Gainesville Coffee Shops Pros and Cons

At the beginning of Roger Moore's stint portraying James Bond, in the 1973 movie Live and Let Die, he invites his superior, M, into his flat to receive his new assignment. And then treats him to coffee, using his extremely (then) complicated looking espresso-making apparatus. M can only stand there, looking befuddled at the trouble that Bond is going through for a cup of coffee.

Nowadays, of course, this is all "old hat" with the various espresso coffee shops everywhere, especially those with the Starbucks trademark. I welcome the new culture of coffee drinking, especially that part of it that encourages customers to bring their laptops, books, and (with me) word processors to sit around for lengthy time periods without the fear of being run out of the shop for loitering. This lazier, informal environment is what I imagined (correctly or not) about street cafés in Europe. It represents for me a positive shift in the attitudes of (some) businesses in favor of customer service and away from the notion of seeing customers as a tool to extract money from, then sending them off (and away) on their merry way. So that trend I totally dig.

But there is, alas, a different trend I see, at least here in Gainesville. In large cities like New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, there may be a culture of around-the-clock places to drink coffee and study, but not here. But we used to have several places where I could go in at any time of the night, get a cup of coffee, and study or write. Now, I could still go to certain restaurants like Steak N' Shake, Waffle House, or Perkins late at night, but they all have the idea of getting their customers seated, getting them fed, getting them to pay, and then getting them out (and the sooner the better). We used to have doughnut shops that stayed open around the clock, but that number has dwindled down to one, Krispy Kreme on US 441 three block north of the University of Florida campus.

My work schedule is such that I don't feel the need to go out in the wee hours of the night/morning, but sometimes, around 11pm-1am, if I do happen to be out at that time, it would be nice to be able to stop off somewhere and sit for a few minutes and enjoy a decaf coffee. But the Starbucks shops around here close up by 10 pm. Oh well, you win some and you lose some.

Bad "Feel Good" Legislation

Back in 2005, the case of a brain-dead woman named Terri Schiavo dominated the news. Her husband, consistently supported by the courts (even by ardently conservative judges), wanted her to be allowed to die, while her parents (and the religious right with their political clout) fought to keep her body alive. The struggle continued to the U.S. Senate, where the Republicans, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist, pushed a special bill, called the Terri Schiavo Bill, specifically designed to determine the outcome of that one single case. Democrats roundly criticized it, claiming that this was poor, knee-jerk legislation. Now let's fast forward to the present.

After losing so much money and procuring so much bailout assistance from the federal government, AIG Corporation infuriated the president and congress by handing out lavish bonuses to its top executives. The only problem was that this was perfectly legal. So the Democrats in the House of Representatives, along with some Republicans, just passed a bill levying a 90% tax specifically on those AIG bonuses. AFTER it was learned that they were being given. Now it is the Republican Party leadership's turn to "stand on principle" and denounce this as knee-jerk legislation targeted at only one circumstance. And they are right; they're just hypocrites, that's all.

I deplore those bonuses as well. And I generally support what the Democrats are trying to do in government. But this time they missed the boat and committed the same after-the-fact faux pas that their political rivals committed four years earlier by enacting legislation retroactively affecting a single party. It may carry popular support and make people feel good, but it's bad legislation. Better to simply recognize the loophole that AIG exploited and fill it in any future bailouts in order to prevent this from happening again.

Crichton and Gore on Global Warming

Continuing with my discussion of Michael Crichton, I have to comment on his method of presenting his opposition to the theory of global warming in the novel State of Fear. Crichton uses a completely fictional story with completely fictional characters to refute this theory, referencing apparently real scientific and academic journal articles with extensive footnotes throughout the book (making this work of fiction appear like an academic article). And different characters, especially the mysterious Kenner, spout out detailed statistic after statistic from the tops of their heads demonstrating how global warming is a scare tactic designed to control people, put in place by the "PLM" (political-legal-media). [How do you like that nice touch of his, making all of this sound like the PLO?]

How does Crichton portray believers in global warming? They are either fanatical terrorists or are shallow, vain, hypocritical dupes who want to hold on to their creature comforts while depriving most of the world's population of the same. Sounds like a real rap from me against Crichton, doesn't it?

Well, not completely. For one, I don't want to disparage the recently deceased too much. For another, Michael Crichton brings up some good points (if you can stand his ranting through the mouths of his characters, that is). Assuming his revealed research isn't part of his fiction, temperatures in various places across the world haven't really been following any discernible pattern for the past 150 years. Crichton opines that much of the measured warming comes from urbanization and deforestation, not increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plus, he shows that the amount of added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is actually very minuscule. But the best argument I got is the chaos argument: you can't linearly change an element of a chaotic, untested system and then expect to get a predictable outcome from it. And our atmosphere, from our many frustrated years of trying to predict and control the weather, is the essence of a chaotic system. So Crichton's views, albeit expressed in a distasteful manner, did make an impact on me. And they reminded me of another voice on global warming: Al Gore.

Former Vice-President Al Gore, as most people know, is famous for his movie An Inconvenient Truth, which sounds the big alarm about global warming and advocates drastic changes in how we run our economies worldwide and use energy. One of Gore's biggest arguments is to make a direct correlation between increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increasing temperatures. And it's here that I simultaneously have a problem with Gore's approach and begin to scratch my head in confusion. For urbanization and deforestation, which skeptic Crichton acknowledges as warming factors, also correlate with increased carbon dioxide. So what caused the warming then? And what about those figures denoting increasing global temperatures, and how are they reconciled with Crichton's mixed figures? Just because two trends correlate, that doesn't automatically imply a cause and effect relationship between them.
Aside from this confusion, I was a bit taken aback by Gore's flagrant bouts of self-adulation in An Inconvenient Truth. Those rosy autobiographical parts detracted from his message by making Gore appear (to me) as being narcissistic and opportunistic. It's this aspect of Gore that the television series South Park seized upon in its merciless Manbearpig episode about him a few years ago.

So both Michael Crichton and Al Gore have presented their opposing opinions on the subject of global warming, each in their own personally obnoxious and irritating manner. What do I think on the subject? I'm not sure, but if Crichton and Gore can cash in on the subject while making complete nuisances out of themselves in the process, there has to be something in it for me! Let me put on my thinking cap and I'll get back to you on it......O.K., I'm back. I just figured out what I have to do: first, like Crichton and Gore, I have to become famous for entirely something else, and then I can present my alternative theory as an "expert" and reap in the rewards!

NIT and NCAA Tournaments

The last time I wrote about the Florida Gators men's basketball team, they had a chance to make the NCAA tournament, but only if they met certain conditions. It turns out they met NONE OF THEM and consequently didn't make the championship tournament. Instead they're back in the "runner-up" National Invitation Tournament this year. They started off well Wednesday night, winning their first game against Jacksonville 84-62. Tonight they play the University of Miami, a tough team from the very tough Atlantic Coast Conference. But the Gators will have the decided advantage of playing at home (and for the following game, should they win).

As for the main NCAA championship tournament, I'm still following it and rooting for various teams. I am unhappy at how unfairly UF's Southeastern Conference was treated, with only three teams selected for the tournament. So I'm rooting for those three teams to do well and prove the NCAA wrong (unfortunately, Mississippi State lost their first-round game last night, although LSU managed a win; Tennessee plays today). Also Florida State is having one of their best basketball seasons ever and stands to advance in the tournament. I traditionally root for North Carolina as well, and the Tarheels have a good shot at winning it all this year. Plus, I was impressed with Syracuse's tenacity in pulling out a recent six-overtime victory over impressive Connecticut a few days ago. So there's still plenty of interesting games for me to follow in the NCAA tournament even though the Gators aren't in it. Hopefully, they'll make it next year.

Writing Fiction From a Pedestal

I've recently been reading some of the late Michael Crichton's novels. Crichton, who rose to fame for his exciting science fiction novel The Andromeda Strain, wrote his stories with the idea of introducing the reader to specific trends in scientific and engineering research and then extrapolating those trends to usually calamitous results. Thus the fusing of computer technology with the human nervous system creates a homicidal monster, dinosaurs grown from DNA containing their genetic codes get loose and wreck havoc, nano-machines create their own swarms and plot to take over the world, and now, in State of Fear (the book I've just finished reading), the author reveals his skepticism about global warming. Crichton apparently believed that, regarding the environmental movement, the politics came first and the scientific research was then tailored to fit those political positions.

In the Michael Crichton novels that I've read so far (The Andromeda Strain, The Terminal Man, Timeline, Congo, and Prey), the author did extensive research on the topics and then cluttered the stories with intimidating technical details, apparently with the aim of enforcing his authority on the subject in the reader's mind. I am not very enthusiastic about this tactic of writing (a reason I don't feel like reading Jack Clancy novels, either). I instead prefer a relatively minimalist approach that emphasizes characters and the story. Sure, it's necessary to lay out some technical details in a story in order to create in the reader's imagination the "new world" that the author is using as the story's setting. For example, in the Harry Potter series, author J.K. Rowling naturally did her own research on magic and mythology in order to create an alternative, exotic world. But she didn't drown the reader in details either. And that's what I appreciate in a writer.

In the realm of science fiction, during the middle of the twentieth century, there were three writers who were generally considered to be the top three science fiction writers around: Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, and Isaac Asimov. All three of these (especially Asimov) wrote their fiction with the aim of staying true to the principles of science in their writing (and often painfully making a major point about this to the reader). And then there was Ray Bradbury, a contemporary of the "big three" who enjoyed a higher level of respect as a general writer and who sometimes wrote science fiction. But when I read Bradbury, I don't get the feeling that I am some lowly student in an undergraduate science class, being talked down to by some professor (as is often the case with Crichton/Heinlein/Clarke/Asimov).

When I read a story, I want to feel that the author and I are communicating on the same general level, and that I am not expected to just take in whatever slop (s)he decides to shovel in, just because it is dressed with extensive technical jargon. Reading for me is almost an act of conspiracy between two kindred souls. If one of those souls insists on standing up on a high pedestal, then I'm not going to read with the same enthusiasm that I would have if that same writer had just written like an ordinary person with no pretensions of grandeur. An author has to reveal enough knowledge of the subject to make the story believable, but there's no point in being a complete smartass about it!

Still Learning Piano

I am still practicing piano and taking weekly lessons. I am progressing with my playing skill, but I'm not satisfied at the rate of that progress. My goals are still pretty much the same: (1) to able to play melodies from memory as I have heard them and (2) seamlessly read and play music from the printed page. I think the main thing holding me back is that I don't put in enough time practicing, pure and simple. But I'm still plugging along, nevertheless.

One thing that I'm having a little fun with regarding music is the study of keys and chords. The chromatic scale consists of 12 notes, so a decimal system of modeling simply doesn't work. Neither does the traditional, convoluted "A through G" system of notation, with its flats and sharps. To me, it makes more sense to start with a "base 12" system and go from there. And that's not really such a difficult thing to do: we all are pretty comfortable with base 12, seeing that our clocks are based on it! As a matter of fact, to aid me in understand various chords, I am imagining them as combinations of numbers on a clock face, and then remember them by their shapes. Works for me, at least.

For the individual notes, I have assigned each a number:

0/12: C
1: C sharp/ D flat
2: D
3: D sharp/ E flat
4: E
5: F
6: F sharp/ G flat
7: G
8: G sharp/ A flat
9: A
10: A sharp/B flat
11: B

I realize that I still must deal with musical notation in the form that it is written, but it sometimes helps me to understand things better using this alternative system.

Veterans Memorial Flagpole

Here are some shots of the gigantic Veterans Memorial Flagpole, located at the south end of the Santa Fe College campus next to the track.

Ominous Fire Season Signs

At this writing, a fire is raging, uncontained, in the Ocala National Forest about forty miles southeast of Gainesville. There are other fires beginning to break out in various spots in north and central Florida, portending a crisis situation in this extremely dry time of the year. We've received very little rain over the past few weeks. And if we don't begin to get some on a regular basis and in large quantities, I'm afraid that we in Florida will suffer a similar fate to that which we underwent in the disastrous 1998 "fire season".

You don't have to be directly threatened by a wildfire in order to suffer its effects. A fire can be hundreds of miles away. But if the wind is blowing its smoke in your direction, your air will become full of it (and even ashes), making it more difficult to breathe (and impossible for some).
Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic. But you know you're in a bad situation when it does rain and, while discussing the weather with others, someone almost always chimes in with "yes, but we need the rain"!

Sometimes, during these fires, the smoke gets so bad that I get the urge to go dump a ring into a volcano (with a hobbit carrying me there and an eagle flying me back). And then I would wake up breathing fresh air, with a kindly old wizard grinning at me. Yes, it can get that bad. Mordor in Florida!

Senator Byrd's Joke

I was watching the U.S. Senate on C-Span2 a few days ago. A vote was going on regarding an amendment submitted by Senator Wicker (R-Mississippi). It aimed to deny funding to any United Nations agency offering or promoting abortion services. Naturally, the pro-life senators supported the amendment while the pro-choice senators opposed it. There were, at my count, three "cross-over" votes from each party, canceling each other out and ensuring the amendment's defeat. But what I was most interested in was the voting process itself.

Apparently, senators can vote from their offices while the role call is going on for their vote. But afterwards, those yet to vote will go to the front desks in the Senate chamber and register their "ay" or "no" with one of the clerks there (who then will call out their names and how they voted).

As this vote was approaching its conclusion, I saw a woman pushing 91 year old Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) in a wheelchair up to the clerk's desk. Naturally, I expected Byrd to signal how he would vote to the clerk. But instead, the woman leaned over, said something to the clerk, and then proceeded to wheel the Senator away and off the screen, up the ramp to the area where the Senate body sat. I then forgot about this until about a minute later when the clerk called out "Senator Byrd", to which was heard a loud, thundering "NO-O-O-O!!!" coming from the rear of the chamber. Everyone stopped what they were doing for a second and then a few snickered. About another minute or two later, here comes Byrd back down in his wheelchair, grinning and once again closely passing by the clerk's desk (and then out of the chamber, presumably back to his office).

It will certainly be a sad day when Robert Byrd no longer graces the United Senate with his personality, rhetoric, and special sense of humor. But I thought the same of him eight years ago and here he still is, while many others have come and gone from this prestigious body.

Gator Hoops Tourney Prospects

The University of Florida men's basketball team is in danger of being shut out of the NCAA Championship tournament for the second year in a row after finishing their regular season at 22-9 and Southeastern Conference play at 9-7. Not bad on the surface, but their overall record was enhanced by scheduling smaller colleges that they were relatively assured of beating. And the SEC as a conference doesn't do much better in the national rankings. Only two teams, LSU and Tennessee, are reasonably assured of a spot in the NCAA tournament. A third team from the conference will probably also be added, but a fourth is highly questionable this year. And South Carolina is widely regarded as the "third" team, Florida "fourth", and Auburn "fifth". The UF Gators still have a chance to pass ahead of South Carolina, though, because the SEC tournament is beginning today. And depending on the outcome of that tournament, Florida may either find itself back in the NCAA tournament in which it won the national championship in 2006 and 2007 or it may be relegated to playing in the "second fiddle" National Invitation Tournament, in which it did well last year.

Here is how I see Florida possibly making it to the NCAA tournament this year, based on the outcome of the SEC tournament:

(A) If Florida wins the conference tournament outright, they automatically qualify for the NCAA. And they can potentially do this, if they play up to the level that they have demonstrated at different times during the season.

(B) If Florida doesn't win the SEC tournament then three things have to happen:

[1] Either Tennessee or LSU must win the SEC tournament, keeping another conference team from becoming the third team to go to the NCAA tourney.

[2] Florida needs to outlast South Carolina in the tournament, preferably beating them head on.

[3] Florida needs to avoid being outlasted by Auburn.

Even if the Florida Gators fulfill the conditions for (B), that still doesn't guarantee that they'd be selected. But I think that it would put them ahead of other conference teams competing for that important "third" selection.

Well, the fun starts today. Win or lose, I've enjoyed following the Gators this year. They'd have nothing to be ashamed of if they went back to the NIT this year again instead of the NCAA Championship tournament. But of course, I would be very disappointed if that happened, nevertheless.

Bulls and Cleods

Here's an idea for a fun, little no-expense, no-tech game that you can play with another, needing only paper and pen. It's a good game to play while stuck waiting in lines or in waiting rooms. When I learned it as a kid, it was called "bulls and cleods". [I'm not sure how to spell "cleods", having looked up the word in the dictionary and the Internet with no success.]

Each side in bulls and cleods imagines a four-digit string of non-repeating numbers (e.g. 2345, 6452). They then take turns submitting "guesses" to each other in order to finally determine the other's number. The first to do this wins the game.

The terms "bulls" and "cleods" come into play regarding the hints the "holder" of the number gives the "guesser" each time around. For example, suppose I have imagined the number "1234" and my worthy opponent guesses "2614". I see that "2614" contains three digits in my number of "1234". "4" is present in the exact correct position (a "bull") while "1" and "2" are also present, but in the wrong places ("cleods"). So my response to my opponent's guess of "2614" would be "one bull and two cleods". Using logical reasoning, eventually someone hits upon the exact number and wins.

This game can be played among most age groups. Naturally, little children may find it too challenging, but here it can be used as a teaching tool for logical reasoning.

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.