Some News Observations: 3/09

--I keep hearing conservatives wailing about how President Obama is hurting business by having the government take over the economy, transforming the United States into a socialist country. But I ask, wasn't it the banks, brokerage firms, insurance companies, and manufacturing corporations who have been going to Washington seeking out scandalously high bailouts from the government? In order to be able to remain "in business"? Seems to me that the CONservatives have this one backwards: the federal government is SAVING business and capitalism, not supplanting them.

--So news has been released (or leaked) that President Obama is interested in seeking out some sort of contact and potential agreement with more moderate and reasonable elements of the Taliban. Well, it's about time! I have been saying that for months.

--Hopefully, Illinois Senator Roland Burris will be able to stay in office until January 2011, when the winner of the 2010 election for that seat will be sworn in. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley seems to be interested in it as are several others. To me, the 2010 election is where opponents of Burris need to focus their attention on. The ironic thing about it is that whoever wins in 2010 will probably be much more beholden to the special interests that helped finance his/her campaign than Burris ever would (I am presuming that Burris won't win next year).

--Why, oh why, won't the judges in Minnesota get around to deciding the lawsuit surrounding the bitterly contested Senate seat from Minnesota between Republican Norm Coleman and Democratic Al Franken and let that state get its constitutionally-mandated second senator? It is scandalous how long this has been dragged out. The winner should have been sworn in two months ago!

Down on Blog Right Now

I haven't been writing much in this blog lately. Part of the reason is that I have lost some interest. Part of the reason is that I wonder whether I am selecting my topics based on who I think is going to read it. And a huge part of the reason is that I am currently undergoing something in my life I call a "contraction" of sorts: a drawing in upon myself and reassessment of different things that I have been emphasising in my daily life.

Writing a blog is a good activity of self-expression and self-discipline. But there are other areas in my life that I feel, at least in this "season" of my life, a higher calling for me to concentrate on.

Running Longer Distances

When I was a little kid growing up in the sixties (strange how so many of my articles start this way), I was super-scrawny and super-fast. I could out-sprint anyone. It wasn’t until I got into my mid-teens that my running skill began to fall behind others. Sadly, this was the very time that I could have actually gotten something useful from it (like high school athletic recognition and respect). I went out for track in my junior year and decided then that I would concentrate my efforts on distance running. This emphasis continued past high school, with me training by running several miles at a stretch. I never did get to the point of being what most people would call an “athlete”, but I did get to be a pretty doggone good runner anyway. And I discovered that running long distances can do something positive for one’s spirit.

Ever go to the beach and begin to wade out into the ocean? Often, the water gets deeper and deeper until you’re almost certain that you’ll have to soon turn back or else get completely immersed. And then, as you continue to wade out toward the sea, the water level begins to drop and before you know it, you’re standing knee-deep in water. Looking back to the shore, the people standing there are so far away that they look like ants. Now apply this analogy to running.

When I begin a long run, the first couple of miles are usually a struggle, with my body trying to adjust itself to this shocking activity. This is like the initial wading out into the ocean. At a certain point, though, I reach a “groove” and rhythm to my running and it begins to smoothen out, much like that sandbar I reach so far from the shore. But then, I keep running and the analogy fails. For in the ocean, the water begins to deepen again beyond the sandbar. However, with running, something commonly referred to as “second wind” kicks in and puts my mind and body in a completely different state. After about five or six miles, instead of feeling that I’m about to drop from exhaustion, I get the light (albeit not dizzy) feeling that I am “soaring” and could continue running like this from miles on end. This sensation is also called “runner’s high” by some. And is a big reason why so many seem to be “addicted” to running long distance. But if you have never “waded” that far from shore to experience it yourself, you wouldn’t really know what I’m talking about.

In this seemingly paradoxical state of mental/physical relaxation and bliss after running so many miles, I have in the past felt detached from the world in the sense that I was more an observer than a participant. That physical life itself was something completely independent from who I essentially was. Sure, I was bound to my body in time and space, but whatever I really was transcended it and would endure beyond its eventual demise.

When in this state, I have been completely “tuned in” to what was going on around me. So if a car looked as if it were about to plow into me or a vicious looking dog made its presence known, I would be completely aware and ready to properly react, if need be. But at the same time, I would feel freely in control of my thoughts and completely liberated from the stresses and anxieties normally plaguing me during everyday living. Freeing my imagination in the process as well.

I have to admit that, during my latest foray into running that I’ve been doing for the last two years, I have rarely reached this desired second wind/runner’s high state. But that’s because I have usually been running for too short of a distance. I think that getting it going past six miles should do the trick, though. I think it’s just about time for a little more “running spirituality”. And I have devised my own personal "dream course" (with plenty of hills) to do my distance running on. Today I just finished running 4.15 miles on it. I plan to gradually increase my distance to about 7-8 miles at a time. Others can have their five-kilometer races. I’m taking the “long road”!

Ideological Drivel on the Senate Floor

I saw a Senate floor debate the other day concerning the Fairness Doctrine. No, it’s not being reinstated, nor is anyone pushing for its reinstatement. In fact, President Obama has repeatedly made the point that he is opposed to the Fairness Doctrine, which the assorted right wing radio talk show hosts keep insisting that he favors anyway, truth be damned.

The Senate exchange I witnessed was between extreme right wing conservative Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and liberal Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). DeMint, whose constituency is supposedly the state of South Carolina but which is in reality the one person of Rush Limbaugh, proposed an amendment (to another, completely unrelated bill) that prohibited the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. For those of you unfamiliar with it, this was a federal regulation, in effect from 1949 to 1987, that required licensed broadcasting stations (using public radio frequencies) to reasonably present diverse sides to discussions, a well-informed public and electorate being the aim. There were also regulations promoting news, weather, religious and children’s programming on stations. When the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded, these other rules remained in effect. But the language of DeMint’s amendment hinted that these rules would also go by the wayside. So Senator Durbin submitted an amendment to DeMint’s amendment (both amendments passed) restating what was already in the law books concerning these other rules so as to avoid any future misinterpretation of DeMint's amendment. And then DeMint spoke out a flood of ideological invective in opposition to Durbin’s amendment, calling it socialist, communist, and a “back door” attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

When I was a kid, I would often encounter communist ideological propaganda emanating from those totalitarian states behind the Iron Curtain or in the Far East. Those promulgating this stuff had their own specialized vocabulary as well as their own completely revised version of history that supported their propaganda. This was all coming from the left. On the right, there was also an ideology of racism in this country that decreed segregation and which accused those in favor of integration and civil rights of having loose morals and being pro-communist. Nowadays, I’m hearing ideological drivel as well, but it all seems to be coming from the right, and is found in talk shows hosted by the likes of Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin. And some of our elected politicians (like Senator DeMint, but he’s not the only one) have decided to take this dead-end road and spout this garbage. Sad, so sad!

Stephen King’s Christine

I just finished reading Christine, an old Steven King novel about an old car, a teenager’s obsession with it, and the usual supernatural goings-on, set in western Pennsylvania in 1978-79. Since King usually chose Maine to place his stories in, I was struck by the fact that a later novel of his about an unusual “car” (From a Buick 8) that I had already read was set in the same general location. Apparently, there’s something in the author’s mind connecting old cars with western Pennsylvania!

I have to admit to some difficulty in the beginning with motivating myself to read through Christine. For one, I never was into the old fifties/sixties pop tunes about cars (I did think Jan and Dean’s 1964 Dead Man’s Curve was a classic), various lyrics of which open each chapter. And I never was into cars themselves, as a few of my classmates throughout my elementary and high school years were. But my overriding problem for most of the novel was my difficulty in identifying or sympathizing with any of its characters. Christine, written in the first person from the viewpoint of Dennis, a star high school jock, is about how his best friend, who happens to be the school “nerd” with a special proclivity to auto mechanics, comes across an old, beat-up Plymouth (named “Christine”), buys it, and becomes increasingly possessed by it. And then, as in other Stephen King works, very inexplicable and very, very bad things begin to happen. At this point, for me at least, the novel became more interesting and more disturbing. For I had finally come across a character that I could identify with. And it wasn’t a very compelling character, either. This forced me to examine my own attitudes and personality, not always a pleasant task.

So my interest in reading Christine began to increase until I flew through to the finish. And, in a peculiar (and equally disturbing) way, it had a happy ending. Of sorts. If you want to call its ending an ending. Anyway, whatever you might call it, I thought the ending was stupendous.

Christine is a novel whose attraction for the reader depends greatly on his/her interests and personality. It would be interesting to see which characters different readers identified with the most. And why. I wouldn’t rank Christine among Stephen King’s best novels, but it certainly wasn’t one of his worst, either.

I understand a movie was made about Christine. For the most part, though, I have been disappointed with film enactments of King’s works (The Shining being the worst), although there have been some notable exceptions (such as It and Stand By Me). So I suggest that you would probably be better off either checking out Christine from the library or purchasing a cheap used paperback copy instead of watching the movie.

Me and My Blog, Again

One thing that you may have noticed with this blog is that it isn’t a detailed information source. There are good reasons for this. When I initially write out an entry, I am usually away from home and my desktop computer there. I don’t personally own a laptop and don’t currently see the need for one (if I go back to college, I’m sure that will change). Instead, I write out my blog articles either with pen and scratch paper or (like I’m doing now) using my handy-dandy ultra cheap, AA-battery powered AlphaSmart word processor. So no Internet access while I’m writing the body of my work. Later, I often use the Net (usually starting with Google or Wikipedia) to clear up factual questions I have about specific items. But the orientation here is to present a (usually) reasoned and relatively informed OPINION about whatever the topic happens to be.

A couple of years ago, I wanted to research the advantages and disadvantages of exclusively using a treadmill for my running training, without ever actually going outside and running on a hard, stationary surface. I searched my topic on Google and came up with a variety of sources about the merits and drawbacks of treadmill running. And I discovered something curious: many of my sources, claiming to be informative in nature, were repeating the exact same article on treadmills, word for word, and taking complete credit for it without any acknowledgement of where their article came from! It reminded me of gossip circles (a form of social feedback loop) where a small group of people keep repeating and reinforcing the same (often completely false) “news” item until it is accepted as truth without question. So I am just a little bit skeptical about using search engines as a primary information source, although I still do searches all the time.

But in writing this blog, I have already made the assumption that my esteemed readers can use Google or Wikipedia anytime they want to get more detailed information. I suspect that, in regard to my writings about songs, TV shows, or movies, some readers may be looking for a link to access the material they may want to listen to or watch. But then again, why hit on my blog for this when Google or Wikipedia can give quicker and more detailed results and choices? No, the value that I am pushing on this blog is more akin to a newspaper column. Sometimes it’s like an editorial article, sometimes it would fit better in the sports or entertainment section. And sometimes it would belong in the same part of the paper that folks like Dave Barry reside in.

If my facts do ever seem out of line with your understanding of them, please feel free to correct me on them. I’m not too deep on presenting facts, but judging from my experience in listening to callers on radio and television talk show, I don’t think I’m being too prideful in stating that that my expressed opinions in different matters carry more weight and validity than most of what I hear out there. And the bulk of what I write (and what you read) is coming from me, personally, and not lifted from other sources.

Still Working on the Fiction Writing

Last year, I broke through my fiction writing block (a little) and wrote a number of short stories. I didn’t submit them for publication, although I wonder whether or not a couple of them might have been accepted in one of those short fiction magazines you sometimes come across in bookstores like Book-a-Million or Barnes & Nobles. My fiction writing didn’t take off to the degree that I wanted, but at least I produced some products. This year, I need to “up the ante” a bit and write longer pieces while working on areas that I know I need improvement on (such as descriptive writing). And get my writing feet wet by submitting SOMETHING to somebody for paid publication. Who know, maybe there’s an adequately large segment of the population out there who would lap up my material (and even pay for it)!

Positive feedback and momentum is important to me, and I need to position myself in a way that invites them in regard to my fiction writing. I don’t think that anything short of receiving a payment for any piece I do is really going to spur me on to a possible career in writing, though. I need to pull myself together and take the steps necessary to reach that level. Once I get some positive, paid feedback, I’ll be much more inclined to make the commitment to put in the “candy store hours” needed to make fiction writing a viable source of income and a fulfilling second career.

Good and Bad Animals (And People)

When I was a little boy growing up in South Florida in the sixties, we had basically two types of ants to contend with: red ants and black ants. If I were to stumble upon an ant hill, I took care to notice which type of ants lived in it. For the red ants bit and the black ants didn’t. So I drew the moral conclusion that the black ants were the “good” ants and the red ants were the “bad” ants. Of course, in thinking this way I was being the immature little kid that I naturally was. But our society, while claiming maturity, does just the same thing with animals.

Chimpanzees have recently been in the news, due to the story of the chimp who seriously injured a woman out in California. Hearkening back to the days of Cheetah in the Tarzan flicks, chimpanzees have always enjoyed a positive image as being intelligent, fun-loving and social. But did you know that wild chimpanzees in Africa have been reported to eat people, especially little children? The hippopotamus, with its big eyes, cute little ears, and lumbering body is also the recipient of an undeserved popular press. But hippopotamus attacks account for more fatalities in Africa from wild animal attacks than from any other animal. Other animals that folks generally think are good but can surprise and injure with their aggression are dolphins and swans.

On the other end, snakes get abysmal popularity ratings, although attacks from them tend to be defensive in origin. Gorillas have been common horror/sci fi movie material, but in truth their behavior would generally match up much better with human “civilized” behavior than would their relatives, the chimpanzees.

It is peculiar how some animals are stereotyped as “good” or “bad”. Who can forget the assorted cartoon shorts from childhood (Pixie and Dixie and Mr. Jinks, Tom and Jerry, Mighty Mouse) that depict mice as the good guys, cats as the evil predators, and dogs as the benign (and brutish) allies of the mice. But isn’t this typecasting of animals just a reflection of how people treat each other?

The booming cosmetics, botox, and plastic surgery industries base themselves on the idea that people are obsessed with their appearances, and for good reason. Those regarded as attractive will receive much better respect and treatment from others throughout their lives. In our movies, aren’t the good-looking people the good guys and the ugly ones the villains? Just take Lord of the Rings with its hideous orcs and beautiful elves. Or the recent Batman movie The Dark Knight with Harvey Dent the District Attorney. This character is a “good guy” until he becomes disfigured by severe burning. Then, in his physical ugliness, he becomes evil and joins the bad guys (including Heath Ledger’s equally hideous Joker).

We need to overcome our stereotyped views of both people and animals. All of us are born into this one life of ours with a capacity to change, but much of what we are we have no real control over. And those things shouldn’t make a difference to others. But sadly, they often are the things that can determine to a great extent the degree of success or failure in our struggles for social acceptance and material prosperity.

Nobody At the Register

Today I went to get a cup of coffee from a local establishment that provides self-service coffee (once the empty paper coffee cup is bought at the cash register). Only one problem: nobody is at the register. This place serves bagels and other breakfast items. Many people come here, and there is usually a long line in the morning of customers with their breakfast orders. And the workers are scurrying around, preparing food. Sometimes someone is at the register, sometimes a long period of time goes by before someone shows up. Not ordering any food, I just want a cup of coffee, so I walk past those waiting for their orders, to the empty register. But the person who should be there is helping with the food preparation, so it looks as if I am cutting in line ahead of everyone else! If I have to wait until everyone else has their breakfast prepared before I can shell out my buck and some change for an empty cup that I have to then go and fill myself, I’m going elsewhere (the elsewhere in this case being the customer service-oriented Starbucks on NW 16th Avenue and US 441).

This isn’t the only instance of an establishment where the cashier is forced by management to leave their post for the sake of “productivity”. A bookstore not far from here has a café that serves coffee. But I hardly ever go there anymore because the employee supposedly attending that café is usually far off in another part of the (large) store performing stock work. I have to leave my place in line to look for an employee to begrudgingly call someone to the café, as if I am some kind of irritant to their jobs there. A local bakery very close to my home prepares lunches for the many workers who stop by there in the morning. They sure do work hard there making those sandwiches! But this place also has a section with doughnuts and pastries, already prepared and ready for sale. I especially like their cream-filled doughnuts. But when I go there, no one mans the cash register. I must wait until every customer in front of me has their (sometimes lengthy) order taken, prepared, and paid for. Needless to say, I don’t frequent this place either (although they have the best doughnuts in town).

I don’t mind waiting in line one bit (I just waited in one here at Starbucks). But I am tired of the foolish notion that cashiers must be excessed out to do other duties when there is obviously a steady flow of customers passing through. Hey, I realize that cashiers can’t just stayed glued to the floor behind the register. Sometimes they have to do something that momentarily requires them to leave the area. But if a business has enough employees to have a division of labor, then the cashier position needs to have a high priority. After all, that’s the bottom line job where the business gets its revenue!

These three aforementioned establishments have lost my business. I had money to give them and they already had the product prepared to sell me. But they wouldn’t put an employee behind the register to complete the transaction. How foolish can management get?!

By contrast, Starbucks understands the need to make quick contact with the customer and complete the transaction with as little fuss as possible. That’s why I keep coming back here. If some local businesses are so concerned about Starbucks coming into town and driving them off, they may just want to consider the option of COPYING their attitude toward customers. And putting and KEEPING someone at the register, especially during busy times, for crying out loud! Duhhh!

Mental Perpetual Calendar

I wish, as do many people, that our calendar system were more regular. It is ridiculous how complicated it is to reconcile dates with the days of the week that they fall on. So I devised my own system of being able to determine dates, with their days of the week, from memory using numbers assigned to each year and each month of the year.

Note in the table below that there is a cycle of 28 years between years of the same assigned “number”. So even if I wanted a date within a more distant year, say--1945 or 2058, I could extrapolate by adding or subtracting multiples of 28 until the number coincided with a featured year (e.g. 1945 + 28 = 1973, so 1945 is a “3”). So all that’s necessary is to memorize a sequence of 28 years with their assigned numbers (I suggest 2001-2028) and the months with their assigned numbers.

Also, days of the weeks have their own assigned numbers as well:
Sunday: 0
Monday: 1
Tuesday: 2
Wednesday: 3
Thursday: 4
Friday: 5
Saturday: 6

And here are the tables of assigned numbers by year and month:

****BY YEAR****
1956,1984,2012...3
1957,1985,2013...4
1958,1986,2014...5
1959,1987,2015...6
1960,1988,2016...1
1961,1989,2017...2
1962,1990,2018...3
1963,1991,2019...4
1964,1992,2020...6
1965,1993,2021...0
1966,1994,2022...1
1967,1995,2023...2
1968,1996,2024...4
1969,1997,2025...5
1970,1998,2026...6
1971,1999,2027...0
1972,2000,2028...2
1973,2001,2029...3
1974,2002,2030...4
1975,2003,2031...5
1976,2004,2032...0
1977,2005,2033...1
1978,2006,2034...2
1979,2007,2035...3
1980,2008,2036...5
1981,2009,2037...6
1982,2010,2038...0
1983,2011,2039...1

***BY MONTH***
Jan (leap year):3
Jan (non-leap):4
Feb (leap year):6
Feb (non-leap):0
March: 0
April: 3
May: 5
June: 1
July: 3
August: 6
September: 2
October: 4
November: 0
December : 2

Now how does this all work? First, let’s take a date in the past we all know about: September 11, 2001. 2001 is a “3” year. September is a “2” month. The date is “11”. Now 3+2+11=16. Divide by multiples of seven and get the eventual remainder of 2, denoting Tuesday.

Now another example: I know it’s Wednesday near the end of February, 2009. But I don’t know the exact date. 2009 is “6”, February (non-leap year) is “0”. Since Wednesday is “3” and I know I'm sometime near the end of the month, then the starting number is “31” (since 28, a multiple of 7 used for the end of the month,+3=31). Subtract the year-month sum of “6” and I get “25”, the actual date I’m looking for.

Sound too intricate? Once you memorize the necessary numbers and do some practice runs, you may find it to be pretty simple. I’m sure that there are plenty of other ways to determined dates and days in this ridiculous calendar system of ours. I had a lot of fun figuring out my system. Why don’t you try your own hand at it, or perhaps share an alternative (and hopefully simpler) method if you already know one?

Epcot Visit

My wife, daughter, and I recently took a day-trip down to Disney’s Epcot Center near Orlando. We had all been there before and enjoyed this park. One of the big attractions there is the new ride Soarin’, which mimics the effect that one gets while hang-gliding. Although the three-to-four minute ride was fun, I didn’t think it was worth the nearly two-hour wait in line for it. We did experience something interesting while waiting in that line, though. All along the walls facing us in line were large screens on which interactive games with the waiting audience would be played. The audience would attempt to manipulate the action on the screen (depending on which game it was) by waving arms, clapping, or leaning to one side or another. So that part of the wait was pretty fun. But I don’t think I’d want to repeat the experience, just the same.

The Energy (with Ellen Degeneres) ride was shut down and Mission: Space and Test Track also had prohibitively long lines (we arrived too late in the day to make Fast Pass appointments to avoid the long waits). We did ride on Spaceship Earth (under Ray Bradbury’s famous “golf ball”), Nemo (a new ride) in the Sea building, Land, and Imagination (with Figment). I found it amusing, while walking by the large fish tank in the Sea, to notice visitors taking pictures and videos, not of the exotic aquatic life swimming around, but rather of scuba divers waving at them in the tank!

Later, we wandered over to the “nations” section of the park. We bought our dinner at a bakery in the French section and ate it outside on a bench (the weather was pleasant). Then we strolled around the nations. An extremely talented musical band from Morocco was giving an electrifying performance. It made me wonder whether or not there are some Internet radio channels that I could pick up this type of music on. I loved it!

We ended our visit to Epcot spending a little time shopping around the China zone. I noticed that there were plenty of eastern religious and traditional items for sale, including books on Buddhism and goods displaying Chinese astrological symbols. I saw nothing in any store that even remotely hinted of Mao Zedong or the Communist system that the People’s Republic of China is still nominally governed under.

We left the park before the nightly fireworks in order to avoid the heavy exiting traffic. All in all, we enjoyed our visit. It was a pleasant departure from the stresses and routine of our usual daily lives, and gave me a more positive outlook about the world and life in general. And, looking back on it, I was impressed at how friendly, helpful, and professional ALL of the employees there were to us. Here are a few photos we captured on the trip:

Recent Running Stuff

Yesterday morning, the Five Points of Life Marathon and Half-Marathon races were (simultaneously) held here in Gainesville. I had been considering entering the half-marathon (13.1 miles), but a number of personal factors weighed in against it. I let it go by, but by all accounts the race was a big success. The weather was perfect, and there were more than 1000 runners (most of them just running the half-marathon distance). I saw in today’s local newspaper The Gainesville Sun that they had filled an entire page in the sports section giving the individual results for the races, even broken down by gender and age categories. Only one problem: they completely left out the half-marathon results for men ages 40 and up! Which would have excluded me had I run! Let’s see if they make the correction tomorrow and print the rest of the results. I suppose that I should be happy that the Sun at least partially published the results of this race. They NEVER publish local running race results the entire rest of the year, regardless who is sponsoring it or for what charity the race is promoting. {Addition on 2/24: The Gainesville Sun did print the rest of the results the following day.}

The longest distance that I have run since 1975 was the eight miles I ran last October on a training session. But I could probably have endured through the half-marathon had I not cut back on my running recently due to health concerns. After those concerns were completely alleviated through exhaustive medical tests, I was given a resounding green light (how’s that for mixed metaphors) to resume running. And I am running, although I am a bit disappointed that I ended up passing by two longer distance races this year.

I have found something resembling the nearly 3-mile “block” that I used to run around during the 1970s in Davie, Florida. My current training block, which is also nearly three miles in length, takes me down four streets: NW 31 Drive, NW 16 Avenue, NW 22 Street, and NW 8 Avenue. I still have to contend with a little traffic, and I am almost always running on a hard surface (unlike with the Davie block). But I don’t ever have to stand around waiting to cross any big intersection, either. And sometimes that grassy surface can conceal small holes that could twist my ankle should I land in one of them.

Anyway, I’m still plugging away at my running and hope to enter a few five-kilometer races this spring. And if my training progresses the way I want it to, I may enter some longer races should the opportunity arise. Not that my local newspaper could care less (about my running or anyone else’s).

Easy On Roland

New allegations that Illinois Senator Roland Burris had engaged in fund-raising discussions on behalf of corrupt then-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich pursuant to his appointment as interim senator (succeeding Barack Obama) are floating around. The emphasis that those who want Burris to step down (or get kicked out) are trying to make is that he had earlier denied any such discussions with Blagojevich about contributions when earlier seeking to be admitted into the Senate. It was Burris himself who pulled the Fredo Corleone-style loose-tongued blunder while campaigning (?) around his state during the Senate break. All he had to do was keep his mouth shut about the matter, but he didn’t. But whether or not Burris had lied about the contacts does not necessarily imply that he had engaged in a pay-for-play unethical transaction with the now-deposed governor. On the contrary, the fact the Burris had brought it up himself would seem to indicate that nothing had come of it.

I know that the fashion nowadays for “nabbing” people is not to catch them doing something wrong: it is catching them lying about something related to the charge, not the charge itself. This “gotcha on perjury” tactic is epidemic in our government. The first step is to cast aspersions on someone’s character or conduct and then to invite that person so besmirched to attend a formal hearing to speak about the charges or suspicions. Then, once that individual’s comments are “on the record”, these are henceforth used against him/her anytime anything comes up to contradict them. And I don’t think that this is any way to conduct ethical or criminal investigations and prosecutions.

The Democrats in the Senate want a strong candidate to run in the 2010 election against a possibly resurgent Republican Party. They know that having a strong incumbent in place would give them a great advantage in that election. Roland Burris may or may not run in 2010, but he is by no means a strong political figure. But any effort on the part of the Democratic leadership in the Senate to remove Burris from office because of some offhand remarks he made raises a larger question of their true motives in the matter. And opens up an even larger can of worms regarding the question of “who gets to be senator?”

Blagojevich, when he appointed Burris to the vacant Senate seat, was admittedly under a cloud of scandal, already under indictment for corruption and facing impeachment from his state’s legislature. But until he was removed from office, Governor Blagojevich had the complete authority and responsibility to carry out his duties as governor. And one of those duties was to make appointments to fill in vacant seats for the U.S. Senate. It wasn’t a question of how popular the governor or his choice was: that was the law. Choosing which person gets to be a fellow member of their “club” is not a privilege that standing Senate members are entitled to. The political power in the Senate, as recognized by our Constitution, must derive itself from the states. If there were any flaws in the process, then they rested within the state of Illinois and its laws and procedures. Harry Reid, for all of his other shortcomings as Senate Majority Leader, had been correct in relenting to allow Burris to be sworn into office.

Now they want to hold hearings and possibly even vote to throw Burris out of office. For what? Lying? Then they would have to throw themselves out of office as well! Whatever power the U.S. Senate has to expel one of its own members must be used in only the most extreme cases. Otherwise, it may become commonplace to target renegade senators who won’t tow the party line for investigations and removal. And our democratic way of life would greatly suffer.

The Wily Artist

I read in a earlier book long ago how an artist working for a ruler {I believe it was a chinese emperor] who would deliberately include flaws within his royally-commisioned works. The emperor, who this artist knew fancied himself as an artist, would then take great pride and pleasure in pointing out the mistakes. In this way, this artist became the emperor’s favorite. The trick was to insert mistakes very subtley into the works. Too much would have given away the artist’s strategy and would have backfired (with probably disastous consequences) against him. No, instead he produced his “perfection”, and then went back, in a couple of places, modifying just enough, to attract the emperor’s intention.

Often, in this blog, I commit transgression of spelling, grammer, word usage, and simple factual knowledge. But unkile the artist above, I am usually trying to put out a “perfect” product. But if an emperor somewhere (a kindly, concerned soul would also do) happens to stumbol across an entry of mind and derives personal fulfilment at poiting them out to me, than the moor powder too them!

Candy Store Hours

In his autobiography I, Asimov, largely written from a hospital bed while suffering from the kidney failure that would ultimately cause his death, famous science fiction and popular science writer Isaac Asimov tried to explain his prolific writing and workaholic nature. He went back to his childhood in New York City, where his father, an immigrant from Russia (oops, I mean the Soviet Union) in the early 1920s, did what single-proprietor shop-owners used to do: he essentially wed most of his waking existence to his business, which was a candy store, opening early in the morning and staying open until halfway through the night. Asimov dubbed his regimen “candy store hours” and incorporated this very disciplined and focused approach to his own life with his writing.

The general tendency of people nowadays, of course, is to hold up leisure time as a sign of affluence and fulfillment. A person who is so single-minded that (s)he devotes the major part of daily life to specific projects is often regarded as unbalanced and/or fanatical. The saying “get a life” itself carries the connotation that the one being so admonished needs to lighten up and take it easy. And I’m one of those who esteem leisure time. But there is something to be said for Asimov’s lifestyle as well.

There is a crucial difference between slaving away on behalf of someone else’s agenda and passionately pursuing your own very challenging goals. There may be an equal amount of effort, sweat, and tears expended in each of these, but one road will lead to anxiety, resentment, and emotional distress while the other will strengthen character, bestow confidence, and generally make life more interesting and inviting.

I have my own personal projects, any one of which I know I could excel in were I to apply Asimov’s “candy store hours” degree of devotion to it. And I’m wondering if this may not be the road I need to put myself on, instead of splitting up into several projects that I am not wholeheartedly pursuing. At least I can perform a test, for a designated time period (say, one month) in which I concentrate intensively on one single project. And then evaluate the results. Why not?

Another observation I must make about Isaac Asimov’s father and his candy store is more literal. Mom-and-pop store owners, at least as I see it, often aren’t as serious as they need to be in keeping their businesses open long enough in the day to accommodate different customers. They are often closed on Sundays as well. But then they will complain when a corporation comes into town and “steals” their business. I personally like small locally owned stores. But I get more than a little peeved when I go to one of them to do business and find out that they are closed because it’s a holiday like Columbus Day or that they decided to go on vacation somewhere!

Cigarettes and Me

When I was a little kid in the early 1960s, I loved cigarettes. I knew all of the main brands and could sing all of the different commercial cigarette jingles. My parents both smoked at the time, my father preferring Viceroy and my mother puffing on Spring or Salem. Cigarette ads dominated television. In the opening Flatt and Scruggs theme for The Beverly Hillbillies, the “Winston tastes good like a cigarette should” jingle was incorporated into its ending while Jethro would point to a Winston billboard ad (as he drove his family through town in their ancient jalopy).

I thought that cigarettes were so cool, not only the way they were packaged in their packs, but also the cigarettes themselves, with the tobacco on one end and the silky filter on the other, all finely wrapped in special paper. I enjoyed watching people on TV smoking cigarettes and studied how they would hold them in their hands and mouths. There was an entire culture to smoking, so it seemed to me. Smoking was something that you did when you got older, and as such I concluded that it was a “grown-up” thing to do. I couldn’t actually smoke, of course, so I had to be content with candy cigarettes instead.

But before I got old enough to begin smoking, my father flat-out quit cold turkey, never looking back. And then he persuaded my mother to quit (this took a few years). Both of my parents became strongly anti-smoking. As such, the earlier social conditioning I had undergone in favor of cigarettes dissipated before I had entered adolescence. I never started smoking and to this day at 52 years of age, have never taken as much as a single puff on a cigarette.

Others haven’t been as fortunate as me regarding cigarettes. Even with the ban on TV cigarette advertising in 1971, subsequent anti-smoking public information campaigns, and more and more restrictions placed on smoking in public places, that pro-cigarette cultural tradition still pervades our society to some extent. And nicotine addiction is very real and hard to kick.

It saddens me to see young people smoking. I wonder what they are thinking when they finally decide to light up. I had a friend my age with whom I went to school from the 2nd grade through high school graduation. Somewhere along the line he picked up the smoking habit and succumbed to lung cancer, dying ten years ago. What a tragedy that this big-hearted and extraordinarily talented soul would have gone so early in his life, and how sad that his family would be deprived of his presence for these and future years! Please, if you read this and aren’t already addicted to cigarettes, don’t start smoking! And if you are addicted to smoking, just know that it can be licked. I know. My father is a living testimony to that fact.

Comments on Comments

Recently I received two comments on one of my entries that I decided not to publish. One simply contained a short statement generally praising my blog and then sliding into a promotion for something else. Even though the “something else” was related to the topic in the entry, the comment didn’t really address anything I had written, pro or con, so I have treated it as spam. If that individual would resubmit something else, I’d be glad to consider it.

Another comment was done anonymously, with a very short, cryptic two word statement. I didn’t publish it either. If someone expects me to publish their comment, they can at least make the effort to present what they are saying in clear language. A comment can still be very short as long as it is relevant and clear, even if it’s just one word (I actually incorporated one of these pertinent one-worders directly into my blog recently).

I don’t get very many comments on this blog, but I do read every one that comes in and publish almost all of them. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with my article (well, I do wish that everyone agreed with me), I’ll publish it as long as it addresses the discussed topic, follows general socially accepted norms of acceptable language, and isn’t just a plug for someone’s own agenda. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with any particular agenda, but it doesn’t have a place in my “comments” section, that’s all.

President Signs Stimulus Bill

President Obama is signing the $789 billion federal stimulus bill into law today. Florida is expecting to receive $12 billion of it. Republicans have rallied in unity against the bill, loudly railing in the press in opposition. But they aren’t making much sense to me.

First, it must be recognized that the Republicans clearly lost last November’s election, losing the presidency and several seats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In other words, it is now the Democrats who are appropriately writing the bills and pushing the legislative agenda. Republicans are the opposition party. Still, several amendments were considered for the stimulus package and a few significant Republican proposals were adopted and incorporated into the bill, which only passed after three moderate Republican senators successfully further altered the bill in favor of GOP-endorsed tax cuts instead of spending. Republican Representatives Mica (of Florida) and Young (of Alaska) both are now publicly bragging about how THEIR accepted amendments will help their states. Republican Senators Isakson (Georgia) and Grassley (Iowa) each successfully submitted costly amendments to the package as well. And all four then voted against the bill! But wait, I’m not finished. After these and other GOP amendments were accepted into the package, after those three minority-party senators were able to tweak the bill strongly toward the GOP’s ideology, and after the conference reconciling the House and Senate versions further reduced the total cost of the bill, the Republicans loudly complained that they were shut out of the process!

Well, if this was their response to Obama’s outreach to them for bipartisan support (or at least constructive criticism), then I believe that once Al Franken is (hopefully) finally sworn in as the 59th Democratic senator (including the two Independents caucusing with them), that party needs to just focus on those three cooperative GOP senators (Snow, Collins, and Specter) from now on and just ignore the rest. And the House should totally shut out the GOP, since it pretty much can do anything it wants by simple majority (except for overriding improbable presidential vetoes). The Republicans may think right now that they won a propaganda victory over this stimulus bill, but I think the opposite may be the result. They appear as hypocritical obstructionists, and for a very good reason: they are! And this may well be the last time you see Obama and the Democratic leadership in either house of Congress reach out across the aisle in bipartisan spirit for quite a while, at least to this degree.

All of the above really isn’t about whether or not the stimulus bill itself is the correct remedy for our flagging economy. There seem to be as many opinions about it as there are economists. And I’m certainly no economist. But I do believe that a good part of our woes are psychological in nature, with pessimism about the future only contributing to the problem. And the Republicans are feeding into that pessimism. That doesn’t make them look very patriotic to me, all of their flag-waving and grandstanding notwithstanding.

Fun and Frustration With Dreams

The other night I was having a pleasant dream. I was playing basketball with some other kids (I myself was age-regressed to adolescence) on an outdoor court. We played the game on a higher level than I was accustomed to when I was younger. I played point guard, setting up plays, passing, and shooting. The game was competitive and fun, with a lot of good-spirited teamwork going on. As often (or usually) is the case with dreams, this dream drifted away from the game to other themes. Later on, though, I drifted back in my dream to another basketball game. I expected a repeat of the earlier game’s fun. Only this time, instead of the fun, there was only frustration. Shots didn’t fall, passes were stolen, and the opposing team ran all over us. What happened?

I’m coming to the conclusion that dreams (at least for me) have a self-regulating mechanism akin to a thermostat. If a dream is too “happy”, then actively seeking to duplicate that effect within a dream will lead to frustration instead. This may be an important “good” done to prevent me from using dreams as an escape from wakefulness and interaction with reality.

It happens too often to ignore: I seek some goal within a dream and then obstacles continually arise to block its attainment. Or I’ll realize that I can do something cool like flying and, before I can really begin to fully enjoy the experience, I wake up. It sure would be fun to be able to use dreams to have my innermost-held wishes granted, without having to endure their sometimes negative consequences in reality.

In J.K. Rowling’s first Harry Potter book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, young Potter is sneaking around Hogwarts Academy (against the rules, naturally) when he stumbles upon a large mirror that shows any observer whatever deepest desires (s)he has. The danger is that the mirror becomes so attractive and pleasant that the observer spends more and more time in front of it while abandoning the real, present world. In like manner, dreams could also be like Rowling’s Mirror of Erised were it not for that instinctive self-regulation!

Christian Musicians and Christian Music

I've noticed an entire subculture in today's society: For every so-called “secular” area of the arts, there seems to be an evangelistic Christian counterpart that mimics that area’s various genres while adhering to a doctrinally-intense and doctrinally-exclusive message. The most striking example is in the area of popular music.

Just about everywhere, one can find one or more “Christian Contemporary” radio stations, usually in that part of the dial public radio is. There is Christian top forty, Christian rap, Christian hard rock, Christian just-about-anything. Musically, the songs closely resemble the genre that they are trying to fit in with. But the lyrics, albeit often sung in the vernacular or slang, strictly adhere to evangelical Christian church-approved doctrine. The artists whose records are played on these stations are often referred to as "Christian artists". Nothing wrong with any of this, as I see it. But there is something else to consider.

When people live out their faith (or a lack thereof), they may adhere to a set of clearly enunciated doctrinal beliefs, to be sure. But do they give lessons in doctrine in their faith’s theology every time they open their mouth in the “real world”? No, in just about every case the believer uses personal actions and words to “reflect” held beliefs. And usually this is translated into virtuous behavioral traits like generosity, mercy, honesty, gentleness, forgiveness, and service.

I believe that there are a whole lot more musical artists who happen to be Christian than there are musicians who are designated as "Christian artists".But those Christian stations won’t play their songs unless they convey an explicitly faith-oriented message. And that’s where I have a problem.

I know of several famous musical artists who are Christians, but whose songs are never played on “Christian” stations because they don’t lyrically tow the church line. The most glaring example is the band U2. I suppose that it’s up to each individual listener to decide what to listen to on the radio. But for a believer to restrict listening to a narrowly defined genre of music demonstrates a cowed fear of the world and not the message Jesus supposedly gave to go out and be a “light unto the world”. Those Christians who quietly go about their lives and show their faith by their virtues and examples are the true “lights”. I am tired of various churches acting as if their little circle of culture and doctrine defines the entire faith and that anything or anyone operating outside of that is in the “secular world”, to be pushed away as somehow “unclean” or a danger to them. And “Christian radio” sometimes unwittingly plays into this mindset, regrettably.

St. Valentine's Day

I'd like to express my deepest love and appreciation to my wonderful, beautiful wife, Melissa, on this St. Valentine's Day. Others can content themselves with celebrating the birthdays of Lincoln or Darwin; for me, Melissa puts them both in the distant background. She is a true treasure!

Southern Celestial Stars

I was taking a pleasant evening stroll around my block (2/3 of a mile) with my wife recently and observed, on the southbound stretch, the star Canopus shining brightly several degrees above the southern horizon. If I were to have a favorite star, Canopus would be it, for its evening presence in the southern sky indicates winter and its accompanying cooler temperatures and dryer air. And after so many months of high humidity and high temperatures here in Florida, that is very welcome.

I remember, growing up in south Florida, trying at various times of the year to see different standout southern constellations and stars that, due to my latitude (26.0 degrees north) would only appear for a short time above the southern horizon. Aside from Canopus, which would appear relatively high over the horizon down there, I could see Achernar, the brightest and southernmost star in the large, rambling December (evening sky) constellation Eridanus. Forget about me seeing it at almost 30 degrees latitude here in Gainesville! And even down in Hollywood, I never was able to observe Crux (the Southern Cross) or Alpha Centauri (the nearest star system beyond the Sun). But south of Miami, these too are visible at the appropriate time.

I’ve always wondered how the southern sky would look to one standing south of the Equator. I know the constellations that circle the southern celestial pole, but it is a different matter to see them in the night sky. Whenever someone I know travels to a place like Australia or Peru, I get a little twinge of envy because I know that had it been me, I would have “had my chance”. It’s something that I just need to “get up and do” someday. While my eyes are still in reasonable shape!

My Own View of the Old Testament

I am not a “Bible scholar” who graduated from a seminary or theological school. Nor am I an archaeologist or a historian (although I do have a B.A. in history). But I have read up enough on the subject to have established my own opinion about the Old Testament of the Bible. And why and by whom it was written.

Those writing the Old Testament (a.k.a. the Hebrew Scriptures) never could have envisioned it being printed, distributed, promoted, and read on a mass scale across the world. Reading the scriptures was an exclusive privilege designed for the priesthood and whomever they deemed qualified for the task. They were written with the view of justifying the regime in power by establishing it as God-ordained, with roots going back even to creation itself. By making this clear to the people, the ruler had the advantage of being approved and installed by God himself.

Which ruler was it that started the idea of having his rule justified by God and retroactively established? Well, I imagine that this sort of thing had been common for some time in the ancient Mesopotamian/Egyptian world. But in the area we now refer to as Palestine, or Israel, this all began with King David of Israel. The territory he ruled over comprised many different nationalities. How to convince the people there to be loyal subjects would have been a difficult task. One way to partially realize this would be to retroactively create a history that showed events leading inexorably to his rule, with God’s approval stamped over it. The idea that the god of all creation would be specifically interested in promising and endorsing the rule of an individual such as David may seem to be rather egotistical, but it actually was quite a progressive departure from other societies of the time, in which the ruler would often flat-out declare his own divinity.

I believe that reading old scriptures with the intent of discerning the original writer’s true message and motivations behind that message is more in line with the idea of reading “reverently”. For wouldn’t you consider it a simple matter of high respect (which is what reverence is) for a reader of your writings to want to understand exactly where you are coming from without adding extraneous or agenda-driven meanings to them? But nowadays the idea of reading reverently has been turned on its head and usually means reading through the filter of a narrowly-defined church doctrine that discounts the historical and social context of the writings.

Right-Wing Radio Revisited

Having vented my wrath against right-wing talk radio for the past two entries, it’s time for me to sing their praises (at least a little). So here we go (hold your nose if you need to):

--Mark Belling, who filled in for Rush Limbaugh for a week, brought up the innovation that apparently everyone else on Earth but me already knew about: the Amazon Kindle, which is the “book” counterpart to the I-Pod. With a Kindle, one can supposedly order entire books to be downloaded on this device. Sounds totally cool to me. I found out on Wikipedia that up to 200 non-illustrated titles can be stored on one Kindle, potentially saving an enormous amount of clutter (and trees). The prices I‘ve heard are around $350-$400. Anyway, this is an example of how non-political information is often transmitted through talk radio, independent of the political orientation of the host.

--Neal Boortz brought up a very good point on his show last week. Remember the brew-ha-ha over the bonuses paid out to executives in companies receiving public bailout money? And how Obama wants to cap executive salaries in these troubled companies at $500,000? Boortz noted that the same companies will have a great difficulty now attracting any new talent to hire with these salary caps in place. It is almost tantamount to a mandate for mediocrity. My outrage was about the bonuses, not the salary levels (which shouldn’t be restricted).

--Sean Hannity is probably the most obnoxious host on the air, but still I must grant him two things: one, he is one heck of a good communicator with a quick sense of humor. Two, he actually puts on guests who DISAGREE with him and usually treats them with respect (although he is hateful to ordinary callers who dissent from him).

--Michael Savage has so many negative qualities that I could write a pretty long piece on just those. But in his favor, he is a craftsman in the art of filling up a three-hour daily block of empty airtime with a collage of different topics and his strong personality. He is the most valuable as a host when he goes back to his earlier years living in New York City.

--In Gainesville/Ocala on 97.3/WSKY “The Sky”, there is a show from 3-6pm called “The Drive-Time Happy Hour” with co-hosts Chip Morris and “Mr. P.C.”. The two have an incredibly entertaining and often comic rapport with each other, and Morris is a genius in turning differing opinions on their head and revealing the absurdities he sees in them. Not that I necessarily subscribe to his conclusions (although I sometimes do).

--Regarding Mark Levin, I’d like to mention something complimentary about him as well. And if I ever come up with something, I’ll let you know!

--Rush Limbaugh resonates with many Americans because he continually hammers home the theme that we can run our own lives without the government intervening to take care of us at every step. It is during this enunciation of his political philosophy that he is strongest with me. But he spends too much of his time ridiculing people instead (as do most of the above-mentioned hosts). And I sadly think that’s what is really driving his ratings.

I guess the point of this article is that it often a good idea to hear “the other side”, not just listen to one’s one opinions being echoed somewhere. That’s one major reason why I enjoy following the Senate and the U.S. House on C-Span2 and C-Span, respectively. But these hosts do have other qualities that can be filtered past their often disagreeable diatribes.

Talk Radio, Blogs, and Overturning the Election

Which is a better forum for political expression, the blogosphere or talk radio?

Talk radio depends on commercial sponsorship for specific programs. This necessarily creates a conflict of interest between hosts and their sponsors, predisposing them to be biased toward the concerned business interests. Blogs may or may not fall into this category. Most personal bloggers (like this one) don’t carry ads and don’t feel beholden to any other interests but the expression of their own opinions. But the main difference I see between bloggers and talk radio is one of diversity versus mass duplication.

When Rush Limbaugh calls for listeners to write or call a politician or media figure about something that HE finds objectionable, that unfortunate individual is flooded with negative, sometimes hateful messages from everywhere across the country (and abroad). The pressure to conform to Limbaugh’s message, or at least to not openly criticize him, is very strong among conservatives. And it gives Limbaugh an unwarranted amount of power. Just follow the elected politicians who care more about pandering to him than their own constituents. That Georgia congressman who apologized to him on-the-air for having had the temerity to criticize him earlier no longer has any credibility as a public representative, in my opinion. But Limbaugh isn’t the only bully on the block. Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Mark Levin regularly target individuals in government for criticism, knowing that the hate element within their own legions of followers will quickly set to work beleaguering anyone who is the hapless target of their self-righteous wrath with e-mails, phone calls, and hate mail.

Even major blogs such as the Drudge Report or the Huffington Post don’t have this sort of intimidating power over our leaders. I for one find it a bit frightening that our recent election seems to be in the process of being overturned by leaders more concerned about what powerful talk show hosts think than about the people whose interests they are responsible for looking after and for whom they were elected or appointed to serve.

What’s really the final straw to me is when a Limbaugh or Hannity gets on the air and begins to rant against blogs that disagree with them. Or when Limbaugh, with all of the power that he has to publicly defame people (and which he regularly exercises), characterizes any media coverage that doesn’t conform to his extremely narrowly defined ideology as an example of the “drive-by media”.

Just who won the election last November? We had a Democratic president elected with the greatest majority of the popular vote in twenty years. The Democrats took away a net of seven Senate seats from the Republicans (and eight if Franken’s victory is affirmed by the courts). And they added considerably to their already-solid majority in the House of Representatives. So you’d think that the Republicans who are left would read the results and work with the majority-elected party to help solve the problems that the electorate is concerned about. But instead, they seemed to be lining up to suck up to a tiny group of powerful and loud political extremists who have gained, with the assistance of their corporate sponsors, a stranglehold on talk radio.

Stimulus Plan Prospects Good

The Obama/Democratic economic stimulus bill appears to be heading for passage in the Senate after three Republicans expressed support for a less expensive bill. After passage, expected tomorrow, the bill will be sent to conference between the House of Representatives and the Senate, where a compromise final version will hopefully be agreed upon and sent to President Obama for his signing into law.

I am a little taken aback at how, with less than three weeks gone in the new president’s first term (after a very clear victory in the election), the so-called “honeymoon” period when partisan politics are put aside as a gesture of good-will to the new president has never materialized. I owe part of this to the presence and power of virulent, poisonous right-wing talk jocks like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who were never elected to anything but act as if they were high judges over anything political in this country. And the fawning reaction of our elected Republican officials to the diatribes of these “opinion-makers-for-hire” against the new president is disgusting. The Republicans who oppose the stimulus bill “on principle” had no such qualms when pushing through, year after year, grossly expensive appropriations bills funding our adventure in Iraq. The stimulus bill, unlike the Iraq quagmire, will send money and jobs directly back into our economy while tending to many different neglected areas of infrastructure. On top of that, tax breaks will also help send money flowing through the economy and help to reverse the business downturn.

Also, when the presidential campaign was going on full-bore and the mortgage industry collapse brought on calls for bailouts, Republican nominee John McCain actually “stopped” his campaign to rush to Washington and express his support of emergency government actions. Now, he stands on the Senate floor with a diametrically opposite position, strongly opposed to the government “jump-starting” the economy. On principle. It makes me wonder which John McCain we would have ended up with had he been elected to be president. And makes me glad that he wasn’t.

Newly Heard Independent/Alternative Music

Recently, I tried out one of the AOL Radio channels, titled "Indie Rock". I was pleasantly surprised at the string of quality independent/alternative songs that they played. For about a year, I had some difficulty with hearing music from this genre after the local radio station that supplied it changed its format. My cable TV service had a channel on it with this type of music, but the AOL channel is much better. Here are some of my favorites that I recently heard on it:

Don’t You Evah--by Spoon. This may be Spoon’s best so far, although I still am partial to the earlier, bass-driven I Turn My Camera On. Don’t You Evah also has a very strong bass component to it. Spoon reminds me quite a lot of Beck, another act which I greatly respect.

No One’s Gonna Love You--by Band of Horses. Just a sweet, beautiful, melodic tune. Their (officially-sanctioned) video was hilarious.

The Con--by Tegan and Sara. Twin sisters Tegan and Sara Quin once again produced a memorable song (I loved their earlier Walking With a Ghost). The Con is a fast-paced, frantic piece.

Chicago--by Sufjan Stevens. This extremely talented and inspired young man reminds me a bit of Pink Floyd’s Syd Barrett, without the drugs and mental breakdown. His music goes everywhere, and the song Chicago is so different from anything else on the air that it almost defines a genre of its own. Chicago is part of a state-based theme album that Stevens made and titled Illinois. Chicago actually came out a few years ago, but since I just heard it for the first time, I regard it as a “2009” song. After hearing it, I checked out a few other Sufjan Stevens songs. "Incredible" is an understatement!

The Fear--by Lily Allen. More popular in Britain than here in the U.S., Lily Allen already has a hit with her Smile. The Fear, I think, is even better and may yet hit the charts big over here. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t.

That’s just a smidgen of what’s out there. I'm grateful to AOL for having this channel on their radio lineup. I should get into the habit of turning it on whenever I use the computer. Who knows what great music I’ve been missing!

Gator Men Hoops at Crossroads

The University of Florida Gators men’s basketball team has reached the same point in this season that has taken them in different directions for the previous three seasons. Last year, this marked the time that they peaked and had begun to fade. But during the previous two seasons, they began to surge toward national titles after this point. In which direction will this year’s edition go? A clue came this past Tuesday when they hosted red-hot South Carolina, who had just a few days earlier handed Florida a heartbreaking setback by overcoming a seven-point deficit with two minutes to go, beating them 70-69 with a last-second fast break layup following a missed Gator foul shot. This time around, the game was higher-scoring (generally this is to the Gators’ advantage) and once again, Florida had a seven point lead with two minutes to go. And also once again, South Carolina mounted a furious comeback. But this time, UF players came through at the foul line and made most of their free throws to win 97-93.

When a team has struggled through a game to gain a marginal lead toward its end, it is crucial that its players can step up to the line under pressure and make clutch foul shots to sustain that lead. This time, they came through. And if they continue like this, I see an auspicious conclusion to this season. They are showing themselves to be a complete team and are beginning to resemble the national championship squad from recent history. But I think it’s going to take another year before they can begin to once again challenge for the title. This year, it will be interesting to see how far they go in the NCAA tournament (which they didn’t even make last season).

The Gators have a cohesive starting lineup with Nick Calathes, Walter Hodge, Chandler Parsons, Dan Werner, and Alex Tyus. Their bench also contributes a lot, especially Erving Walker (who scored 18 points in the win over SC). Except for Hodge, a senior, the team should return next year intact (and even better).

So far, Florida has a 19-4 overall record and is 6-2 in their Southeastern Conference East Division, in first place halfway through league play. But they have yet to play Kentucky, a team that many regard as being the best in the conference.

C-Span2 and the U.S. Senate

I am quickly (once again) becoming a C-Span addict, in particular C-Span2, which shows U.S. Senate proceedings. Not only am I getting reacquainted with some old faces on the Senate floor, but there are also quite a few new senators mulling about (and presiding over this body).

And there are plenty of bills and nominations to consider in the Senate, not to mention the time-tested tradition of a senator simply standing up before the almost empty chamber to deliver a politically-charged rant during “Morning Business”. I’ve been watching the stimulus bill being introduced and amendments being proposed. It’s interesting how $885 billion is apparently not good enough for some senators, who are proposing multi-billion dollar amendments to add to the legislation ON TOP OF the already-gargantuan price tag. On this occasion, I’m with the Republicans (and a few Democrats), who are keeping these bills from up-or-down floor votes through point-of-order objections (the amendments almost always exceed the allocated budget). In these cases, 60 votes are needed to defeat the objections and allow the amendment votes to proceed. In the long run, though, the entire stimulus package stands a better chance of passage if costly amendments are kept at a minimum. And the ultimate passage is what I want.

A few years ago, one of those weekly news magazines like Time or Newsweek listed and described who they decided were the five worst senators. I didn’t agree with their choices, and I don’t feel like making my own list of the worst. But I will list a few of my favorites:

Arlen Specter (R, PA)--A voice of reason and reconciliation, qualities needed to form the consensus needed to avoid gridlock in the Senate.

Chuck Schumer (D, NY)--Defender of the American middle class, he has a very persuasive manner of speaking that makes whatever he says seem to be eminently reasonable. Schumer is also very strong on domestic national security.

Jeff Sessions (R, AL)--Sessions is the finest conservative speaker in the Senate. He never beats around the bush, while still avoiding the appearance of being too blunt. If you have an open mind and want to understand the conservative take on issues, Senator Sessions is the place to start, NOT the mass media knee-jerk talking heads (like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Savage, etc).

Diane Feinstein (D, CA)--Some on the left express suspicions about her ideological purity, but Senator Feinstein is at heart a pragmatist who wants effective legislation passed and who recognizes the need to sometimes reach across the aisle to the opposing party. She recently spoke out correctly in favor of seating legally-appointed Illinois Senator Roland Burris when the Democratic leadership was blocking him.

Tom Coburn (R, OK)--I love this guy, he is truly “his own man” who cares little about his standing within his own party. Coburn has two passions driving him onward in the Senate: he expresses strong viewpoints on all of the typical right-wing hot-button issues like abortion, gay rights, and gun control. But Senator Coburn is also the Senate’s most zealous fighter against wasteful spending and pork. He has incurred some heated comments from fellow Republicans when he opposed special “pork” projects in their home states (chief among them the “million dollar bridge” in Alaska). Coburn often misses the point in his speeches, but he is fun to listen to and has a good delivery.

Robert Byrd (D, WV)--Is Senator Byrd 100 yet? I know he’s getting up there, at least in his mid-nineties. If you haven’t seen him deliver one of his drawn-out, bombastic, and rambling speeches on the Senate floor, then you’ve missed something very special and entertaining. For there is only one Robert Byrd (at least in the Senate).

Jim DeMint (R, SC)--Whereas Jeff Sessions expresses conservative sentiment with charm, humor, and grace, Senator DeMint manages to accomplish the same without any of that “icky” stuff. As blunt and in-your-face as you can get. In other words, someone whose confrontational nature goes against the spirit of comity that is so important to this body. But I perk up my ears anyway when he is speaking, for he is usually informed and does speak for many.

Tom Harkin (D, IA)--Tom Harkin is a true populist in the best sense of the term. His interests are simple and straightforward. He looks after his state and its people (and naturally its farmers) and serves as an advocate for ordinary people across the nation. I believe in a diversity of opinions and personalities in the Senate, but I think that a few Tom Harkin clones in there would definitely improve that body a lot!

John Cornyn (R, TX)--I always considered him to be George W. Bush’s chief mouthpiece during his tenure as president. Now he is one of the figures (along with minority leader Mitch McConnell) who is trying to rally the Republicans together as a united force opposing just about anything substantial that Obama and the Democrats want. Cornyn is very articulate and should have been the minority leader instead of McConnell, in my opinion. Of course, I’m opposed to the track of gridlock that he seems to be on, though.

Dick Durbin (D, IL)-- The Democratic Whip, Durbin is possibly the most glib speaker of all, choosing to look directly at the television camera when speaking (instead of the usual custom of looking at the presiding officer). If you want a good model for extemporaneous and persuasive speaking, Durbin’s the one. Sometimes, though, his penchant for off-the-cuff remarks can get him into some political hot-water (as was also the case with former colleague, now Vice-President Joe Biden). But I love watching him ply his trade on the Senate floor!

Well, I wasn’t going to list the “worst”, but there is one senator who is so boring and obnoxious that I have to mention him: Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman, who can express a reasonable, centrist position on any issue and make it feel like you’re having your teeth pulled (without anesthetic). If you’re lucky though, his boring delivery will put you to sleep before the pain sets in!

Billy Joel

Billy Joel is the type of musical artist that people tend to either love or hate. The blog Slate has an article by Ron Rosenbaum excoriating this celebrity’s works. The main gripe, as I see it, is the tendency for Joel to display the persona of a very cynical critic of others in his lyrics. Ironically, it’s often those songs of his in which he’s ripping others that I like the most! Joel also seems to be quite the egomaniac, although in his case he’s just being honest about expressing this not-so-pleasant personal trait. Other artists go to great lengths to conceal this fact about themselves (I think one has to be a bit of a head case in order to make it in the entertainment business).

I first heard Billy Joel’s music in the spring of 1974 when his Piano Man single came out (greatly liking it). The follow-up single Travelin’ Prayer was quite good, too. It showed Joel to be a virtuoso on the keyboard, as did subsequent releases. Later, I had the opportunity to listen to the whole album Piano Man and liked quite a few tracks on it, especially The Ballad of Billy the Kid, Worse Comes to Worst, and Captain Jack. From the next two albums, I particularly liked Root Beer Rag (an instrumental), Summer Highland Falls, and Angry Young Man (Joel’s ultimate piano show-off piece). In 1977, The Stranger was released and proved to be his greatest album (to me), all of the tracks being good. My favorite track from it was his “epic” piece Scenes From An Italian Restaurant. From the following two albums, my favorites were the defiant My Life, Sometimes a Fantasy, and Don’t Ask Me Why. And then Joel really got political and serious with his Nylon Curtain LP. Allentown, Pressure, and Goodnight Saigon quickly became personal classics, and it looked as if this artist was entering a period of profound artistic output. But in 1983, he reversed directions and came out with the album An Innocent Man, which marked the beginning of the end of my enjoyment of his music. To me, the tracks from this album were simple-minded homilies to a never-never “Happy Days” brand of fifties rock n’ roll fantasy that, quite frankly, I’m utterly sick of (epitomized by the movie Grease). Although later works of his contained some good songs (e.g. A Matter of Trust and The River of Dreams), Joel never seemed to regain that sharp edge of his that I liked so much (and others apparently despised).

Billy Joel has retired from recording, or so he has said. But I don’t believe it. Sooner or later, he’ll reinvent himself and start cranking out new stuff. But I may just remain stuck in his early years, thank you. Here’s a top-ten list of my favorite Billy Joel songs:

1---Pressure
2---Angry Young Man
3---Scenes From an Italian Restaurant
4---Allentown
5---Summer, Highland Falls
6---The Ballad of Billy the Kid
7---A Matter of Trust
8---The Stranger
9---Piano Man
10---Goodnight Saigon

Monday Newsbreak: 2/2

--Eric Holder, President Obama’s pick to be Attorney General, was confirmed to the post by the Senate. Those who opposed him did so mainly because he had a record of being for gun control as well as having tacitly supported President Clinton’s controversial pardon of Marc Rich and leniency for Puerto Rican declared (by the FBI) terrorists, who were earlier convicted of some bombings. But even very conservative Republican Senators Jeff Sessions and Orrin Hatch voted for Holder, having expressed their respect for him and his qualifications before the confirmation vote. Attorney General Holder promises to restore an atmosphere of professionalism and respect for the Constitution to the Justice Department.

--The more than $800 billion economic stimulus plan proposed by President Obama passed the House without a single Republican supporting vote. The bill now goes to the Senate, where there will be an opportunity for numerous amendments. How the Senate Republicans choose to play this out could seriously backfire on them should they decide to filibuster.

--Tomorrow will mark three months since the November election that supposedly selected a senator from Minnesota. The dispute between declared winner Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman is tied up in the courts. But why can’t the courts recognize the urgency of this contest’s resolution and expedite the matter? Franken (or Coleman, if he were to be the eventual winner) has already missed out on several important votes. And his presence (or absence) could be a crucial factor in ending (or sustaining) Republican filibusters in upcoming crucial legislation.

--Bad winter weather caused widespread and protracted power blackouts, concentrated in Kentucky. That state’s governor has called up its Army National Guard on an historic scale to assist its residents and to try to get power restored. This is the sort of thing that the National Guard is intended for; not patrolling streets in a country torn by civil strife halfway around the world!

--The Pittsburgh Steelers pulled off a spectacular last-minute win over the underdog Arizona Cardinals in yesterday’s Super Bowl, played in Tampa. Amazingly, the deciding touchdown pass happened with 35 seconds to go in the game, the exact time that last year’s winning touchdown pass occurred in the New York Giants’ Super Bowl win over the New England Patriots. It was fun at my house during the game, since I was rooting for the Cardinals and my daughter was rooting for the Steelers. We took turns cheering and booing, depending on the game’s exciting developments, especially in the fourth quarter.

The Wild Card Character

When I am reading a story or watching a movie or television episode, I often seek out something that I’ve come to term the “wild card” character. This is someone, either whose allegiance to good or bad is too ambivalent to ascertain or whose presence in the story is such that they may unwittingly determine its outcome, good or evil they may be. Here are some examples:

--In Ernest Hemingway’s celebrated war novel For Whom the Bell Tolls, guerrilla warrior Pablo continually vacillates between bravely supporting the Republican cause and abandoning it. His actions are ultimately crucial to the story’s outcome.

--In the Harry Potter series, Hogwarts instructor Severus Snape is a menacing figure who seems to carry a strong grudge against Harry and his father. Time and time again, Snape’s actions cast him in a suspicious light, but he ends up being vindicated. But will this continue through the series? To whom does this mysterious character truly owe his allegiances?

--Can you guess who the wild card character is in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings? That shouldn’t be so hard: it’s Gollum, aka Smeagol (thanks for the spelling correction, Barry), the pathetic creature whose obsession for the Ring draws him into an unstable relationship of simultaneous conflict and servitude with Frodo and Sam. And as the wizard Gandalf suspected, Gollum does play a very, very important role in the story.

--In the Matrix series, Agent Smith, originally the head “bad guy” enforcing Matrix rule, is the personification of evil. There is no vacillating on this character’s part about whether or not to do the “right” thing. But his unique circumstances place him in the crucial position to be the unwitting catalyst that resolves the conflict between the two antagonistic forces in this series. And as much makes him the series’ wild card character.

--In the movie A Beautiful Mind, protagonist and brilliant mathematician John Nash meets up with a clandestine U.S. government agent named William Parcher. What Parcher says and does determines the direction Nash’s life eventually goes in. The “kick” to this story is the actual nature of Parcher.

--In the quintessential spaghetti western The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, the “man with no name” played by Clint Eastwood is dubbed “The Good”. But he is by no means “good”, as demonstrated by his callous disregard for life and his horrible betrayal of his colleague Tuco (“The Ugly”, played by Eli Wallach). But he also displays a sense of decency and compassion for people at other times. The very ending of this movie literally teeters on the true moral nature of Eastwood’s character (and the truth of his aim as well).

--In A Christmas Story, Ralph’s father is the wild card. Alternately comical and menacing this character is, Ralph nevertheless needs him to fulfill his ultimate Christmas wish. And dad doesn’t weigh in on the matter until the very end.

--The Star Wars series has perhaps the most obvious wild card of all: Darth Vader, aka Anakin Skywalker. In The Return of the Jedi, Vader’s vacillation between Luke and the Sith lord is almost comical.

--Arthur C. Clarke ultimately wrote four novels for his Space Odyssey series: 2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001. Only the first two were made into movies. For those two movies, the wild card character was the computer Hal on the Jupiter mission. Not so apparent from the first movie 2001, the ending of 2010 completely hinges on Hal and “his” “allegiances”.

--In The Prisoner series, the wild card is the seemingly insignificant, diminutive, and silent butler, played by Angelo Muscat. Always there to assist Number Two (the protagonist’s chief nemesis) at “city hall”, the final episode places him in a crucial situation that reveals his loyalties.

--Another all-too-obvious wild card character is the alien Q in Star Trek: the Next Generation. Time and time again, Q puts Enterprise Captain Picard and his crew in life-or-death peril and then releases them, teaching Picard important lessons in the process. Q frames the span of the series, being featured in both the debut and concluding two-hour episodes.

--James Bond movies sometimes have wild card characters, and sometimes they don’t. For the ones that did, the most memorable were: Pussy Galore (played by Honor Blackman) in Goldfinger, Jaws (played by Richard Kiel) in The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, and May Day (played by Grace Jones) in A View to a Kill.

--The 1957 Oscar-winning masterpiece The Bridge on the River Kwai featured a riveting performance by Alec Guinness as a captured British officer in a Japanese prison camp in Burma faced with the dilemma of trying to keep his men’s morale and sense of purpose alive under extreme duress. His ultimate act in the movie determines everything.

--In Bonnie and Clyde, Michael J. Pollard’s character C.W. Moss works for the outlaw couple, serving both to lead them to fame as well as their destruction.

--In the fifties sci-fi thriller The Day the Earth Stood Still (I haven’t seen the latest version), the giant alien robot Gort seems to be just about the most evil thing in the universe. And then you watch the rest of the movie and get “the rest of the story”.

I suppose I could go on endlessly on this subject. And you may think that other characters would have better fit the designation as the “wild card” than the ones I chose. But I do know that having these characters serves to enhance stories and build up the suspense, making them more memorable long after they have ended.