the "Paul is dead" narrative, he constructed it from contributory circumstances. The narrative: in the 1960 presidential election, JFK's father, with the help of the Chicago mob, bought the vote and the state of Illinois, giving him the election in 1960 (although in reality Kennedy didn't need Illinois in the final count). So the mob expected good treatment from JFK as president in return. But JFK made his brother Robert attorney general and RFK went after the mob, creating a feeling of betrayal among the gangsters. Also feeling threatened was Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA was trying to kill using the mob. Well, according to Anderson, both the mob and Castro "saw the light", got together, and conspired to kill Kennedy. Huh? Oh well, when you're a true believer in something, you accept the contributing "evidence" and ignore anything that would contradict it.
With conspiracies in general, I believe that human nature, along with the concept of chaos when as few as three variables come into play, make elaborate conspiracy/cover-up theories like the JFK assassination plot, the moon hoax, the 9/11 "inside job", and the "Paul is dead" cover-up preposterous. But it's still fun to "play" the game for a while, just as I may enjoy watching a far-fetched James Bond or science fiction movie or read a Stephen King or Philip K. Dick novel. And then return to the real world, none the worse for wear. Unfortunately, this return to reality after exposure to some of this stuff is beyond the means of some people.
Although John F. Kennedy was murdered on 1963, for me the first true immersion into conspiracy theories was of the contrived story that Beatles co-leader Paul McCartney had been killed in an automobile accident in 1966, occurring either on September 11 or November 9 (depending on how one interprets the "clues"). I first heard about this in the spring of 1970 at school in the eighth grade during morning televised announcements. Apparently, some upperclassman had picked up on the rumors begun the previous year by a pair of Detroit radio DJs and had put together a pretty compelling presentation at the end of the announcement show that morning. A couple of years later, a classmate friend of mind decided to make this his term paper topic. I began to listen to "clues" on Beatles songs and examine the albums. Why the other Beatles would go to all the trouble to bring in a replacement "look-alike" Paul to permit the band's continuity in the public eye and then furtively place these clues on their material never occurred to me, or to many others, apparently. But it was fun. It also made me wonder whether I could manufacture my own conspiracy/cover-up by first taking incidental lyrics and album design features and then constructing a secret "narrative" to fit them. This is, after all, what those DJs did with McCartney's premature demise.
Speaking of Kennedy's assassination, as I child in the 1960s I never heard of Jim Garrison's campaign to promote his view of it as a complex conspiracy involving right-wing extremists and secret agents (as shown in Oliver Stone's movie JFK). It was only in the 1970s when I caught wind of the notion that others beside Lee Harvey Oswald may have been in on the assassination. Three of the arguments promoting the idea of a conspiracy were (1) witnesses in the area reporting hearing more than the officially-established number of shots, (2) the single-bullet theory accounting for both the first bullet going through the President and then hitting Texas governor John Connally was too outlandish to believe, and (3) the real killers shot JFK from a hidden spot on a grassy knoll as he was passing by. But (1) I travelled to Dallas in 1994 and drove through the same area, past the places immortalized in those tragic scenes. And I noticed that in real life, everything is much more closed in, with tall buildings everywhere. Giving the idea that witnesses heard echoes instead of extra shots more credence. (2) The Discovery Channel investigated the single-bullet theory by meticulously recreating the parameters of the assassination, using the same type weapon that Oswald had, shooting from the same height, angle, and distance. They closely mimicked the bone structure of the victims by having models made with "skeletons". They placed the victims (models) in positions as close as possible to filmed records. And then shot the models and analyzed the results. By this, the one-bullet theory was CONFIRMED, not refuted. (3) One doesn't have to be a marksman to know that, in order to hit a moving target, you would need to reduce the effects of that motion on your aim. The way to do this is to align yourself with the direction of the motion, as Oswald did from his position at the Texas Schoolbook Depository in order to keep the angular change at a minimum. Those supposed assassins at the grassy knoll would have been shooting from the worst possible angle, perpendicular to the President's car as it passed by. Why would anyone plan it this way?!
In December 2000, I heard a late-night radio interview with the late muckraking journalist Jack Anderson. In it, Anderson laid out his own conspiracy theory about JFK's death. And like those who created the "Paul is dead" narrative, he constructed it from contributory circumstances. The narrative: in the 1960 presidential election, JFK's father, with the help of the Chicago mob, bought the vote and the state of Illinois, giving him the election in 1960 (although in reality Kennedy didn't need Illinois in the final count). So the mob expected good treatment from JFK as president in return. But JFK made his brother Robert attorney general and RFK went after the mob, creating a feeling of betrayal among the gangsters. Also feeling threatened was Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA was trying to kill using the mob. Well, according to Anderson, both the mob and Castro "saw the light", got together, and conspired to kill Kennedy. Huh? Oh well, when you're a true believer in something, you accept the contributing "evidence" and ignore anything that would contradict it.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Should Conservatives Support Palin for President?
The Republican Party needs someone knowledgeable about the issues to lead them as an opposition party, not someone like drama-queen/attention-seeker/quitter ex-governor Sarah Palin. As I had written before, Palin is much like the late Richard Nixon in that she never forgets a slight and doggedly hangs on to her grudges, striking back repeatedly and openly against anyone who she feels “did her wrong”. This includes anyone in the media who ever asked her a question she didn’t like, as well as practically the entire John McCain campaign organization. Her newly released book Going Rogue, rather than mending fences to move forward with her political and/or media ambitions, is employing a different metaphor: burning bridges.
The GOP has plenty of articulate (and even sometimes charismatic) individuals whom their members could follow all the way through to victories in 2010 and 2012, possibly even winning back the White House in 2012; Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, and Mitt Romney are experienced, conservative ex-governors who, besides having extensive campaign experience, served out their terms in office to their completion responsibly and with the view that while in office, they represented their entire states, not just those who voted for them. As opposition leaders, they are now naturally more ideological in their rhetoric. But although a future Huckabee, Jeb, or Romney administration would definitely have a much more conservative flavor than the present Obama presidency, I am confident that they would display the kind of pragmatism that they showed as governors. I can’t say the same for Sarah Palin.
On the other hand, George W. Bush, as governor of Texas, enjoyed wide popularity even among Democrats. Upon assuming the presidency, though, he reverted to being more of an ideologue. So who knows, except that I can easily tell that Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, my differences with them aside, strike me as being much more intelligent and confident in their abilities to lead (instead of passively sitting back and letting their staff and VP do the job for them as Dubya did).
And if people are just looking for someone in the media to represent their conservative views, may I suggest folks like George Will or Charles Krauthammer instead of Palin. Actually, though, even a bomb-thrower like Ann Coulter, who can be quite funny sometimes and has a self-deprecating and wicked sense of humor, is a better “leader” than vindictive, take-it-all-personally Sarah Palin. C’mon, conservatives, wise up!
I think that the McCain campaign made a huge mistake in the summer of 2008 regarding the role that Sarah Palin was to take in the campaign. She initially enjoyed huge, widespread popularity and had a compelling personal rags-to-glory story that ordinary people could relate to. The problems began when she concentrated on attacking Obama and the Democrats instead of focusing on her life and positive values. The Republicans wasted Palin’s initial popularity by relegating her to the role of being the “attacker”. That having been said, it must also be said that Governor Palin seemed to relish this role quite a lot. But that set the Democratic attack machine squarely against her, and in a matter of days she began the object of ridicule, not admiration. And a liability to the McCain campaign.
Sarah Palin has often cited Ronald Reagan as a sort of political role model, but she hasn’t followed his path. But another ex-governor has: Mike Huckabee, who has his own entertaining Sunday night prime time show on Fox News. Like Reagan before him in the late 1970’s, Huckabee has successfully kept himself in the media without whipping up hostility, as Palin has. If you identify yourself as a political conservative, you may admire and agree with Sarah Palin. But you should be concerned if she were to run for president and lead in the Republican primaries. Because there's no way she's going to garner enough support to win a national election!
As a side note, I noticed in a recent nationwide opinion poll (I believe it was ABC/Washington Post) that 53% of respondents said that they would not vote for Sarah Palin for president. But in the same poll, 60% said that she was unqualified for being president. Leaving the implication that at least 7% would consider voting for her, even acknowledging that she was unqualified. Scary!
The GOP has plenty of articulate (and even sometimes charismatic) individuals whom their members could follow all the way through to victories in 2010 and 2012, possibly even winning back the White House in 2012; Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, and Mitt Romney are experienced, conservative ex-governors who, besides having extensive campaign experience, served out their terms in office to their completion responsibly and with the view that while in office, they represented their entire states, not just those who voted for them. As opposition leaders, they are now naturally more ideological in their rhetoric. But although a future Huckabee, Jeb, or Romney administration would definitely have a much more conservative flavor than the present Obama presidency, I am confident that they would display the kind of pragmatism that they showed as governors. I can’t say the same for Sarah Palin.
On the other hand, George W. Bush, as governor of Texas, enjoyed wide popularity even among Democrats. Upon assuming the presidency, though, he reverted to being more of an ideologue. So who knows, except that I can easily tell that Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, my differences with them aside, strike me as being much more intelligent and confident in their abilities to lead (instead of passively sitting back and letting their staff and VP do the job for them as Dubya did).
And if people are just looking for someone in the media to represent their conservative views, may I suggest folks like George Will or Charles Krauthammer instead of Palin. Actually, though, even a bomb-thrower like Ann Coulter, who can be quite funny sometimes and has a self-deprecating and wicked sense of humor, is a better “leader” than vindictive, take-it-all-personally Sarah Palin. C’mon, conservatives, wise up!
I think that the McCain campaign made a huge mistake in the summer of 2008 regarding the role that Sarah Palin was to take in the campaign. She initially enjoyed huge, widespread popularity and had a compelling personal rags-to-glory story that ordinary people could relate to. The problems began when she concentrated on attacking Obama and the Democrats instead of focusing on her life and positive values. The Republicans wasted Palin’s initial popularity by relegating her to the role of being the “attacker”. That having been said, it must also be said that Governor Palin seemed to relish this role quite a lot. But that set the Democratic attack machine squarely against her, and in a matter of days she began the object of ridicule, not admiration. And a liability to the McCain campaign.
Sarah Palin has often cited Ronald Reagan as a sort of political role model, but she hasn’t followed his path. But another ex-governor has: Mike Huckabee, who has his own entertaining Sunday night prime time show on Fox News. Like Reagan before him in the late 1970’s, Huckabee has successfully kept himself in the media without whipping up hostility, as Palin has. If you identify yourself as a political conservative, you may admire and agree with Sarah Palin. But you should be concerned if she were to run for president and lead in the Republican primaries. Because there's no way she's going to garner enough support to win a national election!
As a side note, I noticed in a recent nationwide opinion poll (I believe it was ABC/Washington Post) that 53% of respondents said that they would not vote for Sarah Palin for president. But in the same poll, 60% said that she was unqualified for being president. Leaving the implication that at least 7% would consider voting for her, even acknowledging that she was unqualified. Scary!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
In Defense of Senator Joe
I know that Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is currently under fire from many Democrats for his opposition to any health care reform bill that contains a public option. Some are calling for the Senate leadership to strip him of his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship as well as ignoring his overall Senate seniority in determining his placing among the Democratic caucus, of which he is still a member. I for one am sorry that Senator Lieberman has chosen to oppose what I think is an important means to keep insurance prices down, especially if the proposed legislation makes not buying health insurance a matter of criminality for ordinary Americans. But let the man speak for himself.
Lieberman, I believe, is genuinely concerned, all protestations to the contrary from some of the proposed Senate bill's supporters, that having a government (and therefore taxpayer)-funded public option will eventually balloon into an enormous national debt burden. And we are already dependent on China, our competitor and ideological adversary, to fund our already gargantuan national debt. I've heard folks like Keith Olbermann point out that Senator Lieberman, being from the insurance-based state of Connecticut, receives much financial support from insurance companies there. But as I see it, that doesn't necessarily imply that Lieberman is under the sway of the insurance companies. As he has pointed out, he is strongly supporting the current push through congress to strip away the health insurance industry's ridiculous exemption from the Federal Anti-Trust Act. The charge of conflict of interest regarding his stance on the public option, to me, is unsubstantiated since practically everyone in elected office receives contributions from parties located in their home states and districts with vested interests in their votes and decisions. And the matter of the burgeoning national debt is truly an enormously urgent concern, not a trivial excuse as some on the left are implying.
Let us also not forget that in 2006, after Lieberman's own party, disaffected with his support for Bush's Iraq War, had essentially deserted him and supported Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senatorial Democratic primary (and defeated him), Lieberman, after receiving most of his support in the general election from Republican voters, still decided to caucus with the Democrats. Which gave them the crucial, razor-thin 51-49 majority to run the Senate for two years in opposition to President Bush, not an insignificant accomplishment. Where is the gratitude for that action, when his own party had abandoned him?
Sure, Joe Lieberman supported John McCain for president against Barack Obama in 2008. But he had a very strong friendship with the Arizona senator and strongly supported his tough stance on national defense and homeland security. Personally, though, I think he went too far in his campaigning for McCain when he criticized Obama. Despite this, Obama urged other Democrats to reconcile with him after the election. Lieberman is still much more Democratic than Republican in his Senate voting and has voted many times for cloture against GOP filibusters. That, however, does not preclude him from occasional dissenting votes of "conscience", as he likes to put it.
Yes, I wish that Senator Lieberman would have supported the public option. But his statement that he would vote for opening the debate on the proposed health care reform bill that contains a public option indicates to me that he is genuinely interested in working with his Democratic colleagues to create a final product that is more to his liking and, in his opinion, more in line with the national interests. Although Senator Joe irritates me to no end with his pompous, self-righteous oratorical tone, I do respect him for taking a stand that he truly believes is important for the country. Even when I disagree with that stand.
Lieberman, I believe, is genuinely concerned, all protestations to the contrary from some of the proposed Senate bill's supporters, that having a government (and therefore taxpayer)-funded public option will eventually balloon into an enormous national debt burden. And we are already dependent on China, our competitor and ideological adversary, to fund our already gargantuan national debt. I've heard folks like Keith Olbermann point out that Senator Lieberman, being from the insurance-based state of Connecticut, receives much financial support from insurance companies there. But as I see it, that doesn't necessarily imply that Lieberman is under the sway of the insurance companies. As he has pointed out, he is strongly supporting the current push through congress to strip away the health insurance industry's ridiculous exemption from the Federal Anti-Trust Act. The charge of conflict of interest regarding his stance on the public option, to me, is unsubstantiated since practically everyone in elected office receives contributions from parties located in their home states and districts with vested interests in their votes and decisions. And the matter of the burgeoning national debt is truly an enormously urgent concern, not a trivial excuse as some on the left are implying.
Let us also not forget that in 2006, after Lieberman's own party, disaffected with his support for Bush's Iraq War, had essentially deserted him and supported Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senatorial Democratic primary (and defeated him), Lieberman, after receiving most of his support in the general election from Republican voters, still decided to caucus with the Democrats. Which gave them the crucial, razor-thin 51-49 majority to run the Senate for two years in opposition to President Bush, not an insignificant accomplishment. Where is the gratitude for that action, when his own party had abandoned him?
Sure, Joe Lieberman supported John McCain for president against Barack Obama in 2008. But he had a very strong friendship with the Arizona senator and strongly supported his tough stance on national defense and homeland security. Personally, though, I think he went too far in his campaigning for McCain when he criticized Obama. Despite this, Obama urged other Democrats to reconcile with him after the election. Lieberman is still much more Democratic than Republican in his Senate voting and has voted many times for cloture against GOP filibusters. That, however, does not preclude him from occasional dissenting votes of "conscience", as he likes to put it.
Yes, I wish that Senator Lieberman would have supported the public option. But his statement that he would vote for opening the debate on the proposed health care reform bill that contains a public option indicates to me that he is genuinely interested in working with his Democratic colleagues to create a final product that is more to his liking and, in his opinion, more in line with the national interests. Although Senator Joe irritates me to no end with his pompous, self-righteous oratorical tone, I do respect him for taking a stand that he truly believes is important for the country. Even when I disagree with that stand.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Do Unto Others…
I wish that people of faith, regardless of their faith, would demonstrate a degree of maturity in their exercise of said faith. It matters not what one believes in, be it Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Scientology, or anything else. It’s all right to make your own personal decisions of belief or nonbelief. It’s another to try to ram YOUR decisions down others’ throats! And then to condemn anyone not subscribing to your belief system as being out of God’s will, or worse, of the devil!
As I have previously written on this blog, the overwhelming majority of religious adherents identify with the faith that they grew up in, either from their parents’ faith or the convenience of that faith’s relative predominance and acceptance in the surrounding society. Sure, there are those who may make a conversion decision without this context of background, but they are rare indeed. And that is why a believer should keep as a personal habit a degree of empathy for others who have grown up in religious climates different from their own. It is the accident of birth that is the primary factor in determining one’s religious orientation, so why put down others for being born in the “wrong” place and time?
Having said the above, it also bears noting that those NOT sharing a belief in a particular religion need to demonstrate a little compassion and maturity for those who do. Just about every religion I’ve heard of practices the doctrine of exclusivity in some form or another; this even includes “big tent” faiths like the Baha’is and the Unitarian Universalists. I respect the decisions that believers of various faiths make for their own lives regarding the parameters of behavior and appearance that these faiths dictate within their doctrines. But I also expect, in turn, for those believers to respect my right to not necessarily abide by THEIR codes.
What was that saying in the Bible? Oh yes, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or in simple language, treat others the way you would like them to treat you. Unless, of course, you have a pronounced self-destructive streak to your personality!
As I have previously written on this blog, the overwhelming majority of religious adherents identify with the faith that they grew up in, either from their parents’ faith or the convenience of that faith’s relative predominance and acceptance in the surrounding society. Sure, there are those who may make a conversion decision without this context of background, but they are rare indeed. And that is why a believer should keep as a personal habit a degree of empathy for others who have grown up in religious climates different from their own. It is the accident of birth that is the primary factor in determining one’s religious orientation, so why put down others for being born in the “wrong” place and time?
Having said the above, it also bears noting that those NOT sharing a belief in a particular religion need to demonstrate a little compassion and maturity for those who do. Just about every religion I’ve heard of practices the doctrine of exclusivity in some form or another; this even includes “big tent” faiths like the Baha’is and the Unitarian Universalists. I respect the decisions that believers of various faiths make for their own lives regarding the parameters of behavior and appearance that these faiths dictate within their doctrines. But I also expect, in turn, for those believers to respect my right to not necessarily abide by THEIR codes.
What was that saying in the Bible? Oh yes, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or in simple language, treat others the way you would like them to treat you. Unless, of course, you have a pronounced self-destructive streak to your personality!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Gainesville’s Green Zone?
A few days ago, the Gainesville Sun featured an article about how the University Police was patrolling areas surrounding the University of Florida campus to keep criminals off campus. You see, UF students have recently seen an upturn in the amount of armed muggings. These have predictably occurred overwhelmingly off-campus and in traditionally high-crime areas like the downtown night club zone. Nevertheless, since it was “UF students” who were victims, there has been a big cry to “protect the campus”.
Apparently, the police are searching out individuals behaving in a suspicious manner in the streets near campus. I presume (hopefully) that there is no profiling going on here (especially that of a racial nature). One of the police officials had given a comment that the police were trying to keep off campus people who didn’t belong there. But what constitutes “not belonging there”? It is public tax-funded property, after all. If one wants to jog through campus, try out one of the libraries, or attend a lecture, how can the police decide from someone crossing University Avenue onto campus whether they belong or not, unless they are in some way doing some profiling?
I can understand the need to keep people from sleeping on the campus grounds, and I also understand the need for students on campus to be secure from mugging. But for the police to have grounds for preventing access to the campus, they need to establish suspicion of an imminent crime and not be in the business of making value judgments as to who belongs there or not. Obviously, if a police officer observes someone going around a building trying different door handles, peering through windows, hanging around aimlessly at 3 am, or skulking in alleys or behind bushes, that would constitute suspicious behavior. Likewise, they are justified in responding to a call from someone on campus who is concerned about the behavior of another. But, as I said before, this all comes under the umbrella of upholding the law, not making value judgments.
Let’s not turn the wonderful, open University of Florida campus into another Green Zone with checkpoints and a martial atmosphere surrounding it. We’re not in Iraq, for crying out loud!
Apparently, the police are searching out individuals behaving in a suspicious manner in the streets near campus. I presume (hopefully) that there is no profiling going on here (especially that of a racial nature). One of the police officials had given a comment that the police were trying to keep off campus people who didn’t belong there. But what constitutes “not belonging there”? It is public tax-funded property, after all. If one wants to jog through campus, try out one of the libraries, or attend a lecture, how can the police decide from someone crossing University Avenue onto campus whether they belong or not, unless they are in some way doing some profiling?
I can understand the need to keep people from sleeping on the campus grounds, and I also understand the need for students on campus to be secure from mugging. But for the police to have grounds for preventing access to the campus, they need to establish suspicion of an imminent crime and not be in the business of making value judgments as to who belongs there or not. Obviously, if a police officer observes someone going around a building trying different door handles, peering through windows, hanging around aimlessly at 3 am, or skulking in alleys or behind bushes, that would constitute suspicious behavior. Likewise, they are justified in responding to a call from someone on campus who is concerned about the behavior of another. But, as I said before, this all comes under the umbrella of upholding the law, not making value judgments.
Let’s not turn the wonderful, open University of Florida campus into another Green Zone with checkpoints and a martial atmosphere surrounding it. We’re not in Iraq, for crying out loud!
Monday, November 16, 2009
Assorted Sports Thoughts
--In college football,the Pacific Ten conference has been more difficult to follow than I had anticipated. But still I feel that it is a very interesting conference. Once you factor out the very poor Washington State team, there is an extraordinarily high level of parity in this conference. USC, which has dominated it in recent years, is in a rebuilding phase while other schools are peaking. On any given gameday, any of the nine viable teams can beat the other. And often the result is an unexpected blowout. That having been said, two teams have emerged at the "top of the heap": the league-leading Oregon Ducks and the Stanford Cardinal, who just routed USC 55-21.
--The University of Florida football team continues its winning ways, although there seem to be issues regarding its passing game. As much as I respect quarterback Tim Tebow, it does seem to me that he has difficulty on designed passing plays deciding what to do with the ball. Which often results in him eventually being sacked. I do think that Tebow has a future in pro ball, but he may be more suited to a running back role, much like that of Hall of Famer Miami Dolphin Larry Csonka.
--The University of Florida men's basketball team began their season Sunday with an easy victory over Stetson. I am optimistic about the Gators' chances to reach the NCAA tournament after two lackluster seasons. Florida now has a true center in Georgetown transferee Vernon Macklin while freshman point guard Kenny Boynton holds great promise for the Gators. I'm also glad that coach Billy Donovan finally saw the light and made his non-conference schedule a little more challenging this season.
--The Phoenix Suns, led by multiple MVP point guard Steve Nash, have returned to their old fast-paced style of offensive play. And with that has also returned their old high percentage of victories. Phoenix promises to return to the playoffs this year and may challenge the defending NBA champion Los Angeles Lakers for their divisional title this season.
--The University of Florida football team continues its winning ways, although there seem to be issues regarding its passing game. As much as I respect quarterback Tim Tebow, it does seem to me that he has difficulty on designed passing plays deciding what to do with the ball. Which often results in him eventually being sacked. I do think that Tebow has a future in pro ball, but he may be more suited to a running back role, much like that of Hall of Famer Miami Dolphin Larry Csonka.
--The University of Florida men's basketball team began their season Sunday with an easy victory over Stetson. I am optimistic about the Gators' chances to reach the NCAA tournament after two lackluster seasons. Florida now has a true center in Georgetown transferee Vernon Macklin while freshman point guard Kenny Boynton holds great promise for the Gators. I'm also glad that coach Billy Donovan finally saw the light and made his non-conference schedule a little more challenging this season.
--The Phoenix Suns, led by multiple MVP point guard Steve Nash, have returned to their old fast-paced style of offensive play. And with that has also returned their old high percentage of victories. Phoenix promises to return to the playoffs this year and may challenge the defending NBA champion Los Angeles Lakers for their divisional title this season.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Philip K. Dick's Voices From the Street
Although the late Philip K. Dick is famous primarily as a science fiction writer, he has also written quite a bit of "realism" fiction. Several of his novels went unpublished until after his death. One of Dick's first novels, Voices From the Street, was one of his last ever published, although it was originally written in 1952. I just finished reading it.
Voices From the Street is different from the first two Dick novels I've read so far in that at 301 pages, it is considerably longer. Set in the San Francisco Bay area of 1952, the focus is on character Stuart Hadley and his inability as a young man to fit into the society around him. Hadley is an employee in a small TV store who is a dreamer dissatisfied with his mundane existence. His young wife Ellen has just given birth to his son, and by all accounts he looks like a young man with a bright future. Good job, good family, good health, good friends. But to Hadley, this life is nothing more than a prison from which he becomes increasingly desperate in his desire to escape. He becomes aware of an apocalyptic Christian sect in town with a very charismatic leader, and finds that its message of the world's end resonates with his feelings. But even that is not enough, and toward the novel's end, Hadley decides to embark on a reckless and hastily thought-up scheme to get away from the life he detests.
To fully analyze this novel, I really have to relate how it ended. But I won't, so this review is by necessity incomplete. But I will point out that it reminded me of a television series and a movie I have seen in the past: The Prisoner and Groundhog Day, respectively. In the former, the protagonist eventually escapes his predicament strengthened and unbroken. In the latter, the protagonist finally capitulates to his situation and undergoes a complete personal transformation, something I found to be unsettling (although Groundhog Day was a comedy above everything else). In Voices From the Street, Stuart Hadley has his own predicament as well: his present life and his place in it, pure and simple. Does he escape to a better life or is he forced to yield to the forces within his present existence? That is what the story's ending revealed. And that ending, depending on one's point of view, was either happy and positive or sad and tragic. And I find that ambiguity to be fascinating.
A disproportionately high percentage of this novel is spent in dialogue situations, in which the speakers discuss their diverse views on politics, business, religion, sex, and just about anything else that comes to the author's mind. That can get to be pretty tedious reading, and it is why I went through this book at a slower pace than with the previous two. Also, since this novel was published posthumously, the author couldn't correct its flaws. For example, early in the story Stuart Hadley tells his wife that he will pick up his sister for a visit that evening. But when evening comes, a couple of old friends visit instead, with no mention or explanation given about his sister.
For an early novel, Philip K. Dick's Voices From the Street was quite compelling and deep. I recommend it. If it's available, check it out from your local public library as I did.
My next Philip K. Dick novel is another venture into fictional realism: In Milton Lumpky's Territory. Sooner or later, I'll come across another of his science fiction works. Until then...
Voices From the Street is different from the first two Dick novels I've read so far in that at 301 pages, it is considerably longer. Set in the San Francisco Bay area of 1952, the focus is on character Stuart Hadley and his inability as a young man to fit into the society around him. Hadley is an employee in a small TV store who is a dreamer dissatisfied with his mundane existence. His young wife Ellen has just given birth to his son, and by all accounts he looks like a young man with a bright future. Good job, good family, good health, good friends. But to Hadley, this life is nothing more than a prison from which he becomes increasingly desperate in his desire to escape. He becomes aware of an apocalyptic Christian sect in town with a very charismatic leader, and finds that its message of the world's end resonates with his feelings. But even that is not enough, and toward the novel's end, Hadley decides to embark on a reckless and hastily thought-up scheme to get away from the life he detests.
To fully analyze this novel, I really have to relate how it ended. But I won't, so this review is by necessity incomplete. But I will point out that it reminded me of a television series and a movie I have seen in the past: The Prisoner and Groundhog Day, respectively. In the former, the protagonist eventually escapes his predicament strengthened and unbroken. In the latter, the protagonist finally capitulates to his situation and undergoes a complete personal transformation, something I found to be unsettling (although Groundhog Day was a comedy above everything else). In Voices From the Street, Stuart Hadley has his own predicament as well: his present life and his place in it, pure and simple. Does he escape to a better life or is he forced to yield to the forces within his present existence? That is what the story's ending revealed. And that ending, depending on one's point of view, was either happy and positive or sad and tragic. And I find that ambiguity to be fascinating.
A disproportionately high percentage of this novel is spent in dialogue situations, in which the speakers discuss their diverse views on politics, business, religion, sex, and just about anything else that comes to the author's mind. That can get to be pretty tedious reading, and it is why I went through this book at a slower pace than with the previous two. Also, since this novel was published posthumously, the author couldn't correct its flaws. For example, early in the story Stuart Hadley tells his wife that he will pick up his sister for a visit that evening. But when evening comes, a couple of old friends visit instead, with no mention or explanation given about his sister.
For an early novel, Philip K. Dick's Voices From the Street was quite compelling and deep. I recommend it. If it's available, check it out from your local public library as I did.
My next Philip K. Dick novel is another venture into fictional realism: In Milton Lumpky's Territory. Sooner or later, I'll come across another of his science fiction works. Until then...
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Resuming Old Writing Time
For a long time, I had a certain routine to my life. Before I had to be at work in the afternoon, I would leave a little early at stop off at a local coffee shop. There I would read some and then write on my AlphaSmart portable word processor, usually a blog article. This worked quite well for me, but I fell out of the habit. Lately, I have been trying to write earlier in the morning when, to be perfectly frank, my brain isn't working on all cylinders. I need a little while to get myself in "optimum" form for the day, and it happens a little later than with most people. My working hours are from 3:30 pm to midnight, with me being usually sharply awake afterward until around 2 am.
So now I'm consiciously trying to resume my old afternoon reading/writing habit, with this article representing one of those efforts. Good luck, self!
So now I'm consiciously trying to resume my old afternoon reading/writing habit, with this article representing one of those efforts. Good luck, self!
Friday, November 13, 2009
Subway Artist "Works"
I like Subway, although I was spoiled back in the 1980s by Gordies Subs, which was a five-minute walk from my apartment (they had the best turkey salad sub sandwiches) here in Gainesville. The prices at Subway are reasonable, the line moves fast, the food is fresh, and there are plenty of choices. I usually order for myself one of the less expensive sub sandwiches, with lots of vegetables loaded into them.
Subway has its own system of custom-made sandwiches. First, I choose the type of bread for my sandwich and give the "sandwich artist" (as they call themselves) my order, including what cheese type I want and whether I want the bread toasted. At the final stage of the line, just before paying for my order, another "artist" puts on the vegetable toppings as I dictate. Subway has something called "the works": this consists of a standard group of vegetable toppings like lettuce, tomato, onions, cucumber, and black olive. Explicitly excluded from "the works" are hot peppers and banana peppers. These have to be asked for separately, for obvious reasons. Which leads me to a funny ongoing thing that they do.
If I say I want "the works", they invariably start adding the hot peppers anyway, although they aren't supposed to. But if I say I want "the works, but no hot peppers or banana peppers", the "artist" on duty invariably begins to condescendingly lecture me on how those aren't included in "the works" anyway and I didn't need to have said that.
So Wednesday I went to Subway, ordered my sub sandwich, and at the end, simply said "the works". And then stood back and watched bemusedly as my "artist" once again began to reach for the hot peppers!
Subway has its own system of custom-made sandwiches. First, I choose the type of bread for my sandwich and give the "sandwich artist" (as they call themselves) my order, including what cheese type I want and whether I want the bread toasted. At the final stage of the line, just before paying for my order, another "artist" puts on the vegetable toppings as I dictate. Subway has something called "the works": this consists of a standard group of vegetable toppings like lettuce, tomato, onions, cucumber, and black olive. Explicitly excluded from "the works" are hot peppers and banana peppers. These have to be asked for separately, for obvious reasons. Which leads me to a funny ongoing thing that they do.
If I say I want "the works", they invariably start adding the hot peppers anyway, although they aren't supposed to. But if I say I want "the works, but no hot peppers or banana peppers", the "artist" on duty invariably begins to condescendingly lecture me on how those aren't included in "the works" anyway and I didn't need to have said that.
So Wednesday I went to Subway, ordered my sub sandwich, and at the end, simply said "the works". And then stood back and watched bemusedly as my "artist" once again began to reach for the hot peppers!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tried Fox News
I tried something different the other day: I deliberately kept the TV channel on Fox News and watched their evening shows. And came away with the conclusion that it was worth it.
I recognize that Fox is pretty slanted toward the political right. Please spare me that ridiculous, tired old cliche of theirs that they are "fair and balanced". In their so-called round-table discussions, what is usually presented is a "balance" between far-right, center-right, and centrist views, with the left shut out of the discussion. The hosts, without exception, are very conservative in outlook. And, like their liberal counterparts on MSNBC, they have an irritating smugness about themselves. While operating under the impression that, I, the viewer, am on their "side" as well.
I'm accustomed to the generally (and sometimes intensely) liberal slant on MSNBC's evening programming, so it was easy for me to filter out the conservative bias on Fox. Once I had done that, I felt that they were actually pretty good. Although their commentary was slanted, they did make a good effort at getting guests with opposing viewpoints, including liberal viewpoints (although this diversity was lacking in their regular panelists).
Bill O'Reilly at nine and Sean Hannity at ten each had as regular guest commentators virulently anti-Obama and anti-Democratic personalities: Bernard Goldberg and Dick Morris, respectively. And watching Goldberg and Morris one after the other gave me an interesting insight into them. Goldberg is what I would say is a "true believer" in his ideology and quite eloquently and knowledgeably (if a bit sarcastically) expresses himself on just about any issue that comes up for discussion. Morris, on the other hand, has a vile, vindictive mean streak to his personality. His driving force seems to be vengeance specifically directed at the Clintons, whom he used to work for in the 1990s, and generally against anyone sharing their political outlook. I found myself laughing with Goldberg, even when I disagreed with him. But Morris? More of a teeth-gritting, fist-clenching experience, I'm sad to say.
Sean Hannity was, of course, the most slanted of the hosts. But unlike Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, he welcomes guests from the other end of the ideological spectrum. My problem with Hannity's show the other night was his featured guest: that California beauty contest contestant who became a heroine or villain, depending on one's viewpoint, for her anti-gay marriage response to a pageant question. She seemed to me every bit as bubble-headed and ignorant as that South Carolina beauty contestant a couple of years back.
I wouldn't want to wholly depend on Fox for my news, just as I don't fully trust MSNBC. Better to take a composite of the news outlets. For myself, CNN seems to be the most neutral and reliable. But I may be watching Fox a little more often than before. Of course, I did completely avoid that nutcase Glenn Beck!
I recognize that Fox is pretty slanted toward the political right. Please spare me that ridiculous, tired old cliche of theirs that they are "fair and balanced". In their so-called round-table discussions, what is usually presented is a "balance" between far-right, center-right, and centrist views, with the left shut out of the discussion. The hosts, without exception, are very conservative in outlook. And, like their liberal counterparts on MSNBC, they have an irritating smugness about themselves. While operating under the impression that, I, the viewer, am on their "side" as well.
I'm accustomed to the generally (and sometimes intensely) liberal slant on MSNBC's evening programming, so it was easy for me to filter out the conservative bias on Fox. Once I had done that, I felt that they were actually pretty good. Although their commentary was slanted, they did make a good effort at getting guests with opposing viewpoints, including liberal viewpoints (although this diversity was lacking in their regular panelists).
Bill O'Reilly at nine and Sean Hannity at ten each had as regular guest commentators virulently anti-Obama and anti-Democratic personalities: Bernard Goldberg and Dick Morris, respectively. And watching Goldberg and Morris one after the other gave me an interesting insight into them. Goldberg is what I would say is a "true believer" in his ideology and quite eloquently and knowledgeably (if a bit sarcastically) expresses himself on just about any issue that comes up for discussion. Morris, on the other hand, has a vile, vindictive mean streak to his personality. His driving force seems to be vengeance specifically directed at the Clintons, whom he used to work for in the 1990s, and generally against anyone sharing their political outlook. I found myself laughing with Goldberg, even when I disagreed with him. But Morris? More of a teeth-gritting, fist-clenching experience, I'm sad to say.
Sean Hannity was, of course, the most slanted of the hosts. But unlike Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, he welcomes guests from the other end of the ideological spectrum. My problem with Hannity's show the other night was his featured guest: that California beauty contest contestant who became a heroine or villain, depending on one's viewpoint, for her anti-gay marriage response to a pageant question. She seemed to me every bit as bubble-headed and ignorant as that South Carolina beauty contestant a couple of years back.
I wouldn't want to wholly depend on Fox for my news, just as I don't fully trust MSNBC. Better to take a composite of the news outlets. For myself, CNN seems to be the most neutral and reliable. But I may be watching Fox a little more often than before. Of course, I did completely avoid that nutcase Glenn Beck!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Conjectures About Bin-Laden, Creating "Reality"
In keeping with the theme of November as "conspiracy month"...
People who easily find themselves falling for conspiracy theories often proudly refer to themselves as "skeptics". After all, they ARE skeptical of the prevailing, commonly held take on whatever it is that they think is being manipulated behind-the-scenes by others. But a true skeptic takes in all of the available facts, not just those which affirm his/her biases. So, in writing here about Osama Bin-Laden, I must make a disclaimer: I fit NEITHER definition of a skeptic, at least for the purpose of this article. Because (if you can stand it, here it goes)....I don't know for sure what's really going on, but that's not going to stop me for speculating.
For many Americans, the name Osama Bin-Laden has the same level of infamy, if not worse, as Adolf Hitler. And to the extent that I think that ALL mass murderers are evil villains, I agree with that viewpoint. But back in the 1980s, this sun-of-a-gun was an allied guerrilla warrior in our proxy war in Afghanistan against the then-occupying force of the Soviet Union. Our popular culture was full of praise and support for Afghanistan's "freedom fighters" (see Rambo III or the James Bond flick The Living Daylights). Bin-Laden was right in the middle of this and was a brave fighter. And some of our money and supplies (and intelligence) may have gone to him (this is where I have a big "I don't know" feeling). And why not? He was our ally. But "ally" does not necessarily equate to "friend", although it could have had we followed through with support after the Soviets withdrew. While our main concern, the Soviet Union, was on Afghan soil, we were all for the people of Afghanistan. The moment they left, we quickly went back to virtually ignoring the area. So Osama Bin-Laden, with his bravado and his wealth, looked around him and determined that America's actions regarding Muslim nations were ultimately only directed at promoting its own interests. To him, the U.S. was like any other foreign occupying power. Any American military presence on any Muslim-populated territory was, to Bin-Laden, just as illegitimate and warlike as what the Soviets had done in Afghanistan. And thus, since the early 1990s, Bin-Laden and his organization Al-Qaeda have been at war against the U.S.,its western allies, and those Muslim nations supporting American military presence on their soil.
But why haven't we captured or killed Bin-Laden more than eight years after the 9/11 attack that he authorized? He is believed to be in Pakistan somewhere (if still alive, that is). Or possibly southern Afghanistan. But I find it (and here is where my skepticism may be interpreted in different ways) difficult to believe, in such a relatively small area to search, and with Pakistan being our political and military ally, that we haven't been able to pinpoint his location and "get" to him. And now I wonder (I tend to do this on this blog, for better or for worse)...
Suppose that, on some intelligence level, the U.S. has always maintained some contact with Bin-Laden. And after 9/11, suppose further that they got an ultimatum through to him: keep it off American soil, or YOU will be "soil". Does that sound so far-fetched? Well, consider this: It fits with the reality we're experiencing nowadays. Does it seem to you that Osama Bin-Laden is going to be caught anytime in the near future? How about the middle future? How about...ever? Remember our impressive intelligence and military performance in late 2001 that drove the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan (but obviously not out of existence)? And once that goal was accomplished, how our emphasis there petered, even though Bin-Laden was still free at large? And how instead, President George W. Bush resurrected an old bogeyman in Saddam Hussein for everyone to hiss at? Could that have been done, at least partially, in order to distract public attention from the failure to locate the head terrorist? And if this all is true, then could it be that we made a secret deal with Bin-Laden after 9/11? And finally, am I ever going to write anything else without making it a question?
To make a deal with the individual responsible for a terrorist attack that caused nearly three thousand American civilian deaths would have been political suicide for Bush. But if he could be reasonably sure that Bin-Laden would "play along" in the future, a deal could well have been justified as being in our national security interests.
Not that any of this really happened, mind you. I just don't know. But I'm just having some problems fitting the facts together. No domestic Al-Qaeda attacks since 9/11. Bin-Laden never caught. We're still in Afghanistan, but we're focusing on fighting the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. The sudden deliberate diversion of national attention away from Afghanistan and Bin-Laden toward Iraq in 2002. Hmmmmm....
Can you see from all this how easy it is for people to construct a "reality" solely from the circumstances that frame it? No, I honestly don't think that Bush made a deal with Bin-Laden. I also don't believe that Paul McCartney died in a 1966 car crash or that the six Apollo moon landings from 1969 to 1972 were elaborate hoaxes. But those notions also came about by people inserting theories to account for circumstances that indicated their veracity.
And now we come to those making outlandish claims about our current president. Obama wasn't born in the U.S., he's setting up a network of concentration camps to deal with future dissidents, he is turning America socialist/communist, he wants to kill old people, and so on. Each "theory" is presented by revealing "facts" pointing inexorably to the horrible conclusion. But I hold that, with a little creativity, one could pretty much manipulate circumstantial facts to create any kind of underlying "reality" that one liked.
Recently we have seen in the news the big story about the arrested Afghans who were apparently part of a terrorist plot to bomb places in the United States. But since we caught them, this information wouldn't go into the "circumstances" supporting or refuting the "deal with Bin-Laden" assertion. So that assertion keeps its life. That's quite intellectually dishonest, but it is regrettably how a lot of people think things out!
People who easily find themselves falling for conspiracy theories often proudly refer to themselves as "skeptics". After all, they ARE skeptical of the prevailing, commonly held take on whatever it is that they think is being manipulated behind-the-scenes by others. But a true skeptic takes in all of the available facts, not just those which affirm his/her biases. So, in writing here about Osama Bin-Laden, I must make a disclaimer: I fit NEITHER definition of a skeptic, at least for the purpose of this article. Because (if you can stand it, here it goes)....I don't know for sure what's really going on, but that's not going to stop me for speculating.
For many Americans, the name Osama Bin-Laden has the same level of infamy, if not worse, as Adolf Hitler. And to the extent that I think that ALL mass murderers are evil villains, I agree with that viewpoint. But back in the 1980s, this sun-of-a-gun was an allied guerrilla warrior in our proxy war in Afghanistan against the then-occupying force of the Soviet Union. Our popular culture was full of praise and support for Afghanistan's "freedom fighters" (see Rambo III or the James Bond flick The Living Daylights). Bin-Laden was right in the middle of this and was a brave fighter. And some of our money and supplies (and intelligence) may have gone to him (this is where I have a big "I don't know" feeling). And why not? He was our ally. But "ally" does not necessarily equate to "friend", although it could have had we followed through with support after the Soviets withdrew. While our main concern, the Soviet Union, was on Afghan soil, we were all for the people of Afghanistan. The moment they left, we quickly went back to virtually ignoring the area. So Osama Bin-Laden, with his bravado and his wealth, looked around him and determined that America's actions regarding Muslim nations were ultimately only directed at promoting its own interests. To him, the U.S. was like any other foreign occupying power. Any American military presence on any Muslim-populated territory was, to Bin-Laden, just as illegitimate and warlike as what the Soviets had done in Afghanistan. And thus, since the early 1990s, Bin-Laden and his organization Al-Qaeda have been at war against the U.S.,its western allies, and those Muslim nations supporting American military presence on their soil.
But why haven't we captured or killed Bin-Laden more than eight years after the 9/11 attack that he authorized? He is believed to be in Pakistan somewhere (if still alive, that is). Or possibly southern Afghanistan. But I find it (and here is where my skepticism may be interpreted in different ways) difficult to believe, in such a relatively small area to search, and with Pakistan being our political and military ally, that we haven't been able to pinpoint his location and "get" to him. And now I wonder (I tend to do this on this blog, for better or for worse)...
Suppose that, on some intelligence level, the U.S. has always maintained some contact with Bin-Laden. And after 9/11, suppose further that they got an ultimatum through to him: keep it off American soil, or YOU will be "soil". Does that sound so far-fetched? Well, consider this: It fits with the reality we're experiencing nowadays. Does it seem to you that Osama Bin-Laden is going to be caught anytime in the near future? How about the middle future? How about...ever? Remember our impressive intelligence and military performance in late 2001 that drove the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan (but obviously not out of existence)? And once that goal was accomplished, how our emphasis there petered, even though Bin-Laden was still free at large? And how instead, President George W. Bush resurrected an old bogeyman in Saddam Hussein for everyone to hiss at? Could that have been done, at least partially, in order to distract public attention from the failure to locate the head terrorist? And if this all is true, then could it be that we made a secret deal with Bin-Laden after 9/11? And finally, am I ever going to write anything else without making it a question?
To make a deal with the individual responsible for a terrorist attack that caused nearly three thousand American civilian deaths would have been political suicide for Bush. But if he could be reasonably sure that Bin-Laden would "play along" in the future, a deal could well have been justified as being in our national security interests.
Not that any of this really happened, mind you. I just don't know. But I'm just having some problems fitting the facts together. No domestic Al-Qaeda attacks since 9/11. Bin-Laden never caught. We're still in Afghanistan, but we're focusing on fighting the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. The sudden deliberate diversion of national attention away from Afghanistan and Bin-Laden toward Iraq in 2002. Hmmmmm....
Can you see from all this how easy it is for people to construct a "reality" solely from the circumstances that frame it? No, I honestly don't think that Bush made a deal with Bin-Laden. I also don't believe that Paul McCartney died in a 1966 car crash or that the six Apollo moon landings from 1969 to 1972 were elaborate hoaxes. But those notions also came about by people inserting theories to account for circumstances that indicated their veracity.
And now we come to those making outlandish claims about our current president. Obama wasn't born in the U.S., he's setting up a network of concentration camps to deal with future dissidents, he is turning America socialist/communist, he wants to kill old people, and so on. Each "theory" is presented by revealing "facts" pointing inexorably to the horrible conclusion. But I hold that, with a little creativity, one could pretty much manipulate circumstantial facts to create any kind of underlying "reality" that one liked.
Recently we have seen in the news the big story about the arrested Afghans who were apparently part of a terrorist plot to bomb places in the United States. But since we caught them, this information wouldn't go into the "circumstances" supporting or refuting the "deal with Bin-Laden" assertion. So that assertion keeps its life. That's quite intellectually dishonest, but it is regrettably how a lot of people think things out!
Monday, November 9, 2009
Gnawing, Irrational Feeling That NFL is Fake
I would like somebody to explain to me how a football team I'm following can stop the other with its defense almost the entire game and then, at the end, changes its strategy to a so-called "prevent defense", allowing the opponent to march down the field in a matter of seconds, at a rate of about 10-25 yards per play. And scoring at the end, beating my team. Or suddenly my team, with its highly-paid professionals with years of college and high school stardom and experience behind them, mysteriously can no longer hold on to the football, repeatedly fumbling it away or dropping easy passes, kickoffs, and punts. It's almost as if the game had been scripted, and as if it was my team's predetermined role to fold at the very end.
I have had this gnawing feeling for years about the National Football League in this regard, although I know that the competition there is at almost a cutthroat level, with little or no room for manipulation. Still, there are some games that give me that same feeling I get when someone sucks me into watching one of those professional wrestling travesties, outcomes already written out and only needing to be acted out by the "athletes".
In football, though, I think that stupid coaching decisions may account for much of that perceived manipulation of events. Especially with time running out in close games. No real need to add the suspicion that professional football is fake to my conspiracy list. Yet. After all, what are professionals really but bumbling humans who are just getting paid for being bumbling humans? Better to presume incompetence over conspiracy, as a general rule.
I have had this gnawing feeling for years about the National Football League in this regard, although I know that the competition there is at almost a cutthroat level, with little or no room for manipulation. Still, there are some games that give me that same feeling I get when someone sucks me into watching one of those professional wrestling travesties, outcomes already written out and only needing to be acted out by the "athletes".
In football, though, I think that stupid coaching decisions may account for much of that perceived manipulation of events. Especially with time running out in close games. No real need to add the suspicion that professional football is fake to my conspiracy list. Yet. After all, what are professionals really but bumbling humans who are just getting paid for being bumbling humans? Better to presume incompetence over conspiracy, as a general rule.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
UF Pond, Off To The Side
While bicycling through the University of Florida campus the other day, I noticed that there were some places in the middle of this densely urban college campus that are relatively more secluded and conducive to contemplation and retreat. This locale, while not exactly of the order of Walden's Pond, is only a short walking distance from Turlington Hall, Marston Science Library, the Hub, and the Reitz Union. There is a bench to sit on here as well (from where I snapped this shot). The building in the background is part of the UF College of Agriculture (IFAS).
Friday, November 6, 2009
GOP Stonewalls Obama Nominee, Then Confirms
I recently witnessed a Senate floor vote, delayed for months by Republican filibustering, which finally confirmed Thomas Perez, Obama’s nomination for Assistant Attorney General in charge of civil rights, by a vote of 72-22. The Judiciary Committee, back in March, had passed on Perez’s nomination to the full Senate with a resounding 17-2 approval vote. This meant that most of the Republicans on that committee had approved of Perez. And most of them stayed with their committee positions during the final recent floor vote. But in the intervening period, they voted to stonewall the nomination through procedural tactics and filibusters.
This policy of the GOP delaying EVERYTHING as much as possible, even when there is little opposition, runs contrary to the spirit of cooperation and comity that is necessary within the Senate to accomplish anything. With the track record they have demonstrated, I don’t think that the Republicans will be as successful against the Democrats in next year’s elections as they were in 1994, when they won control of that body. The Dems are “hip” to what they are up to and are making sure that the country as whole is aware of it. However, in order to hold on to some seats, there will have to be a much larger level of voter participation than has usually been in case in non-presidential election years.
This policy of the GOP delaying EVERYTHING as much as possible, even when there is little opposition, runs contrary to the spirit of cooperation and comity that is necessary within the Senate to accomplish anything. With the track record they have demonstrated, I don’t think that the Republicans will be as successful against the Democrats in next year’s elections as they were in 1994, when they won control of that body. The Dems are “hip” to what they are up to and are making sure that the country as whole is aware of it. However, in order to hold on to some seats, there will have to be a much larger level of voter participation than has usually been in case in non-presidential election years.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Seven Unbeatens in NCAA Football
The 2009 NCAA football season is shaping up to be quite different from the previous few years in one important respect: this late in the season, there are still seven teams with undefeated records. They are Florida, Texas, Alabama, Iowa, TCU, Boise State, and Cincinnati. Except for Florida and Alabama, one of which will have to lose since they are in the same conference and would play each other for the title, these teams can pretty much run out the remainder of the regular season and remain unbeaten. Potentially leaving six teams with perfect records.
Now who gets to decide who can play for the national championship if this happens? If we had instituted a three-week, eight team playoff system as has been proposed for several years already, this situation would not present much of a problem. But we seem locked in, year after year, to this asinine way of determining who gets to play for the national title in football. Unlike, I might add, any other sport, high school, college, or pro. And even unlike small college football, which does employ a playoff system.
Most likely, Texas will play the winner of Florida vs. Alabama for the national championship (presuming these teams continue to otherwise remain undefeated). Leaving four other unbeaten teams shut out. It might be argued that TCU and Cincinnati are from much weaker conferences and, as such, their records don't qualify them for a shot at the title. But how about Iowa and Boise State? Iowa is in the Big Ten Conference, one of the premier leagues in the country. And all Boise State did was manhandle Oregon, a Pacific-Ten team that has won the rest of its games, including a recent 47-20 drubbing of perennial power Southern Cal.
But then again, maybe I'm writing this article one or two weeks too early. There is still plenty of time for some of these "perfect" teams to go down in ignominious defeat. Like Cincinnati, who is playing Pittsburgh in a few weeks. Or Alabama, who is playing LSU. Even Texas, the most likely candidate for a national championship slot, will have to win its Big 12 title in a playoff game against the winner of that conference's Northern Division, not a done deal.
Now who gets to decide who can play for the national championship if this happens? If we had instituted a three-week, eight team playoff system as has been proposed for several years already, this situation would not present much of a problem. But we seem locked in, year after year, to this asinine way of determining who gets to play for the national title in football. Unlike, I might add, any other sport, high school, college, or pro. And even unlike small college football, which does employ a playoff system.
Most likely, Texas will play the winner of Florida vs. Alabama for the national championship (presuming these teams continue to otherwise remain undefeated). Leaving four other unbeaten teams shut out. It might be argued that TCU and Cincinnati are from much weaker conferences and, as such, their records don't qualify them for a shot at the title. But how about Iowa and Boise State? Iowa is in the Big Ten Conference, one of the premier leagues in the country. And all Boise State did was manhandle Oregon, a Pacific-Ten team that has won the rest of its games, including a recent 47-20 drubbing of perennial power Southern Cal.
But then again, maybe I'm writing this article one or two weeks too early. There is still plenty of time for some of these "perfect" teams to go down in ignominious defeat. Like Cincinnati, who is playing Pittsburgh in a few weeks. Or Alabama, who is playing LSU. Even Texas, the most likely candidate for a national championship slot, will have to win its Big 12 title in a playoff game against the winner of that conference's Northern Division, not a done deal.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Finally, A Little Cooler
Yesterday morning at six, when I stepped outside to go on my morning walk around my neighborhood with my wife, it was a very chilly 52 degrees. I had to wear a sweater and long pants, but Melissa was fine with a tee shirt and shorts. After the first lap around the block, I had to add a jacket to my sweater, it was so cold to me. So here the two of us were, Melissa and I: one dressed for summertime, and one for the winter. Toward the end of our two-mile walk, though, I was shedding the extra layers of clothing. And when we walked back up to our front door, I looked down the street and saw two little boys walking down the block to their school bus stop, huddling under their heavy winter clothing. At 52 degrees.
That's the way it is here in north central Florida at this time of the year. I've gotten so accustomed to the unseasonably late summerlike temperatures that moderately cool weather seems cold to me. But I think this will quickly change, as we should finally be settling down into a cooler pattern.
Oh, for autumn to finally arrive!
That's the way it is here in north central Florida at this time of the year. I've gotten so accustomed to the unseasonably late summerlike temperatures that moderately cool weather seems cold to me. But I think this will quickly change, as we should finally be settling down into a cooler pattern.
Oh, for autumn to finally arrive!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
November: Conspiracy Theory Month
[With April as "runner-up"]
Welcome to Conspiracy Theory Month! November has all kinds of goodies in this area: the 2000 presidential election and its Florida recount, Paul McCartney's supposed fatal automobile accident in 1966, and of course, the John Kennedy assassination in 1963. But as a matter of course, I think I'll be writing from time to time this month about a whole range of conspiracies, real and imagined, whether or not they involve the month of November.
Conspiracy theorists, if you read them, usually have developed their own very specific timelines and locales for the events that they are focusing on. This can create quite a creepy "alternative universe" scenario of sites that in reality were most likely totally devoid of relevance to the matter at hand. The most prominent of these, as I see it, is the "grassy knoll" in Dallas, from which extra gunmen were purported to have secretly shot President Kennedy in the early afternoon of November 22, 1963. But after Oliver Stone's conspiracy-heavy movie JFK, now I can stage my own "conspiracy fantasy" tour focusing on New Orleans and Dallas.
So what are some of the more famous conspiracy theories that have permeated our collective consciousness over the years? Here are a few that come to my mind:
--JFK's assassination wasn't just by lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald acting on his own, but was a plot carried out by various parties aggrieved with the President, acting in a highly improbable unholy alliance with each other. Depending upon the conspiracy theorist, these suspected parties include extreme right wing southerners, the CIA, organized crime, Castro, and even Lyndon Johnson.
--Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 wasn't a lone job by Sirhan Sirhan, but rather a conspiracy with another gunman on the scene. With such a crowded setting in which this crime occurred, this view is one of the more utterly preposterous conspiracy theories (to me).
--Much less preposterous-sounding is the idea that the 4/4/68 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King in Memphis, Tennessee was a conspiracy. I personally have a difficult time accepting the notion that a career criminal such as James Earl Ray would have the motive to take out this great civil rights leader on his own. But as a hired gun or someone set up to be there when it happened? Makes more sense.
--The "9/11 was an inside job" notion carries a lot of weight with some people because those accused of plotting these horrendous attacks enjoyed enormous political gains from the attacks and were freed to carry out policies (Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq) that would otherwise have never been tolerated by the American people.
--Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt has been accused of setting Pearl Harbor up for attack in December 1941 in order to formally bring America directly into World War II, which it had successfully avoided for more than two years, thanks in large part to the enormous popular and political opposition to direct combat involvement.
--The idea that nobody ever really went to the moon and that it was all done and broadcast from a remote movie set in the American West was reinforced by movies like 1971's James Bond flick Diamonds Are Forever, which featured a scene where our hero busts through exactly such a set and commandeers the "Lunar Rover" in a chase scene, using it to flee from the bad guys. The later film Capricorn One lays out the Moon Hoax conspiracy theory more directly by portraying a staged mission for a Mars trip.
--A personal favorite conspiracy theory is the "Paul is dead" narrative, first promoted in 1969 by some Detroit radio DJs and still enduring to this day. Much of the supporting "evidence" for the notion that Beatles great Paul McCartney died in a November 1966 car crash is given in the form of subsequent Beatles lyrics and album cover clues.
--Aliens gave us advanced technology, which we "reverse-engineered". The crash at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 (which actually never happened) gave the US government access to higher technology in areas like fiber optics and digitization. I see this theory as an application to modern times of Erich Von Däniken's "ancient astronaut" ideas, in which he expresses that space aliens visited Earth in ancient times and were responsible for pyramids and giant statues. In both "theories", the implication is that humans are too stupid to think up anything on their own, and therefore outside help must be the explanation for great innovations.
--A whole new wave of conspiracy theories is being generated by wacko, paranoid elements of the political right about our current President, Barack Obama. Which is giving rise to a mirror-conspiracy theory being put out by the political left, laying the blame for derogatory statements about the President on the Republican Party and corporate interests opposed to the Obama agenda.
Well, let's see what the coming month holds for this blog regarding conspiracies. I personally plan to invest some time reading up on them and then reporting some of my findings. Should be a lot of fun!
Welcome to Conspiracy Theory Month! November has all kinds of goodies in this area: the 2000 presidential election and its Florida recount, Paul McCartney's supposed fatal automobile accident in 1966, and of course, the John Kennedy assassination in 1963. But as a matter of course, I think I'll be writing from time to time this month about a whole range of conspiracies, real and imagined, whether or not they involve the month of November.
Conspiracy theorists, if you read them, usually have developed their own very specific timelines and locales for the events that they are focusing on. This can create quite a creepy "alternative universe" scenario of sites that in reality were most likely totally devoid of relevance to the matter at hand. The most prominent of these, as I see it, is the "grassy knoll" in Dallas, from which extra gunmen were purported to have secretly shot President Kennedy in the early afternoon of November 22, 1963. But after Oliver Stone's conspiracy-heavy movie JFK, now I can stage my own "conspiracy fantasy" tour focusing on New Orleans and Dallas.
So what are some of the more famous conspiracy theories that have permeated our collective consciousness over the years? Here are a few that come to my mind:
--JFK's assassination wasn't just by lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald acting on his own, but was a plot carried out by various parties aggrieved with the President, acting in a highly improbable unholy alliance with each other. Depending upon the conspiracy theorist, these suspected parties include extreme right wing southerners, the CIA, organized crime, Castro, and even Lyndon Johnson.
--Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 wasn't a lone job by Sirhan Sirhan, but rather a conspiracy with another gunman on the scene. With such a crowded setting in which this crime occurred, this view is one of the more utterly preposterous conspiracy theories (to me).
--Much less preposterous-sounding is the idea that the 4/4/68 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King in Memphis, Tennessee was a conspiracy. I personally have a difficult time accepting the notion that a career criminal such as James Earl Ray would have the motive to take out this great civil rights leader on his own. But as a hired gun or someone set up to be there when it happened? Makes more sense.
--The "9/11 was an inside job" notion carries a lot of weight with some people because those accused of plotting these horrendous attacks enjoyed enormous political gains from the attacks and were freed to carry out policies (Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq) that would otherwise have never been tolerated by the American people.
--Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt has been accused of setting Pearl Harbor up for attack in December 1941 in order to formally bring America directly into World War II, which it had successfully avoided for more than two years, thanks in large part to the enormous popular and political opposition to direct combat involvement.
--The idea that nobody ever really went to the moon and that it was all done and broadcast from a remote movie set in the American West was reinforced by movies like 1971's James Bond flick Diamonds Are Forever, which featured a scene where our hero busts through exactly such a set and commandeers the "Lunar Rover" in a chase scene, using it to flee from the bad guys. The later film Capricorn One lays out the Moon Hoax conspiracy theory more directly by portraying a staged mission for a Mars trip.
--A personal favorite conspiracy theory is the "Paul is dead" narrative, first promoted in 1969 by some Detroit radio DJs and still enduring to this day. Much of the supporting "evidence" for the notion that Beatles great Paul McCartney died in a November 1966 car crash is given in the form of subsequent Beatles lyrics and album cover clues.
--Aliens gave us advanced technology, which we "reverse-engineered". The crash at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 (which actually never happened) gave the US government access to higher technology in areas like fiber optics and digitization. I see this theory as an application to modern times of Erich Von Däniken's "ancient astronaut" ideas, in which he expresses that space aliens visited Earth in ancient times and were responsible for pyramids and giant statues. In both "theories", the implication is that humans are too stupid to think up anything on their own, and therefore outside help must be the explanation for great innovations.
--A whole new wave of conspiracy theories is being generated by wacko, paranoid elements of the political right about our current President, Barack Obama. Which is giving rise to a mirror-conspiracy theory being put out by the political left, laying the blame for derogatory statements about the President on the Republican Party and corporate interests opposed to the Obama agenda.
Well, let's see what the coming month holds for this blog regarding conspiracies. I personally plan to invest some time reading up on them and then reporting some of my findings. Should be a lot of fun!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
