The shout "The circus is in town!" is bound nowadays to bring up an assortment of reactions from people, ranging from excitement and anticipation on to boredom and apathy, and finally to outrage and indignation. I tend to be one of the bored and apathetic, having come to the conclusion that the heyday of high quality circus shows has long passed us by. But an increasing number of people are concerned that the animals in circus acts, like elephants, tigers, and lions, are being abused or at least being treated in an undignified manner. The presumption is that they are wild animals and should be "in the wild", not under the domination of people. I would agree with them to the extent of how the animals were procured in the first place. Were they taken from the wild or were they born and raised in an already domesticated environment? Also, I tend to wince at anyone using a whip on any creature, human or beast, wild or domesticated. It not only riles me to see a lion tamer do this in a circus act, but also to see a jockey whipping his horse in the final stretch of a race. And then being showered with flowers and honors if his horse wins. Disgusting!
That having been said, I am having a problem with those well-intentioned people who try either to sustain captured and at least partially-domesticated animals in a wild setting or to try to train them to return to the wild (even when they were born into captivity). Take a couple of examples.
I recently heard on NPR radio the story of a woman who had cared for several chimpanzees and tried to release them into the wild in an uninhabited (by people) tropical island in western Africa. One chimp, Lucy, was especially fond of her and refused to break the strong personal bond between them and adapt to the "wild life". Finally, the woman, after staying on the island with the chimpanzees and experiencing the frustration that they just wanted to be around her, decided to leave and come back after a year. Upon returning, she discovered the chimpanzees to have adapted somewhat to the wild, although Lucy still remembered her enough to give her a strong, affectionate hug. After another year, she returned again only to discover Lucy's skeleton, with signs that poachers had killed her. Apparently, Lucy had boldly approached them as she hadn't the fear of humans which, as a truly wild creature, she would have carried as a crucial survival trait.
At Sea World in Orlando recently, a known-to-be-unpredictable killer whale pulled a trainer from out of the water down and to her death, violently thrashing her about in front of horrified spectators to as if she were prey. Officials at the park acted clueless as to the cause of this attack, even though this killer whale had long been considered too dangerous for anyone to be in the water with.
Although the last example is very tragic in that it ended with a person's death, the only objection I see is that the people working at Sea World tended to apply human models of behavior to killer whales: this person is cranky so we'll give him his "space" at work; that killer whale is cranky so we'll deal with him the same way and just give him his "space". When domesticated animals go into deviant, violent behavior patterns, their human caretakers need to exert exponentially greater caution with them, whether they be dogs, chimpanzees, killer whales, or another type. Instead, this killer whale had been kept on as part of the show! Foolish!
Of the circus, horse race, and chimpanzee examples, which are the cruelest? I say that taking already domesticated chimpanzees, who had even been taught intricate SIGN LANGUAGE COMMUNICATION with humans, and then throwing them back into the wild to fend for themselves, even if done gradually, is much worse than the traditionally rough treatment that show/sport animals like horses, tigers, lions, bears, or elephants typically receive. Once an animal has been either taken or rescued from the wild, or even born into captivity, it is an obligation on the part of those people responsible for that captivity to bring up that animal with compassion and discernment in its adopted environment, not to throw it back into the wild, grossly unprepared for survival. It is not enough to try to gradually try to train the animal for its new "life" by introducing new foods and abandoning it for stretches. Moreover, it's cruel to do this to animals as they have feelings of their own. They have already formed their own deeply ingrained views of what life is essentially about, only for some "do-gooders" to then decide that it's better to confuse the hell out of them to the point where they don't even know which way is up! Massively disgusting!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
A Working Definition of Self-Respect
I am not a stoic by nature. Quite the opposite, in fact. I generally tend to look for the easiest paths in my daily walk that maximize my comfort and minimize my inconvenience. That pretty much puts me, in my opinion, right in line with the mainstream of American (and possibly generally human) culture. People want easy transportation, easy entertainment, easy food and drink, easy work, and easy relationships. And they want it all cheap and now!
Truth be told, though, this is not a very useful way to live my life. I am an individual human, but I also live in relation to others as a member of society. In both cases, life imposes limits on my freedom to "run my own show". The most obvious example is the need for me to go to work and earn a living.
While at work, I am under someone else's authority, expected to perform my duties and fill out my allotted time at my workplace with "gainful employment". This means furthering the business aims of my employer, not furthering my own particular, personal agenda. Now within the context of these limitations, I do quite well. I AM a productive, conscientious worker, making efficient use of my time and being attentive to the demands of my job. In other words, I respect my employer by actively and consistently attending to my job assignment. Once I clock out and leave my workplace, though, my time belongs to me (in a manner of speaking). So the question is, now that I have shown my respect to my employers by efficiently attending to their agenda in the time allotted for me, how am I going to show my respect to myself in the time allotted to me?
Well, for starters, I need an agenda for my own self. Unless it involves stuffing my face and slothfully staring for hours at the boob tube, this agenda will probably be composed of goals for me to invest my time in pursuing. And it will force me to make personal decisions about where to invest my time and efforts, decisions that will necessarily force me to impose some stoic-seeming discipline on myself.
I don't think anyone deliberately sets out to crash at home after work in front of their television, but it is probably the predominant behavior pattern in our country. People show their respect for others at their workplace, but when the day is done they won't show the same respect for themselves by pursuing their own interests. Instead, they seem to attribute positive traits like "responsibility" and "discipline" to their jobs as if they were burdens imposed on them from the big, bad, outside world that they have a right to shed when they have "free" time. But responsibility and discipline are traits of respect, be they aimed at others or one's self.
There is no need to always play the stoic and give up pleasures; pleasures are part of the "spice of life", as a friend of mine likes to put it on her radio spots. But our personal, "free" time needs to be governed by our own agendas. And we need to attend to them with the same degree of seriousness that we employ on our paid jobs. In other words, we need to respect ourselves.
Truth be told, though, this is not a very useful way to live my life. I am an individual human, but I also live in relation to others as a member of society. In both cases, life imposes limits on my freedom to "run my own show". The most obvious example is the need for me to go to work and earn a living.
While at work, I am under someone else's authority, expected to perform my duties and fill out my allotted time at my workplace with "gainful employment". This means furthering the business aims of my employer, not furthering my own particular, personal agenda. Now within the context of these limitations, I do quite well. I AM a productive, conscientious worker, making efficient use of my time and being attentive to the demands of my job. In other words, I respect my employer by actively and consistently attending to my job assignment. Once I clock out and leave my workplace, though, my time belongs to me (in a manner of speaking). So the question is, now that I have shown my respect to my employers by efficiently attending to their agenda in the time allotted for me, how am I going to show my respect to myself in the time allotted to me?
Well, for starters, I need an agenda for my own self. Unless it involves stuffing my face and slothfully staring for hours at the boob tube, this agenda will probably be composed of goals for me to invest my time in pursuing. And it will force me to make personal decisions about where to invest my time and efforts, decisions that will necessarily force me to impose some stoic-seeming discipline on myself.
I don't think anyone deliberately sets out to crash at home after work in front of their television, but it is probably the predominant behavior pattern in our country. People show their respect for others at their workplace, but when the day is done they won't show the same respect for themselves by pursuing their own interests. Instead, they seem to attribute positive traits like "responsibility" and "discipline" to their jobs as if they were burdens imposed on them from the big, bad, outside world that they have a right to shed when they have "free" time. But responsibility and discipline are traits of respect, be they aimed at others or one's self.
There is no need to always play the stoic and give up pleasures; pleasures are part of the "spice of life", as a friend of mine likes to put it on her radio spots. But our personal, "free" time needs to be governed by our own agendas. And we need to attend to them with the same degree of seriousness that we employ on our paid jobs. In other words, we need to respect ourselves.
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Lightning Thief: The Book
The other day I saw on TV a trailer for a new fantasy flick, titled Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief. It looked like a fun movie to watch and reminded me (along with the title) of the Harry Potter series I have been so enamored with over recent years. Since this movie was based on the book, I checked it out and read it.
Rick Riordan, like Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, wrote about a boy who makes the sudden realization that although he had known over the course of his life that he was different from others, the difference was due to supernatural beings and his relationship with them. And that, like with young Potter, he was the focal point of a major conflict between these beings. Essentially putting his very life in danger. With Rowling, it was "magic" and wizards. With Riordan, it is Greek mythology and the various gods and assorted beings associated with it.
So twelve-year old Percy Jackson, continually being moved from one school to another as a disruptive and troubled student, discovers through the course of The Lightning Thief his proper place in the pantheon of that mythology, which he discovers is literally true and has moved its "homeland" from Greece to the United States (Mount Olympus is on the 600th floor of New York's Empire State Building). There is a missing item of one of the gods and Percy is suspected of having stolen it. He also is very protective of his mother, a theme very important to the story. And he gets (like Potter) two "sidekicks": Grover and Annabeth. Plus he has a mentor of sorts who reminds me a bit of Potter's Dumbledore.
There is no doubt that Riordan meant to capitalize on the phenomenal success of Harry Potter. The Lightning Thief was published in 2005, after the first five volumes of the Potter saga had already been out. But still, Riordan worked very hard to establish the characters' identities (especially that of Percy Jackson) as special and different from those in the more famous series. And a series this is as well, with already five books out in this relatively short time span. The books themselves are consistently reasonable in length, The Lightning Thief being only 375 pages in the paperback edition.
One element I liked a lot about The Lightning Thief, and a major difference from Harry Potter, is that the narrative is told in the first person from Percy Jackson's perspective. This gives me, as a reader, access to his sometimes quirky perspectives on events, people, and life in general. But Riordan doesn't go overboard with Jackson's thoughts; the book is driven by action.
So go read Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief. It is good, fun entertainment. I plan to read the other books in the series, although right now I am plodding through Stephen King's excruciatingly long 2009 novel Under the Dome.
Rick Riordan, like Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, wrote about a boy who makes the sudden realization that although he had known over the course of his life that he was different from others, the difference was due to supernatural beings and his relationship with them. And that, like with young Potter, he was the focal point of a major conflict between these beings. Essentially putting his very life in danger. With Rowling, it was "magic" and wizards. With Riordan, it is Greek mythology and the various gods and assorted beings associated with it.
So twelve-year old Percy Jackson, continually being moved from one school to another as a disruptive and troubled student, discovers through the course of The Lightning Thief his proper place in the pantheon of that mythology, which he discovers is literally true and has moved its "homeland" from Greece to the United States (Mount Olympus is on the 600th floor of New York's Empire State Building). There is a missing item of one of the gods and Percy is suspected of having stolen it. He also is very protective of his mother, a theme very important to the story. And he gets (like Potter) two "sidekicks": Grover and Annabeth. Plus he has a mentor of sorts who reminds me a bit of Potter's Dumbledore.
There is no doubt that Riordan meant to capitalize on the phenomenal success of Harry Potter. The Lightning Thief was published in 2005, after the first five volumes of the Potter saga had already been out. But still, Riordan worked very hard to establish the characters' identities (especially that of Percy Jackson) as special and different from those in the more famous series. And a series this is as well, with already five books out in this relatively short time span. The books themselves are consistently reasonable in length, The Lightning Thief being only 375 pages in the paperback edition.
One element I liked a lot about The Lightning Thief, and a major difference from Harry Potter, is that the narrative is told in the first person from Percy Jackson's perspective. This gives me, as a reader, access to his sometimes quirky perspectives on events, people, and life in general. But Riordan doesn't go overboard with Jackson's thoughts; the book is driven by action.
So go read Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief. It is good, fun entertainment. I plan to read the other books in the series, although right now I am plodding through Stephen King's excruciatingly long 2009 novel Under the Dome.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
America's Increasing Fitness Gap
When I was standing around last Sunday morning about 7 AM at the starting line of the LifeSouth half-marathon, freezing my butt off in 28 degree weather waiting for the race to finally start, I took a little time off from my incessant shivering to look around me at the other contestants. And it struck me how incredibly fit everyone was. That may seem like a no-brainer, considering we all were about to run either a marathon or half-marathon, but it was the effect of being in the midst of a "society" of very-physically-fit people that struck me.
Later that day I went to my local grocery store and was struck again, this time by some of the incredibly "NOT" physically fit people there. This reminded me of what the media has been putting out of late: our country has a severe and increasing problem with obesity and its consequences, especially the growth in numbers of cases of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart and circulatory disease.
Meanwhile, I have been reading marathon calendars and websites, along with blogs written by marathon and long-distance runners. I was amazed to discover just how many marathons are now held annually across the country, and how well-attended they are. The Disney Marathon last month drew some 24,000 runners! These people are deeply into physical fitness, as are others such as hikers, swimmers, dancers, climbers, and various sports enthusiasts. Their interests are more than that; they are lifestyles that have irrevocably changed the lives and health of those who pursue them.
And then we have the ever-worsening demographic of the "unfit". It isn't surprising that there are so many of them, with the way that our social institutions tend to encourage overeating and sloth. I go to any number of restaurants and get served up with platters that a fairy-tale giant might find too much to eat at a sitting. And their desserts might as well be iced with "Welcome to the wonderful world of diabetes" for their sweetness and quantity. Our entertainment industry is set up, from video gaming to music to television to movies to computers, for "participants" to spend more and more of their "free" time in sedentary inactivity.
With me, I have long ago made my decision. I'm going over to the side of the "chronically fit". I still like my sedentary entertainment, but I am discovering some "motion-friendly" forms as well (for example, I listen to my MP3 on runs and at work when permitted).
I think the key to pursuing a life of fitness and health is to find one activity that you like and may actually be a little better at than many people. And to gradually work at it until it begins to take a greater hold of your interest and then becomes a part of what you consider to be your identity. But to reach that state, it is necessary to painfully resist negative habits and to inculcate new and initially-difficult good habits. Which goes a long way to explain why our society is generally going in the wrong direction on fitness and health, the rest of us fitness "goofballs" notwithstanding.
Oh, one other thing. I noticed that without exception those runners I was standing around were very happy! Even though they were obviously very uncomfortable in the cold. So comfort does not equate to happiness, and that is something that people who tend to be unfit simply have yet to understand.
Later that day I went to my local grocery store and was struck again, this time by some of the incredibly "NOT" physically fit people there. This reminded me of what the media has been putting out of late: our country has a severe and increasing problem with obesity and its consequences, especially the growth in numbers of cases of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart and circulatory disease.
Meanwhile, I have been reading marathon calendars and websites, along with blogs written by marathon and long-distance runners. I was amazed to discover just how many marathons are now held annually across the country, and how well-attended they are. The Disney Marathon last month drew some 24,000 runners! These people are deeply into physical fitness, as are others such as hikers, swimmers, dancers, climbers, and various sports enthusiasts. Their interests are more than that; they are lifestyles that have irrevocably changed the lives and health of those who pursue them.
And then we have the ever-worsening demographic of the "unfit". It isn't surprising that there are so many of them, with the way that our social institutions tend to encourage overeating and sloth. I go to any number of restaurants and get served up with platters that a fairy-tale giant might find too much to eat at a sitting. And their desserts might as well be iced with "Welcome to the wonderful world of diabetes" for their sweetness and quantity. Our entertainment industry is set up, from video gaming to music to television to movies to computers, for "participants" to spend more and more of their "free" time in sedentary inactivity.
With me, I have long ago made my decision. I'm going over to the side of the "chronically fit". I still like my sedentary entertainment, but I am discovering some "motion-friendly" forms as well (for example, I listen to my MP3 on runs and at work when permitted).
I think the key to pursuing a life of fitness and health is to find one activity that you like and may actually be a little better at than many people. And to gradually work at it until it begins to take a greater hold of your interest and then becomes a part of what you consider to be your identity. But to reach that state, it is necessary to painfully resist negative habits and to inculcate new and initially-difficult good habits. Which goes a long way to explain why our society is generally going in the wrong direction on fitness and health, the rest of us fitness "goofballs" notwithstanding.
Oh, one other thing. I noticed that without exception those runners I was standing around were very happy! Even though they were obviously very uncomfortable in the cold. So comfort does not equate to happiness, and that is something that people who tend to be unfit simply have yet to understand.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Some Personal Running Chatter
Yesterday I ran 11.16 miles around my neighborhood at a 9:05 per mile pace. This was much faster than my tentative performance at the LifeSouth half-marathon and reflects my usual comfortable pacing (between 8:45 and 9:15 per mile). My original intention on this run was to see how far I could go, with 16.74 miles being my ultimate goal. But the humidity was high at 83% and I generally didn't feel as energetic as I would have liked. Still, I accomplished the fourth longest distance I have run since 1975.
The reason for the funny-sounding distances like 11.16 and 16.74 is that I designed a very good course through my subdivision and the neighboring one, after which I measured it on MapMyRun to be 5.58 miles long. When running longer distances (like yesterday), I run multiple cycles of this course in order to give me an opportunity every 5.58 miles to pass by my house and drink some Gatorade for a few seconds. Ultimately, I want to do five cycles, giving me the marathon-plus distance of 27.9 miles. But that is still a ways off. Alas, running longer distances consumes time, and the fact that my workplace has changed my schedule to report in an hour earlier each day cuts into the time available for me to run and recover.
One of my problems may be due to the fact that I tend not to eat a reasonable breakfast, possibly causing my energy level to be relatively low during yesterday's run, as well as during that LifeSouth half-marathon. So I will start, especially on "running days", forcing myself to eat something more substantial on those mornings. Also, I'm debating whether to go ahead and find some new shoes that reduce the stress (and pain) that long running seems to produce on my feet and ankles.
As far as planning out future marathons to participate in, the only viable one I see in the near future is the Knoxville Marathon, to be held on Sunday, March 28. But I would first need to secure Saturday the 27th off from work, no automatic deal. And I am still not yet in shape to run that distance. But having something specific like that placed ahead of me would definitely serve to mobilize my efforts more sharply! I should know by this weekend whether or not I'll be able to get time off to run in Knoxville, a city that I already thoroughly dig.
One other thing: after yesterday's long run, I experienced no lingering pain or cramping in my feet or legs. I had been surprised at my relatively fast recovery following the LifeSouth race on February 14, but this recovery was astounding! A very good sign, indeed.
The reason for the funny-sounding distances like 11.16 and 16.74 is that I designed a very good course through my subdivision and the neighboring one, after which I measured it on MapMyRun to be 5.58 miles long. When running longer distances (like yesterday), I run multiple cycles of this course in order to give me an opportunity every 5.58 miles to pass by my house and drink some Gatorade for a few seconds. Ultimately, I want to do five cycles, giving me the marathon-plus distance of 27.9 miles. But that is still a ways off. Alas, running longer distances consumes time, and the fact that my workplace has changed my schedule to report in an hour earlier each day cuts into the time available for me to run and recover.
One of my problems may be due to the fact that I tend not to eat a reasonable breakfast, possibly causing my energy level to be relatively low during yesterday's run, as well as during that LifeSouth half-marathon. So I will start, especially on "running days", forcing myself to eat something more substantial on those mornings. Also, I'm debating whether to go ahead and find some new shoes that reduce the stress (and pain) that long running seems to produce on my feet and ankles.
As far as planning out future marathons to participate in, the only viable one I see in the near future is the Knoxville Marathon, to be held on Sunday, March 28. But I would first need to secure Saturday the 27th off from work, no automatic deal. And I am still not yet in shape to run that distance. But having something specific like that placed ahead of me would definitely serve to mobilize my efforts more sharply! I should know by this weekend whether or not I'll be able to get time off to run in Knoxville, a city that I already thoroughly dig.
One other thing: after yesterday's long run, I experienced no lingering pain or cramping in my feet or legs. I had been surprised at my relatively fast recovery following the LifeSouth race on February 14, but this recovery was astounding! A very good sign, indeed.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
James Cameron On Obama's Space Decision
Renown filmmaker James Cameron, responsible for such blockbuster visual extravaganza hits as Titanic and Avatar, has come out strongly in support of President Obama's plan to flat-out scrap the ambitious Constellation/Ares/Orion program started by President George W. Bush five years and $9 billion earlier. According to Cameron's article that appeared February 5 in the Washington Post and subsequently in the Gainesville Sun, it would be far better for private industry to be the party responsible for designing and constructing the hardware for our space program. NASA should instead focus on hard science and the development of propulsion and robotics technology.
Although I respect Mr. Cameron in his field of expertise, which is cinema, I have to disagree with his conclusion on a number of counts. And starting off, I have to underscore the vast difference between private industry that is tied in to government contracts (like Halliburton and Lockheed) and that which is subject to consumer market pressures (like Microsoft or Apple). But don't take it from some amateur like me: follow conscientious anti-waste senators from either party (like John McCain, Tom Coburn, or Russell Feingold) as they decry how private contractors rip off the government, and through it the American taxpayers.
Moreover, Cameron himself should know better how important it is for our space program to have a "flagship" project with a name and vision. After all, it has been in the production of visions that has given him his fame (and great fortune). Instead, his (and Obama's) "vision" has NASA in some kind of shadowy background funneling its allotted funds through to various projects. Well, there are already well over fifty of these projects going on as it is. But none of them would have come about, at least to the degree that they have, if we hadn't enjoyed the success of the highly visionary manned Mercury/Gemini/Apollo program of the sixties. Which makes me wonder a little about our president, whom I generally support (and voted for).
The way this issue has been framed is that the President wanted a fair, objective, and informed assessment of our space program, so he had this independent commission study the issue and give its conclusions. To which he then completely signed off in complete agreement with little comment. In other words, space exploration, like bowling, doesn't pique Barack Obama's interest. So instead of delegating some real authority to another in his government who does care about our space efforts, he instead puts the whole issue on the back burner to twist in the wind (sorry about my horribly mixed metaphors). This is no way to run a country! At least with his sorry efforts at bowling, we could have a good laugh at his continual gutter balls.
Cameron did nothing to address the frustration and futility of American scientists and engineers who, after decades of stagnation with our manned deep space efforts, had finally mobilized to work on a tangible attainable project: returning to the moon, establishing a base there, and using that as a springboard to plan a Mars mission. What does trashing their efforts say to young scientists and engineers who are interested in space exploration? It tells me that they should stay away from the U.S. and seek employment elsewhere (like Europe or China)! And I doubt that this is something that our president, who is constantly talking about how important it is for us to revitalize our science and engineering in this country, wants as an unintended consequence of his actions.
The idea of private companies developing the rockets for profit only works in the context of low-Earth-orbit ventures of the kind that we have been engaging in since 1973 and Skylab. In order to create an infrastructure of travel and opportunity for places like the moon and beyond, the government needs to set the agenda, frame it, and present it to the public with great fanfare. Look at our Interstate Highway System and the Internet. These great highways of transportation and communications were directly brought about by centralized government that used its funding wisely to implement tangible visions. Likewise, our government needs to be directly involved in the design and implementation of the infrastructure of deep space. And its promotion to the public. Incredibly, it took a conservative president in George W. Bush to appreciate this and put it into motion. Only to be shot down before it could get off the ground by the present leader.
Which brings me to another point. It takes years to develop a new technology. The more ambitious and far-reaching that technology is, the more expensive and complex that transition will be. It is almost a foregone conclusion that there will be setbacks and cost overruns as development takes place and the scientists and engineers discover what works and what doesn't. This was case with the Constellation/Ares program as well. All the commission did was to overemphasize the naturally-occurring negative results which arise from ambitious projects like this one. That by itself is not a good reason to cancel the project. And due to the long time span needed by those putting projects like this together, it shouldn't be a political football subject to the whims of each new administration.
There is one other point that I'd like to make and involves an innate feature of the relationship between scientific research and innovation and its full implementation in the form of completed projects based on that research: with technology, production always lags behind understanding. When a new product comes out, the researchers have almost always already come up with something better in the works for the future. This is simply the way it is with anything involving science and engineering. To say that we shouldn't go ahead with our plans to go to the moon because we are working on better ways to do it is nonsense. Had we been operating on that premise in the 1960s, we never would have ever set foot on the moon in the first place!
So James Cameron is welcome to be all bubbly about Obama's decision. But the director should know above all others how instrumental it is to have a vision to promote that captures the public's imagination. We had one and our president just took it away. Now we're just scrambling to get off the ground!
Although I respect Mr. Cameron in his field of expertise, which is cinema, I have to disagree with his conclusion on a number of counts. And starting off, I have to underscore the vast difference between private industry that is tied in to government contracts (like Halliburton and Lockheed) and that which is subject to consumer market pressures (like Microsoft or Apple). But don't take it from some amateur like me: follow conscientious anti-waste senators from either party (like John McCain, Tom Coburn, or Russell Feingold) as they decry how private contractors rip off the government, and through it the American taxpayers.
Moreover, Cameron himself should know better how important it is for our space program to have a "flagship" project with a name and vision. After all, it has been in the production of visions that has given him his fame (and great fortune). Instead, his (and Obama's) "vision" has NASA in some kind of shadowy background funneling its allotted funds through to various projects. Well, there are already well over fifty of these projects going on as it is. But none of them would have come about, at least to the degree that they have, if we hadn't enjoyed the success of the highly visionary manned Mercury/Gemini/Apollo program of the sixties. Which makes me wonder a little about our president, whom I generally support (and voted for).
The way this issue has been framed is that the President wanted a fair, objective, and informed assessment of our space program, so he had this independent commission study the issue and give its conclusions. To which he then completely signed off in complete agreement with little comment. In other words, space exploration, like bowling, doesn't pique Barack Obama's interest. So instead of delegating some real authority to another in his government who does care about our space efforts, he instead puts the whole issue on the back burner to twist in the wind (sorry about my horribly mixed metaphors). This is no way to run a country! At least with his sorry efforts at bowling, we could have a good laugh at his continual gutter balls.
Cameron did nothing to address the frustration and futility of American scientists and engineers who, after decades of stagnation with our manned deep space efforts, had finally mobilized to work on a tangible attainable project: returning to the moon, establishing a base there, and using that as a springboard to plan a Mars mission. What does trashing their efforts say to young scientists and engineers who are interested in space exploration? It tells me that they should stay away from the U.S. and seek employment elsewhere (like Europe or China)! And I doubt that this is something that our president, who is constantly talking about how important it is for us to revitalize our science and engineering in this country, wants as an unintended consequence of his actions.
The idea of private companies developing the rockets for profit only works in the context of low-Earth-orbit ventures of the kind that we have been engaging in since 1973 and Skylab. In order to create an infrastructure of travel and opportunity for places like the moon and beyond, the government needs to set the agenda, frame it, and present it to the public with great fanfare. Look at our Interstate Highway System and the Internet. These great highways of transportation and communications were directly brought about by centralized government that used its funding wisely to implement tangible visions. Likewise, our government needs to be directly involved in the design and implementation of the infrastructure of deep space. And its promotion to the public. Incredibly, it took a conservative president in George W. Bush to appreciate this and put it into motion. Only to be shot down before it could get off the ground by the present leader.
Which brings me to another point. It takes years to develop a new technology. The more ambitious and far-reaching that technology is, the more expensive and complex that transition will be. It is almost a foregone conclusion that there will be setbacks and cost overruns as development takes place and the scientists and engineers discover what works and what doesn't. This was case with the Constellation/Ares program as well. All the commission did was to overemphasize the naturally-occurring negative results which arise from ambitious projects like this one. That by itself is not a good reason to cancel the project. And due to the long time span needed by those putting projects like this together, it shouldn't be a political football subject to the whims of each new administration.
There is one other point that I'd like to make and involves an innate feature of the relationship between scientific research and innovation and its full implementation in the form of completed projects based on that research: with technology, production always lags behind understanding. When a new product comes out, the researchers have almost always already come up with something better in the works for the future. This is simply the way it is with anything involving science and engineering. To say that we shouldn't go ahead with our plans to go to the moon because we are working on better ways to do it is nonsense. Had we been operating on that premise in the 1960s, we never would have ever set foot on the moon in the first place!
So James Cameron is welcome to be all bubbly about Obama's decision. But the director should know above all others how instrumental it is to have a vision to promote that captures the public's imagination. We had one and our president just took it away. Now we're just scrambling to get off the ground!
Monday, February 22, 2010
Senator Cougar
I remember rock/folk musician Johnny Cougar as a young, tough Fonzie-like character in the very early 1980s, a kind of Bruce Springsteen-wannabe representing the American Midwest (instead of The Boss's "Joizzy"). He did pretty well, coming out with a string of career-building singles like Hurts So Good, I Need a Lover, and Jack and Diane. Then Johnny Cougar in 1983 decided to change his persona and name back to his original John Mellencamp, with the "Cougar" moniker inserted for a while as his middle name. But the good music continued, Cougar or Mellencamp. He's still coming out with good stuff, another example of an artist who simply will not decline.
Now fellow citizens of Mellencamp's home state of Indiana are encouraging him to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Evan Bayh, who is leaving after his term ends later this year. The renown singer/songwriter has recorded songs in the past that have been used by Republicans Ronald Reagan and John McCain in their respective presidential campaigns. With McCain, Mellencamp, who is an enthusiastic Obama supporter, put his foot down and publicly asked the Republican candidate to stop using his music at his rallies.
Will John Mellencamp take the plunge, as celebrities Arnold Schwarzenegger and Al Franken did, and throw his hat into the political ring? I think that he would do quite well if he set his mind to it, but I have my doubts.
Schwarzenegger had been tendering political aspirations for years and Franken had been on a personal mission to "rescue" Minnesota's Senate seat from Republican Norm Coleman, who Franken believed would have lost to his good friend incumbent Paul Wellstone had he not died in a plane crash just before the election in 2002. I think Mellencamp may be one of those impulsive, temporary celebrity "candidates" like Warren Beatty, Alec Baldwin, or George Clooney who ultimately find the prospect of both campaigning for and serving in elective office too confining for their jet set lifestyles.
But John Mellencamp could fool me. He is very politically outspoken, and this could be an opportunity for him to walk the walk, not just talk the talk (or with him, sing the song). If he does run, he gets my honorary, useless sympathy vote from here in Florida!
Now fellow citizens of Mellencamp's home state of Indiana are encouraging him to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Evan Bayh, who is leaving after his term ends later this year. The renown singer/songwriter has recorded songs in the past that have been used by Republicans Ronald Reagan and John McCain in their respective presidential campaigns. With McCain, Mellencamp, who is an enthusiastic Obama supporter, put his foot down and publicly asked the Republican candidate to stop using his music at his rallies.
Will John Mellencamp take the plunge, as celebrities Arnold Schwarzenegger and Al Franken did, and throw his hat into the political ring? I think that he would do quite well if he set his mind to it, but I have my doubts.
Schwarzenegger had been tendering political aspirations for years and Franken had been on a personal mission to "rescue" Minnesota's Senate seat from Republican Norm Coleman, who Franken believed would have lost to his good friend incumbent Paul Wellstone had he not died in a plane crash just before the election in 2002. I think Mellencamp may be one of those impulsive, temporary celebrity "candidates" like Warren Beatty, Alec Baldwin, or George Clooney who ultimately find the prospect of both campaigning for and serving in elective office too confining for their jet set lifestyles.
But John Mellencamp could fool me. He is very politically outspoken, and this could be an opportunity for him to walk the walk, not just talk the talk (or with him, sing the song). If he does run, he gets my honorary, useless sympathy vote from here in Florida!
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Spring Weather Finally Here
It looks as if the spring climate pattern may finally be descending upon Gainesville, delighting both the avian and human population. Although the winter robin residents may still linger around here for a few more days, I am detecting various signs that the unprecedented, consistent winter freeze (or near-freeze) we have daily been experiencing here in north-central Florida may have finally come to an end. Aside from the average daily high and low temperatures jumping up by about fifteen degrees, I am noticing more neighbors out in their yards mowing their lawns. I will (sigh) soon need to follow their example and mow some of my weeds that are destined for their customary growth explosion this time of the year. But most telling is the residue of pollen left on my car windshield this morning. Uh-Oh.
Pollen means one thing in particular to me: seasonal allergies. And I have been very susceptible to them in recent years. The only things that have helped are Zyrtec or Claritin. I don't like Zyrtec because it causes drowsiness. But Claritin, in the form of a cheaper store brand, is already on my medicine cabinet shelf just waiting for me to pop the tab and start popping pills.
I wonder how severe this spring will be for us in terms both of pollen and of rain and temperature. I have heard the meteorologists predict a pretty wet spring for us. This is a mixed bag for me. I like to run, but I only have fixed times to do it in (unless I begin to run in the wee hours of the morning, Dean Karnazes-style). Maybe I should just start adapting to rain and run right in the middle of it, obtaining shoes and clothing suited for it. My lawn and shrubbery are also going to grow quickly, making me have to get out in the yard to keep my residence from looking like the Addams Family home. But, on the positive side, I had been worrying about the spring fires that have plagued our region in recent years. Would we have a replay of the disastrous 1998 spring fire season? Well, a lot of rain would quickly put a "damper" on that fear.
Spring usually comes earlier to Florida than in other parts of the country. It looks like it's finally arrived. Robins, take flight! And self, get some rain-friendly running shoes!
Pollen means one thing in particular to me: seasonal allergies. And I have been very susceptible to them in recent years. The only things that have helped are Zyrtec or Claritin. I don't like Zyrtec because it causes drowsiness. But Claritin, in the form of a cheaper store brand, is already on my medicine cabinet shelf just waiting for me to pop the tab and start popping pills.
I wonder how severe this spring will be for us in terms both of pollen and of rain and temperature. I have heard the meteorologists predict a pretty wet spring for us. This is a mixed bag for me. I like to run, but I only have fixed times to do it in (unless I begin to run in the wee hours of the morning, Dean Karnazes-style). Maybe I should just start adapting to rain and run right in the middle of it, obtaining shoes and clothing suited for it. My lawn and shrubbery are also going to grow quickly, making me have to get out in the yard to keep my residence from looking like the Addams Family home. But, on the positive side, I had been worrying about the spring fires that have plagued our region in recent years. Would we have a replay of the disastrous 1998 spring fire season? Well, a lot of rain would quickly put a "damper" on that fear.
Spring usually comes earlier to Florida than in other parts of the country. It looks like it's finally arrived. Robins, take flight! And self, get some rain-friendly running shoes!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
MP3 Listening While Running
I credit the use of my MP3 player during my runs with some of the great progress I've made during the past few weeks. Listening to the enormous number and variety of songs with it on "shuffle" mode has provided some variety to my running experience. For after all, my training course has mostly been around my home neighborhood, with some runs involving multiple passes through the same course.
In past road races of 5K length, I have noticed some other runners listening to their MP3s (or IPods) during the events. I thought that was cool if it worked for them, although to me the race itself, along with the different course, provided well enough interest without added musical entertainment necessary. But upon investigating the good ol' Internet, I discovered that the super-official (I guess it's official) governing body of road races has said that MP3s would not be allowed. Some participants in marathons even reported having their IPods confiscated by racing officials!
I don't see how listening to an MP3 player during a marathon race would be a problem, so why prohibit it? If it works for those who use them, then good for them. The last thing that the athletes vying for victory want, anyway, would be the distractions caused by MP3s, or at least that's what I would imagine. As for the bulk of runners, who have already paid a good hunk of money (up front and well in advance) to be in the race, they are mainly concerned with either finishing it or producing a PR (personal record) and aren't really competing head-on against other runners.
On the LifeSouth half-marathon/marathon run I participated in last Sunday, I noticed several runners with MP3s and IPods. So if there was any rule against their use, it certainly wasn't being enforced then. Anyway, it's all a moot point with me, as I relish the experience of running through the course and observing everything going on around me. Why detract from the special experience with something that I could listen to anytime I wanted? Even though I was already very familiar with the course and its sights, having lived here in Gainesville for more than thirty years, I found the experience of reaquainting myself with my home town to be very interesting and wonderful. How much even more interesting it would be if I were to travel to another city where I've never been before and run their marathon! But to each his own, and some prefer listening to their MP3/IPod during races.
Those making rules against listening to MP3s during races need to get down off their high horses and begin to work for the sport's betterment, and this includes making it more accessible and enjoyable for the bulk of the people participating, especially considering the steep nonrefundable entry fees they are expected to shell out in advance.
In past road races of 5K length, I have noticed some other runners listening to their MP3s (or IPods) during the events. I thought that was cool if it worked for them, although to me the race itself, along with the different course, provided well enough interest without added musical entertainment necessary. But upon investigating the good ol' Internet, I discovered that the super-official (I guess it's official) governing body of road races has said that MP3s would not be allowed. Some participants in marathons even reported having their IPods confiscated by racing officials!
I don't see how listening to an MP3 player during a marathon race would be a problem, so why prohibit it? If it works for those who use them, then good for them. The last thing that the athletes vying for victory want, anyway, would be the distractions caused by MP3s, or at least that's what I would imagine. As for the bulk of runners, who have already paid a good hunk of money (up front and well in advance) to be in the race, they are mainly concerned with either finishing it or producing a PR (personal record) and aren't really competing head-on against other runners.
On the LifeSouth half-marathon/marathon run I participated in last Sunday, I noticed several runners with MP3s and IPods. So if there was any rule against their use, it certainly wasn't being enforced then. Anyway, it's all a moot point with me, as I relish the experience of running through the course and observing everything going on around me. Why detract from the special experience with something that I could listen to anytime I wanted? Even though I was already very familiar with the course and its sights, having lived here in Gainesville for more than thirty years, I found the experience of reaquainting myself with my home town to be very interesting and wonderful. How much even more interesting it would be if I were to travel to another city where I've never been before and run their marathon! But to each his own, and some prefer listening to their MP3/IPod during races.
Those making rules against listening to MP3s during races need to get down off their high horses and begin to work for the sport's betterment, and this includes making it more accessible and enjoyable for the bulk of the people participating, especially considering the steep nonrefundable entry fees they are expected to shell out in advance.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Marathon Packet Pickup Restrictions
Continuing along the lines of marathon and general distance running, which is probably painfully boring to most readers but is quite fascinating to me, I'd like to discuss a little matter that surfaced while I was surfing the Web for information about upcoming marathon races across the country.
When I signed up (on the Internet) for the recent LifeSouth Five Points half-marathon, I was given the instruction to pick up my "packet" on the Saturday before the race. The location for packet pickup was right near the actual starting/finishing line. Now what is in a packet, anyway?
A packet contains your bib, which is a tag showing your assigned racing number that you pin in a conspicuous spot on your clothing. You also get your special timing chip that allows the officials to simply scan in your times without going through the previously tedious process of writing things down at the end of the race. You get your souvenir tee shirt to boast of your adventure to others. And you get assorted coupons, magazines, and free offers tucked in as well (I got a free energy bar and Gatorade-type drink thrown in). So it's crucial to pick up your packet before the race.
Which was fine and dandy, considering that I actually live in Gainesville. It was nothing for me to just drive over on Saturday and pick up my packet for the next day's race. But what about those out-of-towners who had to drive or even fly in to be here for the race? As it was, those awesome folks planning the Gainesville LifeSouth event did allow runners to pick up their packets just before the race if they couldn't the previous day. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out (forgive me, but that is the first time I've used that cliche on this blog) that some event organizers could (and do) insist on previous day pickup, forcing such an entrant to SPEND THE NIGHT in that city, most likely at one of their sparkling hotels, complete with a massive hotel tax. Now I'm beginning to see things more clearly.
It began to hit me harder when I began to look at other marathons being held. Most of them seem to have a policy whereby the runner MUST pick up his/her racing packet somewhere in that town on a day BEFORE the race, usually the previous day (but sometimes even earlier). To be sure, a few events (like in Gainesville) give the runner a chance to pick up the packet on race day just before its start, at a location near the starting line. But most have strict policies against this.
Why? Unless this is a concerted effort to ensure that runners in these races stay in those cities that hold them and spend their money there. This doesn't sound that much different from customary theme park rules that forbid guests from bringing in their own food and drink in hopes of encouraging them to buy AT THE PARK. Maybe this is a rational, albeit self-serving policy that helps to defray local costs of holding such a big sporting event, but it makes it much more difficult for someone in my position to attend one.
I remember, during the half-marathon, all of those professional police officers who were at their jobs redirecting and holding back traffic for the benefit of the runners. I'll bet they, like me with my job, have to abide by specific, possibly rigid rules about obtaining leave to take off a few days at a time. Time to possibly be spent, say, at a marathon running event a couple of hundred miles down the road. If I (or they ) wanted to run a Sunday race in Atlanta, I would need to have race-day off (for obvious reasons) as well as the day before for traveling to the event. Since I have Sunday and Monday as my established off-days, then I would have to apply for Saturday off to able to pull this off. But I must, due to my company's leave policy, wait to within 30 days of the date I want off to apply for leave. So, with all of my training and planning, I really won't know whether I can run in the event I want to until I am just a few days from that event. And because of the packet pickup policy of the raceholders, I have to be IN ATLANTA on Saturday during the daytime (not evening) to pick up my race stuff. So that means I have to get out of Gainesville early Saturday morning and plan to stay overnight at one of those handy-dandy Atlanta area hotels, when I otherwise could have just timed my arrival in Atlanta to coincide with the beginning of the race.
John Wallace is a fellow blogger and a much better runner than me. Reading his very entertaining and enlightening blog Maddog Marathon Blog reveals that he is by profession "retired". This is cool, as I aspire to that glorious profession as well. Mr Wallace must also be loaded with dough, as he seems to be able to hop all over the world and run in any distance running event he has a fancy to run. Also cool, I certainly don't hold that against him. I myself would like to have that kind of capability. But, like those dedicated career police officers and most other "mortals" in the real world, I have restrictions on how I can spend my time and money. And I must choose wisely. I certainly don't need racing events making things more difficult by adding more time and expense to my efforts to participate in them. This "previous day" packet pickup requirement that many events impose is bogus and is a major factor in me deciding to reject a marathon. And it is so unnecessary, anyway.
When I signed up (on the Internet) for the recent LifeSouth Five Points half-marathon, I was given the instruction to pick up my "packet" on the Saturday before the race. The location for packet pickup was right near the actual starting/finishing line. Now what is in a packet, anyway?
A packet contains your bib, which is a tag showing your assigned racing number that you pin in a conspicuous spot on your clothing. You also get your special timing chip that allows the officials to simply scan in your times without going through the previously tedious process of writing things down at the end of the race. You get your souvenir tee shirt to boast of your adventure to others. And you get assorted coupons, magazines, and free offers tucked in as well (I got a free energy bar and Gatorade-type drink thrown in). So it's crucial to pick up your packet before the race.
Which was fine and dandy, considering that I actually live in Gainesville. It was nothing for me to just drive over on Saturday and pick up my packet for the next day's race. But what about those out-of-towners who had to drive or even fly in to be here for the race? As it was, those awesome folks planning the Gainesville LifeSouth event did allow runners to pick up their packets just before the race if they couldn't the previous day. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out (forgive me, but that is the first time I've used that cliche on this blog) that some event organizers could (and do) insist on previous day pickup, forcing such an entrant to SPEND THE NIGHT in that city, most likely at one of their sparkling hotels, complete with a massive hotel tax. Now I'm beginning to see things more clearly.
It began to hit me harder when I began to look at other marathons being held. Most of them seem to have a policy whereby the runner MUST pick up his/her racing packet somewhere in that town on a day BEFORE the race, usually the previous day (but sometimes even earlier). To be sure, a few events (like in Gainesville) give the runner a chance to pick up the packet on race day just before its start, at a location near the starting line. But most have strict policies against this.
Why? Unless this is a concerted effort to ensure that runners in these races stay in those cities that hold them and spend their money there. This doesn't sound that much different from customary theme park rules that forbid guests from bringing in their own food and drink in hopes of encouraging them to buy AT THE PARK. Maybe this is a rational, albeit self-serving policy that helps to defray local costs of holding such a big sporting event, but it makes it much more difficult for someone in my position to attend one.
I remember, during the half-marathon, all of those professional police officers who were at their jobs redirecting and holding back traffic for the benefit of the runners. I'll bet they, like me with my job, have to abide by specific, possibly rigid rules about obtaining leave to take off a few days at a time. Time to possibly be spent, say, at a marathon running event a couple of hundred miles down the road. If I (or they ) wanted to run a Sunday race in Atlanta, I would need to have race-day off (for obvious reasons) as well as the day before for traveling to the event. Since I have Sunday and Monday as my established off-days, then I would have to apply for Saturday off to able to pull this off. But I must, due to my company's leave policy, wait to within 30 days of the date I want off to apply for leave. So, with all of my training and planning, I really won't know whether I can run in the event I want to until I am just a few days from that event. And because of the packet pickup policy of the raceholders, I have to be IN ATLANTA on Saturday during the daytime (not evening) to pick up my race stuff. So that means I have to get out of Gainesville early Saturday morning and plan to stay overnight at one of those handy-dandy Atlanta area hotels, when I otherwise could have just timed my arrival in Atlanta to coincide with the beginning of the race.
John Wallace is a fellow blogger and a much better runner than me. Reading his very entertaining and enlightening blog Maddog Marathon Blog reveals that he is by profession "retired". This is cool, as I aspire to that glorious profession as well. Mr Wallace must also be loaded with dough, as he seems to be able to hop all over the world and run in any distance running event he has a fancy to run. Also cool, I certainly don't hold that against him. I myself would like to have that kind of capability. But, like those dedicated career police officers and most other "mortals" in the real world, I have restrictions on how I can spend my time and money. And I must choose wisely. I certainly don't need racing events making things more difficult by adding more time and expense to my efforts to participate in them. This "previous day" packet pickup requirement that many events impose is bogus and is a major factor in me deciding to reject a marathon. And it is so unnecessary, anyway.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Half-Marathon Spectators
On my half-marathon run, held by LifeSouth here in Gainesville last Sunday morning, it was pretty cold at 7 AM starting time, being 28 degrees. The temperature rose to about 40 as I wound my way through the course to the finish. I would have preferred it to have started at 40 and then gone down to 28, but at least it wasn't raining and the winds were calm, for the most part. Still, I noticed relatively few spectators along the sidewalks.
I think part of the scarcity of spectators (and cheerers) was due to the cold weather (for Gainesville) and part was due to the fact that it was Sunday morning and people generally either sleep in or attend their religion's services at that time. And possibly, a few didn't know how much the traffic would be restricted, keeping well-wishers and observers away from the event. But still, I expected more than I saw.
This was especially true during the final three miles of the half-marathon, when I entered the University of Florida campus, running around Norman Hall, going through the tunnel under US 441, coming out at the dorms, passing by the Architecture College, Marston Science Library, Music Building, Century Tower, Turlington Hall, the "Old" Hub, and eventually making my way through the football stadium. And then on through Fraternity Row to Lake Alice and the end. Except for the handful of cheerleaders at the stadium and some volunteers handing out Gatorade and water nearby, I didn't see a single person on campus watching the race, much less cheering anyone on. Sure, I understand that this was the Presidents Day weekend and some students may have been out of town. But most stayed. That level of disinterest stung me, especially considering the high degree of participation of UF students in both the half-marathon and marathon as runners. Oh well. At least I had a captive audience with the police, who were assigned at numerous points to restrict and direct traffic away from the runners and allow us to pass through without having to stop. And some of them actually greeted and encouraged us! And those who thought that this duty was a major hassle for them tactfully kept quiet. But regardless of what they personally thought about their assignment, the police did an exemplary job with traffic control during the race.
The stretch of the course that had the greatest number of cheering spectators, by far, was NW 43 Street, NW 16 Boulevard, and then the rolling hills of NW 16 Avenue. And of these, NW 16 Avenue ruled! But then, there is something special about that stretch of road; it is a reputed past training course for various successful runners, most notably 1972 Olympic marathon gold medalist Frank Shorter.
For those who stood out in the cold and encouraged me (along with the other runners), I say thanks! That made the race something special and memorable. And made me want to get out there and cheer on runners in future races!
I think part of the scarcity of spectators (and cheerers) was due to the cold weather (for Gainesville) and part was due to the fact that it was Sunday morning and people generally either sleep in or attend their religion's services at that time. And possibly, a few didn't know how much the traffic would be restricted, keeping well-wishers and observers away from the event. But still, I expected more than I saw.
This was especially true during the final three miles of the half-marathon, when I entered the University of Florida campus, running around Norman Hall, going through the tunnel under US 441, coming out at the dorms, passing by the Architecture College, Marston Science Library, Music Building, Century Tower, Turlington Hall, the "Old" Hub, and eventually making my way through the football stadium. And then on through Fraternity Row to Lake Alice and the end. Except for the handful of cheerleaders at the stadium and some volunteers handing out Gatorade and water nearby, I didn't see a single person on campus watching the race, much less cheering anyone on. Sure, I understand that this was the Presidents Day weekend and some students may have been out of town. But most stayed. That level of disinterest stung me, especially considering the high degree of participation of UF students in both the half-marathon and marathon as runners. Oh well. At least I had a captive audience with the police, who were assigned at numerous points to restrict and direct traffic away from the runners and allow us to pass through without having to stop. And some of them actually greeted and encouraged us! And those who thought that this duty was a major hassle for them tactfully kept quiet. But regardless of what they personally thought about their assignment, the police did an exemplary job with traffic control during the race.
The stretch of the course that had the greatest number of cheering spectators, by far, was NW 43 Street, NW 16 Boulevard, and then the rolling hills of NW 16 Avenue. And of these, NW 16 Avenue ruled! But then, there is something special about that stretch of road; it is a reputed past training course for various successful runners, most notably 1972 Olympic marathon gold medalist Frank Shorter.
For those who stood out in the cold and encouraged me (along with the other runners), I say thanks! That made the race something special and memorable. And made me want to get out there and cheer on runners in future races!
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Some Road Race Drawbacks
Each of the few road races I have run so far in my life has had courses with two important features:
(1) Parking is available nearby, within easy walking distance of the start/finish.
(2) The course doesn't repeat itself; each step takes the runner into "fresh" territory.
I mentioned the above two factors because they are not always present in races, and this can cause some problems.
Usually, the shorter 5K road race is a simple loop that combines a fresh path, close parking, and a start/finish close to each other. But once we start to ratchet up the distance, the situation can change. Here are some examples.
The Disney World marathon held in January, if my memory serves me correctly (from reading others' account on their blogs), drew about 24,000 runners. In an event like this, it is next to impossible to accommodate everyone parking near the race's start and/or finish. So the runners had to be gradually shuttled in from more distant locations, creating a hassle of sorts. This was compounded this year by the unusually low temperatures that participants had to endure before the race.
The Apalachicola Bay marathon on October 23 this year is one that I'd like to run because of the awesome scenery that it promises: crossing long bridges to the gulf beach area. The only problem is that the course is a "there-and-back", with the last half of the run largely going back in the opposite direction, with a few variations.
A month from now the Florida Sheriff Boy's Ranch outside of Live Oak, conveniently close to Gainesville, is holding their own marathon. Parking should be no problem in this event. The only problem is that the course is a quarter of a marathon in length, necessitating runners to cover four identical laps to complete the distance. Yuck!
A similar situation exists in a race in Tioga (just west of Gainesville) that I am contemplating running next month. The course runs a convoluted path through a pretty, new residential area in town. Runners have a choice of three distances: 5K, 10K, and 15K. 5K runners run 1 lap, 10K 2 laps, and 15K 3 laps. Not as bad as Live Oak (there's a nice shopping center with a Starbucks next to the Tioga course), but still...
I just completed a half-marathon here in Gainesville (LifeSouth's Five Points of Life), and they got everything right. The parking lot, which was large enough to accommodate the runners, was adjacent to the starting line. The finishing line was just a few feet away. And the course never repeated itself. On the map, it resembled a badly drawn "8", with the top loop representing the half-marathon and first half of the full marathon. The bottom loop of the "8" represented the last half of the full marathon, so runners choosing that option could look forward to new, interesting territory to cover.
Still, in spite of my criticisms, I understand that event organizers must negotiate their events with the involved local governments and police, with restrictions often placed on them. They only have a certain number of volunteers/employees and must try to find ways to use them the most efficiently. And some races are so huge that the logistics problems involved with so many entrants dictate remote parking.
Of course, if I am going to run in a city that I've never been to before, I may actually welcome a little redundancy to my course in order to reinforce my experience. So maybe Apalachicola and the outskirts of Live Oak wouldn't be so bad, after all. But whether or not I actually choose to run in their races hinges on a number of other factors, chief among them my training to a level where I feel I can complete a marathon!
(1) Parking is available nearby, within easy walking distance of the start/finish.
(2) The course doesn't repeat itself; each step takes the runner into "fresh" territory.
I mentioned the above two factors because they are not always present in races, and this can cause some problems.
Usually, the shorter 5K road race is a simple loop that combines a fresh path, close parking, and a start/finish close to each other. But once we start to ratchet up the distance, the situation can change. Here are some examples.
The Disney World marathon held in January, if my memory serves me correctly (from reading others' account on their blogs), drew about 24,000 runners. In an event like this, it is next to impossible to accommodate everyone parking near the race's start and/or finish. So the runners had to be gradually shuttled in from more distant locations, creating a hassle of sorts. This was compounded this year by the unusually low temperatures that participants had to endure before the race.
The Apalachicola Bay marathon on October 23 this year is one that I'd like to run because of the awesome scenery that it promises: crossing long bridges to the gulf beach area. The only problem is that the course is a "there-and-back", with the last half of the run largely going back in the opposite direction, with a few variations.
A month from now the Florida Sheriff Boy's Ranch outside of Live Oak, conveniently close to Gainesville, is holding their own marathon. Parking should be no problem in this event. The only problem is that the course is a quarter of a marathon in length, necessitating runners to cover four identical laps to complete the distance. Yuck!
A similar situation exists in a race in Tioga (just west of Gainesville) that I am contemplating running next month. The course runs a convoluted path through a pretty, new residential area in town. Runners have a choice of three distances: 5K, 10K, and 15K. 5K runners run 1 lap, 10K 2 laps, and 15K 3 laps. Not as bad as Live Oak (there's a nice shopping center with a Starbucks next to the Tioga course), but still...
I just completed a half-marathon here in Gainesville (LifeSouth's Five Points of Life), and they got everything right. The parking lot, which was large enough to accommodate the runners, was adjacent to the starting line. The finishing line was just a few feet away. And the course never repeated itself. On the map, it resembled a badly drawn "8", with the top loop representing the half-marathon and first half of the full marathon. The bottom loop of the "8" represented the last half of the full marathon, so runners choosing that option could look forward to new, interesting territory to cover.
Still, in spite of my criticisms, I understand that event organizers must negotiate their events with the involved local governments and police, with restrictions often placed on them. They only have a certain number of volunteers/employees and must try to find ways to use them the most efficiently. And some races are so huge that the logistics problems involved with so many entrants dictate remote parking.
Of course, if I am going to run in a city that I've never been to before, I may actually welcome a little redundancy to my course in order to reinforce my experience. So maybe Apalachicola and the outskirts of Live Oak wouldn't be so bad, after all. But whether or not I actually choose to run in their races hinges on a number of other factors, chief among them my training to a level where I feel I can complete a marathon!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Bye, Bayh
Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, still a very popular figure in the largely conservative-leaning state, has decided not to run for reelection this year, clearing the way for the Republicans to pick up one more Senate seat in the November 2010 general election. Ironically, much of the reason that he gave for not staying on is that the GOP is stonewalling everything in the Senate and very little can be accomplished. So how is Bayh leaving going to help things? By adding another intransigent senator who will just sit there twiddling his/her thumbs between "no" vote after "no" vote?
Evan Bayh is entitled to leave the Senate after serving for two full terms for whatever reasons he wants to have, twelve years probably being the optimal span anyway for a senator. And he, unlike Alaska's ex-governor Sarah Palin, isn't just walking off the job, either. Also, he shouldn't just run to assure his party of holding on to that seat in the future, just to sit on it and do nothing. But the senator has made two errors with his decision, in my opinion.
The first error is that Bayh has reached the conclusion that his presence there is meaningless, so why hang around. But by doing this, he is sending a double message: one, if a Democrat wins the 2010 Indiana senatorial election, that senator won't be able to make a difference either. And if a Republican wins, as will probably be the case, that senator's vote can't matter as well. But there is an outside chance that the Republicans could pick up just enough seats in the 2010 to take the Senate back. And that seat would weigh heavily in importance, especially since the ruling party has control over the Senate's agenda and who controls the powerful committees. So just by "being there", Bayh has helped to prevent his opposition from achieving that power. And had he run and been reelected, he would have been in a position to wield more power in various committees, possibly even leading some. Also, being a United States Senator automatically gives one a bully pulpit from which to express opinions about issues and how the government should work. Bayh's words will be largely ignored by the media once he leaves office (unless, of course, he jumps over to be part of the media).
The second error that Bayh has made with his decision was to publicize it in such an angry, self-righteous manner. He could have simply stated that he felt that two terms were adequate for Senate service and that he would urge others to follow his example. Instead, he blasted the body as a whole and also singled out several senators for their fickle behavior. How will that help things (unless, of course, he had an ulterior motive behind his display)?
I fail to see how being on the outside will allow Evan Bayh to have a more positive influence on what goes on within the Senate. But now, even though he will still be a senator for ten-plus months, I'm not sure he will have very much influence anyway, not after he publicly flailed his colleagues this way. Talk about burning your bridges behind you!
On the other hand, maybe Evan Bayh got an "offer he couldn't refuse" and will resurface as--say, a lobbyist for an international conglomerate or the like. And the pious, holier-than-thou act we've just witnessed from him is nothing more than a smoke screen to cover his exit! It wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened in the political world. Is Evan Bayh pulling his own strings, or has he handed them over to someone else?
Or maybe Mr. Bayh saw what Palin did and is jealous of her lucrative career as an "ex-politician/political commentator" while simultaneously flirting with running for president in 2012. If so, look for Mr. Bayh to magically pop up on Fox or MSNBC next year. About the time his "tell-all" blockbuster book The Audacity of Giving Up comes out!
Let's see how this plays out!
Evan Bayh is entitled to leave the Senate after serving for two full terms for whatever reasons he wants to have, twelve years probably being the optimal span anyway for a senator. And he, unlike Alaska's ex-governor Sarah Palin, isn't just walking off the job, either. Also, he shouldn't just run to assure his party of holding on to that seat in the future, just to sit on it and do nothing. But the senator has made two errors with his decision, in my opinion.
The first error is that Bayh has reached the conclusion that his presence there is meaningless, so why hang around. But by doing this, he is sending a double message: one, if a Democrat wins the 2010 Indiana senatorial election, that senator won't be able to make a difference either. And if a Republican wins, as will probably be the case, that senator's vote can't matter as well. But there is an outside chance that the Republicans could pick up just enough seats in the 2010 to take the Senate back. And that seat would weigh heavily in importance, especially since the ruling party has control over the Senate's agenda and who controls the powerful committees. So just by "being there", Bayh has helped to prevent his opposition from achieving that power. And had he run and been reelected, he would have been in a position to wield more power in various committees, possibly even leading some. Also, being a United States Senator automatically gives one a bully pulpit from which to express opinions about issues and how the government should work. Bayh's words will be largely ignored by the media once he leaves office (unless, of course, he jumps over to be part of the media).
The second error that Bayh has made with his decision was to publicize it in such an angry, self-righteous manner. He could have simply stated that he felt that two terms were adequate for Senate service and that he would urge others to follow his example. Instead, he blasted the body as a whole and also singled out several senators for their fickle behavior. How will that help things (unless, of course, he had an ulterior motive behind his display)?
I fail to see how being on the outside will allow Evan Bayh to have a more positive influence on what goes on within the Senate. But now, even though he will still be a senator for ten-plus months, I'm not sure he will have very much influence anyway, not after he publicly flailed his colleagues this way. Talk about burning your bridges behind you!
On the other hand, maybe Evan Bayh got an "offer he couldn't refuse" and will resurface as--say, a lobbyist for an international conglomerate or the like. And the pious, holier-than-thou act we've just witnessed from him is nothing more than a smoke screen to cover his exit! It wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened in the political world. Is Evan Bayh pulling his own strings, or has he handed them over to someone else?
Or maybe Mr. Bayh saw what Palin did and is jealous of her lucrative career as an "ex-politician/political commentator" while simultaneously flirting with running for president in 2012. If so, look for Mr. Bayh to magically pop up on Fox or MSNBC next year. About the time his "tell-all" blockbuster book The Audacity of Giving Up comes out!
Let's see how this plays out!
Monday, February 15, 2010
My 2010 LifeSouth Half-Marathon in Gainesville
Yesterday morning, I ran my first official half-marathon race, and the ninth public running race of my young 53 years. It was LifeSouth's Five Points of Life Half-Marathon, held simultaneously with their marathon event. About a thousand runners participated, with about two thirds of them (like me) opting for the half-marathon. This race began in 2006 and, with each passing year, I had been kicking myself for letting it go by without at least giving it a shot. But not this time!
I had already been running for some time, but I was confining my distances to around 3-4 miles at a run. But a little more than a month ago, I checked out a book from my public library titled Ultramarathon Man by running fanatic Dean Karnazes and was so inspired by his story that I set out to prepare myself for this year's event. I did two half-marathon-length runs around my own neighborhood, as well as other runs of nine and ten miles (not to mention several of shorter length). I knew that this alone wasn't the same as the LifeSouth course: my neighborhood is flat as a board and the half-marathon I would be running in traversed many hills and long, upward-sloping stretches of road. Still, I took the plunge and signed up for the race.
As race day approached, though, it became apparent that the weather would not be cooperating with me. And it didn't. At 7 AM yesterday (the race belatedly began 20 minutes later), the temperature was 28 degrees (last year's race began at 61 degrees). Being a Floridian almost my whole life, I was not prepared to run in extremely cold weather, but I donned a sweatshirt, long running pants, and decided to do the best I could. Still, in those few minutes before the race I was shivering quite a lot!
My goal for the race was simple: don't worry about where you place in the results, run consistently at a reasonable pace, and finish it! Well, I didn't place all that well (428th out of 600 finishers), but I did keep up a reasonably consistent pace and enjoyed the run. I particularly enjoyed the part where I could run the whole 13.1 miles through Gainesville down the middle of the street with the police being stationed everywhere, stopping all of the traffic for me! If only it could be like that all the time!
I received a medal for finishing the run and am enjoying a remarkably quick physical recovery. Looking back, I'm sure I could have finished with a much better time, all of the hills and slopes notwithstanding. At race's end, I felt as if I could have gone on for at least five or six more miles and wasn't the least bit winded. The only problem I experienced was some aches in my feet. My left leg began to cramp some a little later after the run, but that subsided without too much pain. I probably need some new running shoes that conform better to my personal style of foot placement.
Here are the results for LifeSouth's half-marathon this year, 2010. I feel very content with my participation and performance. I have as a goal to run a full 26.2-mile marathon by this time next year (perhaps in the LifeSouth Marathon). But I will need to invest a little bit of money in more suitable running gear (especially the shoes) and lose a few more pounds as well. And training some over hills wouldn't hurt either!
I had already been running for some time, but I was confining my distances to around 3-4 miles at a run. But a little more than a month ago, I checked out a book from my public library titled Ultramarathon Man by running fanatic Dean Karnazes and was so inspired by his story that I set out to prepare myself for this year's event. I did two half-marathon-length runs around my own neighborhood, as well as other runs of nine and ten miles (not to mention several of shorter length). I knew that this alone wasn't the same as the LifeSouth course: my neighborhood is flat as a board and the half-marathon I would be running in traversed many hills and long, upward-sloping stretches of road. Still, I took the plunge and signed up for the race.
As race day approached, though, it became apparent that the weather would not be cooperating with me. And it didn't. At 7 AM yesterday (the race belatedly began 20 minutes later), the temperature was 28 degrees (last year's race began at 61 degrees). Being a Floridian almost my whole life, I was not prepared to run in extremely cold weather, but I donned a sweatshirt, long running pants, and decided to do the best I could. Still, in those few minutes before the race I was shivering quite a lot!
My goal for the race was simple: don't worry about where you place in the results, run consistently at a reasonable pace, and finish it! Well, I didn't place all that well (428th out of 600 finishers), but I did keep up a reasonably consistent pace and enjoyed the run. I particularly enjoyed the part where I could run the whole 13.1 miles through Gainesville down the middle of the street with the police being stationed everywhere, stopping all of the traffic for me! If only it could be like that all the time!
I received a medal for finishing the run and am enjoying a remarkably quick physical recovery. Looking back, I'm sure I could have finished with a much better time, all of the hills and slopes notwithstanding. At race's end, I felt as if I could have gone on for at least five or six more miles and wasn't the least bit winded. The only problem I experienced was some aches in my feet. My left leg began to cramp some a little later after the run, but that subsided without too much pain. I probably need some new running shoes that conform better to my personal style of foot placement.
Here are the results for LifeSouth's half-marathon this year, 2010. I feel very content with my participation and performance. I have as a goal to run a full 26.2-mile marathon by this time next year (perhaps in the LifeSouth Marathon). But I will need to invest a little bit of money in more suitable running gear (especially the shoes) and lose a few more pounds as well. And training some over hills wouldn't hurt either!
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Happy Valentine's Day
To my wonderful, beautiful wife Melissa, I wish you a very, very happy St. Valentine's Day!
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Soggy Day in Gainesville Thinking About Race
Although this article is being published in the very wee morning hours of Saturday, I am writing it Friday at about 2 PM in my favorite Starbucks store in Gainesville here at Magnolia Parke. It has been raining buckets nonstop all day long (and going back into last night). I am so glad that the LifeSouth Half-Marathon that I am entered to run in, scheduled for Sunday, won't occur under weather conditions like today's. I probably would have stayed out of it had it been raining like this then. On the other hand, temperatures at the race's 7 AM starting time are predicted to be in the mid-to-high 20s and are not expected to rise appreciably higher by the time I plan to finish it around 9. This is quite a departure from the previous races that LifeSouth has held, with the temperatures generally being around 15 to 25 degrees warmer.
But then, why am I complaining when two major blizzards just hit the northeastern states, Dallas is experiencing a snowstorm, and California is awash in misery with its torrential rains and mudslides? Thanks a lot, El Niño. And now I hear, to compound things further, that this troublesome climate pattern will make its exit just in time to usher in what (with apologies to one who deserves no apologies, Saddam Hussein) may well be the "mother of all hurricane seasons". Will 2010 be known as the "year of interesting weather"? It certainly is living up to that billing so far!
Regarding my apparel for the half-marathon, I had first decided that, given initial forecasts of race temperatures being in the 30s and 40s, to try running with my sweatshirt on to see if it worked with those temperatures. And it was O.K., until the thermometer began to crack the mid-40s. Then it became awfully stuffy. Now, though, I think I should have no problem running with it with temperatures being lower than expected. Also, I'm eschewing shorts and running with full-length pants.
The irony is that, with all of this emphasis nationwide on holding marathons in cold conditions, I recently ran a training half-marathon quite well when the temperature was 70 degrees. Oh well, I guess I can chalk that one up to me being a Floridian for almost my whole life!!
But then, why am I complaining when two major blizzards just hit the northeastern states, Dallas is experiencing a snowstorm, and California is awash in misery with its torrential rains and mudslides? Thanks a lot, El Niño. And now I hear, to compound things further, that this troublesome climate pattern will make its exit just in time to usher in what (with apologies to one who deserves no apologies, Saddam Hussein) may well be the "mother of all hurricane seasons". Will 2010 be known as the "year of interesting weather"? It certainly is living up to that billing so far!
Regarding my apparel for the half-marathon, I had first decided that, given initial forecasts of race temperatures being in the 30s and 40s, to try running with my sweatshirt on to see if it worked with those temperatures. And it was O.K., until the thermometer began to crack the mid-40s. Then it became awfully stuffy. Now, though, I think I should have no problem running with it with temperatures being lower than expected. Also, I'm eschewing shorts and running with full-length pants.
The irony is that, with all of this emphasis nationwide on holding marathons in cold conditions, I recently ran a training half-marathon quite well when the temperature was 70 degrees. Oh well, I guess I can chalk that one up to me being a Floridian for almost my whole life!!
Friday, February 12, 2010
Emmitt Smith Won't Make It In the NFL
It's early 1990 and star University of Florida running back Emmitt Smith has decided to forgo his senior year and enter the NFL draft. The talking head experts in the national sports media know better, though. Sure, Emmitt was a big star in college, but wait 'til he gets in there with the big boys. For they believe that Emmitt Smith will simply be too small to be able to compete on the same level as other professional players. So what happens?
Emmitt Smith is drafted by the Dallas Cowboys. And he is accorded his shot at an NFL career after all. Sure is nice of them to let little Emmitt try to play with them. So all he does over his career is to set the all-time career NFL rushing record, win three Super Bowls with his team, be the MVP in one of those games, win league MVP, win seasonal rushing titles, and be selected for the all-star Pro Bowl several times. Oh, and a few days ago he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. A modest accomplishment for someone who was too "small" to play the game, wouldn't you say?
Now we come to another player who the big shot experts say hasn't a prayer for success in the NFL: Tim Tebow. All this UF Gator did throughout his football "career" in both high school and college was to learn, fit in, and ultimately excel beyond anyone's expectations within the systems that his coaches had designed. It wasn't Tebow's fault that Florida's offense isn't readily adaptable to standard NFL formations. But the way the geniuses on ESPN, Fox Sports, and Sporting News Radio would want you to believe, this is an insurmountable handicap to overcome. And I have heard some cite Tebow's mediocre performance in the Senior Bowl as their "proof".
The Senior Bowl was Tim Tebow's first try at a completely different type of offense than he was accustomed to. And even though he was recovering from strep throat, he completed 8 of 12 passes during his stint in the game. It was also clear during the game that the opposing team controlled the line of scrimmage when Tebow was in there, further hindering his efforts.
I don't know what will happen with Tim Tebow in the pros. I have heard that Jacksonville was interested in possibly drafting him, with the thought of using him in a wildcat formation and on short yardage plays. But I wonder if instead, as was the case with Emmitt Smith, it wouldn't be better for this talented player if he went to a more distant out-of-state team to develop his professional skills. And develop he is certain to do, in my opinion, given his past track record of adaptability, determination, and focus.
One other thing: I am sick and tired of media sports commentators acting like college football is nothing more than a farm system to train NFL prospects. UF's coach Urban Meyer has recently undergone some criticism because his "spread" offense does not help train his quarterbacks for professional careers. But he has won two national championships with his system. College football is complete unto itself and does not need the NFL, which it has predated for several decades and will probably outlast for several more. Very few college players make it to the NFL, with most having to pursue their own careers after college. With that in mind, I would suggest that, instead of worrying whether their players can play pro ball after college, coaches at these institutions need to focus on getting them educated, graduated, and placed in productive, meaningful careers.
Because not everyone can be an Emmitt Smith.
Emmitt Smith is drafted by the Dallas Cowboys. And he is accorded his shot at an NFL career after all. Sure is nice of them to let little Emmitt try to play with them. So all he does over his career is to set the all-time career NFL rushing record, win three Super Bowls with his team, be the MVP in one of those games, win league MVP, win seasonal rushing titles, and be selected for the all-star Pro Bowl several times. Oh, and a few days ago he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. A modest accomplishment for someone who was too "small" to play the game, wouldn't you say?
Now we come to another player who the big shot experts say hasn't a prayer for success in the NFL: Tim Tebow. All this UF Gator did throughout his football "career" in both high school and college was to learn, fit in, and ultimately excel beyond anyone's expectations within the systems that his coaches had designed. It wasn't Tebow's fault that Florida's offense isn't readily adaptable to standard NFL formations. But the way the geniuses on ESPN, Fox Sports, and Sporting News Radio would want you to believe, this is an insurmountable handicap to overcome. And I have heard some cite Tebow's mediocre performance in the Senior Bowl as their "proof".
The Senior Bowl was Tim Tebow's first try at a completely different type of offense than he was accustomed to. And even though he was recovering from strep throat, he completed 8 of 12 passes during his stint in the game. It was also clear during the game that the opposing team controlled the line of scrimmage when Tebow was in there, further hindering his efforts.
I don't know what will happen with Tim Tebow in the pros. I have heard that Jacksonville was interested in possibly drafting him, with the thought of using him in a wildcat formation and on short yardage plays. But I wonder if instead, as was the case with Emmitt Smith, it wouldn't be better for this talented player if he went to a more distant out-of-state team to develop his professional skills. And develop he is certain to do, in my opinion, given his past track record of adaptability, determination, and focus.
One other thing: I am sick and tired of media sports commentators acting like college football is nothing more than a farm system to train NFL prospects. UF's coach Urban Meyer has recently undergone some criticism because his "spread" offense does not help train his quarterbacks for professional careers. But he has won two national championships with his system. College football is complete unto itself and does not need the NFL, which it has predated for several decades and will probably outlast for several more. Very few college players make it to the NFL, with most having to pursue their own careers after college. With that in mind, I would suggest that, instead of worrying whether their players can play pro ball after college, coaches at these institutions need to focus on getting them educated, graduated, and placed in productive, meaningful careers.
Because not everyone can be an Emmitt Smith.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Let's Give Sarah a Hand
Sarah Palin, with whom I have a myriad of differences, was caught recently using her hand during a speech to the wacko Tea Party convention. As she was ridiculing President Obama for using a teleprompter during his speeches, Palin herself kept looking down at her left hand, the palm thereof in particular. When cameras zoomed in on what she was looking at, they revealed notes on what to say during the speech. And then the comedy shows had a field day, with Jay Leno, Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart headlining the star-studded list of Palin mockers. Even Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs brought out his own left hand in a press meeting to reveal what he thought were humorous (but by then extremely stale) messages on it.
I had my own laugh at ol' Sarah, who is actually relatively young from my viewpoint but whose public "stage" act grew old and withered long, long ago. But now it's time to defend the quitter ex-governor and political opportunist (gosh, this is going to be harder than I thought).
First, I wish Sarah Palin success within the Republican Party, especially regarding her all-too-inevitable campaign for the 2012 nomination. For a Palin nomination would pretty much ensure Obama's reelection (assuming our current president doesn't just say "to hell with this [expletive] job" by then). As for her "hand", I scribble stuff on mine from time to time as well to remind me of things. But I don't then get up on stage somewhere and deride another for more opaquely using speech "aids". Still, Palin has this comedic, naïve, and almost endearing aspect to her personality that I can relate to. It reminds me of Jackie Gleason's Sheriff Buford T. Justice character in the movie Smokey and the Bandit when he confidently struts out of a restroom...trailing a roll of toilet paper behind him.
I know how Sarah Palin can improve her image although I wonder whether she is capable of grasping it. And it's simple: when criticizing someone like Obama, stop casting aspersions on everything he does or says, instead sprinkling as many sincere-sounding compliments as you can in with your focused criticisms. Tempered criticism can cut like a knife if done correctly, although I have witnessed few who are really adept at it. But if ex-governor Palin would just pause a little and observe the current president instead of only deriding him, she just might find someone with this skill to emulate (with a conservative face, of course). A skill which, in my opinion, Barack Obama rode all the way into the White House. Hint, hint, Sarah.
I had my own laugh at ol' Sarah, who is actually relatively young from my viewpoint but whose public "stage" act grew old and withered long, long ago. But now it's time to defend the quitter ex-governor and political opportunist (gosh, this is going to be harder than I thought).
First, I wish Sarah Palin success within the Republican Party, especially regarding her all-too-inevitable campaign for the 2012 nomination. For a Palin nomination would pretty much ensure Obama's reelection (assuming our current president doesn't just say "to hell with this [expletive] job" by then). As for her "hand", I scribble stuff on mine from time to time as well to remind me of things. But I don't then get up on stage somewhere and deride another for more opaquely using speech "aids". Still, Palin has this comedic, naïve, and almost endearing aspect to her personality that I can relate to. It reminds me of Jackie Gleason's Sheriff Buford T. Justice character in the movie Smokey and the Bandit when he confidently struts out of a restroom...trailing a roll of toilet paper behind him.
I know how Sarah Palin can improve her image although I wonder whether she is capable of grasping it. And it's simple: when criticizing someone like Obama, stop casting aspersions on everything he does or says, instead sprinkling as many sincere-sounding compliments as you can in with your focused criticisms. Tempered criticism can cut like a knife if done correctly, although I have witnessed few who are really adept at it. But if ex-governor Palin would just pause a little and observe the current president instead of only deriding him, she just might find someone with this skill to emulate (with a conservative face, of course). A skill which, in my opinion, Barack Obama rode all the way into the White House. Hint, hint, Sarah.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Philip K. Dick's The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch
Published in 1965, Philip K. Dick's acclaimed science fiction novel The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch once again visualizes a world of the near future when Earth has undergone cataclysmic changes (this time it has severely overheated) and humankind has not only ventured out into the solar system, but has even traveled as far as the Alpha/Proxima Centauri star system and back. But this time, the setting is in our future as well: way ahead to 2012!
I've noticed a tendency with some science fiction writers to speculate just a little bit too much about the nature of reality. The result is often a work of fiction whose plot has become so convoluted and unhinged that it is very difficult for the reader to find a solid point of reference from which to try to understand what is going on. This is a glaring symptom of The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, particularly with respect to the concepts of time and identity.
In this novel, Dick creates a scenario in which the overheated Earth (surface temperatures in New York around 180 degrees) has caused two different reactions for survival. One is to desperately strike out to colonize other planets in the Solar System, with people being involuntary drafted and shipped out to the new colonies for the rest of their lives. Two, many of the affluent in society have chosen, through injections, to artificially and speedily "evolve" into people who can withstand living under the extreme heat (e.g. developing a very thick, tough hide). Dick was obviously not a scientist, but he didn't let his gaps in understanding prevent him from writing about it, be the topic space travel, climate, or evolution.
The protagonist, Barney Mayerson, is a precognitive employee of a large, powerful company that illegally supplies the colonies with a proscribed hallucinogenic drug that helps the users to escape their dull existence and enter a fantasy world which is based on props that the same company legally sells. But a man named Palmer Eldritch has just returned from Proxima Centauri and seems to be somehow associated with a newer hallucinogenic drug that has been approved for general sale by the governing United Nations. As it turns out, Mayerson has just received his draft notice to go to Mars and he naturally doesn't want to go. Other important characters are introduced (Mayerson's boss Leo Bulero, his assistant Roni Fugate, and his ex-wife Emily). Then, as the various characters in the novel interact, we discover what the new hallucinogen is really all about. And with it, a conjecture on the part of the author about the possible nature of God and identity (remember, I said the story becomes unhinged).
Isaac Asimov once expressed his disapproval of Philip K. Dick regarding the latter's use of drugs, not to mention the idea that they helped him in his writing. Here is an example of Dick inserting drug use within one of his stories, although it doesn't exactly extol the practice. But the author did make a connection, though, between hallucinogen use and spirituality here that reminds me of the exploding use of LSD, often for similar reasons, in the late sixties.
The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch does become a mighty bit unglued toward its end, but it is still an impressive piece of fiction. After reading it to its conclusion, I'm still not completely sure what actually happened. But maybe that uncertainty was deliberately planned by the author. Seeing how Dick died in 1982, though, I don't think I'm going to have the opportunity to ask him. Read it for yourself and see what you come up with!
I've noticed a tendency with some science fiction writers to speculate just a little bit too much about the nature of reality. The result is often a work of fiction whose plot has become so convoluted and unhinged that it is very difficult for the reader to find a solid point of reference from which to try to understand what is going on. This is a glaring symptom of The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, particularly with respect to the concepts of time and identity.
In this novel, Dick creates a scenario in which the overheated Earth (surface temperatures in New York around 180 degrees) has caused two different reactions for survival. One is to desperately strike out to colonize other planets in the Solar System, with people being involuntary drafted and shipped out to the new colonies for the rest of their lives. Two, many of the affluent in society have chosen, through injections, to artificially and speedily "evolve" into people who can withstand living under the extreme heat (e.g. developing a very thick, tough hide). Dick was obviously not a scientist, but he didn't let his gaps in understanding prevent him from writing about it, be the topic space travel, climate, or evolution.
The protagonist, Barney Mayerson, is a precognitive employee of a large, powerful company that illegally supplies the colonies with a proscribed hallucinogenic drug that helps the users to escape their dull existence and enter a fantasy world which is based on props that the same company legally sells. But a man named Palmer Eldritch has just returned from Proxima Centauri and seems to be somehow associated with a newer hallucinogenic drug that has been approved for general sale by the governing United Nations. As it turns out, Mayerson has just received his draft notice to go to Mars and he naturally doesn't want to go. Other important characters are introduced (Mayerson's boss Leo Bulero, his assistant Roni Fugate, and his ex-wife Emily). Then, as the various characters in the novel interact, we discover what the new hallucinogen is really all about. And with it, a conjecture on the part of the author about the possible nature of God and identity (remember, I said the story becomes unhinged).
Isaac Asimov once expressed his disapproval of Philip K. Dick regarding the latter's use of drugs, not to mention the idea that they helped him in his writing. Here is an example of Dick inserting drug use within one of his stories, although it doesn't exactly extol the practice. But the author did make a connection, though, between hallucinogen use and spirituality here that reminds me of the exploding use of LSD, often for similar reasons, in the late sixties.
The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch does become a mighty bit unglued toward its end, but it is still an impressive piece of fiction. After reading it to its conclusion, I'm still not completely sure what actually happened. But maybe that uncertainty was deliberately planned by the author. Seeing how Dick died in 1982, though, I don't think I'm going to have the opportunity to ask him. Read it for yourself and see what you come up with!
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Senator Bill Nelson's Advice to Obama
On a recent visit to the University of Florida, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson urged President Obama to stand firm on health care reform, reconsider his dead-end decision regarding NASA and manned space missions, push through a jobs bill, and temper his plan to end subsidies for private companies giving out student loans.
The Florida senator believes that the health care reform bill (which I'm still not so hot about) can still be salvaged through the complex reconciliation process, which only requires 51 Senate votes for approval. He wants to first have Nebraska's special Medicaid subsidy taken out of it, though. Nelson, himself having gone into space on the Space Shuttle in 1986, decries that Obama has chosen to leave our national manned space efforts with no discernible goals, a complaint that I have echoed recently. And, no doubt reacting to Treasury Department projections of only a slight decrease in the national employment rate for the next few years, Nelson is completely on board with an ambitious jobs bill currently being worked on for legislative action. As for that opposition to the President wanting to end subsidies to private companies for student loans, the Senator stated that Sallie Mae, one of those companies, employs several hundred people in Panama City, Florida and he wants to protect those jobs.
But the main tenor of Nelson's speech regarding Obama was to urge the President to become more directly involved with the legislators and the legislative process. I remember listening recently on C-Span to archived phone calls between President Lyndon Johnson, his aides, and congressmen concerning the then-proposed Medicare bill. And Johnson was very, very involved with individuals whose votes he needed for passage (or just to move the bill along). Obama has been in the Senate long enough to know a little bit how things have to work in Congress for a president to get his agenda passed there. As was the case with Johnson in the 1960s, archives showing how Obama dealt with Congress probably won't be fully revealed for several years after he leaves office. But my impression of him so far, which seems to be corroborated by Senator Nelson's recent remarks, is that he has been more "hands-off" in the promotion of his agenda in the House and Senate. Sure, the President makes a lot of speeches, holds press conferences, and meets from time to time with senators and representatives. But I perceive, with my albeit limited direct knowledge, that he hasn't come close to the intricately involved approach of Lyndon Johnson. And Johnson, for all of his flaws, was a great model of an effective president who knew exactly how to get his agenda passed through Congress. I like to use the imagery "carrot and stick": Nelson termed it a bit differently when he said the President should "put on a pair of brass knuckles and get out a bull whip". I can only add, "Don't forget to throw in a carrot or two!"
The Florida senator believes that the health care reform bill (which I'm still not so hot about) can still be salvaged through the complex reconciliation process, which only requires 51 Senate votes for approval. He wants to first have Nebraska's special Medicaid subsidy taken out of it, though. Nelson, himself having gone into space on the Space Shuttle in 1986, decries that Obama has chosen to leave our national manned space efforts with no discernible goals, a complaint that I have echoed recently. And, no doubt reacting to Treasury Department projections of only a slight decrease in the national employment rate for the next few years, Nelson is completely on board with an ambitious jobs bill currently being worked on for legislative action. As for that opposition to the President wanting to end subsidies to private companies for student loans, the Senator stated that Sallie Mae, one of those companies, employs several hundred people in Panama City, Florida and he wants to protect those jobs.
But the main tenor of Nelson's speech regarding Obama was to urge the President to become more directly involved with the legislators and the legislative process. I remember listening recently on C-Span to archived phone calls between President Lyndon Johnson, his aides, and congressmen concerning the then-proposed Medicare bill. And Johnson was very, very involved with individuals whose votes he needed for passage (or just to move the bill along). Obama has been in the Senate long enough to know a little bit how things have to work in Congress for a president to get his agenda passed there. As was the case with Johnson in the 1960s, archives showing how Obama dealt with Congress probably won't be fully revealed for several years after he leaves office. But my impression of him so far, which seems to be corroborated by Senator Nelson's recent remarks, is that he has been more "hands-off" in the promotion of his agenda in the House and Senate. Sure, the President makes a lot of speeches, holds press conferences, and meets from time to time with senators and representatives. But I perceive, with my albeit limited direct knowledge, that he hasn't come close to the intricately involved approach of Lyndon Johnson. And Johnson, for all of his flaws, was a great model of an effective president who knew exactly how to get his agenda passed through Congress. I like to use the imagery "carrot and stick": Nelson termed it a bit differently when he said the President should "put on a pair of brass knuckles and get out a bull whip". I can only add, "Don't forget to throw in a carrot or two!"
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tebow Ads Aftermath
I never did see either of the two short ads of Tim Tebow and his mother, sponsored by Focus on the Family and aired during the Super Bowl broadcast Sunday. But the accounts I have read of them show the spots to be so vague that the controversial messages regarding how women with complications in the late stages of their pregnancies may just want to ignore their physicians' potentially life-saving advice were largely left out. So what exactly was the point of this multi-million dollar expenditure on the part of anti-abortion Focus on the Family? To show that Tim Tebow loves his mother and that his mother loves him? Gee, who would have guessed!
I can only speculate that CBS, the network that aired these ads, and which insisted on co-writing their scripts with Focus on the Family, must have succeeded in watering down their message to the point where viewers were scratching their heads wondering what it was all about. And this places me in a quandary of sorts.
On one hand, I thought that the original intended message of the ads was objectionable and potentially dangerous, especially if women were to heed its implications and begin to ignore their doctors. On the other hand, CBS should not have interfered with the message originally intended by the ads after they had already given the O.K. for airing, especially as it stood to make the amount of money it did from them. Also, if there is something objectionable about a stance on a particular issue, I would rather that stance be brought out into the open, not only for honest debate, but also to clearly expose any hidden agendas behind the message, along with those promoting them. As well as an opportunity given by the network for rebuttal by the message's dissenters.
In sum, I will say it again: I can object to a message I hear or see in the media while objecting to attempts by others to censor that message. CBS apparently tried and succeeded in softening the Tebow ads' message not because it cared about their unintended possible effects; no, this network simply did not want to be pressured to run other controversial ads put out by other parties that might have provoked negative responses from different viewers. Ads from organizations, for example, that may promote pro-choice or gay rights agendas. I say broadcast them all and keep honest, open debate alive.
I can only speculate that CBS, the network that aired these ads, and which insisted on co-writing their scripts with Focus on the Family, must have succeeded in watering down their message to the point where viewers were scratching their heads wondering what it was all about. And this places me in a quandary of sorts.
On one hand, I thought that the original intended message of the ads was objectionable and potentially dangerous, especially if women were to heed its implications and begin to ignore their doctors. On the other hand, CBS should not have interfered with the message originally intended by the ads after they had already given the O.K. for airing, especially as it stood to make the amount of money it did from them. Also, if there is something objectionable about a stance on a particular issue, I would rather that stance be brought out into the open, not only for honest debate, but also to clearly expose any hidden agendas behind the message, along with those promoting them. As well as an opportunity given by the network for rebuttal by the message's dissenters.
In sum, I will say it again: I can object to a message I hear or see in the media while objecting to attempts by others to censor that message. CBS apparently tried and succeeded in softening the Tebow ads' message not because it cared about their unintended possible effects; no, this network simply did not want to be pressured to run other controversial ads put out by other parties that might have provoked negative responses from different viewers. Ads from organizations, for example, that may promote pro-choice or gay rights agendas. I say broadcast them all and keep honest, open debate alive.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Told Ya So
As I was saying yesterday, I didn't know why most of the big shot sports media "experts" were making the Indianapolis Colts such a big favorite over the New Orleans Saints in this year's Super Bowl. And now I know why: When push comes to shove, these "professionals" don't really have a better grip on their field than the ordinary Joe Sports Fan out there (not to be confused with McCain's poster boy Joe the Plumber, who struck me as being a nothing more than a rather dull and shameless opportunist). After all, with all of the access we have to televised games and instant statistics and game recaps off the Internet, anyone with a real interest in football can do just as good of a job analyzing the game and determining which are the better teams. Having followed the Miami Dolphins this year and observed their disappointing losses to both Indianapolis and New Orleans, I came away with the feeling that the Colts overall weren't all that impressive while the Saints were more of a complete team with a terrifying offensive explosiveness that could come from several of their players. I also knew that N.O. quarterback Drew Brees was a great passer and reader of defenses. And this was borne out in today's game, won by the Saints 31-17.
New Orleans' defense impressed me greatly as well, consistently keeping Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and his receivers from turning modest gains into long ones. They tackled very well and swarmed around ball carriers. And made a crucial interception for a game-clinching touchdown late in the fourth quarter.
It was hard for me to generate that much enthusiasm for this year's Super Bowl, though, as I am not really a follower of either team. And the parity in the NFL is such that New Orleans may not even win their division next year, who knows. But I do so respect a team that doesn't commit turnovers, tackles well, and makes wise use of the clock. So hats off to the Saints, this year's NFL champs!
New Orleans' defense impressed me greatly as well, consistently keeping Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and his receivers from turning modest gains into long ones. They tackled very well and swarmed around ball carriers. And made a crucial interception for a game-clinching touchdown late in the fourth quarter.
It was hard for me to generate that much enthusiasm for this year's Super Bowl, though, as I am not really a follower of either team. And the parity in the NFL is such that New Orleans may not even win their division next year, who knows. But I do so respect a team that doesn't commit turnovers, tackles well, and makes wise use of the clock. So hats off to the Saints, this year's NFL champs!
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Super Bowl Tomorrow
The Super Bowl is tomorrow, with the favored Indianapolis Colts matched up against the New Orleans Saints down in "Miami" (actually, the stadium is near the Dade/Broward county line just a couple of miles from where I grew up in Hollywood). Why the Colts are listed as a five and a half point favorite is beyond me; the teams look very evenly matched.
I am still rooting for the Saints, and for that one main reason I have alluded to before: The Indianapolis Colts let their potentially perfect season go by the wayside when, in their 15th game, they benched their star players for "rest" and allowed the NY Jets to beat them. This also allowed the Jets to get a free pass into the playoffs over other teams like Houston or Pittsburgh that may have been more qualified. So go New Orleans!
I don't know that I will watch the whole game, though, as exciting as it may be. The hype and controversy about all of those overly-frequent, tedious, and expensive commercials is one major drawback. Another is the excessive analysis from the announcers. Yuck!
One more gripe, although it's not all that important. It is the way that the Super Bowls are named from year to year. Designating them by Roman numerals is simply pure bull hype. This year's game is Super Bowl XLIV. Does anyone actually care about that or recall past games by their Roman numerals? Also, if you're like me and want to use ordinary Arabic numerals for denoting years and then try to recall games of the past, they screw things up there as well. For example, this year's game is called the 2010 Super Bowl. But it is the proper culmination of the 2009 season, although it is technically held in 2010; it actually is the 2009 championship game. This can get to be quite confusing, especially if one goes back a few years and...say, speaks of the 2000 champion. Are we talking about the winner of the game held in 2000 between the St. Louis Rams and the Tennessee Titans at the close of the 1999 season, or are we talking about the winner of the game held in 2001 for the 2000 season that matched the Baltimore Ravens up against the New York Giants? This confusion all helps to ensure that, assuming it isn't your pet team playing in this game, this year's Super Bowl will be largely forgotten in five or six years.
So here's my prediction for tomorrow's game, for what it's worth (not a whole lot, I imagine):
New Orleans 34, Indianapolis 31
I am still rooting for the Saints, and for that one main reason I have alluded to before: The Indianapolis Colts let their potentially perfect season go by the wayside when, in their 15th game, they benched their star players for "rest" and allowed the NY Jets to beat them. This also allowed the Jets to get a free pass into the playoffs over other teams like Houston or Pittsburgh that may have been more qualified. So go New Orleans!
I don't know that I will watch the whole game, though, as exciting as it may be. The hype and controversy about all of those overly-frequent, tedious, and expensive commercials is one major drawback. Another is the excessive analysis from the announcers. Yuck!
One more gripe, although it's not all that important. It is the way that the Super Bowls are named from year to year. Designating them by Roman numerals is simply pure bull hype. This year's game is Super Bowl XLIV. Does anyone actually care about that or recall past games by their Roman numerals? Also, if you're like me and want to use ordinary Arabic numerals for denoting years and then try to recall games of the past, they screw things up there as well. For example, this year's game is called the 2010 Super Bowl. But it is the proper culmination of the 2009 season, although it is technically held in 2010; it actually is the 2009 championship game. This can get to be quite confusing, especially if one goes back a few years and...say, speaks of the 2000 champion. Are we talking about the winner of the game held in 2000 between the St. Louis Rams and the Tennessee Titans at the close of the 1999 season, or are we talking about the winner of the game held in 2001 for the 2000 season that matched the Baltimore Ravens up against the New York Giants? This confusion all helps to ensure that, assuming it isn't your pet team playing in this game, this year's Super Bowl will be largely forgotten in five or six years.
So here's my prediction for tomorrow's game, for what it's worth (not a whole lot, I imagine):
New Orleans 34, Indianapolis 31
Friday, February 5, 2010
GOP Strategy Errors
There are two major problems I have with Republican senators, and neither actually has to do with their conservative opinions on the issues. The first is that they seem to be beholden not to the states they represent and not even the body of voters that they believe put them into office. Rather they are almost exclusively concerned with how a handful of extremist radio and television hosts will portray them on their shows if they vote or speak IN ANY WAY that these ideologues object to. And I am naturally referring to folks like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin.
My second concern about GOP senators is the two-faced approach to the legislative process that they have consistently demonstrated during the past year. Typically, a bill or nomination will first be considered in committee, where it is often easily passed with much Republican support, sometimes unanimously. Then, once the bill or nomination has made it to the Senate floor for debate, cloture, and an up-down vote, the minority party will use whatever procedural tactic it can to delay the process. Including bills and nominees that the GOP has no special objection to. With many of their senators who voted "ay" in the committee voting "no" to end filibusters. And then, in those circumstances when a final floor vote is finally obtained, turning back around and voting "ay"!
This is obstructionism, pure and simple. And the President is correct to call out the Republicans for this. I don't care whether any of them are "offended" by that (pompous, self-important Arizona senator Jon Kyl comes to mind with his offense taken at Obama's State of the Union remarks, terming them "snide").
Truth be told, relatively few Americans listen to talk radio, or for that matter radio in general anymore. I don't listen very much myself (what an audio wasteland it is). And even cable television news outlets like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC don't command the bulk of the voting population's attention, either.
Here is my recommendation for the Republicans in Congress, especially those in the Senate: Worry! Especially when that final lagging indicator of recession, the high unemployment rate, begins to nosedive sometime this year and the economy begins to be portrayed by the news media in a rosier light (except on Fox News, of course). And expect the Democrats to lambaste you mercilessly during the 2010 campaign season for your "just say no" philosophy while you should be actively representing your constituents in Congress. The way to mitigate this is simple: on uncontroversial legislative matters, loosen party discipline and let the votes go through without delaying tactics. But stand firm on those issues and nominees that raise major alarms to your (conservative) values. After all, that is how your opponents the Democrats have behaved over the previous few years when they were in the minority. In other words, choose your battles wisely!
Oh, one other thing, before it's too late. You need to dissociate yourselves from the wingnut fringe group that call themselves "Tea Partiers". I have heard some of their conspiratorial rants and they sound a lot like some of the drivel I have heard and read before from other sources over the years. What some in the Grand Old Party may be unaware of, though, is that underlying some of this conspiracy talk is a strong, virulent current of anti-Semitism. Just as the fact the KKK would call themselves conservative doesn't mean that they are your friends, neither should other elements automatically be accepted without some scrutiny. Careful now!
My second concern about GOP senators is the two-faced approach to the legislative process that they have consistently demonstrated during the past year. Typically, a bill or nomination will first be considered in committee, where it is often easily passed with much Republican support, sometimes unanimously. Then, once the bill or nomination has made it to the Senate floor for debate, cloture, and an up-down vote, the minority party will use whatever procedural tactic it can to delay the process. Including bills and nominees that the GOP has no special objection to. With many of their senators who voted "ay" in the committee voting "no" to end filibusters. And then, in those circumstances when a final floor vote is finally obtained, turning back around and voting "ay"!
This is obstructionism, pure and simple. And the President is correct to call out the Republicans for this. I don't care whether any of them are "offended" by that (pompous, self-important Arizona senator Jon Kyl comes to mind with his offense taken at Obama's State of the Union remarks, terming them "snide").
Truth be told, relatively few Americans listen to talk radio, or for that matter radio in general anymore. I don't listen very much myself (what an audio wasteland it is). And even cable television news outlets like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC don't command the bulk of the voting population's attention, either.
Here is my recommendation for the Republicans in Congress, especially those in the Senate: Worry! Especially when that final lagging indicator of recession, the high unemployment rate, begins to nosedive sometime this year and the economy begins to be portrayed by the news media in a rosier light (except on Fox News, of course). And expect the Democrats to lambaste you mercilessly during the 2010 campaign season for your "just say no" philosophy while you should be actively representing your constituents in Congress. The way to mitigate this is simple: on uncontroversial legislative matters, loosen party discipline and let the votes go through without delaying tactics. But stand firm on those issues and nominees that raise major alarms to your (conservative) values. After all, that is how your opponents the Democrats have behaved over the previous few years when they were in the minority. In other words, choose your battles wisely!
Oh, one other thing, before it's too late. You need to dissociate yourselves from the wingnut fringe group that call themselves "Tea Partiers". I have heard some of their conspiratorial rants and they sound a lot like some of the drivel I have heard and read before from other sources over the years. What some in the Grand Old Party may be unaware of, though, is that underlying some of this conspiracy talk is a strong, virulent current of anti-Semitism. Just as the fact the KKK would call themselves conservative doesn't mean that they are your friends, neither should other elements automatically be accepted without some scrutiny. Careful now!
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Marathon Prospects
Having signed up to run in the LifeSouth Half-Marathon here in Gainesville on February 14, I considered whether to run in a full marathon (26.2 miles) a few weeks later, if my training went well. I looked over websites listing marathons to be held in Florida during March and found...nothing! But in January and February are listed several marathons, some closely bunched together. For example, Ocala, just 35-40 miles south of Gainesville, just finished hosting a marathon. And Jacksonville is holding one only a week after Gainesville's (our marathon and half-marathon are run simultaneously). That doesn't give runners very much time to space apart their races, does it? And lord knows they need that spacing to recuperate from the grueling long distance of this type of race.
But I understand why, at least in Florida, marathons tend to end after February. We live in a pretty humid, warm state. But still, I would have thought that the month of March would have been conducive to marathons. After all, it isn't like the summertime here, when the temperatures and humidity both regularly go over the "90" mark.
If I do have plans to run in a marathon race later this spring, it's going to have to be in another state. And that seems like too much of a hassle to a homebody like me. Albany, Georgia is holding a marathon sponsored by Snickers, of all businesses. But I don't see myself driving there and back, especially the "back" part following the race. Oh well.
But all is not lost. After all, ultra-marathon legend Dean Karnazes ran his first marathon on his own while in high school, simply running 105 laps around his high school track. I can work up to something similar, substituting my own designed courses and covering the 26.2 miles that way. After all, that is what I already did with the two half-marathons I ran during the last two weeks!
But if I am going to try to cover a marathon in a single run, I had better accomplish it this year within the next two or three months. For by June, the weather will have settled into the hot and humid summer pattern dominating this area.
But I understand why, at least in Florida, marathons tend to end after February. We live in a pretty humid, warm state. But still, I would have thought that the month of March would have been conducive to marathons. After all, it isn't like the summertime here, when the temperatures and humidity both regularly go over the "90" mark.
If I do have plans to run in a marathon race later this spring, it's going to have to be in another state. And that seems like too much of a hassle to a homebody like me. Albany, Georgia is holding a marathon sponsored by Snickers, of all businesses. But I don't see myself driving there and back, especially the "back" part following the race. Oh well.
But all is not lost. After all, ultra-marathon legend Dean Karnazes ran his first marathon on his own while in high school, simply running 105 laps around his high school track. I can work up to something similar, substituting my own designed courses and covering the 26.2 miles that way. After all, that is what I already did with the two half-marathons I ran during the last two weeks!
But if I am going to try to cover a marathon in a single run, I had better accomplish it this year within the next two or three months. For by June, the weather will have settled into the hot and humid summer pattern dominating this area.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
No More City Park Articles For Now
If you have been following this log over the past few months, you may have noticed that (1) I had been writing articles (with photos) describing various Gainesville city parks and (2) I stopped doing so. Why?
Well, if you look at the pics, it should be apparent that most of these parks simply have a playground/picnic area and a looping walking trail through a wooded area, with a small running creek running through it. Some parks have better play areas than others while some excel at the trails. But the experiences, at least to me, are pretty similar. So why keep visiting new parks that are minor variations of each other? But there were a couple of other factors that curtailed my interest in this "explore local parks" project of mine.
The various Gainesville city parks were listed and described on their own website. There were two "parks" so described that were relatively close to my neighborhood, so I went out to explore them. And found that they didn't really exist, at least not yet. But the website had them already open, with walking trails and play areas! So phooey on them for that!
And then there was the time that I took my wife to walk with through the pretty little Cofrin Nature Park off NW 8th Avenue. It was almost twilight as we got out of our car, entered the park, and walked through the woods on the trail. A pretty pleasant experience, I might say. But as we left the wooded trail area and approached the park's exit, we noticed two police cars parked right there. We asked a policeman if there was a problem, and he replied that someone reported a suspicious-looking man in the park. They obviously didn't regard US as suspicious because we were a COUPLE. But later I wondered to myself, what if it had been just me going by myself through the park? The police would have automatically regarded me as a suspicious type, possibly the one who had been reported, and who knows how events would have progressed after that. So my initially positive experience walking through a park with my wife ended with a sense of paranoia about the police. I recognize that part of this is coming from me, but part of it is also, I am convinced, from the tendency of the police to discriminate in their treatment of people based on their demographic classification (gender, race), dress, and grouping (solitary, coupled, or in a larger group). And often finding myself being a "solitary" person in public, I find that to be just a little bit threatening.
Well, if you look at the pics, it should be apparent that most of these parks simply have a playground/picnic area and a looping walking trail through a wooded area, with a small running creek running through it. Some parks have better play areas than others while some excel at the trails. But the experiences, at least to me, are pretty similar. So why keep visiting new parks that are minor variations of each other? But there were a couple of other factors that curtailed my interest in this "explore local parks" project of mine.
The various Gainesville city parks were listed and described on their own website. There were two "parks" so described that were relatively close to my neighborhood, so I went out to explore them. And found that they didn't really exist, at least not yet. But the website had them already open, with walking trails and play areas! So phooey on them for that!
And then there was the time that I took my wife to walk with through the pretty little Cofrin Nature Park off NW 8th Avenue. It was almost twilight as we got out of our car, entered the park, and walked through the woods on the trail. A pretty pleasant experience, I might say. But as we left the wooded trail area and approached the park's exit, we noticed two police cars parked right there. We asked a policeman if there was a problem, and he replied that someone reported a suspicious-looking man in the park. They obviously didn't regard US as suspicious because we were a COUPLE. But later I wondered to myself, what if it had been just me going by myself through the park? The police would have automatically regarded me as a suspicious type, possibly the one who had been reported, and who knows how events would have progressed after that. So my initially positive experience walking through a park with my wife ended with a sense of paranoia about the police. I recognize that part of this is coming from me, but part of it is also, I am convinced, from the tendency of the police to discriminate in their treatment of people based on their demographic classification (gender, race), dress, and grouping (solitary, coupled, or in a larger group). And often finding myself being a "solitary" person in public, I find that to be just a little bit threatening.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Grammy Show Belies Musical Diversity
Every awards show I happen to inadvertently tune in to (I never deliberately set out to watch them) demonstrates the juggernaut that big corporate interests have on our entertainment industry. Even with the Internet and its exposure of so many genres of so many talented musical acts, these awards continue to feature the same predictable artists, with a sprinkle of "great newcomers" worked in. The Grammy Awards show last Sunday evening was no exception. Not that I don't think that acts like Pink, Black Eyed Peas, Beyonce, and Taylor Swift are talented; it's just that the genres presented are much too narrow. The Grammies, which back in the 1960s attempted to span the range of music, have now reduced themselves to the lowest common denominator in defining the art, at least as far as their televised awards show is concerned. Besides cursory nods to country music, the only act that I saw on it that interested me was the alternative rock band Kings of Leon. Where were Spoon, Beck, Sufjan Stevens, Broken Social Scene, Metric, Iron and Wine, Bon Iver, Andrew Bird, Beirut, Arcade Fire, Modest Mouse, Franz Ferdinand, Anathallo, Jose Gonzalez, I'm From Barcelona, Leslie Feist, Band of Horses, Deathcab for Cutie, Depeche Mode, the Hives, the Vines, Kasabian, Tegan and Sara, Muse, the New Pornographers, Radiohead, Rogue Wave, the Shins, Snow Patrol, the Strokes, or Vampire Weekend, to name just a few?
Like Obama with our space program (see previous day's article), corporate America and its stooge awards programs are completely OUT OF TOUCH with good music. I'll be damned if I ever waste another minute of my precious time watching any of them!
P.S. Robert Downey, Jr. looked like a complete dufus/dork up there with his crooked glasses. Did he intentionally mean to look that way? Well, at least I got one good laugh out of the show...
Like Obama with our space program (see previous day's article), corporate America and its stooge awards programs are completely OUT OF TOUCH with good music. I'll be damned if I ever waste another minute of my precious time watching any of them!
P.S. Robert Downey, Jr. looked like a complete dufus/dork up there with his crooked glasses. Did he intentionally mean to look that way? Well, at least I got one good laugh out of the show...
Monday, February 1, 2010
Obama Out of Touch on Ares
Usually a supporter of Barack Obama, I am beside myself wondering exactly what the President is thinking regarding the future of the American manned space program. He has decided to cancel the Ares program, which is the crucial next stage in our plans to return to the moon and explore Mars (and eventually beyond). Nine billion dollars have already been spent on this project, which Obama wants to simply abandon.
It is one thing to say that there is waste and inefficiency within an organization and that it needs to straighten itself out. It is another thing to unilaterally shut down the country's manned space program because of this!
To be sure, the President wants to replace Ares with private contracting. NASA would buy rides from private companies that would ferry their astronauts and payloads back and forth to the Space Station. But the versatility that the Space Shuttle provided would be gone.
President Bush decided to end the Space Shuttle program with the idea that it would be replaced by the more ambitious Ares program to return to the moon and eventually explore Mars. Now we are left with nothing.
Obama likes to tout himself as a supporter of science and technology. He continually urges a revamping of our educational system and standards, especially in the areas of science, mathematics, and engineering. Why? So that our graduates can then go get jobs overseas working for Europe, China or other nations that have a sense of vision about the future concerning human space exploration? Or so that scientists and engineers developing new technologies domestically in our universities and corporations can have that technology taken and applied by other countries for their own benefit, possibly running in conflict with our own national interests?
If Barack Obama does decide to leave us in low-Earth-orbit and dependent on private companies by canceling Ares, I will need to begin to reconsider how sincere this president's words really are. In the face of massive bank and corporate bailouts, along with the massive payout to insurance companies incorporated within the so-called health care "reform" bill, ending Ares would tell me that Barack Obama is completely out of touch with America, just as his political opponents have been clamoring all along. Not that some of those drastic economic measures weren't justified, but it seems as if Obama is giving away the store with one hand (bailouts, corporate giveaways) and practicing extreme scrutiny with the other (NASA).
To those who believe that manned exploration of space is just a big public relations/propaganda boondoggle and that NASA should focus only on the many scientific projects they already have underway, I would reply that our space program needs an image that appeals to the public, stirs its imagination, and gives a sense of opportunity for exploration to its young people, many of whom will opt for careers in science and engineering. Just having a president going around making pretty speeches will not accomplish this.
The way I see it, our exploration of space hinges on the development of five technologies (all dependent on growing computer technology): materials, propulsion, life support, robotics, and virtual reality. I believe that to go in the directions necessary to develop these technologies there will have to be manned missions to other worlds. But not all worlds are hospitable to human "hands-on" exploration. In fact, the overwhelming majority are closed because of their severe conditions. It is with these that robotics and virtual reality will serve as the agents of exploration. But we can forget about any of this coming about if we continue to resign ourselves to only going around in low-orbit circles!
It is one thing to say that there is waste and inefficiency within an organization and that it needs to straighten itself out. It is another thing to unilaterally shut down the country's manned space program because of this!
To be sure, the President wants to replace Ares with private contracting. NASA would buy rides from private companies that would ferry their astronauts and payloads back and forth to the Space Station. But the versatility that the Space Shuttle provided would be gone.
President Bush decided to end the Space Shuttle program with the idea that it would be replaced by the more ambitious Ares program to return to the moon and eventually explore Mars. Now we are left with nothing.
Obama likes to tout himself as a supporter of science and technology. He continually urges a revamping of our educational system and standards, especially in the areas of science, mathematics, and engineering. Why? So that our graduates can then go get jobs overseas working for Europe, China or other nations that have a sense of vision about the future concerning human space exploration? Or so that scientists and engineers developing new technologies domestically in our universities and corporations can have that technology taken and applied by other countries for their own benefit, possibly running in conflict with our own national interests?
If Barack Obama does decide to leave us in low-Earth-orbit and dependent on private companies by canceling Ares, I will need to begin to reconsider how sincere this president's words really are. In the face of massive bank and corporate bailouts, along with the massive payout to insurance companies incorporated within the so-called health care "reform" bill, ending Ares would tell me that Barack Obama is completely out of touch with America, just as his political opponents have been clamoring all along. Not that some of those drastic economic measures weren't justified, but it seems as if Obama is giving away the store with one hand (bailouts, corporate giveaways) and practicing extreme scrutiny with the other (NASA).
To those who believe that manned exploration of space is just a big public relations/propaganda boondoggle and that NASA should focus only on the many scientific projects they already have underway, I would reply that our space program needs an image that appeals to the public, stirs its imagination, and gives a sense of opportunity for exploration to its young people, many of whom will opt for careers in science and engineering. Just having a president going around making pretty speeches will not accomplish this.
The way I see it, our exploration of space hinges on the development of five technologies (all dependent on growing computer technology): materials, propulsion, life support, robotics, and virtual reality. I believe that to go in the directions necessary to develop these technologies there will have to be manned missions to other worlds. But not all worlds are hospitable to human "hands-on" exploration. In fact, the overwhelming majority are closed because of their severe conditions. It is with these that robotics and virtual reality will serve as the agents of exploration. But we can forget about any of this coming about if we continue to resign ourselves to only going around in low-orbit circles!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
