Gainesville's Cofrin Nature Park

In the midst of an area of heavy traffic congestion on the way to the overcrowded Oaks Mall area lies an unassuming little park, Cofrin Nature Park. Named after recently deceased area philanthropist David Cofrin, this pleasant getaway is a fresh respite from the stress of urban living. At the entrance are a tennis court, a children's playground area, and a picnic area. A few steps past this is the start of a looping nature trail, complete with a view of a tiny creek that runs through the park.

I found walking the Cofrin Nature Park's trail to be refreshing, shorter then either Loblolly Woods or Ring Park and much less confusing than the latter. Again, no admission is charged there, although parking spots may be hard to come by if the park is crowded (when I went, I was the only one there). I recommend this park to anyone who wants to briefly escape their urban existence and experience a little nature for a while before returning. For those who like to walk or jog for exercise, the trail is very suitable.

Cofrin Nature Park is located at 4810 NW 8 Avenue. Here are some photos I took of the place.

Beliefs and Belonging

It can be quite maddening to observe the health care debate going on in this country. Twisted, false notions seem to have lives of their own, resisting clearly expressed debunking. You're going to lose your insurance, the government will tell you what doctor to go to, you will have to wait for months to see a doctor, this is socialized medicine, and (worst) the government is going to kill grandma (using death panels) in order to save money. I'd like to focus on the last-mentioned falsehood.

Over and over again, people in the media (not just liberals, but mainstream journalists as well) have laid to rest this rumor (or so I would have thought) by revealing its source: a provision in the proposed legislation that provides government reimbursement of physicians who give end-of-life counseling to their clients (including giving information about living wills, almost universally endorsed and promoted in the past by politicians of both major parties). Now we have Glenn Beck continuing to rant about this false rumor as if it were still true, while politicians like Sarah Palin and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley tweet and speak about death panels and "killing grandma" when they obviously know better. And ordinary (I resist using the designation "normal") citizens continue to shout at politicians in town hall meetings with this ridiculous accusation. What's going on?

There is a doughnut shop across the street from the Starbucks I'm currently sitting at. Many of the times that I go in there, I see several generally elderly people, mostly men, sitting around and loudly discussing politics. Only what they might call "discussing politics" is, to me, just verbally regurgitating what right-wing "information" they heard from their idols on TV and radio. As a matter of fact, one common lead-in to a statement is "I heard Rush say the other day..." These folks obviously relish each other's company and enjoy the ritual of going down there, swilling the java, chomping on the rings, and spewing out the dogma. One of the unwritten rules there though, is that contradictory input from anyone of a different political viewpoint is not welcome. So if you want to play with them (i.e. be liked and socially accepted by them), you need to either express agreement with whatever outlandish opinions they express, find SOMETHING they say to agree with, or keep your mouth shut!

I know what I'm talking about when I say that many people view expressing a belief (or a disbelief) as a matter of belonging and being accepted within a social group much more than as a matter of expressing an honest, personally-arrived-at assessment. I think a lot of this originates from the fact that most people come from religious backgrounds and most of them still practice a form of organized religion. Within just about any religion I can think of, there are certain propositions that, on the surface, are preposterous, but which the religion's adherents still openly express belief in. If you have lived your whole life from childhood expressing preposterous viewpoints that you personally find yourself intellectually rebelling against but still are expressing because you feel compelled to do so in order to be accepted in that religious group, then it will probably carry over into other areas of your life. Including politics.

Folks like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity offer to many people a cozy, easy access to our political system and the news, with ready-to-go analysis that appeals to them and provides a sense of belonging within a political movement. The term "dittohead" (referring to the commonly-found Limbaugh fan who always agrees with him) applies here. For although even I myself occasionally "ditto" some things that ol' Rush says, I still take each thing he says and filter it through my perception of what is reasonable or not. A "dittohead", on the other hand, uses a different process. (S)he first decides to belong to Rush's "family" and THEN absorbs everything he says as gospel truth. Just as the member of a religion would sit there and absorb everything their clergy would say to them as truth. Beck and Hannity fans commonly do this as well. (To be fair, I think quite a few liberals do this sort of thing with MSNBC's Ed Schultz, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow, too.)

So hearing someone expressing a belief about something is a little more complicated than simply attributing it to their actual feelings. For many, expressing certain opinions, even if they are patently false, is a vital part of a social compact that they have made in a personal desire to belong to and be accepted by a particular group, be it religious, political, or just social. To this betrayal of people's rational thought processes, I say pass the doughnuts and shut your mouth!

Vick Conditionally Reinstated in NFL

Michael Vick, the former Atlanta Falcons star quarterback (three Pro Bowl selections, $100 million-plus multi-year contract) is now being conditionally reinstated into the National Football League after serving eighteen months in prison for his role in staging dogfights and the resulting severe cruelty to animals. Vick has naturally been kicked out of the league for two years. He has been the object for anger and hate among the general public, and why not? Here was a guy who had it all: an athletic superstar, very wealthy, and well-liked in his community and across the nation. What possessed him to engage in dogfighting?

On the other hand, cruel exploitation of animals for economic gain or leisure is a time-honored tradition. Look at our beef, pork, poultry, and seafood industries. How much do most of them concern themselves with the well-being of the animals they raise for food? And what about hunting and fishing, which involve "human beings" using increasingly advanced technology to inflict painful deaths on wild animals? I am currently visualizing Sarah Palin shooting moose from a helicopter. How far removed is that really from Vick's crimes?

Having said all that, I believe that Michael Vick deserved to be prosecuted and reviled for his crimes. But I also believe in rehabilitating and allowing those who have served their sentences for the crimes they committed to be fully allowed back into society. Roger Goodell, the NFL's commissioner, apparently agrees with me on this and has permitted Vick conditional reinstatement as a player this year, eligible to play in the regular season on the sixth week. Former coach Tony Dungy has volunteered to mentor Vick through this period. Vick has been very vocal with contrition and regret for his crimes as well as gratitude for the opportunity given to him now to do something positive with his life. The Philadelphia Eagles have signed him to a short-term contract that is conditional on him making the team and staying true to his reinstatement terms. Good for them!

I have read and heard hardliners who apparently want Michael Vick to be banned from football forever and still feel great anger and hatred toward him. But, like Tony Dungy, Commissioner Goodell, and the Eagles, I believe in second chances and reconciliation. I am rooting for Vick's second chance to be a success for all concerned!

Four Movies on TV, Part 2

[Bruce Willis in Die Hard]

I put off watching Die Hard, starring Bruce Willis, for more than twenty years. Finally, on a night that I was glued to my recliner, it came up and I watched it in its entirety.

One of the factors that had earlier been working against me watching Die Hard was the fact that I didn’t particularly like the character that Willis portrayed in his successful prime-time mystery/romance series Moonlighting. But that character, presented as a counterpoint to co-star Cybil Shepherd’s, wasn’t really a good enough reason to avoid Willis in the movies. This was strongly borne out when I saw his riveting performance as an international terrorist in The Jackal. After seeing what a complete actor Willis was, it was only a matter of time and opportunity before I saw him in Die Hard.

Die Hard is a story, set in a Los Angeles skyscraper, that deals with terrorists/crooks who take over the building and use the novel ploy of terrorism as a cover to commit a large robbery there. I was stunned to see that their leader, the arch-villain Hans Gruber, was played by Alan Rickman, the same actor who has played Severus Snape so well in the Harry Potter movie series. Although his voice as Gruber was identical to Snape’s, Rickman’s appearance was very, very different. I understand that Rickman is primarily a stage actor in Britain whose only two major film credits to date are: Die Hard and the Harry Potter series! With his enormous talent, he should be appearing in many more movies. But then again, Rickman’s paucity of cinema appearances may be by his own design.

In Die Hard, Willis portrays a New York policeman who is visiting his somewhat estranged wife, who works in the aforementioned skyscraper and is attending a large company party there. While Willis is sulking around his wife, the bad guys sneak into the building and take the partygoers hostage. But by sheer luck, Willis isn’t in the hostage group when this happens and then spends the rest of the movie as a Rambo-type warrior hiding within the building, knocking off the hoods one by one and generally aggravating Rickman’s Gruber character.

Meanwhile, on the outside the police (except for one officer), FBI (whose chief agent was the villain in the James Bond movie License to Kill), and media behave collectively as a bunch of counterproductive morons, each with its own special agenda that has little to do with aiding Willis in rescuing the hostages and stopping the criminals.

The action was great, Willis’s character was very compelling and easy to sympathize with , and I couldn’t argue with Hans Gruber as a character embodying pure intellectual evil. And the fact that a sequel to Die Hard came out a few years later should give a clue as to how the movie ended.

The next movie from that night that I saw (for the umpteen millionth time) was the 1967 Arthur C. Clarke/Stanley Kubrick collaboration 2001: A Space Odyssey. I’ll write about it in a few days.

*******************************************
On a completely random note, I received a comment from my Summer of 1969: So What? entry a couple of days ago, but decided not to publish it. The submitter had nothing to say about my article, but instead promoted his/her video presentation on YouTube. I have nothing against that per se, but the substance of the comment needs to be pertinent to my article. To that individual, I suggest a resubmission of your comment that at least demonstrates that you read my article and have some type of reaction to it, agree or disagree.

Perseid Sighting Preempted

Due to health problems I've been experiencing (not critical, but incapacitating) this week, I wasn't able to see the Perseid meteor shower as I had planned. It was pretty overcast the last two nights anyway.

Truth is, living within a city of more than 100,000 residents like Gainesville makes it difficult for me to observe the night sky the way I want to. Add to the urban environment with its night lights the fact that there are so many trees everywhere blocking the view and you can see that star-gazing simply doesn't work here for me. I need to find a dependable location in an open field or hilltop on the outskirts of Gainesville to be able to reasonably observe the night sky.

As for figuring a way to photograph celestial objects with my cheap binoculars and digital camera, that didn't work out either. But I do have an old telescope stand that I believe I could place on a tabletop and attach the camera to it. Then, with a long exposure setting I may be able to capture the moon, some stars, and planets. But for the time being, I am not in physical condition to do much moving around, so this project will have to wait for a future opportunity.

The Summer of 1969: So What?

Yeh, I know that this summer marks forty years since anyone first set foot on the Moon. Back in the summer of 1969.

Yeh, I know that the Tate-LaBianca murders, instigated by Charles Manson and executed by his flock of murderous all-American young zombies, also occurred forty years ago this summer. In 1969.

Yeh, that so-called “greatest musical concert of all time”, Woodstock, also took place around this time forty years ago, in 1969.

And yeh, the Beatles walked across Abbey Road (Paul shoeless) for their famous album cover in the summer of 1969.

So what? Why is the mass media obsessing on summer, 1969?

True, the Apollo 11 moon mission was a milestone in human achievement. But then-President Nixon, who talked to the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon live from the White House, slashed the Apollo missions, canceling planned moon voyages and ending the last one in 1972. In the 37 years since, all manned space trips have consisted of going in circles closely around Earth.

Manson and Woodstock were certainly symbols of the times back then and are interesting for studying human nature gone awry and for listening to some good music, but our recent history is full of other examples. And album covers...well, they're just album covers.

Why make “40” the anniversary year anyway? Didn’t people used to have to wait until “50” before they did this sort of thing? And speaking of “50”, why aren’t we talking about 1959 anyway?

In 1959, the Cold War between the US and the USSR was going on full strength. Both sides were fighting each other through proxy wars in third world countries, building up their nuclear missile arsenals and designing newer long-range missiles, and engaging in the space race (the Soviets had the edge in 1959). In America, a national campaign had begun to upgrade educational standards in the sciences and encourage development of new young scientists and engineers. If you’re old enough (like me) you may remember those old Bell Science films starring bald bespectacled “scientist” Dr. Frank Baxter, who introduced very interesting, entertaining and inspiring programs about diverse scientific topics such as genetics, subatomic particles, time, the Sun, the weather, the five senses, the circulatory system, and language. These were part of that national effort going on then.

And many, many other events were transpiring in 1959 as well. The civil rights effort was going on full steam, especially in the South, and rock n’ roll music dominated the popular culture.

Is there a sort of disconnect that occurred at some time between 1959 and 1969, making people want to remember the latter while ignoring or forgetting the former? Or maybe it’s something simpler.

Perhaps the emphasis on 1969 is simply due to the fact that far more people around today personally experienced it and remember it. I myself only turned three in the fall of 1959, so my memories of that year are completely confined to my home and family. And of course, I had no idea that I was living through 1959 while I was living through 1959!

But the professional media should take that into account when deciding what to commemorate. I think people would be much more enlightened to hear accounts about—say Castro consolidating his power in Cuba in 1959 while became gradually more estranged with the US in the process—than to hear the same old stories about Woodstock or Manson (or Neil Armstrong’s “that’s one small step for man” verbal goofup).

For many younger people of course, both 1959 and 1969 are years of the past that happened either before they were born or during their early childhood. What I think is the main reason for 1969’s emphasis nowadays is that many of those responsible for putting on these retrospective stories on television, printed media, and radio were old enough to remember the events of that year but too young to remember what went on fifty years ago. But that’s no reason to ignore the very important year of 1959.

Budding Musicians Need Boldness, Confidence

After discovering the independent/alternative music artist Sufjan Stevens on AOL Radio and then exploring some of his works on YouTube, I felt that I had found something special. On his very long albums Michigan, Illinois, and The Avalanche, put out in a relatively short period from 2003 to 2005, song after song was a joy to listen to. And some like Casimir Pulaski Day, Pittsfield, Flint, and Detroit Lift Up Your Weary Head, have risen to all-time favorites of mine. Naturally, I wanted to hear his very first album A Sun Came, which he originally recorded back in 1998. Well, that debut album was a bit of a chore to listen through, to say the least. There were some pretty hideous songs on it (like Rice Pudding and Satan’s Saxophones) and some vulgar little tracks with Alvin-the-Chipmunk-like voices talking about people vomiting and the like. I’d say that, all in all, about half the album was a “throw away”, a quarter was reasonably listenable, and three tracks were pretty good. It was, to me, definitely his worst album. But that was O.K. because it was his FIRST, and in your first album you have to figure out what works and what doesn’t. And some of that analysis can’t come about until that first product is already out there for everyone to hear. What made this generally mediocre work stand out to me was the attitude that Sufjan Stevens stamped all over it, on every track, good or bad. An attitude of utter and complete boldness and confidence, bordering on (and at times crossing into) arrogance.

I have heard very talented, inspired musicians who have all the talent that it takes to become a major success. But they are too tentative and insecure, and they project that in their performances and recordings. Being bold and confident can cover up the weaknesses that everyone has in one form or another.

An artist has to foster the habit of producing works with the mind of satisfying personal standards and not those of others, be they friends, family, or the public-at-large. And then, once a work is produced, to have the courage (or gall) to let others in on it. While recognizing that there will always be a few (or more) who will thoroughly detest it.

Naturally, a creative musician usually collaborates with other musicians to produce recordings or give performances, and their feedback on the quality (or lack thereof) of that musician’s works can be either positive and nurturing or negative and destructive. It’s important that musical collaboration directs the artist to produce better works, but in the beginning I think the most important goal is to encourage and grow a strong sense of personal confidence that will be reflected in the product, even if that product contains some serious flaws.

Time Keeps on Slipping, Slipping, Slipping...

I was recently looking at the cover of an entertainment magazine that was depicting some stars of a reality show called High School Reunion. A high school was staging a twenty year reunion and the program focused on how some of its participants (those pictured on the cover) were able to work out their memories and relationships with each other, happy and sad. I looked at the assembled young men and women from the high school that was the subject of this show and said to myself, “I wonder what they look like now after twenty years?” Then I saw, on the cover’s left side, a small inset of the same people in 1989 and realized that this WAS how they looked twenty years later. And suddenly I felt very, very old.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to tell what age people are, be they young or old. The other night, I went into a local doughnut shop and got a couple of doughnuts, a decaf coffee, and sat down in their dining area to consume it. After a few minutes, a police officer walked in, asking employees for information about an apparent suspect that they supposedly knew. The officer asked the woman who sold me my doughnuts and coffee for her name and date of birth. This woman, who I had thought was quite elderly, then gave her year of birth as being 1951. She was only five years older than me! And then suddenly, once again, I felt very, very old.

At a steak house restaurant in Ocala with my family a few months ago, an employee there asked me if I wouldn’t like to see the specials being offered there for seniors. And suddenly, well, you know my drift.

I just joined AARP and received my membership card and handbook. And you can take it to the bank that I plan to squeeze every bit of advantage I can get out of my advancing age. Just wait until 55 comes around in a little more than two years!

And if people are coming to the conclusion that I’m that damned old just by looking at me, then I shouldn’t have any paranoid fears about people being frightened by an old geezer like me running down their street at one or two in the morning. Maybe it’s time that I come to peace with the fact that I’m growing older and that it’s a great time to be alive!

Fifth Grade School Film

During my fifth grade in elementary school (in early 1967), a film crew paid us a visit for a few days. They were going to make a documentary of my super-duper, innovative "exploding star" of a school and we were all going to be stars as well! Oh well, make that three of us: two sixth-grade boys (Gar and Rick) and Sandy, a fifth-grade girl. Microphones were installed on them and they were followed around with a camera crew to record how a typical day was for students at this marvelous institution. I remember this pretty vividly, as Henry, a classmate with whom I chummed back then, would take a perverse pleasure in sneaking up behind Sandy (who wore a microphone tucked inside her skirt) and saying idiotic things just to sabotage the filming (as well as surreptitiously trying to appear in the movie).

Apparently, my friend's efforts were not enough to stop educational journalism at its finest, and the filming was finally finished. A few months later, our whole class was called to an assembly, and we were treated to the final product.

We were told that this movie about our school was going to be shown soon on TV. But we were all going to be treated to a sneak preview. The movie began by showing Debra, another fifth-grader, sitting staring vacantly at her fingernails, each of which she had painstakingly adorned with gummed reinforcements. Everyone in the assembly erupted in good-natured laughter at that, and other rather random scenes of student "activity" were shown. Eventually, the three aforementioned students, the focus of the film, were featured and we followed the action, all of us proud that we were so honored and special to have a movie made about our school. And we all looked for ourselves in the movie. Funny though: as much as my friend Henry had tried to get filmed, it appeared that he never made the final cut!

I remember, a few years later, once seeing this film on television. And it wasn't at all honoring to my old school, after all. There were people on it criticizing the idea of just letting students going off willy-nilly at school studying at their own pace, with teachers more in the background instead of the forefront of the learning process. And, looking back, I sadly tended to (and still do) agree with that viewpoint. But I also had classmates who thrived in that type of academic environment, so I suppose that it's a terribly subjective matter to analyze. Besides, it wasn't all chaotic there; there were structured classes sprinkled in among the "free-for-all" times.

Perseids Meteor Shower Here

When I was much younger (starting at age seven in the spring of 1964), I was an avid star-gazer, quickly learning to recognize (and draw) all of the common visible constellations and their brightest stars. Along with this, I became aware that, at certain dates through the course of a year, meteor showers would make their presence known. The greatest of all of these was and is the Perseid shower, which peaks around August 10-13. In all of these years, though, I never got a good look at a meteor shower, not even the great Perseids.

And they're coming again this year, of course. Because of my work schedule, I may be able to see a few meteors this time around. But this year, the Moon will be passing from the full phase to last quarter for the peak nights of the Perseids. And it will be in the same general part of the sky as the constellation Perseus, where the radiant (focal point) of the shower is and where most meteors are usually observed. Although this will most definitely interfere with the quantity and quality of my meteor sightings, I've decided to go ahead and see what I can. I'm going to experiment around with my digital camera, binoculars, and an old telescope to see if I can pull a "MacGyver" and put them together to capture some cool images for posting (even if they are only of the Moon). If I'm in any way successful, I'll post them on this blog.

Of course, the fact that I consistently miss out on meteor showers isn't completely due to lack of opportunities. Most of the time, I'm either sleepy, sleeping, or just not interested. But when I did have more interest in seeing them as a boy in the 1960s, it seemed to always be too cloudy whenever I was allowed to stay up late for this purpose. Maybe in this, my sixth decade of life, this will change as well. After all, the Perseids will be going on strong for more than one night, so one overcast night shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Town Hall Meeting Disruptions

A couple of years ago, John Kerry came to the University of Florida here in Gainesville to hold a public forum on various issues of interest. The meeting was structured similarly to the town hall meetings that politicians nowadays hold so often. During the question and answer period, Andrew Meyer, a UF student, hogged the microphone and posed some pretty provocative questions to the Massachusetts senator. For his efforts, Meyer was wrestled down to the floor by the local University Police, Tasered ("don't Tase me bro'"), handcuffed, arrested, and carted off to jail. Later he apologized for his behavior (although the grossly overreacting police didn't for theirs).

But now when I turn my television on, I am witnessing town hall meetings across the country whose "participants" are much, much more disruptive and unruly than Meyer ever imagined being. And many of them, I understand, don't even reside in the area where the politicians' districts/states are. Quite unlike Meyer who, as I said before, was a UF student.

As for the University of Florida incident, Andrew Meyer quietly waited for his opportunity to speak and only after he was standing at the microphone did he begin his (retrospectively quite humorous) ranting. But in these current town hall meetings, the politicians conducting them can barely hear themselves speak without hecklers, who are usually standing up en masse, yelling and gesturing. And these folks are angry, vicious, and aggressive.

There's nothing at all humorous about this. No, it's scary, not just for the politicians there but also for the legitimate citizens attending these meetings. The conduct of these disruptors of civic events is, in my opinion, much more deserving of police intervention than anything that Andrew Meyer unwittingly (or deliberately) concocted.

From what I have been able to gather, various right wing and Republican-backed special interest and lobbying groups have devised a strategy regarding the proposed health reform bill whereby its proponents in Congress, almost always Democrats, are to be hounded and harassed at their own town hall meetings, both to prevent them presenting their reasons for supporting health care reform as well as to give an impression in the media of a popular grassroots uprising against it. But I believe that this strategy has backfired. And the main reason for that is the loony-tune "birther" movement.

The "birthers", who believe and loudly proclaim that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president since he really wasn't born in the U.S.A. (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), brought organized town hall disruptive behavior to the national media's attention. So when the most recent wave of unruliness and harassment began, this time regarding health care reform, the only people fooled by it were the ones already opposed to health care reform.

The birthers are an example of a loose social/information feedback loop. They listen to the same radio talk shows (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage), watch Fox News because it's "fair and balanced" (i.e. reinforces their ideology), regularly consult the Drudge Report website for the latest "news", flood each other with paranoid e-mails, etc. It is easy for groups to spring up that have strange ideas with the communications networks that we have to today, along with the choices that their users can make to reinforce their own prejudices, fears, and ignorance while shutting out any contradictory input. The other day, I heard someone on C-Span refer to this kind of behavior as "cocooning". And I think this concerns both politically left and right-leaning groups.

Frankly, I think that anyone, regardless of their political leanings, who goes to these meetings and behaves in this undignified manner, while in reality just being a puppet on someone else's string, must be suffering from a terrible lack of self-esteem. They all look and sound like a bunch of damned fools to me!

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Congratulations to Sonia Sotomayor for being confirmed by the Senate as the next U.S. Supreme Court justice Thursday by a vote of 68-31. I think she will be an excellent justice and wish her many healthy, happy years on the court. I have long supported her nomination by President Obama as a choice of moderation instead of ideology, but apparently many Republican senators have chosen to oppose her anyway. Which makes me (and some in the media I've heard) wonder why the President shouldn't just go ahead and make any future Supreme Court nominations primarily based on ideology.

If Obama were to be able to nominate another justice (or more), his best opportunity to pick someone with his ideological bent would be sometime during the next year. After all, the U.S. Senate currently has 60 Democrats in it (although Nebraska's Ben Nelson is often a Democrat in name only) and the 2010 elections may reduce their number to a level that couldn't defeat potential Republican judicial filibusters. But then again, Democratic senators running for reelection in 2010 may not want to be saddled with having to vote for a nominee on the far left with the political fallout that this could portend for them.

But sometimes you have to just do what you think is right and let the (political) chips fall where they may.

When John Roberts was nominated by President Bush to replace William Rehnquist as Chief Justice, this represented no essential ideological shift on the court, as both justices had a conservative judicial ideology. When Samuel Alito was picked to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, though, the pick represented a substantial shift in the court to the right. This explains why about half of the Senate Democrats voted in favor of Roberts while only four of them voted for Alito. Since Souter's replacement with Sotomayor would, as was the case with Roberts, represent no substantial change in the Supreme Court's ideological makeup, one might have thought that the GOP would have taken this opportunity to show how reasonable they were. But since (in my opinion) they blew it (only nine out of forty Republican senators voted for her), who knows what they'll get next time around!

One side note: it was gratifying to see Senator Al Franken presiding over the final debate and voting. Since the duty of presiding over the Senate generally falls to junior senators in the majority party and Franken is the junior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, having him up there made very good sense. I think he did an impressive job.

Interesting Popular Science Shows

I am intrigued by some of the programming I get on television, especially the shows on The Science Channel, Discovery, and The History Channel that deal with matters such as the Big Bang Theory of cosmology and the often cataclysmic history of the Earth. The other night I was treated to a series of shows about these topics, much to my delight.

On the Science Channel, I witnessed the continuing rise of a charismatic young science/educator: the University of Manchester's physicist Dr. Brian Cox. Dr. Cox quickly hits the viewer with his overwhelmingly happy, smiling persona and then infects with his enthusiasm for scientific discovery and the scientific process. His specialty seems to be in the area of subatomic particles and how to (1) reconcile their behavior with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity into a comprehensive theory of "everything" and (2) discovering more about the nature of the Big Bang by creating an environment similar to that which occurred soon after that event. With the new Hadron Supercollider near Geneva, Switzerland, Cox, along with many of his colleagues, have designed experiments that should either answer many of their questions or open up many new areas of inquiry. I am looking forward to more appearances by this bright, energetic and talented young scientist.

As for the Earth, it is amazing to me how the scientific method has discovered so many incredible events that happened in our planet's unwritten history:

--The creation of the Moon from an early collision with the Earth of a planetoid-type object, and how that object's iron eventually comprised the Earth's core.

--That the overwhelming majority of the Moon's (and implicitly the Earth's) craters occurred at about the same time 3.9 billion years ago, due to Jupiter and Saturn coming so close to one another that the change of gravitational pull on the asteroids released many of them to the inner part of the solar system.

--About 650 million years ago, the Earth went into a deep freeze "snowball" period that came close to extinguishing what life there was; volcanic activity eventually melted the ice and brought up temperatures.

--Earth's high oxygen content in its atmosphere is almost entirely due to microscopic algae-like organisms that converted sunlight into oxygen on a mass scale about 500 million years ago. And they can still be found in Earth on the west coast of Australia in the form of their rock deposits known as stromatolites.

--At about 250 million years ago, more than 90% of all marine species and over 70% of all land species were exterminated when a large section of the Earth's molten mantle rose to the surface in the form of massive volcanic formations and eruptions, covering the planet with ash (known as the Permian Extinction). [Wikipedia does offer other possible scientific explanations for this mass extinction.]

--More recently, in North America the mega-mammals (the mammoths and mastodons), along with the Neolithic human society known as the Clovis, were wiped out when an asteroid/meteor hit in what is now the Chesapeake Bay region, superheating the air, causing massive fires, and choking off sunlight.

And I've left out quite a bit (the dinosaur extinction is "old hat" to me). But it's all very fascinating to me. And it makes me sad to know that so many young people are being deprived of these great wonders which true science is revealing because of a narrow fundamentalist religious doctrine that insists on a 6,000 year old universe!

Baseball Mid-Season Trading

It hasn't been all that easy for me to get to know the different major league baseball teams I've decided to follow this year. Naturally, the ones whose games are shown the most in Gainesville (Florida Marlins, Tampa Bay Rays, Chicago Cubs, and Chicago White Sox) have been the easiest, with me becoming familiar with many of the names in their lineups. But now the tradition in this sport of teams making major trades in mid-season has turned over some of which I've been trying to do.

Take the last Cubs game I saw. Suddenly they have this player who just came over from Pittsburgh and that one who just arrived from Colorado. And I don't know what players they gave up to get these new ones. What saddened me though, was the Cleveland Indians trading their ace pitcher Cliff Lee (and my favorite player on the team) to Philadelphia for some future prospects.

The reasoning is this: teams who are still in the hunt for post-season glory want to strengthen their lineups with as much talent as they can get. So they seek stars from teams who are already essentially out of the race this year. Those teams usually receive a number of lesser stars and younger, less developed talent that they feel can help them to rebuild and come back the next year. Also, unloading expensive star players can free those losing teams up financially to sign up other players that they feel will better help them to win. But it can get to be confusing, though, keeping up with who's playing for whom.

And Cliff Lee going over to the Philadelphia Phillies? Oh, no! I'm rooting for the Florida Marlins to overtake them in the standings, and now ol' Cliff has gone over to the "dark side"! But there is some good news: the trading deadline for the season has passed, so now the various teams are stuck with their players, like them or not. And to me, even if a team is having a losing season, part of the fun in watching them is seeing the same players going up to bat and being in the field at their positions. Now if they can just stop spitting all the time!

A Walk Through Ring Park

Yesterday, as part of my series of excursions into Gainesville's interesting network of nature parks, I visited Alfred A. Ring Park off NW 23 Boulevard. Called simply Ring Park for short, it is located within a mile of bustling US 441 and Gainesville High School in the heart of Gainesville, but you wouldn't know it by stepping into it. Having first heard of this park, (almost hidden behind an Elks lodge) on an Internet running site (someone recommended it as a training course), I had thought it was a playground-type park with a little hiking/jogging trail encircling it (according to its map on the Net). Was I surprised!

Ring Park revealed its advantage over my Loblolly Woods experience when I found easy parking at its entrance. Upon entering it, I found it to be unexpectedly very primitive, even more so than was Loblolly Woods. The usually dirt path on the trail was often very rocky, full of jutting tree roots, and hilly at times. There were parts of it that contained puddles, not very conducive to a light jog. Fortunately, on my premiere trek I had decided to hike the park, not run it.

A little ways into Ring Park, I discovered a place where there were sheltered picnic tables and a small plastic kiddies' slide setup. That was the first and last vestige of anything resembling my preconceived image of this park! After passing this place, the trail become more and more primitive. I finally reached a beautiful golden creek and a fork in the trail nearby. I unwisely went to the right when I should have gone to the left. For by doing this I had inadvertently left the loop and gone deeper into the wilderness. But I kept walking, thinking the whole time that I was returning to the park's entrance (and my car). Finally, I did hear some traffic up ahead and I knew that I was almost back. But then I stepped out of the woods and found myself at NW 16 Avenue! Ooops! I had to go back into the park and retrace my route back to the other end. In short, a planned twelve to fifteen minute hike ballooned into more than thirty minutes. The park does have a detailed map at its entrance, and it looked much more complicated than the simple "loop" I saw on the Internet.

Ring Park is much more interesting to me than Loblolly Woods. There is parking and a place for picnicking with restrooms. And the trails do have benches periodically spaced for tired travelers (Loblolly Woods also provides this). The scenery is much more interesting as well. And, as also is the case with Loblolly Woods, there are no admission fees.

Here are some pictures I took of my experience at Ring Park.

Are Blogs Declining?

This is by no means scientific; I'm going largely on my subjective interpretation of what's going on around me. But it seems to me that the popularity of "regular" blogs is declining somewhat, with many formerly avid bloggers and blog readers instead flocking to other Internet networking magnets like Facebook and Twitter.

I see many more references to Twitter on television nowadays. Why this switch? I believe it has a lot to do with the fact that people in general have a very short attention span and don't have what it takes to either patiently follow more lengthy blog articles or to consistently invest the time to compose them. There may also be the "herd instinct" at work here; Facebook and Twitter are currently "where the action is". And finally, these two sites speed up social interaction on the Web considerably. This contrasts with blog commentary, which is slower paced.

Personally, I greatly prefer the slower and more thoughtful pace of blogging. I don't understand how anything of substance can be expressed on Facebook or Twitter, and I like having the time to mull over any comments I receive on my blog before possibly responding to them. I can put any pictures or videos on my blog that I could on Facebook, and my articles can be easily searched by topic on Google. Having written this blog since April 2007, I also quickly learned the extreme importance of establishing a well-founded context that backs up any potentially provocative statement of mine that could be misinterpreted. This context is often lacking on Facebook postings and is virtually nonexistent on Twitter (due to its imposed text limitations).

I think I'll just stay on my blog, thank you. I just hope that, even with this (possibly imaginary) decline I'm perceiving, those companies providing this wonderful opportunity for self-expression will recognize its enduring value and importance for our society and continue this tremendous public service.

Four Movies on TV: Part 1

I had an interesting "movie night" at home the other night. All from my cable-provided television. First I caught the ending of Clint Eastwood's first spaghetti western A Fistful of Dollars. Then I watched, for the very first time, Die Hard: Bruce Willis's foray into motion pictures after his success in TV's romantic detective series Moonlighting. After Die Hard, I switched to Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's epic science fiction collaboration 2001: A Space Odyssey. And finally, I began watching the James Bond movie The Spy Who Loved Me, which starred Roger Moore as British spy Bond and Barbara Bach as his Soviet partner/rival. It was a case of being glued to my chair all night.

Although Eastwood's A Fistful of Dollars predated his The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly by about four years, it was the latter that I saw first, and not until the early 1980s at that. It was after the 11 pm local news, and I had to be at work at 10 the next morning. But my local station was showing The Good, the Bad and the Ugly right after the news and I said to myself, I'll just watch this movie and go to bed when it's over around 1:30 or so. Well, the movie dragged on and on and on. And on and on. With all of the commercials thrown in, it wasn't until 3:30 when the movie ended. And I wasn't too happy the next day trying to stay awake! But here's the point: that movie, as quirky and flawed as it was, made such a deep impression on me that I couldn't turn off the TV. And it still remains as one of my all-time favorites.

A Fistful of Dollars is much more compact, but the main character, the soft-spoken sharpshooting no-nonsense Man With No Name portrayed by Eastwood, dominates the movie (whereas Eli Wallach tended to dominate The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). This film introduced to the western genre of movies the notion of the "anti-hero", someone with many character flaws (Eastwood's character killed with no remorse and was a supreme manipulator), mixed with elements of compassion, generosity and loyalty. In other words, the anti-hero concept sought to make the western "hero" more compatible with people as they really were instead of simple goodie-goodie superheroes (which John Wayne had worked into a successful formula for decades). It worked so well for Clint Eastwood that he carried his anti-hero persona into other genres like comedy (Every Which Way But Loose) and his Harry Callahan crime series. He has only improved over the years.

One side note: over the years, I have enjoyed seeing how different actors Eastwood used in his films kept appearing in them and what roles they played.

Next segment of this article (at a future date): Bruce Willis in Die Hard.

Personal New Year

In honor of the August 1981 personal resurgence, I will henceforth mark August 1 as the start of my own "personal" new year and set forth a set of attainable goals for the year to come, as well as a plan to progressively achieve them.

What happened in August 1981, you may ask. OK, you have my permission to ask, but since the answer is kind of personal, I'm not inclined to share it in detail on this blog. In short, though, I had hit a major rut in my life and, by changing my routines and focus, I was able to get back on track and attain a sense of hope about my future. Not that I now don't have plenty of things to be glad and hopeful about. But I know that I can do better.

In my self-assessment, one thing that I will do is make two different lists. One will be the things throughout my life that I did that gave me the greatest pride of personal achievement. The other will be of special "magic moments" I've experienced that, regardless of my own personal role in creating them, still stick vividly in my memory as compelling snapshots of my life that give it a sense of joy and interest. Reflecting on my positive experiences should help me in determining what goals I want to set for myself this year.

One possible pitfall of making goals like this is to aim too high too quickly. And then suffer the disappointing letdown of not being able to live up to my goals. Back in August 1981, I focused on one academic project and changed my personal routine around in a way that not only provided an effective setting in time and place in which to do that project, but also that enabled me to alter some detrimental lifestyle habits with which I had become bogged down.

So experience has taught me that, although I may want to progress in many diverse areas of my life, I need to change in a focused manner, one area at a time. I need to incorporate this as well in any plans I have for self-improvement this year.

Boston Cop's Racist E-Mail

Talk show host Glenn Beck, for whom I actually felt some respect when he worked at HLN, has gone completely off the deep end ever since he switched his employment to Fox News Network. It seems that Beck has been trying to out-Hannity right wing extremist Sean Hannity with his hateful comments about anything and anyone whose political sentiments are anything left of far right. Now he has gone and called our president a racist because he had the audacity to question a Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer's arresting of a prominent scholar in that scholar's own home. Wait, let me fill in the blanks: the officer was white, the scholar was black, and our president is black. Oh yeh, Glenn, that's got to be racist!

Now comes the news that in Boston (lying next to Cambridge) one of their police officers circulated a mass e-mail calling that black scholar a "banana-eating jungle monkey". But hey, when he was confronted with his words, Officer Justin Barrett said, "I am not a racist". And Barrett, who as an officer "of the law" carries a gun and Taser and handcuffs and whose testimony against suspects as a policeman carries undue weight in court, retained an attorney who said that his "comments were taken out of context".

Yes, attorney, let me read a little more of the e-mail to put it in better "context". Your client stated in it that had he "been the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey [Barrett] would have sprayed him in the face with OC [pepper spray] deserving of his belligerent non-compliance." You're right, attorney, the context does change the meaning. It makes it worse.

Barrett was placed on administrative leave after the e-mail and may lose his job. Who wants anyone to lose their job? But shouldn't there at least be some accountability expected for the officer's actions? Nevertheless, I see ahead in my crystal ball the following events happening:

---Glenn Beck not only refuses to call Barrett or his comments racist; he turns it all around and further accuses President Obama somehow of causing Barrett to lose his job or suffer whatever disciplinary action he incurs.

---Sean Hannity gets (possibly former) Officer Barrett on his show and turns the racial-epithet spouting cop into a folk hero for the far right wing nuts, with the policeman having allegedly been hounded out of his job for political incorrectness by the intolerant left.

---Heads of various police and law enforment organizations hold another press conference, once again full of indignance and arrogance, and once again demanding apologies from whatever party they think that they can accuse of something. Without finding fault with Officer Barrett, for whom they collectively demand full reinstatement.

---President Obama DOESN'T invite this sorry dude to the White House for beer and pleasant chatter.

---The GOP targets for fund-raising white supporters of theirs with mass mailings capitalizing on their racial fears exploiting this sad incident, making it out to be an example of the administration behaving in a racist manner against whites. And making whatever happens to Barrett an example of political correctness gone wild.

Who knows what actually will happen. I do have a pretty cynical regard, though, for the right wing press. As well as for the way the police ominously seem to be setting themselves apart as a class superior to the rest of Americans. As for the Republican Party, well, that's the sorry state of politics nowadays. But I am pretty sure of my Obama/no beer prediction being a "slam dunk"!

Resumed Bicycling

A few minutes ago [when I wrote this at 10:30 AM on Wednesday], I dragged my cheap bicycle out of the back storage shed, pumped some air into the completely deflated tires, wiped off the accumulated grime, put on my new helmet, and pedaled off for the first time in months. My destination? The nearest Starbucks, of course! The ride took about 15 minutes but it was quite a workout, going up a few hills to get here. Now I have to duplicate the feat going back home.

Although bicycling has many similarities to running, it does use different combinations and motions of muscles, especially in the legs. I'm probably going to feel a little sore for the next day or two, but I won't be riding my bicycle every day. At least not for now.

What brought on my decision to resume bicycling? Well, two things. One, there are places around Gainesville that are very hard to get to because it is difficult to find a place to park my car. But a bicycle can go just about anywhere. Two, my left foot ached yesterday and today, making me take a short break from my running for a few days. Enter the bicycle!

Actually, from 1975 through 1995, bicycling had been my primary source of exercise. I would like to integrate it into a more balanced exercise plan, combined with swimming and perhaps a little weight training. My local YMCA, which I have been neglecting since I stopped using their treadmills for running, can fulfill the latter two with its swimming pool and workout room.

The way I see it, it will be a kind of broken-down triathlon: bicycling, swimming, and running. I have never been a very fast swimmer, but I do need some upper-body exercise and swimming is fun on top of being good exercise! I have to be even more careful, though, in easing into swimming to avoid overdoing it at the beginning. I'm not all that sure about weight training, but I may start with that later in the future. I also may take up rock climbing at some time. But now, it's time to huff and puff homeward on my bike!

Change of Heart About 89.1/WUFT

I have been thinking about it more and more, and I have now come to the conclusion that I am looking forward to 89.1/WUFT's (Gainesville's Public Radio station) format change to "all" news/talk. If that's what they're really planning to do, that is. After all, it would be pretty questionable for them to get rid of their late morning, afternoon, and evening classical music programming while retaining their 11pm-5am nightly jazz slot. I say, get rid of all the music if you're going to drop classical music "on principle".

Even if they keep that jazz lineup, though, I think that I will be listening more to this station. I have recently tuned in to the Jacksonville Public Radio station 89.9/WJCT, which carries more talk/news programming. And I found myself enjoying the shows more than I had the classical music. Unfortunately, WJCT's signal is much too weak for me to pick up on my MP3 player or headset radio.

I have obtained a few classical music CDs and will probably get a few more. I have transferred to one of my MP3 players works by Debussy, Mussorgsky/Ravel, Schubert, Schumann, Mahler, Prokofiev, Bartok, and Bruckner. And I'm looking to add more. So I have plenty of opportunities now to listen to classical music. And beginning on August 3, I will have a strong local radio station that will offer a much higher standard of talk and news programming than do the pathetic commercial talk radio stations I am currently stuck with.

WUFT gave their classical music audience an option to continue hearing that programming on HD radio and as live streaming on the Internet. But HD radio technology is for the car and home, and is still lagging in its portability. Still, although I understand the laments of those listeners, I think that the future talk shows will be more interesting, at least for me.

SEC Pre-Season All-Star Team: Huh?

A few days ago, the All-Southeastern Conference Coaches' Football Team for 2009 was announced. Each SEC head coach got to vote for which player they liked the most at each position. As expected, Florida quarterback Tim Tebow was the pick for the first team, but his selection wasn't unanimous: one of the twelve coaches selected another quarterback. Instead of feeling good about Tebow's honor, Florida diehards expressed outrage and wanted to know which coach voted against him. Coach after coach then came out stating that they voted for Tebow. Finally, it looked as if former Gator (and now South Carolina) coach Steve Spurrier was identified as "the one". Spurrier admitted to the foul deed and said that it was just a mistake and that Tebow was the best quarterback around. Spurrier then had his voted changed to make the selection unanimous.

I don't understand why it was so important for some to complain about Tim Tebow's less-than-unanimous selection. Especially when there is a much more overriding issue with this entire 2009 All-SEC Team process being done in July: nobody's played any games yet this season! How does anybody know who the best players are going to be? There are always surprises each year, with new stars coming onto the scene and old ones having disappointing seasons. Wouldn't it have made more sense until the Southeastern Conference schedule was finished in early December and then hold the vote? I suspect the reason for the July vote was to stir up fan interest in anticipation of the coming season. I find that rationale laughable, though. SEC football fans are already almost insane in their fanaticism for the sport.

This preseason voting for the best players is especially asinine when you consider the extremely transitory nature of college football "careers". Athletes usually see little or no action in their freshman seasons. The big stars usually begin to make their mark in their sophomore year, but some sophomores are still second-string to junior and senior players on their teams. And when players reach their junior years, who knows which ones will step out into greatness? Only by watching them perform through the season can anyone decide who the "all-stars" are.

Well, that's my regional big conference: the SEC. But as I have written earlier, I'm trying something different this year and will be focusing on the Pacific Ten Conference. Hopefully, I'll be able to catch some late-night games on TV (after getting off from work).

The Professor and the Policeman

On the night of July 16, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was probably very tired from his trip to China and was also probably not in very good spirits when, upon finally reaching his house in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he discovered that his front door was jammed. With the assistance of his driver, though, Gates was able to finally enter his home. Meanwhile, a neighbor, seeing two men apparently trying to break into a house, called the police (wouldn’t you?). The Cambridge police responded in the person of Sgt. James Crowley, who entered the house and asked Gates for identification. The situation, which called for politeness and restraint on the part of both parties, escalated when Professor Gates began to accuse Crowley of racial profiling. Even when the matter had been settled and Sgt. Crowley was leaving the house, Gates wouldn’t let up and followed him, ranting angrily. Finally, Crowley arrested Gates on the charge of disorderly conduct. So an honest misunderstanding that could have been resolved in less than a minute has blown up into a national news story, with even President Obama weighing in (and later probably regretting that he did).

On Friday, heads of different police organizations held a press conference. They all appeared to have hurt feelings because Obama had offhandedly commented before that the arresting officer had acted “stupidly”. The various police representatives then went on to weave the sometimes-fictional narrative about how great, professional, and enlightened the police were and how Obama owed every policeman an apology for his careless remark. And Officer Crowley was there too, appearing stone-faced and offended.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Professor Gates could have defused the situation by trying to be a bit more understanding and a little less combative. But as far as I can tell, there was no reason for the officer to handcuff Gates in his own home and take him to jail when the incident had already been resolved and the professor obviously posed no threat to anyone.

Once I got a job working at a large hospital. Regardless of what type of work that new employees were engaged in there, they all had to attend an orientation meeting. In that meeting, the one thing that was heavily stressed was that, since the hospital was a place of very high stress and anxiety for its patients, their families, and visitors, all employees should take great care in exercising compassion and restraint when dealing with anyone who displays anger toward them. Because, after all, people are often not quite themselves in a hospital and often have some very unpleasant things weighing on their minds. In other words, we new employees were advised to soften our reactions to verbally abusive patients and visitors.

In like manner, Officer Crowley should have recognized the very sensitive matter of entering someone’s private domicile (which he had to do as part of his response to the reported break-in) and then making that person justify his residence there. And yes, also recognize that the resident was an African-American who was honestly convinced that he was being racially profiled. And yet this policeman held this obviously emotionally-upset citizen whom he was supposed to be protecting to the same standard of behavior that someone standing out in public would be expected to conform to. And that is unreasonable.

After seeing the public demonstration of self-righteousness and arrogance displayed across the board by the policemen at the press conference, it is not surprising to me that the police in America have a very serious public relations problem. And not just among African-Americans. As I have written before on this blog, my perception of them is that they tend to regard the general population as a “suspect pool” instead of as the people that they are being paid to protect. And if a policeman is so thin-skinned that he can’t take a little verbal abuse from someone after entering their own home without their permission, then he should find another profession. But if he does, then he should probably stay away from hospitals as well!

My Running Groove

It has been more than six weeks since I ran on a treadmill. Instead, I’ve taken to the road, especially to the streets around my home neighborhood. And it hasn’t been that bad! I just walk out my front door, set my wristwatch timer to zero, and set out on my run. So far, I have devised various lengths of running courses (in miles: .67, 1.27, 1.69, 2.87, and 3.6) that I can tailor to different conditions, internal (my health, how I feel, how much time I have) and external (how hot it is, whether or not it’s raining, road and traffic conditions).

I have discovered, in exclusively doing my running on road and sidewalk, what I call my “running groove”: a pace that floats around 8:20 to 8:30 per mile. And this pace seems to hold no matter how far I run. Initially with my training, I usually experience discomfort with my running for upwards to the first mile, and then the “groove” kicks in and I’m on autopilot. I credit with staying off the treadmill for this important accomplishment. (Maybe 8:30 doesn’t sound like an impressive mile pace, but I am 52 and holding on to this pace works wonders for me.)

For the longest time in 2007, when I resumed running for the first time since 1998, I only ran on the treadmill. The treadmill has its own advantages: if you own one, then you can disregard the time of day or the weather when you run. It gives you instant distances and times to let you precisely increase your speed according to your own goals. I used the treadmills at my local YMCA (about a mile from my house). The only disadvantage, besides the membership fees, was that the YMCA was often closed when I wanted to run.

When I finally did try running on “hard stationary ground” after running for so long on the treadmill, I was stunned at how difficult it was. Every step was jarring and my brain, having been trained to let the treadmill do all of the pacing, was not in a state to take on that arduous task. But I gradually increased my road training and decreased my treadmill training. I also ran in three local five kilometer road races. And thus this is how your distinguished blog author “got his groove”!

Now, with an improved ability to pace myself, I believe I’m in a position to increase my running distances. The only limiting factor right now is the very hot summertime weather here in north central Florida. I could try to remedy that by running at night, but then I’m confronted with other problems: poor road visibility, (possibly) paranoid neighbors reacting to a man running down their street at 2 AM, and possibly overreacting police. But "possibly" doesn't mean "actually", and I need to stop limiting my choices and instead step out and take advantage of my opportunities.

Local Church Feedback Loop

Dove World Outreach Center, a small local nondenominational Christian church located about two miles from my house, received some negative media publicity when its leaders decided to place roadside signs proclaiming that “Islam is of the devil”. The Gainesville Sun published stories, editorials, and letters to the editor decrying the prejudice implicit in this message. The church itself came under scrutiny for what some termed as cult-like practices. Also, it didn’t help that this church, protected by its religious status from paying taxes, was running an E-Bay-based furniture store out of one of its buildings. Finally, in last Thursday’s paper, it was announced that the church had placed a new sign out by the road: FOR SALE.

I don’t want to appear to be defending the folks running this rather insignificant church. I actually know the people running it, and I have no problem saying that they deserve some of the criticism that they are receiving (although I was unaware of the furniture store). The sign that sparked this major (local) controversy has, I believe, been a bit misinterpreted, though.

I have been in Sunday schools and informal “family” group meeting held by various conservative evangelical churches in the past, long before the 9/11 attacks. And I noticed some behaviors that may have more to do with universal human behavior than with one group’s particular prejudices.

People in general, I believe, have a tendency to huddle in groups that in turn tend to reflect their own most deeply (and sometimes most irrationally) held views about various topics. One can see a little of this on the Internet with the various blog circles and carnivals out there. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again that my blog has such a diversity of content and opinion (not necessarily making it better than others) that it would inevitably contain material that would automatically disqualify it from anyone else’s carnival. And that’s cool with me. But the huddling instinct has a much stronger effect in person when the involved people keep meeting together over and over again and keep saying the same things to each other over and over again. Famous skeptic Michael Shermer (one of my favorite people out there in the media) has called this a feedback loop (a phenomenon with many other scientific and engineering applications).

When something is said enough times, without objective contradicting input due to the group’s insulation, those within the feedback loop will reach a point when they accept it as unchallenged truth. In the conservative evangelistic Christian doctrine, ANY belief system that doesn’t explicitly recognize that belief in Jesus Christ is the ONLY way for a person to avoid eternal torment in hell after death is in some way or another “of the devil”. And what are the most influential non-Christian belief systems around? Islam and something called “secular humanism”. I’ve come to the conclusion that “secular humanism” is basically just western society with explict Christian religious doctrine removed, but those within conservative Christian feedback loops tend to regard it as a conspiratorial movement that is also “of the devil”. Also, any criticisms coming from the outside regarding the notions dearly held by the participants in such a feedback loop themselves are “of the devil” and only serve to bolster its members’ feeling of nobility (since, you see, that means they are being “persecuted”, a sign of an effective church).

So this “Islam is of the devil”, to me at least, reflects more the effects of people huddling together in their feedback loop, rejecting outside sources of objective input, adopting some outlandish ideas, and then suffering the criticisms levied on them when they come to light outside of the “huddle”.

Baseball Fan Behavior: Two Examples

Recently the Florida Marlins, one of the teams that I’m following, were playing a road series at San Diego. The Padres are having a very disappointing season after initial high hopes (well, everybody has high hopes at the beginning). They are dead last in their division, and the large number of empty seats at their ball park is an obvious reflection of this. It may be argued that those fans who do choose to pay today’s currently high ticket prices must literally be “fanatics” of the San Diego Padres. But fanaticism cuts in both a positive and negative sense.

When a batter hits a ball into the spectators’ section of the park, be it from a foul ball or a home run, it is always understood, at least in Major League Baseball, that whoever gets their hands on the ball owns it. So it was that once, when a Marlin batter hit a foul ball, it landed in a large section of empty seats. A somewhat heavyset, middle-age man and a little boy raced toward the ball from opposite ends. They arrived at where the ball was at the same time. The man then physically backed into the boy, pushing the kid back so that he could pick up the ball unchallenged. The little boy went back to his seat, and the jerk who took the ball in this manner went back to sit with his laughing party of adults (who all seemed to think that the whole incident was a big hoot). I don’t think that they realized, though, that they were on the ball park’s video screen the entire time. The park erupted in boos, and the TV announcers had some choice words to say about the ball-napper. Then the Marlins bullpen pitchers called the boy over and gave him a ball that they were throwing, eliciting cheers from the crowd.

The very next day, in the very same park, a Marlins batter swung at a pitch and his bat slipped from his hands, flying into the fans section. Again (fortunately), the seats were mostly empty and the bat hit no one. But some dude (I won’t quite call him a jerk) then picked up the very expensive, personal bat of this player and sat back down with it, grinning and holding on to it as if it were now his own personal property. One of the Marlins coaches coaxed him to come over and talk with him, but those responsible for televising this game then panned away from that conversation and the matter was dropped from discussion. Regardless of what eventually happened, I thought it was pretty brazen of that fan to presume ownership of that bat.

Does this sort of rude fan behavior always happen at games, or does having a nearly empty ball park tend to bring out the worst in spectators? Or is there a disproportionate number of jerks among the diehards following lousy teams? Maybe the mindset is like this: this team sucks and here I am, a big victim paying this high admission and watching my home team lose. I’m entitled to anything that comes in my general direction and no one’s stopping me!

Oh, by the way, the Marlins won both games (and the following game as well). I will say this about Florida Marlins fans: they’re not as fickle as others. Even when their team is winning, their home ball games are poorly attended!

Gainesville's Loblolly Woods

As I had written in this past Monday's blog article, Gainesville has many "green" spots within its borders where one can go to get away from it all. One of these places is the Loblolly Woods section of the Hogtown Creek Greenway, which runs along Hogtown Creek in west-central Gainesville.

Yesterday, I parked behind Westside Park on NW 31st Drive and ran to NW 16th Avenue. I then ran four blocks east on 16th until I found the north entrance to the Loblolly Woods trail. I ran down it to 8th Avenue (where the planetary statues are lined up), crossed that street, and entered the southern part of the trail. I didn't know of this part until my daughter explored it with some of her friends on Monday. The southern trail exits on NW 34 Street around NW 5th Avenue.

There was no spectacular scenery to describe along the trail, but I found it to be quite a refreshing departure from road and sidewalk running. I didn't actually go to Hogtown Creek itself, but there were some trails that looked as if they branched off in that direction. My chief concern while running was to take care to avoid tripping over the many tree roots that jutted out into the trail.

Here are some pictures I took of my run/walk through the Loblolly Woods trail.

Health Care Reform Revisited

Now that the Obama administration is pushing health care reform through Congress, it’s time again to look at where I stand on this issue. (Here is an article I wrote on the subject last year.)

I believe in our capitalist system and the spirit of entrepreneurship that fuels it with innovation, energy, and boldness. Unfortunately, the way our health care system is structured in the United States works against this. Businesses are burdened with the great expense of providing health insurance to its employees. Many are moving to other countries where health care is government-run and funded through taxation. Small businesses here also find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with larger corporations, who can afford to lure more talented employees by offering more and better health care benefits. Small business owners often have difficulty in insuring themselves and their families, and often have to pay high rates for coverage. As employees grow older, they often find themselves trapped in their jobs for fear of losing health insurance coverage due to preexisting health problems pertaining to them or their dependents. And the elderly often find themselves financially devastated when having to pay out-of-pockets costs of medical care not covered by their insurance when their inevitable health problems associated with the aging progress.

Any plan of the President and Congress must effectively address these concerns if it is to win my support. So far, I have my doubts that they are succeeding. I am particularly concerned with the idea of imposing additional burdens on businesses. Even the idea of making every business pay for their employee’s health insurance, argued by its supporters as leveling the competitive playing field (which it doesn’t), still puts American businesses at a marked disadvantage when competing with foreign-based businesses.

As for individuals with preexisting conditions or those who want to change careers or start their own businesses, I’m lacking information as to whether their needs will be met by the proposed legislation. Having a public option available to all and which doesn’t penalize those with preexisting conditions is an absolute requirement, but it is uncertain at this time how much of a public option is going to be passed by the Senate, which seems to be dragging its feet on health care reform.

I am glad, though, that Al Franken, an advocate of meaningful health care reform, has finally been seated as a senator and can serve as a possible crucial vote in this very complex and crucial matter.

Unauthorized Stephen King Biography

I was reading through Haunted Heart: The Life and Times of Stephen King, Lisa Rogak’s unauthorized biography of longtime bestselling fiction writer Stephen King. The book contained a lot of interesting information, but I became stuck in my reading when I came across a disturbing statement.

Rogak was discussing how, when writing under the pseudonym Richard Bachman, King’s fiction tended to be darker, with usually bad endings. She then pointed out, though, that the Bachman novel Thinner did have an upbeat ending. What??!!

Either Lisa Rogak didn’t read Thinner or she did and completely misread it. This novel, which I personally consider to be one of Stephen King’s greatest, had a very, very dark ending! And this ending was what made this novel a masterpiece examination of how a person’s feeling of guilt over a past incident can be transformed into scapegoating of others, and ultimately, hatred. And how this hatred can consume one if left unchecked.

Thinner is literally a “thinner” book than most of Stephen King’s works, and is a quick and easy read. If his unauthorized biographer either can’t take the time to read it or can’t remember or understand what she read, then how can I trust any of the other information she’s doling out in her book? I have read almost everything that King has published, and doubtless many of his fans have done the same. I should think that someone who wants to make money out of writing a biography of Stephen King would have at least made the effort to thoroughly examine his works. Especially when a great part of that biography purports to examine how King’s personal life was reflected in his writings! Still, I don’t feel that I wasted my money on this book: I checked it out from the library!

Gainesville's Aggressive Flora

[In the spirit of Pottermania surrounding the release of the sixth Harry Potter movie The Half-Blood Prince, I'm making a reference to the series.]

Have you seen the fourth Harry Potter movie The Goblet of Fire? Toward the movie's end, Potter, competing in a contest with three others, finds himself in an elaborate maze of hedges. From time to time the hedges suddenly close in on him, forcing him to run to avoid becoming engulfed in green. I don't recall this aggressive trait of the maze hedges in the book, but seeing this in the movie reminds me of Gainesville. In the summer.

I grew up in south Florida and was accustomed to wide-open outdoor spaces with relatively few trees. In Gainesville, however, the environment is quite different. This is definitely a "forest" town, dominated by trees and bushes. And in the summer, it sometimes appears that they are trying to close in on everything with their accelerated growth. This probably isn't too beneficial to me, as I tend to suffer from respiratory allergies. But it does serve give a more three-dimensional sense to the outdoors, in contrast to south Florida's flatness (despite their asinine naming of places like "Hollywood Hills" and "Boulevard Heights").

Gainesville may be a city of more than 100,000 residents, but it is nevertheless immersed in nature. There are patches of wilderness all over the place, even in the heart of the city. Gainesville is crisscrossed by little creeks, many of which flow hidden underneath roads, but which elsewhere provide a more primeval environment around them.

Actually, it's possible to get more of a flavor of the wilderness experience by exploring Gainesville's particular little nature spots than by traveling into the surrounding countryside (which is often dominated by farms and ranches). There are several nature trails to follow, many of which border areas of heavy development. Perhaps I will explore some of these in future articles.

Robert McNamara Dies at 93

Robert McNamara has died at the advanced age of 93. He was the former “whiz kid” who transformed Ford Motor Company in the late 1950s into a viable, modern corporation. McNamara introduced systems analysis into business and government, revolutionizing how these institutions are run. Later in his career he served several years a president of the World Bank. But it is his tenure as U.S. Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson from 1961 to 1968 that Robert McNamara is most known for.

It is always interesting for me to see how differently Presidents Kennedy and Johnson treated American involvement in Vietnam, even though they both had essentially the same Departments of State and Defense (with the same Cabinet Secretaries). Kennedy, although very anti-communist, approached the area in a more clandestine manner, using the CIA and advisers. Johnson, on the other hand, decided to make a major stand in Vietnam, sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops there. For years after the tragic Vietnam War, criticisms against Johnson were basically that he just misjudged the situation in Indochina. But tapes released of his discussions with his advisers and cabinet indicate that not only did he know early on of the futility of the conflict, but also that the Gulf of Tonkin incident that he used to politically rally the nation behind him and the coming war was completely fabricated. And Secretary of Defense McNamara was with Johnson every step of the way, both with the Gulf of Tonkin deception and the early judgment about the war’s infeasibility. And yet both went on with it, sentencing millions of Vietnamese and almost sixty thousand Americans (many of them conscripts, not volunteers) to their deaths. Not to mention the horrible physical and psychological injuries to so many of the surviving soldiers.

I was watching an interview that Brian Lamb of C-Span had taped with him a few years ago. McNamara was very talkative, lucid and charming with just about any subject about his life. Except for Vietnam. Then he just wanted to talk about something else. Yes, I can understand that.

Robert McNamara did some pretty incredible things for this country, his systems analysis contributions being one of them. Had there been no Vietnam War, who knows; his image might even have been on a postage stamp some day. But the fact that HE KNEW, very early on, that launching a full-scale war in Vietnam would not work, and then having the gall to have Americans sent over there to their deaths anyway, is one of the most despicable things that anyone in government has ever done. It is very convenient to try to lay the blame for everything at the feet of the later Nixon administration, which to be sure committed some very bad mistakes regarding Indochina (especially with the invasion and bombing of Cambodia). But Nixon inherited the full-blown, escalated conflict that Johnson and McNamara so cynically and hopelessly began.

Burning Down a Village to Save It

There is a common theme, especially in religion, which is that in order for true transformation to come about, it is first necessary to destroy the existing order before the new, improved system can be implemented. This is definitely true with Christianity, which expresses the doctrine that one must first “die to sin” in order to be “reborn” through Christ. And the fact that Christianity is the predominant faith in America may partially explain a disturbing tendency that has been embedded within popular opinion about American foreign policy.

Recently, our national policy has been to bomb, occupy, and generally make war against Afghanistan and Iraq. But our government’s rationale is that we are not fighting their people. No, we are actually liberating them from previous oppressive governments by going over there, bombing their cities and countryside, occupying their streets, supplanting their civil authority, operating under a different set of laws than their people have to live under, treating their people like suspects instead of citizens, and overruling their “properly-elected” governments whenever it suits U.S. policy. Because we’re helping them, right?

I am convinced that there is a lot of xenophobia present in American society, and that this has been the case since possibly the inception of our nation. And wily, demagogic politicians seize upon this to enhance their prospects with the voters. But you can’t just come out and say that we should wreak havoc on our enemies abroad. No, instead we are destroying the old orders there in order to build a better society for their peoples.

But still, that old xenophobia comes out from time to time, often with a subtle wink of an eye or a chuckle. Take presidential candidate John McCain’s appeal in last year’s campaign to the xenophobic element in the electorate with his takeoff of the 1965 Beach Boys’ hit Barbara Ann: “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” (while he was dancing across the stage). This was (as I see it) McCain’s way of saying “Yes, I’m saying all of this high-sounding stuff about helping democracy and freedom for other people, but behind it all I’m just a regular, foreigner-hating dude like all of you (so vote for me)”.

In the Vietnam War, the U.S. often burned down Vietnamese villages that were suspected of harboring or supporting the enemy Viet-Cong. The fact that the Viet-Cong may have actually been the most popular political movement among the people there was brushed aside by the argument that the people had no choice in the matter. And for true democracy to exist, the influence of the Viet-Cong had to be eradicated. Hence destroying the people’s homes, a naked act of aggression, was clothed in high-sounding, benign rhetoric.

And now here we are in Afghanistan. Why did we go there anyway? Wasn’t it twofold: (1) To root out and destroy Al-Qaeda and those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and (2) to punish the Taliban in Afghanistan for giving sanctuary and support for Al-Qaeda within their borders? But now, oh-no, here we are again, “helping” the Afghanis build a “democracy” against the “bad guys” the Taliban. But the Taliban, as unpalatable their politics may be to Western sensibilities (especially their attitudes about women’s rights, education, intolerance of other beliefs, and capital punishment), is an indigenous and popular political force in that part of the world. To eliminate the Taliban there would necessitate either destroying the people there or destroying their way of life to the point where they would have to move somewhere else. In former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, this was called “ethnic cleansing” and was almost universally condemned.

We will not win a land war against a popular indigenous movement like the Taliban (just as we couldn’t against the Viet Cong). They need to be separated from their ally Al-Qaeda and then recognized and left alone. Otherwise we are going to be “burning a lot a villages” to supposedly save democracy!

We also need to get over our evangelistic-redemptive ideology of “helping” others abroad with whom we have a bone to pick by turning their societies upside-down with military force. We may think that we’re doing good, but others in the world see it as simple, naked aggression and imperialism. And simply saying that we don’t care what others think about us won’t wash in a world where we are up to our necks in debt to other countries.

Krispy Kreme Doug

Yes, ma'am, I'm ready with my order...I'll take two dozen of the General MacArthurs, three of the Hennings......and yes, a couple of Fairbanks Juniors from the dollar menu!