Ran Half-Marathon Again

Yesterday morning, my wife pointed out to me an Associated Press story appearing in Thursday's Gainesville Sun. Harvard University's Daniel Lieberman, with apparently the very appropriate qualifications of being both a biologist and runner, has put forth the proposition that it is better for runners to run shoeless. His reasoning is simple enough: when people run barefoot, they tend to land on the middle or front of the foot. This minimizes the force of the body weight that the feet must absorb every time they hit the ground. Although the effect is to run faster, there is less weight to carry. Lieberman then referred to those great distance runners from East Africa who grow up running barefoot and now simply run the same way with shoes on during races. So I said to myself, "Self, let's try this out!"

The Wednesday before last, I ran my half-marathon around the neighborhood. I did it largely running almost flatfooted, I believed, to save myself from getting too tired and sore. But the effect, although keeping me from ever becoming winded, was to leave me with a lot of aches in my feet and shins. And severe leg cramps as well. Yesterday I ran a second half-marathon, taking my new information about barefoot running into account. No, I still used shoes; I simply took care to land my feet in the middle-to-toes areas. The effect automatically made me run faster, without me attempting to do so. I had intended originally to run a 5.58 mile course and see how I felt, but I decided during the run to just go as far as I could. And I ended up covering 13.1 miles in 1:56:03. This was at a pace of more than a minute less per mile than my previous half-marathon. My feet and calves did not ache as before, and the only cramping I experienced was some in my feet for a short period after the run. I did work out my lungs and heart more, though.

This experience made me wonder whether there wasn't a "minimum effective running speed" for each person, below which the body, especially the lower parts of the leg and feet, would be severely taxed by the body's full weight on landings. It certainly appeared so on yesterday's run, and I intend to continue running as I did then.

Breaking two hours for a half-marathon had been a personal milestone goal of mine that I had distant hopes of achieving in the upcoming half-marathon race in Gainesville on February 14. I ended up fulfilling it just by loping around the neighborhood without making any special effort!

Tim Tebow's Anti-Abortion Ad

Tim Tebow is scheduled to appear on a televised ad during the Super Bowl that is sponsored by the ultraconservative, very politically active group Focus on the Family. In it, Tebow will relate how his mother, in the late stages of her pregnancy with Tim, had been advised by her physician in the Philippines that her life was in peril if she tried to bring her pregnancy to term, with an abortion as the recommended option. She chose instead to risk giving birth, and here we are now with Tim Tebow, apparently wanting to advise other women in the same dire circumstances to make the same choice against their doctor's recommendations. I wonder whether the University of Florida star quarterback realizes exactly what he is doing with his ad.

After all, we are not even discussing here the issue that has made the "choice" vs. "life" debate such a divisive controversy in America: the use of abortion as a means of birth control by women who don't want to have a baby or be pregnant, for whatever personal reasons they may have. We are instead talking here about women who want to have children, who want to give birth, who have already formed an emotional bond with that child forming within them, and who, at the time of a physician's painful advice, are torn apart by what may seem to be an impossible no-win choice. Tim Tebow's mother made her choice, and it was properly hers to make. We're all happy that mother and baby both survived in this case. But does Tebow think that his example automatically carries over to other women in similar straits, morally obligating them to make the same choice his mother made and providing them with the same rosy outcome if the "right" choice is made? And speaking of "choice", doesn't Tebow realize that his message's sponsor, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, wants to take away that choice and put it in the hands of the State?

All that having been said, I don't have a problem with CBS airing serious ads that discuss issues during the Super Bowl. I for one am sick of the ridiculous and quite unentertaining commercials that saturate that event. I could stand a few issue-based spots, thank you. And since CBS is catering to James Dobson, how about allowing other advocacy messages as well (such as that United Church's very modest ad they rejected a few years ago that welcomed the LGBT community into its doors)?

But back to Tim Tebow, who seems like a nice enough guy to me. Will it be worth it all to him if women with dangerous complications in the last stages of their pregnancies take his advice, with some them dying for it? Will he feel that he had done "good" overall and, oh well, you can't win 'em all? Will he cry for the women who die like he cried on the sidelines when his football team lost to Alabama? I doubt that "Doctor" Dobson would feel any remorse or regret over the unintended consequences of this message. Is Tim Tebow really that kind of a "Christian"? Say it ain't so, Tim!

Minnesota's Blown Game Vs. New Orleans

I'm watching the NFC championship football game on TV, see, and I'm pulling for the Minnesota Vikings all the way. Not that I have anything against their opponents, the New Orleans Saints. But I predicted before the season that the Vikings would make it to the Super Bowl and, besides, they have as star wide receiver University of Florida standout Percy Harvin. And, of course, there's veteran quarterback Brett Favre, against whom I rooted last year, only because he played then for my Miami Dolphins' divisional rival New York Jets. So, anyway...

It's late in the fourth quarter and the game is tied 28-28. Minnesota has the ball and is showing every appearance of going down the field and scoring. And why not? Just going by yards gained during the game, the Vikings have been dominating the Saints. The only factor that has kept New Orleans in the game to this point is the fact that Minnesota has committed four very costly turnovers SO far. But back to the late fourth quarter. Favre, to no one's surprise, has led his team to N.O.'s 33 yard line and a first down with 49 seconds to go in regulation time and two timeouts left for them. Then his coach Brad Childress takes over and calls two consecutive running plays that gain nothing, but cause them to waste time. On third down, the Vikings are called for a foolish penalty: having twelve players in the huddle. This essentially takes them close to being completely out of field goal range. Favre is now in a position where he has to throw, and the Saints defense knows this and covers the Vikings receivers well. And as the play develops, Favre throws an interception. Regulation ends, the Saints win the coin toss, receive the ball first in OT, march down the field, and kick a field goal to win it. With Favre coming out of it all as a scapegoat for Minnesota.

But although Brett Favre could have made better choices with that last play of his (including finally running a little and trying to go out of bounds), it was the foolish play-calling from the sidelines and ridiculous penalty that set it up. Favre should have been free to do what he had been doing all evening: throwing quick passes down the middle for 10-15 yards. Minnesota would have easily been in position to kick a relatively short field goal with their experienced and accurate kicker.

Why do coaches suddenly abandon what has worked for them the entire game at its conclusion and allow the other team to come back on them? I've seen this happen year after year with Don Shula and the Miami Dolphins. They'd be stopping their opponent the entire game and then during the last two minutes, they would change to a "prevent defense" and allow their foes to march down the file in short "bites" to get a winning score. Or how about the time in 2002 when Miami, trying to hold on to a playoff spot (and a small lead) against New England had the ball late in the game, deep in its own territory. And coach Dave Wannstedt, ignoring the facts that (1) he was supposed to be running out the clock and (2) he had a proven instrument for doing so in star running back Ricky Williams, instead had his quarterback throw three straight passes. All fell incomplete, Miami punted with too much time left on the clock, New England scored and won, and Miami missed the playoffs. Such stupidity!

So New Orleans is in the Super Bowl against the Indianapolis Colts. I'll be rooting for the Saints, but it's a shame that Brett Favre couldn't have had this one other shot at the championship.

Conrad Amendment Debate and Vote

I witnessed an interesting U.S. Senate session on C-Span2 Tuesday, with amendments being debated and voted on concerning the bill raising the debt limit. Senators Conrad (D, ND) and Gregg (R, NH) put out an amendment establishing an "independent" commission that would study the congressional budget and make recommendations regarding where appropriate cuts could be made to reduce the national debt. The Senate and House would then be obligated to vote up-or-down on the committee's report, with no amendments of their own possible if the report were passed. And if passed, all of the commission's recommendations would become law, pending the President's signature. This amendment's sponsors pointed out in debate that Congress, with its extreme partisanship and susceptibility to special interests, has repeatedly reneged on its fiscal responsibility in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Deficit spending has run up the national debt to the point where we will soon be considered more of a risk to foreign lenders and the interest on their loans to us will dramatically rise. And that will mark our nation's steep and possibly irreversible decline, both in terms of domestic standard of living and world standing.

Standing firmly in opposition to the Conrad Amendment was Senator Baucus (D, MT), who charged that its implementation would co-opt the proper role of Congress in setting the federal government's financial policy. He pointed out that Congress was able to substantially reduce its deficit spending in 1990, 1993, and 1997 merely through its own conventional processes, needing no outside commission "help" to accomplish this. He also expressed fears which many on his side of the aisle had that Social Security would be one of the programs targeted for cuts by a new commission. Baucus thus put out his own amendment to assure that the commission could not arbitrarily include social security cuts in its report. To this amendment was added a provision from Senator Grassley (R, IA) that inserted a similar protection against raising taxes to reduce the deficit. The Baucus Amendment then went to a floor vote and passed 97-0.

Baucus wasn't opposed to an independent commission per se. He said that he would be offering his own amendment to create one whose findings would be amendable by Congress. Conrad and Gregg opposed this idea, though, saying that this would defeat the whole point of having the commission in the first place.

So opponents to the Conrad Amendment, depending on their political orientation, either feared higher taxes or cuts to entitlement programs. To me, that sounds pretty good, actually, and shows that this is not a partisan amendment hatched by one party to suit its own ideological purposes. I think it is more important to assure that we remain a viable nation with a large financial "pie" to divide up, rather than a weak one with only a small "pie" and an even smaller one in the future. I consider this to be a matter of national security that is on the same level as protection from terrorist attacks. As for the argument that Congress was able to get it "right" in 1990, 1993, and 1997, I can only respond: What about 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (just looking at the past twenty years)? And this proposed commission would consist of representatives of both parties of both houses (appointed by the respective party leaders in each body), along with two appointed by the President. So we aren't talking about an unelected bureaucracy here, but rather a body beholden to the electorate.

Alas, the Conrad Amendment, though supported by a majority of senators (53-46), failed to muster the necessary 60 votes to gain passage under Senate rules. President Obama had expressed his strong support of this defeated amendment and may establish his own study commission for dealing with the runaway national debt. But its findings won't have any teeth, as Senator Gregg has pointed out.

Some Bands Don't Decline

Most famous popular/rock music acts, be they solo or groups, start out with a big breakthrough album/single, consolidate themselves in the profession with a few decent followups, put out a "classic" album or two, and then begin a long decline of successively inferior works. I have no doubt that, if the Beatles had remained together, that would have been the case (just look at their later solo works). But we all know that they broke up with much animosity in 1970. As did Pink Floyd in 1983, but not before the release of their "declining" album The Final Cut. And when they reformed sans creative force Roger Waters, the group was but a pale shadow of its former glory. Led Zeppelin, which many thought broke up prematurely in 1980 due to the tragic death of drummer John Bonham, had already begun to show signs of decline with its last two studio albums Presence (a rush job) and In Through the Out Door. The Who HAD to decline after their torrid succession of masterpiece albums of the early seventies. In the grunge sphere, different bands took different roads. After only three studio albums and their best work apparently ahead of them, Nirvana imploded with the death of singer/songwriter Kurt Cobain. Soundgarden peaked with Superunknown and then immediately broke up just as it became apparent that their follow-up, Down on the Upside, was a step in decline. Alice in Chains "died" with the death of singer Layne Staley and only recently was "resurrected" when they came up with a dude whose voice was a "dead" ringer for Layne. But Pearl Jam has quite a different story. And they remind me a bit of a band I have followed since the early 1960s: the Rolling Stones.

Both Pearl Jam in the 90s and the Rolling Stones in the 60s made big names for themselves with their early albums and singles. They have always been great on stage and seem to thrive around their fans. Both groups have seen periods of decline and resurrection. And, in my opinion, both seem to be producing some of their best material now, at this late date. I remember back in the mid nineties, when people joked that the Stones were about to embark on their "one foot in the grave" tour to promote their then-new album Voodoo Lounge. What would you call a tour of theirs now? The "exhumation" tour?!

In order for a band to last very long and maintain a high quality of product requires a rare, sophisticated mixture of ego and submission among the members. And the ability to shrug off differences for the greater good of the group. It helps to have a good sense of humor, something I have long sensed in both Pearl Jam and the Rolling Stones. I look forward to hearing even better stuff from them in the future.

Don't Panic Yet, Democrats

It looks as if the Democrats are in a desperate stage of their run as a national ruling party. In the overwhelmingly Democratic state of Massachusetts, a conservative Republican defeated their nominee to take over the late Edward Kennedy's Senate seat, currently held by temporary appointee Paul Kirk. The Democrats have also recently lost governor races in New Jersey and Virginia, both states that they formerly controlled (with the incumbent governor of NJ losing his race for reelection). President Obama's approval ratings continue to slide as the country seems to be coming on board with the opposition's continual portrayal of him as being some kind of foreign socialist who is wrecking the economy into spiraling debt, taking over private industry, "killing Grandma" with health care reform, and letting all the terrorists in with open arms. As negatively as I've seen the previous president, George W. Bush, portrayed, it has come nothing close to how Obama has been treated. And I very keenly remember that, in spite of claims (which I disagree with) on the part of many that Bush stole the 2000 election, he was treated for the most part in his first two years by the opposition Democrats with the utmost civility and respect. But with Obama we get "You lie!" coming from the GOP side of Congress as he addresses it in formal session.

Will this year be a replay of 1994, when in Bill Clinton's only second year as a sitting president the country radically shifted the balance of power by placing the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress? Some say "yes" and point to the fact that in both instances the drive to reform the health care system has been a major factor in the Democrats' polling misfortunes. But consider the following:

The 1994 campaign and election took everyone by surprise because it wasn't until later in the campaign that it became apparent that the Republicans were going to make substantial gains. And then few would have guessed that those gains would put them in the majority as it did. Two years later, though, Clinton easily won reelection! These two facts point to my conclusion: if the Democrats can sense trouble early enough, they can dig themselves out of it by adopting different postures and creating new images of themselves. This certainly has worked in the past.

The health care reform quagmire still continues, but one way or another it will end in the not-to-distant future. In the meantime, Obama is learning from the elections and polls, changing his emphasis to jobs and the economy. He is adopting a more populist manner that is reminiscent of his presidential campaign. Smart guy. Obama also needs to continue with his strong foreign policy and push an image of himself being tough on terrorism. I think he is already strong on both counts, but many apparently think he is soft, for some reason.

So no, I don't think the Democrats are doomed in 2010 after all. There is a good chance that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will lose his reelection bid and that seats in places like North Dakota and even Illinois may turn Republican. In the House, the Democrats will probably lose some seats as well. But I don't think that this will be enough to overturn their majorities in either house, not only still allowing them to set the agenda on the floor, but also to control committees (including the crucial Senate Judiciary Committee).

So if you're a Democrat, now is not the time to panic. Besides, Obama (or "Not-McCain" if you will) is going to be in there for quite a while longer!

One big concern, though: If the Democrats in Congress pursue immigration reform this year and try to ram through a bill with little or no support across the aisle, start worrying, Democrats. And prepare for celebrations in November, Republicans!

My Favorite Songs of 2009

The year 2009 was very fun for me musically, as I discovered a plethora of heretofore unknown artists whose works made a strong impression on me. Most of them started out with their recording careers during either the 1990s or the early 2000s. And they all belong to the genre of music commonly referred to as "independent (indie)/alternative".

I have, from time to time last year, referred to some of these artists and their songs. With a few exceptions, my favorite songs of 2009 are actually from earlier albums. Here is my list of favorites (artist and actual year of release in brackets):

1. Casimir Pulaski Day [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
2. Calculation (Theme) [Metric, 2003]
3. Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head [Sufjan Stevens, 2003]
4. Jacksonville [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
5. Fiery Crash [Andrew Bird, 2007]
6. Empty [Metric, 2005]
7. Chicago [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
8. Pittsfield [Sufjan Stevens, 2006]
9. Merchants of Soul [Spoon, 2005]
10. A Sunday Smile [Beirut, 2006]
11. Flint [Sufjan Stevens, 2003]
12. Come On Feel the Illinoise [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
13. Niagara Falls [Sufjan Stevens, 2002]
14. 15 Step [Radiohead, 2009]
15. Cause=Time [Broken Social Scene, 2002]
16. The Lightning Strike [Snow Patrol, 2008]
17. Cellphone's Dead [Beck, 2005]
18. The Fear [Lily Allen, 2009]
19. Bodysnatchers [Radiohead, 2009]
20. A-Punk [Vampire Weekend, 2008]

And there are many, many more great songs as well. From the above list, it would be a safe bet to presume that my "artist of the year" was Sufjan Stevens. Which then confuses me a bit.

When I go to Best Buy or Borders or Barnes & Nobles and look at their music CDs, Sufjan Stevens is there with most of his works well-stocked for sale. He is a big enough artist that they have special dividers with his name on them. He has critically highly-acclaimed albums and instantly sells out his concerts whenever they are announced. He has been interviewed on MTV and performed on Austin City Limits. In other words, he sells! So why then haven't I ever heard anything of his on broadcast radio? Especially in a college town like Gainesville, Florida, where you just might suppose that his music would be better received? Instead, I hear stale crap being repetitively played on stations like 103.7/WRUF and 100.5/WHHZ.

Well, no matter. I have been weaned from radio and have fully embraced the Internet as THE source for my favorite music. And it keeps coming and coming!

Karno

Lately, I have been getting my materials from my local Alachua County Library system via the Internet, doing searches and placing items on hold. Then, when notified that they are available, I drive down to my nearest branch library to check them out. The other day, though, I departed from my usual routine and randomly browsed around the library. And I found an interesting book about long-distance running.

Did I say "long-distance"? I meant "ultra-long distance", for the book I checked out (and ultimately read) is titled Ultra Marathon Man: Confessions of an All Night Runner, by Dean Karnazes. Affectionately called "Karno" by his friends, Karnazes is a study in extremes, as the book's title would suggest. A pretty avid runner throughout his childhood, Karnazes gave it up at age fifteen and didn't resume running until he was thirty. Then abruptedly, after a full, eventful day at the office and a subsequent night out with his friends (and much alcoholic imbibing), Kanazes went home, impulsively stripped down his clothing to his briefs and tee shirt, slipped on some ratty old sneakers in his garage, and began running down the street. He kept running and running until he ended up covering thirty miles!

This was the turning point for Dean Karnazes, for afterward he became an extreme fanatic for running extremely long running races. Since then he has run a 100 mile race up and down California mountains, a 130 mile race that wound through Death Valley and up Mount Whitney, a 26.2 mile marathon to the South Pole, and more recently, a 199 mile relay through west-central California, with him running ALL of the relay positions solo. Among other feats.

Karno is no doubt what I would call a "true believer": someone who has found his calling in life and has thrown himself fully into it. Yet he realizes that with his running, he is an extreme example and that others need to choose and pursue their own paths. In fact, he has used his running success as a springboard for motivational speaking, as well as landing him a position as a fitness columnist in Men's Health magazine.

I don't believe that everyone's bodies are the same, so I would never try to literally emulate what Dean Karnazes has done. But he has taught me some things in his book:

--On long-distance runs, I need to continually rehydrate myself and replenish my salts. On the very long runs, eating fast-burning carbohydrates is also a must. In the past, I have always played the stoic and not refueled until the run was over. No more!

--Although Karnazes would eat fast-burning food while running, away from the road he adhered to a diet of lean meats, vegetables, nuts, fruits, and low-glycemic carbohydrates. I need to follow his example. Karno claimed to have only 4.8% body fat. I could lose forty pounds and still not be anywhere near that level (not that I necessarily want that anyway).

--At any given moment, it is easy to find all sorts of excuses to avoid exercise, especially that strenuous exercise that can make a truly positive difference in my life. But the body is marvelous in its capacity to repair and strengthen itself, and I should trust it to do just that.

--Karno did his running in the context of a positive social environment, with his family and friends behind him. That to me doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has to be my cheerleader, but it is important to make sure that others aren't suffering on account of me overdoing it with my running.

--Physical pain is not always a bad thing to be numbed away; it can develop character and self-understanding if overcome and is often a symptom of positive change.

--Karnazes ran whenever he could find the opportunity to run. Likewise, I should not limit myself by placing needless restrictions on my endeavors.

--Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Dean Karnazes revealed his own personally-arrived at conclusion that life is much more than just being able to survive. Sometimes you have to push things to the edge to achieve that quality of experience that gives a life greater meaning.

No way am I going to literally follow Karno's example and run ultramarathons. But I have stepped up my running of late and, who knows, I may be running in some longer distance races in the not-too-distant future.

Slow Down Televised Sports

As I sat there watching an NFL playoff game on TV the other day, a curious idea occurred to me. Why not just watch the whole game (at least the active plays) in slow motion? After all, the action happens so quickly that often even the paid officials get fooled by events and make incorrect calls, only to be shown wrong by slo-mo replays.

Say a game begins at 2 pm. The folks at the TV network could schedule the slow-motion version at 3, giving them time to get a head start editing out time-outs and "dead" time between plays. There could still be the same amount of commercials, but the game probably wouldn't last much longer than the real-time version.

There is so much going on within a single football play, and much of it is away from the ball. I would like to be able to watch how all of the players on the field play, but the camera usually has many of them out of the picture. So, in accompaniment with the slow-motion play-by-play, I would like a wider view of the field that shows more of the action.

Slowed down broadcasting also applies to fast-moving sports like basketball and hockey, especially the latter. Hockey moves so quickly that I usually don't even know where the puck is at any given moment (which is the main reason that I don't like to watch hockey). Slowing things down would give me time to assimilate both the offensive and defensive strategies and how they are implemented. It would also, I believe, highlight the players' skills better.

I have been in public places while various games are on TV. And I have noticed that people are almost instinctively drawn to pay attention to slow-motion replays, even if they hadn't been following the game!

Of course, I could record a game myself and replay it a notch slower, speeding it up between plays and during commercials. But that sounds like too much delay and work. Besides, from the viewpoint of the network and sponsors, a slow-motion option would have to come from them in order for them to still be able to profit from the advertising.

There is already much slow-motion replaying going on anyway, at least in football where there is all this dead time between plays. So basketball and hockey, with their generally continuous play, would probably benefit the most from a totally slow-motion format.

Now to baseball and slow-motion broadcasts. It is very difficult to follow pitches when the slower ones are whizzing by at 70 mph and the fastest can exceed 100 mph. But at a slower pace, everything is revealed! Just cut out the extremely tedious dead time between pitches and overall you'd probably end up with a shorter game, even with the actual action slowed down! And the broadcasters could still insert their oh-so-sacred commercials anywhere they wanted!

Half-Marathon: Fait Accompli

Yesterday, I tried to run a half-marathon around my neighborhood. And I succeeded, finishing with 13.6 miles in the not-so-Earth-shattering time of 2:20:43. But I wasn't concerned about how fast I ran it; I just wanted to see how far I could go.

After my 10-mile run the precious Wednesday, I redesigned my course so that on the next long run I would pass by my house every 3.4 miles, giving me the opportunity to rehydrate myself with Gatorade (or "G') and wolf down a banana or two if I felt like it. And it worked!

The run went pretty smoothly and uneventfully although, with about three miles to go, I did experience my right leg starting to go into a cramp. But I was somehow able to keep it at bay and finish the run. Toward the end (besides the leg cramping), my lower legs and feet ached a lot. But I was mentally very sharp and energetic, fatigue not affecting me on this run. Had my legs/feet felt better and I wasn't constrained by time (I had to leave for work a half hour after my run finished), I probably could have run several miles further.

After the actual 13.6 mile run was completed, the process involved with it continued. I was now in recovery, and it hurt. For the next hour, I experienced some significant cramping in my feet and thighs (especially the left). But it finally relented, and I was able to enjoy a typical workday. Today, although I feel sore in some spots, I feel pretty good overall.

After I finished that 10-mile run a week ago, I told myself that I wasn't cut out for this and should just concentrate on three-mile runs instead. My feet ached during the last two miles of that run. But with the 13.6 mile run, I was O.K. after ten miles. Around the eleven mile mark, though, the aching returned. I think there may be a number of reasons for this. One, I could stand to lose about forty pounds. That would be forty pounds less that my feet wouldn't have to support every time they hit the ground. Two, I could probably use a new pair of running shoes, designed to fit my particular way of foot placement. And three, a little aching might just be a natural result of running a lot further than I have been accustomed to.

So now that I know for sure that I can cover the distance, I am more likely to run that half-marathon race on February 14. We'll see. Maybe next Wednesday I'll start my run earlier in the morning and see how far I can go!

Mass Brain Freeze in Massachusetts

Ouch.

I can't wait for the shock and dismay to set in when Senator Centerfold votes consistently against the interests and political leanings of those whose votes elected him. I give the brilliant people of Massachusetts about a month before the brain thaw sets in.

I understand that one poll taken of voters stated that 48% of them had health care reform as their number one issue, and most opposed the legislation in its current form (as do I). But that isn't the only issue involved here. There are a multitude of important items that will be next to impossible to act upon now that the stonewalling GOP has 41 votes in the Senate. And one of those items is likely to be a U.S. Supreme Court nomination.

Scott Brown will, alas, have to run for reelection in 2012 (if he still wants the job by then and doesn't "go rogue" like Palin). So the Democrats in Massachusetts have a couple more years to try to come up with a candidate that can match their previous one in arrogance and political stupidity. But let's see how "independent" the new senator will truly be. He'll have to be more like a Snowe or Collins than a Santorum if he wants to have a prayer of being reelected in '12. Unless, of course, Martha Coakley is renominated by the Dems.

Massachusetts Senate Election Today

One year minus one day since Barack Obama was inaugurated as President, the media is all a"twitter" about a special election being held in Massachusetts to fill that state's Senate seat, formerly occupied by recently deceased Edward Kennedy and temporary appointee Paul Kirk, both Democrats. But Martha Coakley, who easily won the Democratic primary, has run a particularly inept campaign while the Republican contender, Scott Brown, has captured the state's imagination as a likable underdog. The opinion polls have the race, which will be decided today, as a dead heat. Obama visited Massachusetts Sunday to campaign on behalf of Coakley.

There is more than the usual interest in one special Senate election. The Democrats, along with two Independents caucusing with them, have a 60-40 advantage in that body, usually enough to withstand Republican filibusters and other delaying tactics. This would end if a seat switched from the Dems to the GOP. Furthermore, the health care reform bill currently in conference needs those 60 votes for final approval, and a Brown victory would deny that possibility.

Not that I want the Democrats to lose the election, but I am not all that enthusiastic about the health care reform bill in its current form. It legally coerces citizens to purchase health insurance from private companies, which are already exempt from the Federal Anti-Trust Act and can charge whatever they choose to charge for their "protection". As a matter of fact, this whole thing sounds like a sort of seedy protection racket, and the people at large are the ones getting shaken down. So it won't exactly hurt my feelings if this extremely flawed legislation goes down in flames.

Although the media has made a big deal about Martha Coakley's incompetence as a campaigner, there is also a large segment of the Massachusetts electorate who, like me (and Howard Dean), have serious concerns about what would happen if health care reform in its present form becomes the law of the land. I think Coakley will squeak out a victory today, but I also thought that Texas would beat Alabama for the college football championship!

Can I Run a Half-Marathon?

Last Wednesday, I ran 10 miles. This was the longest I had run nonstop since March of 1975 (I am 53 years old). It took a few days to recover, but I think that I am now ready to try another long run. This time I would like to cover a half-marathon distance of 13.1 miles. If I succeed, then I will enter the February 14 half-marathon here in Gainesville, Florida. I plan to make my attempt at 13.1 miles either today or Wednesday, using my neighborhood as the course. As with the 10 mile run before, I am just going to try to cover the distance without emphasizing speed.

I really would like to be more comfortable running longer distances. Someday I would like to try running a full marathon. But I need to eat better, get my weight down, and get used to running at longer distances than I have been doing. I have been running 3.4 to 3.6 miles every other day, alternating with weight training designed to strengthen my upper body.

NFL Teams Down to Four

The only football left in the "2009" season is in the National Football League playoffs. From 32 teams, we are now left with four: Indianapolis Colts, New York Jets, Minnesota Vikings, and New Orleans Saints. My preseason prediction of Baltimore beating Minnesota in the Super Bowl proved wrong this past weekend, with the Ravens making numerous mistakes (including dropping crucial easy passes) in their decisive loss to the Colts, who I guess decided that they actually do want to play football after their shameful decision to forfeit to the Jets in their fifteenth game by putting in the second-string lineup in a close third quarter. But lo and behold, here come the Jets again, and with a vengeance, having dismantled the favored San Diego Chargers. Indianapolis and New York will play their rematch next week with the winner (hopefully the Jets) going to the Super Bowl. In the other conference championship game to be played, Minnesota is pitted against New Orleans. I will be rooting for future Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre's underdog Vikings in this one.

But does it really matter who goes on to win the Super Bowl? I suppose it does if your team is one of those still left. But in the long run, I probably will forget who won this year's championship three or four years down the line. Still, it's fun to pick out a team and root for it, even if I make that decision based on a coin flip or by whose mascot I like the most.

Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle

The Man in the High Castle is Philip K. Dick's examination of a alternative history world where the Japanese and Germans have emerged victorious in World War II and the United States has been carved up between the two. The story's setting is the American West, run by Japan, which turns out to be a more more benevolent occupier than the Germans in the American East (there is also a relatively autonomous region in the Rockies). The protagonists (there is no one "standout" character), Japanese and American alike, all consult with the ancient Chinese book I Ching to discern their futures and best strategies for living.

I think that Dick showed how the losing side of a war can adapt to occupation by adopting much of the culture of the victors. That is, to some extent, how the Japanese were able to adjust following their "real" loss in World War II and their relatively benevolent occupation by the Americans and the reconstruction of their political system to conform with Western culture.

In the story is a book, written by a man living in Wyoming (in that aforementioned autonomous region), that espouses an alternative history in which the Allies instead won the war and occupied Japan and Germany. This book, naturally frowned upon by the authorities, becomes an enormous underground hit and, along with the I Ching, is in the possession of the protagonists as well. Eventually, one of them decides to visit the author and discover how he was able to write his "history" in such vivid detail, as if he had actually experienced it himself. And this is revealed at the end, an explanation that is disturbing to no end!

The Man in the High Castle won the esteemed Hugo award in 1963 for best science fiction novel. It impressed me as well, although it is not my favorite alternative history story. That personal honor goes to Stephen Baxter's incredible 2006 novella The Pacific Mystery, which also sets up a world in which the "bad guys" won World War II. I recommend both Baxter's and Dick's very different versions of a world where Nazis run rampant and the protagonists begin to sense that something is not quite right with reality.

Tennessee Deserves Better than Kiffin

I have been to Knoxville, Tennessee a few times and thoroughly love the place and its friendly people. As a state university city, its reminds me a lot of my Gainesville. But it also has another, industrial element to it, giving it more of a big-city image. For most of the country, Knoxville is known for being the location of the University of Tennessee, right off the banks of the Tennessee River. And the University of Tennessee is probably most known for its football team and its fans' utter, undying fanaticism.

For decades, Tennessee head football coach Phillip Fulmer has delivered to those fans with strong, competitive Volunteer teams. His long tenure was spotlighted by the unforgettable teams of Peyton Manning in the mid-1990s and a national championship in 1998. They had a great rivalry going with my University of Florida Gators as well, with the seasons of each school often hinging on who won the early-season matchup. In 2007, although the Gators beat Tennessee early on, the Vols still managed to win the Southeastern Conference East Division, quite an accomplishment. But the following year, they had only the second losing season in Fulmer's 17 year stint there and he lost his job. Pretty shabby treatment for someone who was locally so revered that he had a street named after him!

To succeed Fulmer, UT hired Lane Kiffin, whose chief assets were that he was defensive coach Monte Kiffin's son and that he was an assistant coach at USC a few years ago when they won two national championships. But his only head coaching experience had been with the NFL's Oakland Raiders, where he compiled a horrendous 5-15 record before being angrily sacked by that team's owner Al Davis in an infamous press conference.

But Tennessee treated Kiffin as a savior, much in the same manner that Florida had done with Urban Meyer and Alabama with Nick Saban. Football fans can be funny that way; all you need is for "Coach Fix-It" to sign on the dotted line and you're supposed to be good for a string of conference titles and national championships!

Tennessee was so taken by the brash, verbally combative new head coach that, during his first (and it turns out his only) season, they tended to treat close losses as victories. This never happened under Fulmer. Tennessee finished the season at 7-6 and Kiffin was regarded as a great success who turned around their football program. Huh? (Or, in more vulgar terms: WTF?)

As a UF fan, I would have been content to have Lane Kiffin stay with Tennessee and pilot the Vols to more "close" losses to the Gators (while claiming moral victories). But alas, his dream job of coaching his old haunt USC came up and that premier college football school hired him, with his lifetime head coaching record of 12-21 and a trail of angry people trashing him! The job switch happened in a span of hours, and Kiffin naturally took along with him his assistant coaching staff as well (including his father). Tennessee fans deservedly feel betrayed.

But I say to the good folks in Knoxville and beyond who follow the Vols, you deserve better than Lane Kiffin. What you need is a good old-fashioned Phillip Fulmer/Bobby Bowden type who will stay around, be a mentor to his players, and make you proud. And Tennessee football will rebound, let there be no mistaking that. I look forward to the days when the Tennessee/Florida rivalry will once again heat up, with the schools trading victories from year to year.

Haiti's Devastation

A devastating earthquake of magnitude 7.0 struck Haiti, with as many as 28 aftershocks averaging 5.0. It seems that the horrors that have been inflicted on this impoverished nearby little Caribbean nation are being revealed almost exponentially as the media gains greater access to the focus of the catastrophe. Different estimates of fatalities have been given, from as many as 100,000 to even a half million. In a country encompassing only nine million people!

Haiti is so poor that 80% of its GDP is in the form of foreign aid bestowed upon it, according to a Public Radio segment I recently heard. The same source, however, goes on to say that this may be misleading as a moneyless barter system tends to account for much of their domestic economy. But for Haiti to ever climb out of their despair, they need to have a stable, available currency that can enable them to develop the infrastructure necessary for them to exist as a viable country that is friendly to small business development and trade, both domestic and international.

"1-12" probably won't go down in history with the same instant, emotionally arousing effect that "9-11" did. To be sure, "9-11" was the wake-up call that mobilized us to the real, dire threats that terrorism posed to us if left unchecked; earthquakes are, on the other hand, naturally and (seemingly) randomly occurring events that sometimes tragically affect heavily populated areas. Especially heavily populated areas devoid of effective building standards, as is now the case with Haiti.

When I was a little kid in the early 1960s, I would hear references to places like Jamaica and Haiti as vacation paradises. One could travel there, be in exotic surroundings, and be pampered while lounging around on the beautiful beaches. Jamaica still enjoys a vibrant tourism industry, which contributes greatly to its economy. But Haiti has gone down a different path, with corrupt dictators and its military sapping the country's wealth and repelling visitors instead of luring them. Well, for a few years Haiti has enjoyed a very fragile democracy of sorts. This, though, is only a tiny step in the right direction. Things will have to change there on a grand scale in order to turn the country around. But short of a long term international takeover, I don't see this happening.

The 2004 "Christmas" tsunami that killed so many in southeast Asia seemed so far away, on the other side of the world. This earthquake, though, was too close. Especially when you consider that when a hurricane brushes by Haiti, people in south Florida begin to board up their homes and businesses. Yet Haiti and Florida, in spite of their proximity to each other, are in vastly different geologic zones. Or are they really?

Crossword Lite

I am a notoriously bad crossword puzzle enthusiast. Not bad in the late Michael Jackson's sense of "good", but bad in the sense of "really crappy"! Usually, I can whip through those "easy" crossword puzzle books I buy from time to time, giving me a false sense of expertise with this genre of diversion. But then I'll come across a Sunday New York Times puzzle and I'm instantly and hopelessly lost, desperately looking for at least ONE clue that I can solve on it. When I was much younger and actually followed prime time television, I could fill out much of the weekly TV-based crossword in TV Guide magazine. But nowadays, forget it!

But all is not lost; help is on the way. In the (incidentally free) Independent Florida Alligator is published the Los Angeles Times daily crossword puzzle. Which I guess is about halfway between the difficulty of the Sunday NY Times and the "easy" puzzles. Then I discovered that the weekday New York Times crossword puzzle, included in the (not free) Gainesville Sun is also much simpler than their Sunday monstrosity.

I am not one of those strange people who look up the answers to the clues that they can't figure out. If I can't solve 42-down, then I'll try to solve the horizontal clues that overlap it. And not completely finishing a puzzle is no big deal, either. I just enjoy the process of "backward thinking" that deriving a term from its oft cleverly constructed description entails. How about you?

I dig crosswords because I can just rip them out of the paper and carry them around with me, working on them during "down" moments when I am waiting in line or during a break in my routine.

When I was a kid, we used to have cruddy crossword puzzles to do at school or in those cheap children's magazines. By "cruddy", I mean crosswords that had squares that weren't covered by both vertical and horizontal words. In these inferior puzzles, one had to just "know" the answer with the minimal help of having only a few vertical/horizontal overlaps. Of course, mitigating against this glaring flaw was the tendency for the puzzles to be mind-bogglingly simple to solve!

My parents were both avid and expert crossword puzzle enthusiasts, having become so adept at the game that they ended up concentrating on the much more difficult "diagramless" puzzles. As a matter of fact it was while looking over their diagramless puzzles as a kid when I first realized that my parents were pretty damned smart!

Not that being a lousy crossword "puzzler" conversely means I'm stupid (or so I try to convince myself). For me, diagramless is "off the table" for now. Weekday newspaper puzzles rule!

Curse of Conspicuous Consumption

Normally, I like to claim that I am modest...so modest, in fact, that I can usually admit to having just about every personality fault in the world to some extent, if only minor. Of course, you could argue that this is really false modesty, for in doing so, that gives me leverage to talk about the subject as if I were somehow a big expert on it. But there is one "flaw" that I had in early childhood but since early adolescence have pretty much obliterated from my life: conspicuous consumption (or the deliberate flaunting of one's material possessions in front of others).

Originally, I learned about the term "conspicuous consumption" from U.S. history class, in which it was revealed that the nouveau riche of America's 19th century industrial boom (e.g. Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt) would build opulent estates, hold lavish parties, and indulge in just about anything (jewelry, clothes, transportation, furnishing, travel) that they could use to publicly delineate how successful they were and "different" from the hoi polloi. But that trait doesn't just apply to the long-dead super-rich. I see it in people running small businesses, who feel the need to drive a BMW or Mercedes to distinguish themselves from their employees. I see it in coworkers who, finally having a decent source of income in their lives, buy the latest miniature phone/MP3/Internet gadgetry to show off. I see it in yuppie couples who buy expensive homes that they can't afford in order to keep up with their friends, who also tend to live in unaffordable homes. But I see it in children most of all. And that breaks my heart.

Kids don't necessarily intend to be mean about showing off their possessions to others (although some are truly dirt-dog mean to the core). But deriving a sense of pride from owning and displaying one's material possessions can lead to some unintended consequences. One, it creates a sense of inferiority and envy in kids who are not so fortunate with their possessions, possibly even leading to dishonest behavior (lying and even theft) on their part to try to "keep up". Two, it skews values to the point where owning things is more important than accomplishing things. This is never more apparent than during the annual Greedfest (aka "Christmas"), when children (and sadly too many adults) just let their fantasies of material greed run rampant as they throw them out, hoping that someone (typically a parent) will "catch" them and dish them back out to them on Greedfest morning. Hey, I admit to having some greed as well (see, this is where my false modesty kicks in), having asked for and received some very nice presents (thank you Melissa, Will, Rebecca, Dad, Anita, Jim, Jerry, Keith, Krista, James, Amy, etc). But you know, I didn't then turn around and show them off to others, some of whom may not have been so abundantly fortunate.

Let's not confuse conspicuous consumption with responsible maintenance and cleaning, either. People who want their property to look clean and well-maintained, be it a home, car, or anything else, are simply reflecting their responsible behavior in how they take care of their possessions, which can run the range from simple to extravagant. Doesn't walking into a well-kept, modest house impress you more than walking into one that is larger and more ornate, but untidy and possibly dirty? If you agree, then you are on my "wavelength". Comments of affirmation are most certainly welcome! And if you think that your possessions define you, than please explain how and why. I just might be missing something here (another false modesty ploy of mine, I'm afraid).

Nevada's Questionable Senators

Democrat Harry Reid and Republican John Ensign are about two of the most diametrically opposed senators that even served the same state at the same time, in terms both of their projected images and of their political orientation. Reid is a pugnacious ex-boxer with a heart for working people and a problem with speaking coherently. Ensign is the quintessential corporate hack politician, with a suave manner that would seem to make him more befitting of a stage act in Las Vegas. Yet the two have reportedly gotten along quite well with each other over the years, with each refusing to campaign against the other's reelection bids. And I kind of respect each of them in their own way, for the strengths that they project. But...

John Ensign has been one of those senators who has used his religious faith (right-wing Christian evangelist) as a tool to further his political ambitions. He was, though, recently exposed as having an extramarital affair, while some his GOP colleagues "in the faith" and "in the ideology" have been quick to forgive and forget. So to me, Ensign comes across as a walking, talking self-righteous (but very glib) hypocrite. I have no doubt of his reelection in the future.

Harry Reid, on the other hand, keeps his Mormon religious faith close to his vest. He is personally pro-life, but has respected the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision regarding abortion and has opposed efforts to overturn that ruling by placing hardships on poor women seeking abortions (restrictions which Ensign has supported). Unlike Ensign, Reid seems to have a bit of trouble enunciating his ideas into clear, coherent speech. Which makes me wonder why, of all the people in the Senate that the Democrats could draw upon, he was the one chosen to be the Majority Leader!

It has come out in the news recently that, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Reid had made an idiotic statement to someone about how candidate Barack Obama's relatively light skin color for an African-American, coupled with his lack of a "Negro dialect" (unless he wanted to use one) would help him in the election. A really stupid thing to say, I'll admit. But the furor being raised over this revelation, chiefly by the Republicans, is overblown. Reid wasn't making a racist comment per se; he was giving his opinion, albeit very poorly expressed, as to how others in the electorate perceive race and make voting choices from those perceptions. But, like I said earlier, there seems to be some sort of disconnect between what Harry Reid's mind produces and what ultimately comes out of his mouth!

Ever since Tom Daschle was defeated for reelection in 2004 and Reid became the leader of the Senate Democrats, I have opposed him in this post. I think his heart is in the right place, but he has neither the political skills to negotiate across the aisle nor the ability to effectively express and promote his party's position on various issues. And I am sick to death of hearing him getting up on the Senate floor and sounding personally offended because, lo and behold, the opposition party was behaving like an opposition party!

I would like to see someone like Dick Durbin (Illinois) or Chuck Schumer (New York) step up to the post of Majority Leader. Either would be an vast improvement over what we have had to endure with Reid. Not only are these two much better speakers, but they also represent states that are more likely to reelect them even in the aftermath of a difficult-but-necessary legislative session.

Of course, after the 2010 election, this all may be a moot point anyway. Not that the Democrats will lose enough seats to relinquish their majority status in the Senate. But Harry Reid, at least according to current Nevada public opinion polls, is very unpopular and may be headed for defeat.

Oh, If They Would Only Heed Me

I would advise those Democratic politicians in Congress to stop looking ahead to the next election and instead focus on doing what they were sent to Washington to do. Which is to represent their constituents and the broader interests of the country. They were elected as Democrats, and as such their electors already knew that this party was the "liberal" party and would pursue legislation that had a liberal/leftist imprint on it. It never ceases to confound me how people are suddenly "waking up" to discover that we have liberals in power! Considering how they elected them in the first place, I can only assume that a very large segment of our voting population either is extremely ignorant or suffers from memory impairment. Or perhaps they just sway to and fro, according to what they perceive as the prevailing political mood being portrayed in the media. In any event, it is frustrating that, regardless whether a politician is conservation or liberal, they have to cater to this overly malleable group of voters to win an election. Especially when it concerns the Presidency or politically divided districts and states!

So to my elected officials, be you Republicans or Democrats, just center yourselves in the present and delegate the matters concerning your reelection campaigns to others in your staffs. Your votes are crucial in the year to come, and they need to be cast by responsible representatives and senators, not hack politicians!

People Waving Around Books

Where I work, we have a union and a collective bargaining agreement with management. To this I say, "Great, hooray for collective bargaining"! Once, after I had been working here for a few years, my union local's leadership decided to promote a campaign whereby every member was given a copy of the national collective bargaining agreement, in the form of a small paperback book. The language contained therein was simple to read and understand. There were certain rules in the contract that management and workers were compelled to follow or else they would be in violation of the agreement. For a lay worker using the contract agreement book to monitor management compliance, though, it was an exercise in futility. For no matter how clear the language in the agreement was on any particular item, what really ruled the day was the long trail of "letters of understanding", based on real cases that formally interpreted the rules and ultimately governed their implementation. And these "letters", extraneous to the actual collective bargaining agreement, were only readily available to union officers and stewards, not the rank and file.

Similarly, I often see representatives and senators openly flaunting a little book containing the United States Constitution, as if by doing this it gives them a moral edge over their colleagues. Senator Robert Byrd (D, WV) has been the most notorious for doing this. But, as with the collective bargaining agreement, the Constitution's language may be simple and clear while its interpretation and ultimate application is murky and strewn with a mind-boggling trail of court interpretations. My personal experience with a Constitutional history course at UF introduced me to how murky and muddy the waters of interpretation can be.

And then there is the Bible (or Koran, etc.). I can't begin to count the number of times I've seen a preacher waving this book around on stage, claiming its absolute literal truth and urging listeners to read it for spiritual enlightenment. But such a preacher would in reality be horrified if people were to simply read the Bible, apply the message they personally derived from it, and then go forth with their lives. After all, that would put him (or her) out of a job, for the task of the clergy is to "interpret" scripture in such a way that furthers the church's (and preacher's) agenda. So it's apparently not enough to read the Bible/Torah/Koran/etc. and arrive at our own conclusions; it has to be interpreted for us by the "experts" for us to be enlightened as to its "true" meaning.

I am personally sick of people waving around books like the Constitution, the Bible, or even my collective bargaining agreement. On one hand, they are doing this to gain an edge over others by appearing to be more principled. On the other hand, these documents, albeit important, are only the starting points, not the final products that are reflected in real world application. They are important as foundations in their respective areas, but it is deceptive to pretend that their interpretations are anything but complex, inconsistent, and convoluted. And sometimes motivated by special interest agendas.

Alabama 37, Texas 21

Ooops!!!

My NCAA Title Game Prediction

Here is my prediction for tonight's NCAA National Championship football game:

Texas 27, Alabama 16.

I know this runs against the prevailing "wisdom" of the sports media talking heads, who seem to only pay attention to what happened most recently with these teams. Texas squeaked by Nebraska in the Big 12 championship game, its vaunted offense looking rather unimpressive. And Alabama overpowered favored Florida in the SEC title match. But Nebraska may have had the best defense in the country this year and Florida was missing one of its vital defensive starters due to a suspension. The two contending teams need to be evaluated over the course of the season as a whole, not just by their most recent games. Especially when those games occurred a month ago! Texas has usually completely dominated their opponents this year while Alabama has slogged through several close contests.

Hopefully, you don't bet on sports and will take my prediction with a grain of salt. But my NFL predictions for this year were largely on-target, with me correctly predicting divisional titles for New England, Indianapolis, San Diego, Dallas, New Orleans, Minnesota, and Arizona. The only division I missed, the AFC North, was unexpectedly won by Cincinnati by only one game over my pick, Baltimore (which still finished "in the playoffs"). For what it's worth, I'm still sticking with my prediction of a Baltimore win over Minnesota in the Super Bowl.

One factor that I believe is skewing the opinion of others toward Alabama is the notion that the Southeastern Conference is pretty much invincible now. After all, it has won the last three national championships, splitting the titles between LSU and Florida. But past seasons, like most recent games, are not the best indicators about Alabama and Texas. Rather look at their current season records and judge for yourself.

Could I be wrong? Of course I could. But I am more likely to believe that Texas could blow out Alabama by an even larger margin than lose to them. Well, let's see what happens tonight!

Colts and Bengals Incur My Wrath

I am more than a little dismayed at how the New York Jets managed to get into the NFL playoffs this season. Not that it's any of their fault, mind you. The reason I usually root against NY is simply because they are divisional rivals of "my" team, the Miami Dolphins. Of course, if they end up playing the Dolphins' other "good" divisional rival, the New England Patriots, later in the playoffs, I'll be a big Jets fan (for the duration of that hypothetical game, that is).

No, for the last two games of the regular season, the New York Jets just went out and played some good old solid, spirited football. Their fans should be proud of them. It's just that their opponents for those two games, the Indianapolis Colts and the Cincinnati Bengals, essentially conceded victory to the Jets by resting their first stringers, and especially their star players, for the upcoming playoffs.

I am especially down on the Colts, who at 14-0, had a chance to go undefeated, but who instead chose to bench star quarterback Peyton Manning early in the third quarter of a close contest against New York. The Jets, playing against a substitute Colt lineup, took over the game and never looked back.

The following week, Cincinnati, having just clinched their division, decided to rest their starters as well. And who should they be playing, but the Jets! And those Jets coasted into the playoffs with a too-easy 37-0 win.

What is the most disturbing about all this is that there were other teams, like Houston, Pittsburgh, and Denver, who were in the thick of the playoff hunt as well. They were cheated out of an opportunity to compete on the same level as New York, which was essentially forfeited the last two games. This badly tarnishes the integrity of the sport.

I was rooting for the Miami Dolphins, which once had a 7-6 record (including two wins over those Jets) but lost their final three games of the season. So my gripe has nothing to do with them being cheated out of anything. They blew their playoff chances on their own, injury excuses notwithstanding (but forthcoming).

As long as the Colts or the Bengals have the coaches that they presently have, I will no longer root for them. Even if New England is the scheduled opponent (that's how bad I feel about them)! As a matter of fact, the Jets are scheduled to once again play against Cincinnati this weekend in the first round of the playoffs. Go Jets!

18-22-26-18-17-23

So reads the string of forecast low temperatures for this week at the top of the front page of today's Gainesville Sun. We have already been experiencing sub-freezing mornings here for three days or so, and I'm getting used to it. In fact, it is amazing how quickly I adapt to changes in temperature. As long as they stick around for a while, that is. Had the temperatures climbed right back up, I would have had a much more difficult time handling this. In any event, we are talking about record lows for this time of year (the average low is around 42 degrees).

Which brings me to a conjecture about where one should live. If I had a personal attachment to snow, then I would want to live in an area that had a guaranteed snowfall (which lasted) every year. If not, then I would want to stay in a place like here in northern Florida, where it can occasionally get cold, but is usually very dry on those occasions (it hasn't snowed in Gainesville since 1989). The reason is simple, actually. The worst time with cold weather, as I see it, is when the rain is falling and freezing on the road (and car windshields). Any snow that does falls is very temporary, sloshy (is that a word?) and dirty. The kind of idyllic winter wonderland you see on Christmas cards, with horse-drawn sleighs and country scenes, only exists either at a certain altitude level or at a certain latitude.

So, by this reasoning, (and presuming I don't live in the temperate Pacific coastal areas) if I didn't live in northern Florida (or the southernmost parts of the Deep South), I think I would rather live in a place like New England or Michigan than--say--Atlanta, Nashville, or Charlotte. In those cities, it seems to me that I would get all of the worst effects of winter weather with few of the benefits. Then again, I never had to endure a snow blizzard.

But, back to this article's title, I don't recall ever having experienced such a long chain of substantially sub-freezing mornings in Gainesville. Usually, this time of the year it occasionally dips down deep for two or three days, climbs back up for a couple more, and then dips back down as the next cold front passes through. Not this time, though. But it is dry here---oh so dry!

Day and Night Running

Lately, I have been trying my hand at some night running, with some interesting observations.

For one, although I am near-sighted, I don't wear glasses while running. In the day, I can still easily see distant objects, with the color-sensing cells of my eyes (are they the rods or the cones, I forget) compensating for my difficulty in far vision. I know this must be true, for at night the distant view becomes much more blurry for me. Maybe I just need to start wearing glasses then!

On November 29, I had just driven back into Gainesville from Jacksonville. It was already well into the evening, but I wanted to run. So I ended up going over to the University of Florida and running an improvised course through its campus. My running pace was slower than usual. I attribute that to being more careful about where I placed my feet in the relative darkness. But this past December 29, I ran pretty much the same course in broad daylight and, although I ran it faster, the extreme hilliness of the terrain strongly affected me. But I didn't seem to care much about this the month before, in the dark!

Running at night is a vastly different experience from running in the daytime. Of course, if you're going to run around a well-lit track at night, that is more like daytime running. But I'm talking about road running. In the day, it is more of an assault on my senses, with the lighting and sounds (and somehow even the sloping road) having more of an impact on my mind. In the night, though, sounds are more muffled and the view is dimmer and blurrier. In a way, this frees me to enjoy the experience more. Besides, nights are cooler and more pleasant. Will my speed pick up at night? Eventually, once I am more confident about the courses I run on. In any event, I intend to pursue night running more, with the UF campus being my main focus. Watch out Gators, here I come!

Philip K. Dick's Puttering About in a Small Land

One of science fiction writing legend Philip K. Dick's relatively obscure realism novels, Puttering About in a Small Land, gave me an idea as to why these realism novels of his were so difficult to get published (many of them didn't until after his death). And the reason is really quite simple: they don't have any "hooks".

These novels, including Puttering, are more than anything a combination of very compelling character portrayals with some brutal social commentary woven in. All, so far, deal with people in the middle-to-lower class struggling to make ends meet while trying to hold on to their individual dreams and carrying on mostly dysfunctional relationships with one another. But there are no attractive backdrops to the stories that would draw the reader's interest to pick up the book, or at least to convince a publisher that it would stand a fighting chance on a store's bookshelf. Dick's sci-fi works, on the other hand, always have these hooks, or gimmicks if you will, that intrigue the reader.

Puttering About in a Small Land is about two California couples going about their mundane existences while trying in various ways to "break through" into more meaningful lives. And each of them has his/her own, distinct vision of what a "meaningful life" is. For Roger Lindahl, the novel's main focus, it is freedom and excitement. For his wife Virginia, it is security and control over all of the facets of her existence. The other couple, the Bonners, also have their own personally-held ideals. How these people put their visions into play, along with the consequences of their actions, determines the plot line of the novel. But truth be told, I wasn't particularly sympathetic to any of the characters, although the author did a masterful job at revealing and exploring them. What happened to them by the end of the story was of little consequence to me, so it made reading it a pretty drawn-out exercise of tedium. I suppose the main "lesson" I picked up from this story (more of an affirmation of what I already feel) is how much people create narratives of their past (usually casting themselves as victims) to justify their present behavior.

Maybe, for the sake of "completism", I will continue reading Philip K. Dick's other realism novels. But I greatly prefer his science fiction. Good news: The next novel I'm reading is his award-winning sci-fi story The Man in the High Castle.

.....And yes, I'm aware of the ambiguity of this article's title!

New Year Greetings

I'd like to wish everyone a happy New Year. May you enjoy health, prosperity and an interesting (but not too interesting) life. I have my own little set of personal goals I'm working on for the year ahead. Most of them deal with me changing bad habits into good ones. Good luck to me!