During the past few days, I have decided to change my running regimen by alternating my running with weight training, done at my local YMCA workout room. I had noticed that running every day seemed to put more wear on my feet and ankles, but skipping a day gave them a better chance to recover and strengthen. I also want to develop my upper body strength anyway.
The weight training technology that is available nowadays is, in my opinion, vastly superior and safer than the old barbells and bars (still available at the "Y" for those masochists who prefer them). In the mid to late 1950s, my father developed an interest in weightlifting and purchased a complete set of Joe Weider weights. When I was twelve (and emaciated-looking, ribs prominently poking out of my chest), he gradually and cautiously introduced me to weight training. But it wasn't until I turned fifteen that my interest took off. By that time, I did all of my training on my own, which wasn't actually the safest thing to do. When you're bench-pressing heavy weights, there is a danger that you'll lose control of the bar and it could fall on top of you, possibly fatally. But since I am not "ghost writing" this, I obviously survived that sometimes foolhardy period. But it would have been more prudent to have a partner during workouts.
And now I'm making good use of the weight room. It's actually a lot of fun and adds a touch of variety to my exercising. I still do most of my running around my neighborhood, usually covering 3.4-3.6 miles each time. I like this distance because it doesn't take up too much time to accomplish while still keeping me accustomed to running a span of more than 5K (3.11 miles). After all, I may just get up one Saturday morning and decide to run one of those numerous 5K races held in town this time of year!
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Paul Is Dead and JFK Plot Theories
In writing about various conspiracy theories that have been spun over the years, I could replicate the information that is readily available on the Internet. But seeing that those who read my blog are already either pretty intelligent and well-informed about performing searches or have found my blog through a search (proving that they are capable in this area), I decided to instead focus on my own circumstances and reflections regarding those "theories".
With conspiracies in general, I believe that human nature, along with the concept of chaos when as few as three variables come into play, make elaborate conspiracy/cover-up theories like the JFK assassination plot, the moon hoax, the 9/11 "inside job", and the "Paul is dead" cover-up preposterous. But it's still fun to "play" the game for a while, just as I may enjoy watching a far-fetched James Bond or science fiction movie or read a Stephen King or Philip K. Dick novel. And then return to the real world, none the worse for wear. Unfortunately, this return to reality after exposure to some of this stuff is beyond the means of some people.
Although John F. Kennedy was murdered on 1963, for me the first true immersion into conspiracy theories was of the contrived story that Beatles co-leader Paul McCartney had been killed in an automobile accident in 1966, occurring either on September 11 or November 9 (depending on how one interprets the "clues"). I first heard about this in the spring of 1970 at school in the eighth grade during morning televised announcements. Apparently, some upperclassman had picked up on the rumors begun the previous year by a pair of Detroit radio DJs and had put together a pretty compelling presentation at the end of the announcement show that morning. A couple of years later, a classmate friend of mind decided to make this his term paper topic. I began to listen to "clues" on Beatles songs and examine the albums. Why the other Beatles would go to all the trouble to bring in a replacement "look-alike" Paul to permit the band's continuity in the public eye and then furtively place these clues on their material never occurred to me, or to many others, apparently. But it was fun. It also made me wonder whether I could manufacture my own conspiracy/cover-up by first taking incidental lyrics and album design features and then constructing a secret "narrative" to fit them. This is, after all, what those DJs did with McCartney's premature demise.
Speaking of Kennedy's assassination, as I child in the 1960s I never heard of Jim Garrison's campaign to promote his view of it as a complex conspiracy involving right-wing extremists and secret agents (as shown in Oliver Stone's movie JFK). It was only in the 1970s when I caught wind of the notion that others beside Lee Harvey Oswald may have been in on the assassination. Three of the arguments promoting the idea of a conspiracy were (1) witnesses in the area reporting hearing more than the officially-established number of shots, (2) the single-bullet theory accounting for both the first bullet going through the President and then hitting Texas governor John Connally was too outlandish to believe, and (3) the real killers shot JFK from a hidden spot on a grassy knoll as he was passing by. But (1) I travelled to Dallas in 1994 and drove through the same area, past the places immortalized in those tragic scenes. And I noticed that in real life, everything is much more closed in, with tall buildings everywhere. Giving the idea that witnesses heard echoes instead of extra shots more credence. (2) The Discovery Channel investigated the single-bullet theory by meticulously recreating the parameters of the assassination, using the same type weapon that Oswald had, shooting from the same height, angle, and distance. They closely mimicked the bone structure of the victims by having models made with "skeletons". They placed the victims (models) in positions as close as possible to filmed records. And then shot the models and analyzed the results. By this, the one-bullet theory was CONFIRMED, not refuted. (3) One doesn't have to be a marksman to know that, in order to hit a moving target, you would need to reduce the effects of that motion on your aim. The way to do this is to align yourself with the direction of the motion, as Oswald did from his position at the Texas Schoolbook Depository in order to keep the angular change at a minimum. Those supposed assassins at the grassy knoll would have been shooting from the worst possible angle, perpendicular to the President's car as it passed by. Why would anyone plan it this way?!
In December 2000, I heard a late-night radio interview with the late muckraking journalist Jack Anderson. In it, Anderson laid out his own conspiracy theory about JFK's death. And like those who created the "Paul is dead" narrative, he constructed it from contributory circumstances. The narrative: in the 1960 presidential election, JFK's father, with the help of the Chicago mob, bought the vote and the state of Illinois, giving him the election in 1960 (although in reality Kennedy didn't need Illinois in the final count). So the mob expected good treatment from JFK as president in return. But JFK made his brother Robert attorney general and RFK went after the mob, creating a feeling of betrayal among the gangsters. Also feeling threatened was Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA was trying to kill using the mob. Well, according to Anderson, both the mob and Castro "saw the light", got together, and conspired to kill Kennedy. Huh? Oh well, when you're a true believer in something, you accept the contributing "evidence" and ignore anything that would contradict it.
With conspiracies in general, I believe that human nature, along with the concept of chaos when as few as three variables come into play, make elaborate conspiracy/cover-up theories like the JFK assassination plot, the moon hoax, the 9/11 "inside job", and the "Paul is dead" cover-up preposterous. But it's still fun to "play" the game for a while, just as I may enjoy watching a far-fetched James Bond or science fiction movie or read a Stephen King or Philip K. Dick novel. And then return to the real world, none the worse for wear. Unfortunately, this return to reality after exposure to some of this stuff is beyond the means of some people.
Although John F. Kennedy was murdered on 1963, for me the first true immersion into conspiracy theories was of the contrived story that Beatles co-leader Paul McCartney had been killed in an automobile accident in 1966, occurring either on September 11 or November 9 (depending on how one interprets the "clues"). I first heard about this in the spring of 1970 at school in the eighth grade during morning televised announcements. Apparently, some upperclassman had picked up on the rumors begun the previous year by a pair of Detroit radio DJs and had put together a pretty compelling presentation at the end of the announcement show that morning. A couple of years later, a classmate friend of mind decided to make this his term paper topic. I began to listen to "clues" on Beatles songs and examine the albums. Why the other Beatles would go to all the trouble to bring in a replacement "look-alike" Paul to permit the band's continuity in the public eye and then furtively place these clues on their material never occurred to me, or to many others, apparently. But it was fun. It also made me wonder whether I could manufacture my own conspiracy/cover-up by first taking incidental lyrics and album design features and then constructing a secret "narrative" to fit them. This is, after all, what those DJs did with McCartney's premature demise.
Speaking of Kennedy's assassination, as I child in the 1960s I never heard of Jim Garrison's campaign to promote his view of it as a complex conspiracy involving right-wing extremists and secret agents (as shown in Oliver Stone's movie JFK). It was only in the 1970s when I caught wind of the notion that others beside Lee Harvey Oswald may have been in on the assassination. Three of the arguments promoting the idea of a conspiracy were (1) witnesses in the area reporting hearing more than the officially-established number of shots, (2) the single-bullet theory accounting for both the first bullet going through the President and then hitting Texas governor John Connally was too outlandish to believe, and (3) the real killers shot JFK from a hidden spot on a grassy knoll as he was passing by. But (1) I travelled to Dallas in 1994 and drove through the same area, past the places immortalized in those tragic scenes. And I noticed that in real life, everything is much more closed in, with tall buildings everywhere. Giving the idea that witnesses heard echoes instead of extra shots more credence. (2) The Discovery Channel investigated the single-bullet theory by meticulously recreating the parameters of the assassination, using the same type weapon that Oswald had, shooting from the same height, angle, and distance. They closely mimicked the bone structure of the victims by having models made with "skeletons". They placed the victims (models) in positions as close as possible to filmed records. And then shot the models and analyzed the results. By this, the one-bullet theory was CONFIRMED, not refuted. (3) One doesn't have to be a marksman to know that, in order to hit a moving target, you would need to reduce the effects of that motion on your aim. The way to do this is to align yourself with the direction of the motion, as Oswald did from his position at the Texas Schoolbook Depository in order to keep the angular change at a minimum. Those supposed assassins at the grassy knoll would have been shooting from the worst possible angle, perpendicular to the President's car as it passed by. Why would anyone plan it this way?!
In December 2000, I heard a late-night radio interview with the late muckraking journalist Jack Anderson. In it, Anderson laid out his own conspiracy theory about JFK's death. And like those who created the "Paul is dead" narrative, he constructed it from contributory circumstances. The narrative: in the 1960 presidential election, JFK's father, with the help of the Chicago mob, bought the vote and the state of Illinois, giving him the election in 1960 (although in reality Kennedy didn't need Illinois in the final count). So the mob expected good treatment from JFK as president in return. But JFK made his brother Robert attorney general and RFK went after the mob, creating a feeling of betrayal among the gangsters. Also feeling threatened was Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA was trying to kill using the mob. Well, according to Anderson, both the mob and Castro "saw the light", got together, and conspired to kill Kennedy. Huh? Oh well, when you're a true believer in something, you accept the contributing "evidence" and ignore anything that would contradict it.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Should Conservatives Support Palin for President?
The Republican Party needs someone knowledgeable about the issues to lead them as an opposition party, not someone like drama-queen/attention-seeker/quitter ex-governor Sarah Palin. As I had written before, Palin is much like the late Richard Nixon in that she never forgets a slight and doggedly hangs on to her grudges, striking back repeatedly and openly against anyone who she feels “did her wrong”. This includes anyone in the media who ever asked her a question she didn’t like, as well as practically the entire John McCain campaign organization. Her newly released book Going Rogue, rather than mending fences to move forward with her political and/or media ambitions, is employing a different metaphor: burning bridges.
The GOP has plenty of articulate (and even sometimes charismatic) individuals whom their members could follow all the way through to victories in 2010 and 2012, possibly even winning back the White House in 2012; Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, and Mitt Romney are experienced, conservative ex-governors who, besides having extensive campaign experience, served out their terms in office to their completion responsibly and with the view that while in office, they represented their entire states, not just those who voted for them. As opposition leaders, they are now naturally more ideological in their rhetoric. But although a future Huckabee, Jeb, or Romney administration would definitely have a much more conservative flavor than the present Obama presidency, I am confident that they would display the kind of pragmatism that they showed as governors. I can’t say the same for Sarah Palin.
On the other hand, George W. Bush, as governor of Texas, enjoyed wide popularity even among Democrats. Upon assuming the presidency, though, he reverted to being more of an ideologue. So who knows, except that I can easily tell that Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, my differences with them aside, strike me as being much more intelligent and confident in their abilities to lead (instead of passively sitting back and letting their staff and VP do the job for them as Dubya did).
And if people are just looking for someone in the media to represent their conservative views, may I suggest folks like George Will or Charles Krauthammer instead of Palin. Actually, though, even a bomb-thrower like Ann Coulter, who can be quite funny sometimes and has a self-deprecating and wicked sense of humor, is a better “leader” than vindictive, take-it-all-personally Sarah Palin. C’mon, conservatives, wise up!
I think that the McCain campaign made a huge mistake in the summer of 2008 regarding the role that Sarah Palin was to take in the campaign. She initially enjoyed huge, widespread popularity and had a compelling personal rags-to-glory story that ordinary people could relate to. The problems began when she concentrated on attacking Obama and the Democrats instead of focusing on her life and positive values. The Republicans wasted Palin’s initial popularity by relegating her to the role of being the “attacker”. That having been said, it must also be said that Governor Palin seemed to relish this role quite a lot. But that set the Democratic attack machine squarely against her, and in a matter of days she began the object of ridicule, not admiration. And a liability to the McCain campaign.
Sarah Palin has often cited Ronald Reagan as a sort of political role model, but she hasn’t followed his path. But another ex-governor has: Mike Huckabee, who has his own entertaining Sunday night prime time show on Fox News. Like Reagan before him in the late 1970’s, Huckabee has successfully kept himself in the media without whipping up hostility, as Palin has. If you identify yourself as a political conservative, you may admire and agree with Sarah Palin. But you should be concerned if she were to run for president and lead in the Republican primaries. Because there's no way she's going to garner enough support to win a national election!
As a side note, I noticed in a recent nationwide opinion poll (I believe it was ABC/Washington Post) that 53% of respondents said that they would not vote for Sarah Palin for president. But in the same poll, 60% said that she was unqualified for being president. Leaving the implication that at least 7% would consider voting for her, even acknowledging that she was unqualified. Scary!
The GOP has plenty of articulate (and even sometimes charismatic) individuals whom their members could follow all the way through to victories in 2010 and 2012, possibly even winning back the White House in 2012; Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, and Mitt Romney are experienced, conservative ex-governors who, besides having extensive campaign experience, served out their terms in office to their completion responsibly and with the view that while in office, they represented their entire states, not just those who voted for them. As opposition leaders, they are now naturally more ideological in their rhetoric. But although a future Huckabee, Jeb, or Romney administration would definitely have a much more conservative flavor than the present Obama presidency, I am confident that they would display the kind of pragmatism that they showed as governors. I can’t say the same for Sarah Palin.
On the other hand, George W. Bush, as governor of Texas, enjoyed wide popularity even among Democrats. Upon assuming the presidency, though, he reverted to being more of an ideologue. So who knows, except that I can easily tell that Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, my differences with them aside, strike me as being much more intelligent and confident in their abilities to lead (instead of passively sitting back and letting their staff and VP do the job for them as Dubya did).
And if people are just looking for someone in the media to represent their conservative views, may I suggest folks like George Will or Charles Krauthammer instead of Palin. Actually, though, even a bomb-thrower like Ann Coulter, who can be quite funny sometimes and has a self-deprecating and wicked sense of humor, is a better “leader” than vindictive, take-it-all-personally Sarah Palin. C’mon, conservatives, wise up!
I think that the McCain campaign made a huge mistake in the summer of 2008 regarding the role that Sarah Palin was to take in the campaign. She initially enjoyed huge, widespread popularity and had a compelling personal rags-to-glory story that ordinary people could relate to. The problems began when she concentrated on attacking Obama and the Democrats instead of focusing on her life and positive values. The Republicans wasted Palin’s initial popularity by relegating her to the role of being the “attacker”. That having been said, it must also be said that Governor Palin seemed to relish this role quite a lot. But that set the Democratic attack machine squarely against her, and in a matter of days she began the object of ridicule, not admiration. And a liability to the McCain campaign.
Sarah Palin has often cited Ronald Reagan as a sort of political role model, but she hasn’t followed his path. But another ex-governor has: Mike Huckabee, who has his own entertaining Sunday night prime time show on Fox News. Like Reagan before him in the late 1970’s, Huckabee has successfully kept himself in the media without whipping up hostility, as Palin has. If you identify yourself as a political conservative, you may admire and agree with Sarah Palin. But you should be concerned if she were to run for president and lead in the Republican primaries. Because there's no way she's going to garner enough support to win a national election!
As a side note, I noticed in a recent nationwide opinion poll (I believe it was ABC/Washington Post) that 53% of respondents said that they would not vote for Sarah Palin for president. But in the same poll, 60% said that she was unqualified for being president. Leaving the implication that at least 7% would consider voting for her, even acknowledging that she was unqualified. Scary!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
In Defense of Senator Joe
I know that Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is currently under fire from many Democrats for his opposition to any health care reform bill that contains a public option. Some are calling for the Senate leadership to strip him of his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship as well as ignoring his overall Senate seniority in determining his placing among the Democratic caucus, of which he is still a member. I for one am sorry that Senator Lieberman has chosen to oppose what I think is an important means to keep insurance prices down, especially if the proposed legislation makes not buying health insurance a matter of criminality for ordinary Americans. But let the man speak for himself.
Lieberman, I believe, is genuinely concerned, all protestations to the contrary from some of the proposed Senate bill's supporters, that having a government (and therefore taxpayer)-funded public option will eventually balloon into an enormous national debt burden. And we are already dependent on China, our competitor and ideological adversary, to fund our already gargantuan national debt. I've heard folks like Keith Olbermann point out that Senator Lieberman, being from the insurance-based state of Connecticut, receives much financial support from insurance companies there. But as I see it, that doesn't necessarily imply that Lieberman is under the sway of the insurance companies. As he has pointed out, he is strongly supporting the current push through congress to strip away the health insurance industry's ridiculous exemption from the Federal Anti-Trust Act. The charge of conflict of interest regarding his stance on the public option, to me, is unsubstantiated since practically everyone in elected office receives contributions from parties located in their home states and districts with vested interests in their votes and decisions. And the matter of the burgeoning national debt is truly an enormously urgent concern, not a trivial excuse as some on the left are implying.
Let us also not forget that in 2006, after Lieberman's own party, disaffected with his support for Bush's Iraq War, had essentially deserted him and supported Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senatorial Democratic primary (and defeated him), Lieberman, after receiving most of his support in the general election from Republican voters, still decided to caucus with the Democrats. Which gave them the crucial, razor-thin 51-49 majority to run the Senate for two years in opposition to President Bush, not an insignificant accomplishment. Where is the gratitude for that action, when his own party had abandoned him?
Sure, Joe Lieberman supported John McCain for president against Barack Obama in 2008. But he had a very strong friendship with the Arizona senator and strongly supported his tough stance on national defense and homeland security. Personally, though, I think he went too far in his campaigning for McCain when he criticized Obama. Despite this, Obama urged other Democrats to reconcile with him after the election. Lieberman is still much more Democratic than Republican in his Senate voting and has voted many times for cloture against GOP filibusters. That, however, does not preclude him from occasional dissenting votes of "conscience", as he likes to put it.
Yes, I wish that Senator Lieberman would have supported the public option. But his statement that he would vote for opening the debate on the proposed health care reform bill that contains a public option indicates to me that he is genuinely interested in working with his Democratic colleagues to create a final product that is more to his liking and, in his opinion, more in line with the national interests. Although Senator Joe irritates me to no end with his pompous, self-righteous oratorical tone, I do respect him for taking a stand that he truly believes is important for the country. Even when I disagree with that stand.
Lieberman, I believe, is genuinely concerned, all protestations to the contrary from some of the proposed Senate bill's supporters, that having a government (and therefore taxpayer)-funded public option will eventually balloon into an enormous national debt burden. And we are already dependent on China, our competitor and ideological adversary, to fund our already gargantuan national debt. I've heard folks like Keith Olbermann point out that Senator Lieberman, being from the insurance-based state of Connecticut, receives much financial support from insurance companies there. But as I see it, that doesn't necessarily imply that Lieberman is under the sway of the insurance companies. As he has pointed out, he is strongly supporting the current push through congress to strip away the health insurance industry's ridiculous exemption from the Federal Anti-Trust Act. The charge of conflict of interest regarding his stance on the public option, to me, is unsubstantiated since practically everyone in elected office receives contributions from parties located in their home states and districts with vested interests in their votes and decisions. And the matter of the burgeoning national debt is truly an enormously urgent concern, not a trivial excuse as some on the left are implying.
Let us also not forget that in 2006, after Lieberman's own party, disaffected with his support for Bush's Iraq War, had essentially deserted him and supported Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senatorial Democratic primary (and defeated him), Lieberman, after receiving most of his support in the general election from Republican voters, still decided to caucus with the Democrats. Which gave them the crucial, razor-thin 51-49 majority to run the Senate for two years in opposition to President Bush, not an insignificant accomplishment. Where is the gratitude for that action, when his own party had abandoned him?
Sure, Joe Lieberman supported John McCain for president against Barack Obama in 2008. But he had a very strong friendship with the Arizona senator and strongly supported his tough stance on national defense and homeland security. Personally, though, I think he went too far in his campaigning for McCain when he criticized Obama. Despite this, Obama urged other Democrats to reconcile with him after the election. Lieberman is still much more Democratic than Republican in his Senate voting and has voted many times for cloture against GOP filibusters. That, however, does not preclude him from occasional dissenting votes of "conscience", as he likes to put it.
Yes, I wish that Senator Lieberman would have supported the public option. But his statement that he would vote for opening the debate on the proposed health care reform bill that contains a public option indicates to me that he is genuinely interested in working with his Democratic colleagues to create a final product that is more to his liking and, in his opinion, more in line with the national interests. Although Senator Joe irritates me to no end with his pompous, self-righteous oratorical tone, I do respect him for taking a stand that he truly believes is important for the country. Even when I disagree with that stand.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Do Unto Others…
I wish that people of faith, regardless of their faith, would demonstrate a degree of maturity in their exercise of said faith. It matters not what one believes in, be it Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Scientology, or anything else. It’s all right to make your own personal decisions of belief or nonbelief. It’s another to try to ram YOUR decisions down others’ throats! And then to condemn anyone not subscribing to your belief system as being out of God’s will, or worse, of the devil!
As I have previously written on this blog, the overwhelming majority of religious adherents identify with the faith that they grew up in, either from their parents’ faith or the convenience of that faith’s relative predominance and acceptance in the surrounding society. Sure, there are those who may make a conversion decision without this context of background, but they are rare indeed. And that is why a believer should keep as a personal habit a degree of empathy for others who have grown up in religious climates different from their own. It is the accident of birth that is the primary factor in determining one’s religious orientation, so why put down others for being born in the “wrong” place and time?
Having said the above, it also bears noting that those NOT sharing a belief in a particular religion need to demonstrate a little compassion and maturity for those who do. Just about every religion I’ve heard of practices the doctrine of exclusivity in some form or another; this even includes “big tent” faiths like the Baha’is and the Unitarian Universalists. I respect the decisions that believers of various faiths make for their own lives regarding the parameters of behavior and appearance that these faiths dictate within their doctrines. But I also expect, in turn, for those believers to respect my right to not necessarily abide by THEIR codes.
What was that saying in the Bible? Oh yes, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or in simple language, treat others the way you would like them to treat you. Unless, of course, you have a pronounced self-destructive streak to your personality!
As I have previously written on this blog, the overwhelming majority of religious adherents identify with the faith that they grew up in, either from their parents’ faith or the convenience of that faith’s relative predominance and acceptance in the surrounding society. Sure, there are those who may make a conversion decision without this context of background, but they are rare indeed. And that is why a believer should keep as a personal habit a degree of empathy for others who have grown up in religious climates different from their own. It is the accident of birth that is the primary factor in determining one’s religious orientation, so why put down others for being born in the “wrong” place and time?
Having said the above, it also bears noting that those NOT sharing a belief in a particular religion need to demonstrate a little compassion and maturity for those who do. Just about every religion I’ve heard of practices the doctrine of exclusivity in some form or another; this even includes “big tent” faiths like the Baha’is and the Unitarian Universalists. I respect the decisions that believers of various faiths make for their own lives regarding the parameters of behavior and appearance that these faiths dictate within their doctrines. But I also expect, in turn, for those believers to respect my right to not necessarily abide by THEIR codes.
What was that saying in the Bible? Oh yes, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or in simple language, treat others the way you would like them to treat you. Unless, of course, you have a pronounced self-destructive streak to your personality!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Gainesville’s Green Zone?
A few days ago, the Gainesville Sun featured an article about how the University Police was patrolling areas surrounding the University of Florida campus to keep criminals off campus. You see, UF students have recently seen an upturn in the amount of armed muggings. These have predictably occurred overwhelmingly off-campus and in traditionally high-crime areas like the downtown night club zone. Nevertheless, since it was “UF students” who were victims, there has been a big cry to “protect the campus”.
Apparently, the police are searching out individuals behaving in a suspicious manner in the streets near campus. I presume (hopefully) that there is no profiling going on here (especially that of a racial nature). One of the police officials had given a comment that the police were trying to keep off campus people who didn’t belong there. But what constitutes “not belonging there”? It is public tax-funded property, after all. If one wants to jog through campus, try out one of the libraries, or attend a lecture, how can the police decide from someone crossing University Avenue onto campus whether they belong or not, unless they are in some way doing some profiling?
I can understand the need to keep people from sleeping on the campus grounds, and I also understand the need for students on campus to be secure from mugging. But for the police to have grounds for preventing access to the campus, they need to establish suspicion of an imminent crime and not be in the business of making value judgments as to who belongs there or not. Obviously, if a police officer observes someone going around a building trying different door handles, peering through windows, hanging around aimlessly at 3 am, or skulking in alleys or behind bushes, that would constitute suspicious behavior. Likewise, they are justified in responding to a call from someone on campus who is concerned about the behavior of another. But, as I said before, this all comes under the umbrella of upholding the law, not making value judgments.
Let’s not turn the wonderful, open University of Florida campus into another Green Zone with checkpoints and a martial atmosphere surrounding it. We’re not in Iraq, for crying out loud!
Apparently, the police are searching out individuals behaving in a suspicious manner in the streets near campus. I presume (hopefully) that there is no profiling going on here (especially that of a racial nature). One of the police officials had given a comment that the police were trying to keep off campus people who didn’t belong there. But what constitutes “not belonging there”? It is public tax-funded property, after all. If one wants to jog through campus, try out one of the libraries, or attend a lecture, how can the police decide from someone crossing University Avenue onto campus whether they belong or not, unless they are in some way doing some profiling?
I can understand the need to keep people from sleeping on the campus grounds, and I also understand the need for students on campus to be secure from mugging. But for the police to have grounds for preventing access to the campus, they need to establish suspicion of an imminent crime and not be in the business of making value judgments as to who belongs there or not. Obviously, if a police officer observes someone going around a building trying different door handles, peering through windows, hanging around aimlessly at 3 am, or skulking in alleys or behind bushes, that would constitute suspicious behavior. Likewise, they are justified in responding to a call from someone on campus who is concerned about the behavior of another. But, as I said before, this all comes under the umbrella of upholding the law, not making value judgments.
Let’s not turn the wonderful, open University of Florida campus into another Green Zone with checkpoints and a martial atmosphere surrounding it. We’re not in Iraq, for crying out loud!
Monday, November 16, 2009
Assorted Sports Thoughts
--In college football,the Pacific Ten conference has been more difficult to follow than I had anticipated. But still I feel that it is a very interesting conference. Once you factor out the very poor Washington State team, there is an extraordinarily high level of parity in this conference. USC, which has dominated it in recent years, is in a rebuilding phase while other schools are peaking. On any given gameday, any of the nine viable teams can beat the other. And often the result is an unexpected blowout. That having been said, two teams have emerged at the "top of the heap": the league-leading Oregon Ducks and the Stanford Cardinal, who just routed USC 55-21.
--The University of Florida football team continues its winning ways, although there seem to be issues regarding its passing game. As much as I respect quarterback Tim Tebow, it does seem to me that he has difficulty on designed passing plays deciding what to do with the ball. Which often results in him eventually being sacked. I do think that Tebow has a future in pro ball, but he may be more suited to a running back role, much like that of Hall of Famer Miami Dolphin Larry Csonka.
--The University of Florida men's basketball team began their season Sunday with an easy victory over Stetson. I am optimistic about the Gators' chances to reach the NCAA tournament after two lackluster seasons. Florida now has a true center in Georgetown transferee Vernon Macklin while freshman point guard Kenny Boynton holds great promise for the Gators. I'm also glad that coach Billy Donovan finally saw the light and made his non-conference schedule a little more challenging this season.
--The Phoenix Suns, led by multiple MVP point guard Steve Nash, have returned to their old fast-paced style of offensive play. And with that has also returned their old high percentage of victories. Phoenix promises to return to the playoffs this year and may challenge the defending NBA champion Los Angeles Lakers for their divisional title this season.
--The University of Florida football team continues its winning ways, although there seem to be issues regarding its passing game. As much as I respect quarterback Tim Tebow, it does seem to me that he has difficulty on designed passing plays deciding what to do with the ball. Which often results in him eventually being sacked. I do think that Tebow has a future in pro ball, but he may be more suited to a running back role, much like that of Hall of Famer Miami Dolphin Larry Csonka.
--The University of Florida men's basketball team began their season Sunday with an easy victory over Stetson. I am optimistic about the Gators' chances to reach the NCAA tournament after two lackluster seasons. Florida now has a true center in Georgetown transferee Vernon Macklin while freshman point guard Kenny Boynton holds great promise for the Gators. I'm also glad that coach Billy Donovan finally saw the light and made his non-conference schedule a little more challenging this season.
--The Phoenix Suns, led by multiple MVP point guard Steve Nash, have returned to their old fast-paced style of offensive play. And with that has also returned their old high percentage of victories. Phoenix promises to return to the playoffs this year and may challenge the defending NBA champion Los Angeles Lakers for their divisional title this season.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Philip K. Dick's Voices From the Street
Although the late Philip K. Dick is famous primarily as a science fiction writer, he has also written quite a bit of "realism" fiction. Several of his novels went unpublished until after his death. One of Dick's first novels, Voices From the Street, was one of his last ever published, although it was originally written in 1952. I just finished reading it.
Voices From the Street is different from the first two Dick novels I've read so far in that at 301 pages, it is considerably longer. Set in the San Francisco Bay area of 1952, the focus is on character Stuart Hadley and his inability as a young man to fit into the society around him. Hadley is an employee in a small TV store who is a dreamer dissatisfied with his mundane existence. His young wife Ellen has just given birth to his son, and by all accounts he looks like a young man with a bright future. Good job, good family, good health, good friends. But to Hadley, this life is nothing more than a prison from which he becomes increasingly desperate in his desire to escape. He becomes aware of an apocalyptic Christian sect in town with a very charismatic leader, and finds that its message of the world's end resonates with his feelings. But even that is not enough, and toward the novel's end, Hadley decides to embark on a reckless and hastily thought-up scheme to get away from the life he detests.
To fully analyze this novel, I really have to relate how it ended. But I won't, so this review is by necessity incomplete. But I will point out that it reminded me of a television series and a movie I have seen in the past: The Prisoner and Groundhog Day, respectively. In the former, the protagonist eventually escapes his predicament strengthened and unbroken. In the latter, the protagonist finally capitulates to his situation and undergoes a complete personal transformation, something I found to be unsettling (although Groundhog Day was a comedy above everything else). In Voices From the Street, Stuart Hadley has his own predicament as well: his present life and his place in it, pure and simple. Does he escape to a better life or is he forced to yield to the forces within his present existence? That is what the story's ending revealed. And that ending, depending on one's point of view, was either happy and positive or sad and tragic. And I find that ambiguity to be fascinating.
A disproportionately high percentage of this novel is spent in dialogue situations, in which the speakers discuss their diverse views on politics, business, religion, sex, and just about anything else that comes to the author's mind. That can get to be pretty tedious reading, and it is why I went through this book at a slower pace than with the previous two. Also, since this novel was published posthumously, the author couldn't correct its flaws. For example, early in the story Stuart Hadley tells his wife that he will pick up his sister for a visit that evening. But when evening comes, a couple of old friends visit instead, with no mention or explanation given about his sister.
For an early novel, Philip K. Dick's Voices From the Street was quite compelling and deep. I recommend it. If it's available, check it out from your local public library as I did.
My next Philip K. Dick novel is another venture into fictional realism: In Milton Lumpky's Territory. Sooner or later, I'll come across another of his science fiction works. Until then...
Voices From the Street is different from the first two Dick novels I've read so far in that at 301 pages, it is considerably longer. Set in the San Francisco Bay area of 1952, the focus is on character Stuart Hadley and his inability as a young man to fit into the society around him. Hadley is an employee in a small TV store who is a dreamer dissatisfied with his mundane existence. His young wife Ellen has just given birth to his son, and by all accounts he looks like a young man with a bright future. Good job, good family, good health, good friends. But to Hadley, this life is nothing more than a prison from which he becomes increasingly desperate in his desire to escape. He becomes aware of an apocalyptic Christian sect in town with a very charismatic leader, and finds that its message of the world's end resonates with his feelings. But even that is not enough, and toward the novel's end, Hadley decides to embark on a reckless and hastily thought-up scheme to get away from the life he detests.
To fully analyze this novel, I really have to relate how it ended. But I won't, so this review is by necessity incomplete. But I will point out that it reminded me of a television series and a movie I have seen in the past: The Prisoner and Groundhog Day, respectively. In the former, the protagonist eventually escapes his predicament strengthened and unbroken. In the latter, the protagonist finally capitulates to his situation and undergoes a complete personal transformation, something I found to be unsettling (although Groundhog Day was a comedy above everything else). In Voices From the Street, Stuart Hadley has his own predicament as well: his present life and his place in it, pure and simple. Does he escape to a better life or is he forced to yield to the forces within his present existence? That is what the story's ending revealed. And that ending, depending on one's point of view, was either happy and positive or sad and tragic. And I find that ambiguity to be fascinating.
A disproportionately high percentage of this novel is spent in dialogue situations, in which the speakers discuss their diverse views on politics, business, religion, sex, and just about anything else that comes to the author's mind. That can get to be pretty tedious reading, and it is why I went through this book at a slower pace than with the previous two. Also, since this novel was published posthumously, the author couldn't correct its flaws. For example, early in the story Stuart Hadley tells his wife that he will pick up his sister for a visit that evening. But when evening comes, a couple of old friends visit instead, with no mention or explanation given about his sister.
For an early novel, Philip K. Dick's Voices From the Street was quite compelling and deep. I recommend it. If it's available, check it out from your local public library as I did.
My next Philip K. Dick novel is another venture into fictional realism: In Milton Lumpky's Territory. Sooner or later, I'll come across another of his science fiction works. Until then...
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Resuming Old Writing Time
For a long time, I had a certain routine to my life. Before I had to be at work in the afternoon, I would leave a little early at stop off at a local coffee shop. There I would read some and then write on my AlphaSmart portable word processor, usually a blog article. This worked quite well for me, but I fell out of the habit. Lately, I have been trying to write earlier in the morning when, to be perfectly frank, my brain isn't working on all cylinders. I need a little while to get myself in "optimum" form for the day, and it happens a little later than with most people. My working hours are from 3:30 pm to midnight, with me being usually sharply awake afterward until around 2 am.
So now I'm consiciously trying to resume my old afternoon reading/writing habit, with this article representing one of those efforts. Good luck, self!
So now I'm consiciously trying to resume my old afternoon reading/writing habit, with this article representing one of those efforts. Good luck, self!
Friday, November 13, 2009
Subway Artist "Works"
I like Subway, although I was spoiled back in the 1980s by Gordies Subs, which was a five-minute walk from my apartment (they had the best turkey salad sub sandwiches) here in Gainesville. The prices at Subway are reasonable, the line moves fast, the food is fresh, and there are plenty of choices. I usually order for myself one of the less expensive sub sandwiches, with lots of vegetables loaded into them.
Subway has its own system of custom-made sandwiches. First, I choose the type of bread for my sandwich and give the "sandwich artist" (as they call themselves) my order, including what cheese type I want and whether I want the bread toasted. At the final stage of the line, just before paying for my order, another "artist" puts on the vegetable toppings as I dictate. Subway has something called "the works": this consists of a standard group of vegetable toppings like lettuce, tomato, onions, cucumber, and black olive. Explicitly excluded from "the works" are hot peppers and banana peppers. These have to be asked for separately, for obvious reasons. Which leads me to a funny ongoing thing that they do.
If I say I want "the works", they invariably start adding the hot peppers anyway, although they aren't supposed to. But if I say I want "the works, but no hot peppers or banana peppers", the "artist" on duty invariably begins to condescendingly lecture me on how those aren't included in "the works" anyway and I didn't need to have said that.
So Wednesday I went to Subway, ordered my sub sandwich, and at the end, simply said "the works". And then stood back and watched bemusedly as my "artist" once again began to reach for the hot peppers!
Subway has its own system of custom-made sandwiches. First, I choose the type of bread for my sandwich and give the "sandwich artist" (as they call themselves) my order, including what cheese type I want and whether I want the bread toasted. At the final stage of the line, just before paying for my order, another "artist" puts on the vegetable toppings as I dictate. Subway has something called "the works": this consists of a standard group of vegetable toppings like lettuce, tomato, onions, cucumber, and black olive. Explicitly excluded from "the works" are hot peppers and banana peppers. These have to be asked for separately, for obvious reasons. Which leads me to a funny ongoing thing that they do.
If I say I want "the works", they invariably start adding the hot peppers anyway, although they aren't supposed to. But if I say I want "the works, but no hot peppers or banana peppers", the "artist" on duty invariably begins to condescendingly lecture me on how those aren't included in "the works" anyway and I didn't need to have said that.
So Wednesday I went to Subway, ordered my sub sandwich, and at the end, simply said "the works". And then stood back and watched bemusedly as my "artist" once again began to reach for the hot peppers!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tried Fox News
I tried something different the other day: I deliberately kept the TV channel on Fox News and watched their evening shows. And came away with the conclusion that it was worth it.
I recognize that Fox is pretty slanted toward the political right. Please spare me that ridiculous, tired old cliche of theirs that they are "fair and balanced". In their so-called round-table discussions, what is usually presented is a "balance" between far-right, center-right, and centrist views, with the left shut out of the discussion. The hosts, without exception, are very conservative in outlook. And, like their liberal counterparts on MSNBC, they have an irritating smugness about themselves. While operating under the impression that, I, the viewer, am on their "side" as well.
I'm accustomed to the generally (and sometimes intensely) liberal slant on MSNBC's evening programming, so it was easy for me to filter out the conservative bias on Fox. Once I had done that, I felt that they were actually pretty good. Although their commentary was slanted, they did make a good effort at getting guests with opposing viewpoints, including liberal viewpoints (although this diversity was lacking in their regular panelists).
Bill O'Reilly at nine and Sean Hannity at ten each had as regular guest commentators virulently anti-Obama and anti-Democratic personalities: Bernard Goldberg and Dick Morris, respectively. And watching Goldberg and Morris one after the other gave me an interesting insight into them. Goldberg is what I would say is a "true believer" in his ideology and quite eloquently and knowledgeably (if a bit sarcastically) expresses himself on just about any issue that comes up for discussion. Morris, on the other hand, has a vile, vindictive mean streak to his personality. His driving force seems to be vengeance specifically directed at the Clintons, whom he used to work for in the 1990s, and generally against anyone sharing their political outlook. I found myself laughing with Goldberg, even when I disagreed with him. But Morris? More of a teeth-gritting, fist-clenching experience, I'm sad to say.
Sean Hannity was, of course, the most slanted of the hosts. But unlike Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, he welcomes guests from the other end of the ideological spectrum. My problem with Hannity's show the other night was his featured guest: that California beauty contest contestant who became a heroine or villain, depending on one's viewpoint, for her anti-gay marriage response to a pageant question. She seemed to me every bit as bubble-headed and ignorant as that South Carolina beauty contestant a couple of years back.
I wouldn't want to wholly depend on Fox for my news, just as I don't fully trust MSNBC. Better to take a composite of the news outlets. For myself, CNN seems to be the most neutral and reliable. But I may be watching Fox a little more often than before. Of course, I did completely avoid that nutcase Glenn Beck!
I recognize that Fox is pretty slanted toward the political right. Please spare me that ridiculous, tired old cliche of theirs that they are "fair and balanced". In their so-called round-table discussions, what is usually presented is a "balance" between far-right, center-right, and centrist views, with the left shut out of the discussion. The hosts, without exception, are very conservative in outlook. And, like their liberal counterparts on MSNBC, they have an irritating smugness about themselves. While operating under the impression that, I, the viewer, am on their "side" as well.
I'm accustomed to the generally (and sometimes intensely) liberal slant on MSNBC's evening programming, so it was easy for me to filter out the conservative bias on Fox. Once I had done that, I felt that they were actually pretty good. Although their commentary was slanted, they did make a good effort at getting guests with opposing viewpoints, including liberal viewpoints (although this diversity was lacking in their regular panelists).
Bill O'Reilly at nine and Sean Hannity at ten each had as regular guest commentators virulently anti-Obama and anti-Democratic personalities: Bernard Goldberg and Dick Morris, respectively. And watching Goldberg and Morris one after the other gave me an interesting insight into them. Goldberg is what I would say is a "true believer" in his ideology and quite eloquently and knowledgeably (if a bit sarcastically) expresses himself on just about any issue that comes up for discussion. Morris, on the other hand, has a vile, vindictive mean streak to his personality. His driving force seems to be vengeance specifically directed at the Clintons, whom he used to work for in the 1990s, and generally against anyone sharing their political outlook. I found myself laughing with Goldberg, even when I disagreed with him. But Morris? More of a teeth-gritting, fist-clenching experience, I'm sad to say.
Sean Hannity was, of course, the most slanted of the hosts. But unlike Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, he welcomes guests from the other end of the ideological spectrum. My problem with Hannity's show the other night was his featured guest: that California beauty contest contestant who became a heroine or villain, depending on one's viewpoint, for her anti-gay marriage response to a pageant question. She seemed to me every bit as bubble-headed and ignorant as that South Carolina beauty contestant a couple of years back.
I wouldn't want to wholly depend on Fox for my news, just as I don't fully trust MSNBC. Better to take a composite of the news outlets. For myself, CNN seems to be the most neutral and reliable. But I may be watching Fox a little more often than before. Of course, I did completely avoid that nutcase Glenn Beck!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Conjectures About Bin-Laden, Creating "Reality"
In keeping with the theme of November as "conspiracy month"...
People who easily find themselves falling for conspiracy theories often proudly refer to themselves as "skeptics". After all, they ARE skeptical of the prevailing, commonly held take on whatever it is that they think is being manipulated behind-the-scenes by others. But a true skeptic takes in all of the available facts, not just those which affirm his/her biases. So, in writing here about Osama Bin-Laden, I must make a disclaimer: I fit NEITHER definition of a skeptic, at least for the purpose of this article. Because (if you can stand it, here it goes)....I don't know for sure what's really going on, but that's not going to stop me for speculating.
For many Americans, the name Osama Bin-Laden has the same level of infamy, if not worse, as Adolf Hitler. And to the extent that I think that ALL mass murderers are evil villains, I agree with that viewpoint. But back in the 1980s, this sun-of-a-gun was an allied guerrilla warrior in our proxy war in Afghanistan against the then-occupying force of the Soviet Union. Our popular culture was full of praise and support for Afghanistan's "freedom fighters" (see Rambo III or the James Bond flick The Living Daylights). Bin-Laden was right in the middle of this and was a brave fighter. And some of our money and supplies (and intelligence) may have gone to him (this is where I have a big "I don't know" feeling). And why not? He was our ally. But "ally" does not necessarily equate to "friend", although it could have had we followed through with support after the Soviets withdrew. While our main concern, the Soviet Union, was on Afghan soil, we were all for the people of Afghanistan. The moment they left, we quickly went back to virtually ignoring the area. So Osama Bin-Laden, with his bravado and his wealth, looked around him and determined that America's actions regarding Muslim nations were ultimately only directed at promoting its own interests. To him, the U.S. was like any other foreign occupying power. Any American military presence on any Muslim-populated territory was, to Bin-Laden, just as illegitimate and warlike as what the Soviets had done in Afghanistan. And thus, since the early 1990s, Bin-Laden and his organization Al-Qaeda have been at war against the U.S.,its western allies, and those Muslim nations supporting American military presence on their soil.
But why haven't we captured or killed Bin-Laden more than eight years after the 9/11 attack that he authorized? He is believed to be in Pakistan somewhere (if still alive, that is). Or possibly southern Afghanistan. But I find it (and here is where my skepticism may be interpreted in different ways) difficult to believe, in such a relatively small area to search, and with Pakistan being our political and military ally, that we haven't been able to pinpoint his location and "get" to him. And now I wonder (I tend to do this on this blog, for better or for worse)...
Suppose that, on some intelligence level, the U.S. has always maintained some contact with Bin-Laden. And after 9/11, suppose further that they got an ultimatum through to him: keep it off American soil, or YOU will be "soil". Does that sound so far-fetched? Well, consider this: It fits with the reality we're experiencing nowadays. Does it seem to you that Osama Bin-Laden is going to be caught anytime in the near future? How about the middle future? How about...ever? Remember our impressive intelligence and military performance in late 2001 that drove the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan (but obviously not out of existence)? And once that goal was accomplished, how our emphasis there petered, even though Bin-Laden was still free at large? And how instead, President George W. Bush resurrected an old bogeyman in Saddam Hussein for everyone to hiss at? Could that have been done, at least partially, in order to distract public attention from the failure to locate the head terrorist? And if this all is true, then could it be that we made a secret deal with Bin-Laden after 9/11? And finally, am I ever going to write anything else without making it a question?
To make a deal with the individual responsible for a terrorist attack that caused nearly three thousand American civilian deaths would have been political suicide for Bush. But if he could be reasonably sure that Bin-Laden would "play along" in the future, a deal could well have been justified as being in our national security interests.
Not that any of this really happened, mind you. I just don't know. But I'm just having some problems fitting the facts together. No domestic Al-Qaeda attacks since 9/11. Bin-Laden never caught. We're still in Afghanistan, but we're focusing on fighting the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. The sudden deliberate diversion of national attention away from Afghanistan and Bin-Laden toward Iraq in 2002. Hmmmmm....
Can you see from all this how easy it is for people to construct a "reality" solely from the circumstances that frame it? No, I honestly don't think that Bush made a deal with Bin-Laden. I also don't believe that Paul McCartney died in a 1966 car crash or that the six Apollo moon landings from 1969 to 1972 were elaborate hoaxes. But those notions also came about by people inserting theories to account for circumstances that indicated their veracity.
And now we come to those making outlandish claims about our current president. Obama wasn't born in the U.S., he's setting up a network of concentration camps to deal with future dissidents, he is turning America socialist/communist, he wants to kill old people, and so on. Each "theory" is presented by revealing "facts" pointing inexorably to the horrible conclusion. But I hold that, with a little creativity, one could pretty much manipulate circumstantial facts to create any kind of underlying "reality" that one liked.
Recently we have seen in the news the big story about the arrested Afghans who were apparently part of a terrorist plot to bomb places in the United States. But since we caught them, this information wouldn't go into the "circumstances" supporting or refuting the "deal with Bin-Laden" assertion. So that assertion keeps its life. That's quite intellectually dishonest, but it is regrettably how a lot of people think things out!
People who easily find themselves falling for conspiracy theories often proudly refer to themselves as "skeptics". After all, they ARE skeptical of the prevailing, commonly held take on whatever it is that they think is being manipulated behind-the-scenes by others. But a true skeptic takes in all of the available facts, not just those which affirm his/her biases. So, in writing here about Osama Bin-Laden, I must make a disclaimer: I fit NEITHER definition of a skeptic, at least for the purpose of this article. Because (if you can stand it, here it goes)....I don't know for sure what's really going on, but that's not going to stop me for speculating.
For many Americans, the name Osama Bin-Laden has the same level of infamy, if not worse, as Adolf Hitler. And to the extent that I think that ALL mass murderers are evil villains, I agree with that viewpoint. But back in the 1980s, this sun-of-a-gun was an allied guerrilla warrior in our proxy war in Afghanistan against the then-occupying force of the Soviet Union. Our popular culture was full of praise and support for Afghanistan's "freedom fighters" (see Rambo III or the James Bond flick The Living Daylights). Bin-Laden was right in the middle of this and was a brave fighter. And some of our money and supplies (and intelligence) may have gone to him (this is where I have a big "I don't know" feeling). And why not? He was our ally. But "ally" does not necessarily equate to "friend", although it could have had we followed through with support after the Soviets withdrew. While our main concern, the Soviet Union, was on Afghan soil, we were all for the people of Afghanistan. The moment they left, we quickly went back to virtually ignoring the area. So Osama Bin-Laden, with his bravado and his wealth, looked around him and determined that America's actions regarding Muslim nations were ultimately only directed at promoting its own interests. To him, the U.S. was like any other foreign occupying power. Any American military presence on any Muslim-populated territory was, to Bin-Laden, just as illegitimate and warlike as what the Soviets had done in Afghanistan. And thus, since the early 1990s, Bin-Laden and his organization Al-Qaeda have been at war against the U.S.,its western allies, and those Muslim nations supporting American military presence on their soil.
But why haven't we captured or killed Bin-Laden more than eight years after the 9/11 attack that he authorized? He is believed to be in Pakistan somewhere (if still alive, that is). Or possibly southern Afghanistan. But I find it (and here is where my skepticism may be interpreted in different ways) difficult to believe, in such a relatively small area to search, and with Pakistan being our political and military ally, that we haven't been able to pinpoint his location and "get" to him. And now I wonder (I tend to do this on this blog, for better or for worse)...
Suppose that, on some intelligence level, the U.S. has always maintained some contact with Bin-Laden. And after 9/11, suppose further that they got an ultimatum through to him: keep it off American soil, or YOU will be "soil". Does that sound so far-fetched? Well, consider this: It fits with the reality we're experiencing nowadays. Does it seem to you that Osama Bin-Laden is going to be caught anytime in the near future? How about the middle future? How about...ever? Remember our impressive intelligence and military performance in late 2001 that drove the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan (but obviously not out of existence)? And once that goal was accomplished, how our emphasis there petered, even though Bin-Laden was still free at large? And how instead, President George W. Bush resurrected an old bogeyman in Saddam Hussein for everyone to hiss at? Could that have been done, at least partially, in order to distract public attention from the failure to locate the head terrorist? And if this all is true, then could it be that we made a secret deal with Bin-Laden after 9/11? And finally, am I ever going to write anything else without making it a question?
To make a deal with the individual responsible for a terrorist attack that caused nearly three thousand American civilian deaths would have been political suicide for Bush. But if he could be reasonably sure that Bin-Laden would "play along" in the future, a deal could well have been justified as being in our national security interests.
Not that any of this really happened, mind you. I just don't know. But I'm just having some problems fitting the facts together. No domestic Al-Qaeda attacks since 9/11. Bin-Laden never caught. We're still in Afghanistan, but we're focusing on fighting the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. The sudden deliberate diversion of national attention away from Afghanistan and Bin-Laden toward Iraq in 2002. Hmmmmm....
Can you see from all this how easy it is for people to construct a "reality" solely from the circumstances that frame it? No, I honestly don't think that Bush made a deal with Bin-Laden. I also don't believe that Paul McCartney died in a 1966 car crash or that the six Apollo moon landings from 1969 to 1972 were elaborate hoaxes. But those notions also came about by people inserting theories to account for circumstances that indicated their veracity.
And now we come to those making outlandish claims about our current president. Obama wasn't born in the U.S., he's setting up a network of concentration camps to deal with future dissidents, he is turning America socialist/communist, he wants to kill old people, and so on. Each "theory" is presented by revealing "facts" pointing inexorably to the horrible conclusion. But I hold that, with a little creativity, one could pretty much manipulate circumstantial facts to create any kind of underlying "reality" that one liked.
Recently we have seen in the news the big story about the arrested Afghans who were apparently part of a terrorist plot to bomb places in the United States. But since we caught them, this information wouldn't go into the "circumstances" supporting or refuting the "deal with Bin-Laden" assertion. So that assertion keeps its life. That's quite intellectually dishonest, but it is regrettably how a lot of people think things out!
Monday, November 9, 2009
Gnawing, Irrational Feeling That NFL is Fake
I would like somebody to explain to me how a football team I'm following can stop the other with its defense almost the entire game and then, at the end, changes its strategy to a so-called "prevent defense", allowing the opponent to march down the field in a matter of seconds, at a rate of about 10-25 yards per play. And scoring at the end, beating my team. Or suddenly my team, with its highly-paid professionals with years of college and high school stardom and experience behind them, mysteriously can no longer hold on to the football, repeatedly fumbling it away or dropping easy passes, kickoffs, and punts. It's almost as if the game had been scripted, and as if it was my team's predetermined role to fold at the very end.
I have had this gnawing feeling for years about the National Football League in this regard, although I know that the competition there is at almost a cutthroat level, with little or no room for manipulation. Still, there are some games that give me that same feeling I get when someone sucks me into watching one of those professional wrestling travesties, outcomes already written out and only needing to be acted out by the "athletes".
In football, though, I think that stupid coaching decisions may account for much of that perceived manipulation of events. Especially with time running out in close games. No real need to add the suspicion that professional football is fake to my conspiracy list. Yet. After all, what are professionals really but bumbling humans who are just getting paid for being bumbling humans? Better to presume incompetence over conspiracy, as a general rule.
I have had this gnawing feeling for years about the National Football League in this regard, although I know that the competition there is at almost a cutthroat level, with little or no room for manipulation. Still, there are some games that give me that same feeling I get when someone sucks me into watching one of those professional wrestling travesties, outcomes already written out and only needing to be acted out by the "athletes".
In football, though, I think that stupid coaching decisions may account for much of that perceived manipulation of events. Especially with time running out in close games. No real need to add the suspicion that professional football is fake to my conspiracy list. Yet. After all, what are professionals really but bumbling humans who are just getting paid for being bumbling humans? Better to presume incompetence over conspiracy, as a general rule.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
UF Pond, Off To The Side
While bicycling through the University of Florida campus the other day, I noticed that there were some places in the middle of this densely urban college campus that are relatively more secluded and conducive to contemplation and retreat. This locale, while not exactly of the order of Walden's Pond, is only a short walking distance from Turlington Hall, Marston Science Library, the Hub, and the Reitz Union. There is a bench to sit on here as well (from where I snapped this shot). The building in the background is part of the UF College of Agriculture (IFAS).
Friday, November 6, 2009
GOP Stonewalls Obama Nominee, Then Confirms
I recently witnessed a Senate floor vote, delayed for months by Republican filibustering, which finally confirmed Thomas Perez, Obama’s nomination for Assistant Attorney General in charge of civil rights, by a vote of 72-22. The Judiciary Committee, back in March, had passed on Perez’s nomination to the full Senate with a resounding 17-2 approval vote. This meant that most of the Republicans on that committee had approved of Perez. And most of them stayed with their committee positions during the final recent floor vote. But in the intervening period, they voted to stonewall the nomination through procedural tactics and filibusters.
This policy of the GOP delaying EVERYTHING as much as possible, even when there is little opposition, runs contrary to the spirit of cooperation and comity that is necessary within the Senate to accomplish anything. With the track record they have demonstrated, I don’t think that the Republicans will be as successful against the Democrats in next year’s elections as they were in 1994, when they won control of that body. The Dems are “hip” to what they are up to and are making sure that the country as whole is aware of it. However, in order to hold on to some seats, there will have to be a much larger level of voter participation than has usually been in case in non-presidential election years.
This policy of the GOP delaying EVERYTHING as much as possible, even when there is little opposition, runs contrary to the spirit of cooperation and comity that is necessary within the Senate to accomplish anything. With the track record they have demonstrated, I don’t think that the Republicans will be as successful against the Democrats in next year’s elections as they were in 1994, when they won control of that body. The Dems are “hip” to what they are up to and are making sure that the country as whole is aware of it. However, in order to hold on to some seats, there will have to be a much larger level of voter participation than has usually been in case in non-presidential election years.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Seven Unbeatens in NCAA Football
The 2009 NCAA football season is shaping up to be quite different from the previous few years in one important respect: this late in the season, there are still seven teams with undefeated records. They are Florida, Texas, Alabama, Iowa, TCU, Boise State, and Cincinnati. Except for Florida and Alabama, one of which will have to lose since they are in the same conference and would play each other for the title, these teams can pretty much run out the remainder of the regular season and remain unbeaten. Potentially leaving six teams with perfect records.
Now who gets to decide who can play for the national championship if this happens? If we had instituted a three-week, eight team playoff system as has been proposed for several years already, this situation would not present much of a problem. But we seem locked in, year after year, to this asinine way of determining who gets to play for the national title in football. Unlike, I might add, any other sport, high school, college, or pro. And even unlike small college football, which does employ a playoff system.
Most likely, Texas will play the winner of Florida vs. Alabama for the national championship (presuming these teams continue to otherwise remain undefeated). Leaving four other unbeaten teams shut out. It might be argued that TCU and Cincinnati are from much weaker conferences and, as such, their records don't qualify them for a shot at the title. But how about Iowa and Boise State? Iowa is in the Big Ten Conference, one of the premier leagues in the country. And all Boise State did was manhandle Oregon, a Pacific-Ten team that has won the rest of its games, including a recent 47-20 drubbing of perennial power Southern Cal.
But then again, maybe I'm writing this article one or two weeks too early. There is still plenty of time for some of these "perfect" teams to go down in ignominious defeat. Like Cincinnati, who is playing Pittsburgh in a few weeks. Or Alabama, who is playing LSU. Even Texas, the most likely candidate for a national championship slot, will have to win its Big 12 title in a playoff game against the winner of that conference's Northern Division, not a done deal.
Now who gets to decide who can play for the national championship if this happens? If we had instituted a three-week, eight team playoff system as has been proposed for several years already, this situation would not present much of a problem. But we seem locked in, year after year, to this asinine way of determining who gets to play for the national title in football. Unlike, I might add, any other sport, high school, college, or pro. And even unlike small college football, which does employ a playoff system.
Most likely, Texas will play the winner of Florida vs. Alabama for the national championship (presuming these teams continue to otherwise remain undefeated). Leaving four other unbeaten teams shut out. It might be argued that TCU and Cincinnati are from much weaker conferences and, as such, their records don't qualify them for a shot at the title. But how about Iowa and Boise State? Iowa is in the Big Ten Conference, one of the premier leagues in the country. And all Boise State did was manhandle Oregon, a Pacific-Ten team that has won the rest of its games, including a recent 47-20 drubbing of perennial power Southern Cal.
But then again, maybe I'm writing this article one or two weeks too early. There is still plenty of time for some of these "perfect" teams to go down in ignominious defeat. Like Cincinnati, who is playing Pittsburgh in a few weeks. Or Alabama, who is playing LSU. Even Texas, the most likely candidate for a national championship slot, will have to win its Big 12 title in a playoff game against the winner of that conference's Northern Division, not a done deal.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Finally, A Little Cooler
Yesterday morning at six, when I stepped outside to go on my morning walk around my neighborhood with my wife, it was a very chilly 52 degrees. I had to wear a sweater and long pants, but Melissa was fine with a tee shirt and shorts. After the first lap around the block, I had to add a jacket to my sweater, it was so cold to me. So here the two of us were, Melissa and I: one dressed for summertime, and one for the winter. Toward the end of our two-mile walk, though, I was shedding the extra layers of clothing. And when we walked back up to our front door, I looked down the street and saw two little boys walking down the block to their school bus stop, huddling under their heavy winter clothing. At 52 degrees.
That's the way it is here in north central Florida at this time of the year. I've gotten so accustomed to the unseasonably late summerlike temperatures that moderately cool weather seems cold to me. But I think this will quickly change, as we should finally be settling down into a cooler pattern.
Oh, for autumn to finally arrive!
That's the way it is here in north central Florida at this time of the year. I've gotten so accustomed to the unseasonably late summerlike temperatures that moderately cool weather seems cold to me. But I think this will quickly change, as we should finally be settling down into a cooler pattern.
Oh, for autumn to finally arrive!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
November: Conspiracy Theory Month
[With April as "runner-up"]
Welcome to Conspiracy Theory Month! November has all kinds of goodies in this area: the 2000 presidential election and its Florida recount, Paul McCartney's supposed fatal automobile accident in 1966, and of course, the John Kennedy assassination in 1963. But as a matter of course, I think I'll be writing from time to time this month about a whole range of conspiracies, real and imagined, whether or not they involve the month of November.
Conspiracy theorists, if you read them, usually have developed their own very specific timelines and locales for the events that they are focusing on. This can create quite a creepy "alternative universe" scenario of sites that in reality were most likely totally devoid of relevance to the matter at hand. The most prominent of these, as I see it, is the "grassy knoll" in Dallas, from which extra gunmen were purported to have secretly shot President Kennedy in the early afternoon of November 22, 1963. But after Oliver Stone's conspiracy-heavy movie JFK, now I can stage my own "conspiracy fantasy" tour focusing on New Orleans and Dallas.
So what are some of the more famous conspiracy theories that have permeated our collective consciousness over the years? Here are a few that come to my mind:
--JFK's assassination wasn't just by lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald acting on his own, but was a plot carried out by various parties aggrieved with the President, acting in a highly improbable unholy alliance with each other. Depending upon the conspiracy theorist, these suspected parties include extreme right wing southerners, the CIA, organized crime, Castro, and even Lyndon Johnson.
--Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 wasn't a lone job by Sirhan Sirhan, but rather a conspiracy with another gunman on the scene. With such a crowded setting in which this crime occurred, this view is one of the more utterly preposterous conspiracy theories (to me).
--Much less preposterous-sounding is the idea that the 4/4/68 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King in Memphis, Tennessee was a conspiracy. I personally have a difficult time accepting the notion that a career criminal such as James Earl Ray would have the motive to take out this great civil rights leader on his own. But as a hired gun or someone set up to be there when it happened? Makes more sense.
--The "9/11 was an inside job" notion carries a lot of weight with some people because those accused of plotting these horrendous attacks enjoyed enormous political gains from the attacks and were freed to carry out policies (Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq) that would otherwise have never been tolerated by the American people.
--Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt has been accused of setting Pearl Harbor up for attack in December 1941 in order to formally bring America directly into World War II, which it had successfully avoided for more than two years, thanks in large part to the enormous popular and political opposition to direct combat involvement.
--The idea that nobody ever really went to the moon and that it was all done and broadcast from a remote movie set in the American West was reinforced by movies like 1971's James Bond flick Diamonds Are Forever, which featured a scene where our hero busts through exactly such a set and commandeers the "Lunar Rover" in a chase scene, using it to flee from the bad guys. The later film Capricorn One lays out the Moon Hoax conspiracy theory more directly by portraying a staged mission for a Mars trip.
--A personal favorite conspiracy theory is the "Paul is dead" narrative, first promoted in 1969 by some Detroit radio DJs and still enduring to this day. Much of the supporting "evidence" for the notion that Beatles great Paul McCartney died in a November 1966 car crash is given in the form of subsequent Beatles lyrics and album cover clues.
--Aliens gave us advanced technology, which we "reverse-engineered". The crash at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 (which actually never happened) gave the US government access to higher technology in areas like fiber optics and digitization. I see this theory as an application to modern times of Erich Von Däniken's "ancient astronaut" ideas, in which he expresses that space aliens visited Earth in ancient times and were responsible for pyramids and giant statues. In both "theories", the implication is that humans are too stupid to think up anything on their own, and therefore outside help must be the explanation for great innovations.
--A whole new wave of conspiracy theories is being generated by wacko, paranoid elements of the political right about our current President, Barack Obama. Which is giving rise to a mirror-conspiracy theory being put out by the political left, laying the blame for derogatory statements about the President on the Republican Party and corporate interests opposed to the Obama agenda.
Well, let's see what the coming month holds for this blog regarding conspiracies. I personally plan to invest some time reading up on them and then reporting some of my findings. Should be a lot of fun!
Welcome to Conspiracy Theory Month! November has all kinds of goodies in this area: the 2000 presidential election and its Florida recount, Paul McCartney's supposed fatal automobile accident in 1966, and of course, the John Kennedy assassination in 1963. But as a matter of course, I think I'll be writing from time to time this month about a whole range of conspiracies, real and imagined, whether or not they involve the month of November.
Conspiracy theorists, if you read them, usually have developed their own very specific timelines and locales for the events that they are focusing on. This can create quite a creepy "alternative universe" scenario of sites that in reality were most likely totally devoid of relevance to the matter at hand. The most prominent of these, as I see it, is the "grassy knoll" in Dallas, from which extra gunmen were purported to have secretly shot President Kennedy in the early afternoon of November 22, 1963. But after Oliver Stone's conspiracy-heavy movie JFK, now I can stage my own "conspiracy fantasy" tour focusing on New Orleans and Dallas.
So what are some of the more famous conspiracy theories that have permeated our collective consciousness over the years? Here are a few that come to my mind:
--JFK's assassination wasn't just by lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald acting on his own, but was a plot carried out by various parties aggrieved with the President, acting in a highly improbable unholy alliance with each other. Depending upon the conspiracy theorist, these suspected parties include extreme right wing southerners, the CIA, organized crime, Castro, and even Lyndon Johnson.
--Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 wasn't a lone job by Sirhan Sirhan, but rather a conspiracy with another gunman on the scene. With such a crowded setting in which this crime occurred, this view is one of the more utterly preposterous conspiracy theories (to me).
--Much less preposterous-sounding is the idea that the 4/4/68 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King in Memphis, Tennessee was a conspiracy. I personally have a difficult time accepting the notion that a career criminal such as James Earl Ray would have the motive to take out this great civil rights leader on his own. But as a hired gun or someone set up to be there when it happened? Makes more sense.
--The "9/11 was an inside job" notion carries a lot of weight with some people because those accused of plotting these horrendous attacks enjoyed enormous political gains from the attacks and were freed to carry out policies (Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq) that would otherwise have never been tolerated by the American people.
--Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt has been accused of setting Pearl Harbor up for attack in December 1941 in order to formally bring America directly into World War II, which it had successfully avoided for more than two years, thanks in large part to the enormous popular and political opposition to direct combat involvement.
--The idea that nobody ever really went to the moon and that it was all done and broadcast from a remote movie set in the American West was reinforced by movies like 1971's James Bond flick Diamonds Are Forever, which featured a scene where our hero busts through exactly such a set and commandeers the "Lunar Rover" in a chase scene, using it to flee from the bad guys. The later film Capricorn One lays out the Moon Hoax conspiracy theory more directly by portraying a staged mission for a Mars trip.
--A personal favorite conspiracy theory is the "Paul is dead" narrative, first promoted in 1969 by some Detroit radio DJs and still enduring to this day. Much of the supporting "evidence" for the notion that Beatles great Paul McCartney died in a November 1966 car crash is given in the form of subsequent Beatles lyrics and album cover clues.
--Aliens gave us advanced technology, which we "reverse-engineered". The crash at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 (which actually never happened) gave the US government access to higher technology in areas like fiber optics and digitization. I see this theory as an application to modern times of Erich Von Däniken's "ancient astronaut" ideas, in which he expresses that space aliens visited Earth in ancient times and were responsible for pyramids and giant statues. In both "theories", the implication is that humans are too stupid to think up anything on their own, and therefore outside help must be the explanation for great innovations.
--A whole new wave of conspiracy theories is being generated by wacko, paranoid elements of the political right about our current President, Barack Obama. Which is giving rise to a mirror-conspiracy theory being put out by the political left, laying the blame for derogatory statements about the President on the Republican Party and corporate interests opposed to the Obama agenda.
Well, let's see what the coming month holds for this blog regarding conspiracies. I personally plan to invest some time reading up on them and then reporting some of my findings. Should be a lot of fun!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Typical UF Bulletin Board
Just one of those wild and crazy university bulletin boards with wild and crazy ads placed in a wild and crazy manner. It used to tick me off to see someone covering over an entire bulletin board with a stack of the same ads and a stapler. Now I just laugh. This board, though, has a healthy degree of variety to it. Maybe the folks stapling bulletin board ads have become more socially conscious nowadays....Naaah!!!
Friday, October 30, 2009
Philip K. Dick's Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said
I just finished reading the late Philip K. Dick's novel Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said. Evidently written in the midst of the turmoil in America of the early 1970s with law-and-order and abuse-of-power president Richard Nixon and the political radicalization of college students across the nation, this novel takes that setting and extends it into the future. Into a world dominated by a repressive police state where a deceased Nixon is worshipped as a manifestation of Christ and students are imprisoned in ghettos across the land following a second Civil War.
Flow My Tears has as its protagonist a charismatic television idol, Jason Taverner, who is secretly a "six"; this is a person who was the product of genetic engineering in the past (of the "sixth" experimental group, that is). One day, Taverner wakes up to find that his existence has been wiped clean from the memories of all those he knew. As a matter of fact, there is no record of his life anywhere (remind you of a couple of Twilight Zone episodes?). And his lack of an identity places him in imminent danger of being arrested and sent off to a forced labor camp.
Not being someone who likes to spoil the endings of novels, I'll just say that the explanation for Jason Taverner's predicament was quite impressive, to say the least. As Philip K. Dick has done in other works of his that I have read, his characters are complex and interesting. The way they think and present themselves to each other reminds me a little of Ernest Hemingway's style. Dick's writing style also resembles Hemingway in its simplicity. All to his credit, in my opinion.
So get a copy of Philip K. Dick's short novel Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said (I checked it out from my public library). It is a science fiction story of the best kind: one that shares some profound insights into how society and technology may merge in the future to create crushing oppression, as well as providing interesting angles on what is real and the nature of subjectivity.
Flow My Tears has as its protagonist a charismatic television idol, Jason Taverner, who is secretly a "six"; this is a person who was the product of genetic engineering in the past (of the "sixth" experimental group, that is). One day, Taverner wakes up to find that his existence has been wiped clean from the memories of all those he knew. As a matter of fact, there is no record of his life anywhere (remind you of a couple of Twilight Zone episodes?). And his lack of an identity places him in imminent danger of being arrested and sent off to a forced labor camp.
Not being someone who likes to spoil the endings of novels, I'll just say that the explanation for Jason Taverner's predicament was quite impressive, to say the least. As Philip K. Dick has done in other works of his that I have read, his characters are complex and interesting. The way they think and present themselves to each other reminds me a little of Ernest Hemingway's style. Dick's writing style also resembles Hemingway in its simplicity. All to his credit, in my opinion.
So get a copy of Philip K. Dick's short novel Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said (I checked it out from my public library). It is a science fiction story of the best kind: one that shares some profound insights into how society and technology may merge in the future to create crushing oppression, as well as providing interesting angles on what is real and the nature of subjectivity.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Assuming Total Personal Responsibility
I've noticed a trend over the years as I've watched various sports events and the subsequent spin that participants and their coaches have put on their performances. The tendency, as I have observed, is to take a rather myopic view of what happened, with all of the lessons learned from the event being based on one's own performance, without regard to whether the other side was having an especially good or bad game.
When I was much younger and had athletic aspirations, I would sometimes play beyond my abilities and have spectacular games. I would run a football kickoff back for a touchdown, score three quick goals in soccer, or play devastating defense in basketball, repeatedly stealing the ball from my opponent. But although these performances represented personal peaks in my achievement, when they happened my opponents tended instead to berate themselves and each other for "letting me win".
I see this all the time on TV. Florida's Tim Tebow throws a couple of interceptions against Mississippi State and it's all about "what's wrong with Tebow", not "wow, Mississippi State's pass defense is playing extraordinarily well". Of course, coaches and players alike will make the perfunctory "good sportsmanship" remarks praising the other team's performance. But their overwhelming emphasis is on their own performances, almost as if the other side were a constant, unchanging element that had little or no impact on the game's outcome.
As dishonest as just looking at one's own performance and ignoring or diminishing the opposition's may be, it is actually a healthy attitude, in a manner of speaking. As an athlete or coach, I can't control how my opposition will play on any given day. The only thing I can do is to optimize my own (or my players') performance by insisting on taking personal responsibility for every outcome. Only then can problems be identified and strategies enacted for overcoming them in the future. The idea of assuming total personal responsibility in an interactive contest may be a lie, but it is a useful lie, nevertheless. And this principle can carry over beyond sports, into general living.
The principle of "it's not what happens to you, but rather what you do about what happens to you that matters" is a corollary to the above "lie", and has its own limitations as well. We should each of us focus on our own behavior while still being cognizant of what others do. There are some things in life we have little or no control over. Still, we need to act AS IF we had control, nevertheless. Because, sometimes, we really do!
When I was much younger and had athletic aspirations, I would sometimes play beyond my abilities and have spectacular games. I would run a football kickoff back for a touchdown, score three quick goals in soccer, or play devastating defense in basketball, repeatedly stealing the ball from my opponent. But although these performances represented personal peaks in my achievement, when they happened my opponents tended instead to berate themselves and each other for "letting me win".
I see this all the time on TV. Florida's Tim Tebow throws a couple of interceptions against Mississippi State and it's all about "what's wrong with Tebow", not "wow, Mississippi State's pass defense is playing extraordinarily well". Of course, coaches and players alike will make the perfunctory "good sportsmanship" remarks praising the other team's performance. But their overwhelming emphasis is on their own performances, almost as if the other side were a constant, unchanging element that had little or no impact on the game's outcome.
As dishonest as just looking at one's own performance and ignoring or diminishing the opposition's may be, it is actually a healthy attitude, in a manner of speaking. As an athlete or coach, I can't control how my opposition will play on any given day. The only thing I can do is to optimize my own (or my players') performance by insisting on taking personal responsibility for every outcome. Only then can problems be identified and strategies enacted for overcoming them in the future. The idea of assuming total personal responsibility in an interactive contest may be a lie, but it is a useful lie, nevertheless. And this principle can carry over beyond sports, into general living.
The principle of "it's not what happens to you, but rather what you do about what happens to you that matters" is a corollary to the above "lie", and has its own limitations as well. We should each of us focus on our own behavior while still being cognizant of what others do. There are some things in life we have little or no control over. Still, we need to act AS IF we had control, nevertheless. Because, sometimes, we really do!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Heffalumps and Woozles in Hogtown
I loved the Disney cartoon series Winnie the Pooh, along with the spin-off movies. One of my favorite characters was timid, easily-frightened Piglet, whose chief fear was of the Heffalumps [elephants] and Woozles [weasels] he mostly imagined were lurking about the Hundred Acre Wood. Here in Gainesville, we're building up a local "fright" about some wild animals as well: hogs and coyotes.
I've already reported a few days ago on the exploding wild hog population northwest of Gainesville that is spilling into residents' yards. But coyotes abound here as well, and they are not as confined as their porcine "pals". A typical coyote family, as Monday's Gainesville Sun article pointed out, has a range of about ten square miles. And they can be anywhere, even in the heart of the city. Coyotes have attacked both cats and small dogs, although they generally quickly shy away from humans. Lately though, coyotes have been seen about openly in broad daylight, a new development for Gainesville.
I have personally seen neither wild hogs nor coyotes in Gainesville, but I recognize that they are around. I think the main predators to be feared are neither of these animals, which for the most part are just trying to survive and mind their own business. Rather it is the age-old nemesis that people have always had to be on the watch against: other people!
And I don't just mean violent people who commit or threaten to commit crimes of aggression like the mugging incidents that have recently dramatically increased in frequency here. Put some people behind the wheel in a motor vehicle and just walking down the street can be a frightening experience, with all of the distracted, aggressive, and/or alcohol-impaired drivers out there. "Our" Heffalumps and Woozles? Not boars and coyotes, but muggers and poor drivers!
I've already reported a few days ago on the exploding wild hog population northwest of Gainesville that is spilling into residents' yards. But coyotes abound here as well, and they are not as confined as their porcine "pals". A typical coyote family, as Monday's Gainesville Sun article pointed out, has a range of about ten square miles. And they can be anywhere, even in the heart of the city. Coyotes have attacked both cats and small dogs, although they generally quickly shy away from humans. Lately though, coyotes have been seen about openly in broad daylight, a new development for Gainesville.
I have personally seen neither wild hogs nor coyotes in Gainesville, but I recognize that they are around. I think the main predators to be feared are neither of these animals, which for the most part are just trying to survive and mind their own business. Rather it is the age-old nemesis that people have always had to be on the watch against: other people!
And I don't just mean violent people who commit or threaten to commit crimes of aggression like the mugging incidents that have recently dramatically increased in frequency here. Put some people behind the wheel in a motor vehicle and just walking down the street can be a frightening experience, with all of the distracted, aggressive, and/or alcohol-impaired drivers out there. "Our" Heffalumps and Woozles? Not boars and coyotes, but muggers and poor drivers!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Short, Random Notes
Not a "tweeter" by nature, I generally prefer to write a paragraph or two (or more) about topics that pique my interest. But there are a few things floating around that I'd like to get off my chest in a hurry, so here goes:
--Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid decided to push for a health care form bill that has a much stronger public option in it than most observers had foreseen, especially after the lame Baucus version had passed the Finance Committee. Good, I think that I am back on track with supporting health care reform as it currently being legislated.
--A couple of weeks ago, I thought that we in north-central Florida were experiencing the last vestiges of hot summer weather. But I was wrong, as the hot, muggy weather has returned with a vengeance. Ugh!
--The New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies will play in this year's World Series, with the first game starting tonight. Go Yanks!
--My local rag The Gainesville Sun has a new topic that it has been playing with recently on its editorial page: air-boats on Orange Lake and how appropriate or inappropriate they are. My take is that since the chief objection that residents on the lake have against air-boats there is that they keep them awake at night with their noise, simple common courtesy would dictate that people refrain from operating them late at night and just stick to the daytime and early evening hours. After all, I don't go out and mow my lawn at three in the morning! It's amazing how many conflicts could be alleviated were people to show some simple consideration and respect for each other.
--I was watching a football game last night between the Washington Redskins and the Philadelphia Eagles. Not caring much for either team, I arbitrarily decided to root for Washington in this game. And became infuriated by their total incompetence on offense. I can accept my team losing a game because the other team outplayed them. But when my side continuously fumbles away the football and incurs ridiculous penalties, that's when my patience wears thin. I think it's going to be a while before I root for the Redskins again in a game.
--With the H1N1 flu vaccine currently being in such short supply, the parents of young children are being placed in a bind. On one hand, they are continually being warned to get their kids vaccinated because this flu primarily affects children and has already caused many deaths. Shame on parents who don't get their children vaccinated, right? On the other hand, if the vaccine isn't available anyway, then WTF?
--Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid decided to push for a health care form bill that has a much stronger public option in it than most observers had foreseen, especially after the lame Baucus version had passed the Finance Committee. Good, I think that I am back on track with supporting health care reform as it currently being legislated.
--A couple of weeks ago, I thought that we in north-central Florida were experiencing the last vestiges of hot summer weather. But I was wrong, as the hot, muggy weather has returned with a vengeance. Ugh!
--The New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies will play in this year's World Series, with the first game starting tonight. Go Yanks!
--My local rag The Gainesville Sun has a new topic that it has been playing with recently on its editorial page: air-boats on Orange Lake and how appropriate or inappropriate they are. My take is that since the chief objection that residents on the lake have against air-boats there is that they keep them awake at night with their noise, simple common courtesy would dictate that people refrain from operating them late at night and just stick to the daytime and early evening hours. After all, I don't go out and mow my lawn at three in the morning! It's amazing how many conflicts could be alleviated were people to show some simple consideration and respect for each other.
--I was watching a football game last night between the Washington Redskins and the Philadelphia Eagles. Not caring much for either team, I arbitrarily decided to root for Washington in this game. And became infuriated by their total incompetence on offense. I can accept my team losing a game because the other team outplayed them. But when my side continuously fumbles away the football and incurs ridiculous penalties, that's when my patience wears thin. I think it's going to be a while before I root for the Redskins again in a game.
--With the H1N1 flu vaccine currently being in such short supply, the parents of young children are being placed in a bind. On one hand, they are continually being warned to get their kids vaccinated because this flu primarily affects children and has already caused many deaths. Shame on parents who don't get their children vaccinated, right? On the other hand, if the vaccine isn't available anyway, then WTF?
Monday, October 26, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court on Web
Back in 2002, I took a history class at the University of Florida probing the history of the U.S. Supreme Court since the American Civil War. The professor was Elizabeth Dale, whom I regard as my all-time favorite professor at UF. The course focused on the development of the Court's philosophy by examining various crucial decisions through the years and their written opinions, both majority and dissenting. So I already have a bit of experience in reading and interpreting Supreme Court rulings.
The recent confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as the new Supreme Court Justice replacing retiring Justice David Souter spurred a new interest within me regarding this very important institution. And I began to explore websites about the US Supreme Court. Naturally, my first choice was the Court's own site, and for all practical purposes it keeps me abreast as to its schedule of cases, oral arguments, and decisions, complete with majority and dissenting opinions.
For example, a case challenging the constitutionality of an aspect of federal campaign finance law was reheard back in September, giving new associate justice Sotomayer a chance to make her debut. The fall session officially began about three weeks ago, the first heavily-publicized case of which concerns the constitutionality of a war memorial in the form of a cross, erected back in the 1930s at a relatively remote spot in California on then-public land. But these aren't the only cases being heard, and this site lists them, along with word-for-word transcripts of the oral arguments (poor grammar and all).
I find following these arguments to be quite an intellectual challenge, and have come to respect the justices (and arguing attorneys) for their skill and precision with the law and its oral presentation.
In these arguments the ideological division in the Court between conservative and liberal justices is often difficult to perceive. Each justice is truly an independent thinker and often contributes unexpectedly novel outlooks on the cases being examined.
I recommend following the US Supreme Court website to get a true feel about how cases are argued, and to get the complete decisions along with their written opinions. The level of discourse during oral arguments is much higher than anything you would hear on news/talk television or radio, and that includes C-Span broadcasts of the proceedings of the US House of Representatives and the Senate. I look forward to a future day when I will be able to view Supreme Court oral arguments live on my TV screen. But until then, I still have them to read (and in very large print, too) on my computer.
The recent confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as the new Supreme Court Justice replacing retiring Justice David Souter spurred a new interest within me regarding this very important institution. And I began to explore websites about the US Supreme Court. Naturally, my first choice was the Court's own site, and for all practical purposes it keeps me abreast as to its schedule of cases, oral arguments, and decisions, complete with majority and dissenting opinions.
For example, a case challenging the constitutionality of an aspect of federal campaign finance law was reheard back in September, giving new associate justice Sotomayer a chance to make her debut. The fall session officially began about three weeks ago, the first heavily-publicized case of which concerns the constitutionality of a war memorial in the form of a cross, erected back in the 1930s at a relatively remote spot in California on then-public land. But these aren't the only cases being heard, and this site lists them, along with word-for-word transcripts of the oral arguments (poor grammar and all).
I find following these arguments to be quite an intellectual challenge, and have come to respect the justices (and arguing attorneys) for their skill and precision with the law and its oral presentation.
In these arguments the ideological division in the Court between conservative and liberal justices is often difficult to perceive. Each justice is truly an independent thinker and often contributes unexpectedly novel outlooks on the cases being examined.
I recommend following the US Supreme Court website to get a true feel about how cases are argued, and to get the complete decisions along with their written opinions. The level of discourse during oral arguments is much higher than anything you would hear on news/talk television or radio, and that includes C-Span broadcasts of the proceedings of the US House of Representatives and the Senate. I look forward to a future day when I will be able to view Supreme Court oral arguments live on my TV screen. But until then, I still have them to read (and in very large print, too) on my computer.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
From Stephen King to Philip K. Dick
I have nearly reached the end of my exploration of Stephen King's literary works, with only a couple of novellas from his Four Past Midnight collection left to read before I begin on his soon-to-be-published novel Under the Dome. I exclude from my reading history his novels The Green Mile, Misery, and Firestarter, as I saw the movies first and already know their outcomes. Obviously, I am a fan of King's, one of his "constant readers" as he likes to put it. And I am now looking for another writer of comparable worth to focus on.
There are plenty of candidates out there, but I think I may have settled on the "winner": science fiction icon Philip K. Dick (1928-82) who wrote numerous short stories (a few of which I have already read) and 36 novels. Some of these novels fit more into the genre of general fiction than science fiction. During his lifetime, Dick experienced difficulty getting many of these published. But during recent years, his collected works have been resurrected and have received much critical praise. I just finished reading one of these novels: Humpty Dumpty in Oakland. It is a stark, brutal depiction of class divisions, real and perceived, existing within America and the creeping paranoia that can arise from them that can sometimes lead to disastrous consequences. And the novel's main characters, Jim Fergesson and Al Miller, are unforgettable and masterfully revealed.
I may have lucked out with Humpty Dumpty in Oakland, but I am already experienced with Philip K. Dick's shorter works and know of their quality. My favorite short stories of his are Impostor (later adapted into a movie of the same title), Fair Game, and The Days of Perky Pat. So I'm pretty confident that I will be enjoying plenty of good reading in the weeks to come. I am currently reading a science fiction novel of his: Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said.
One other thing: Dick's novels tend to be on the short side, by today's standards that is. I hear Stephen King's new novel will be around a thousand pages long; Philip Dick's novels tend to be about 200-300 pages in length. I kind of like that.
There are plenty of candidates out there, but I think I may have settled on the "winner": science fiction icon Philip K. Dick (1928-82) who wrote numerous short stories (a few of which I have already read) and 36 novels. Some of these novels fit more into the genre of general fiction than science fiction. During his lifetime, Dick experienced difficulty getting many of these published. But during recent years, his collected works have been resurrected and have received much critical praise. I just finished reading one of these novels: Humpty Dumpty in Oakland. It is a stark, brutal depiction of class divisions, real and perceived, existing within America and the creeping paranoia that can arise from them that can sometimes lead to disastrous consequences. And the novel's main characters, Jim Fergesson and Al Miller, are unforgettable and masterfully revealed.
I may have lucked out with Humpty Dumpty in Oakland, but I am already experienced with Philip K. Dick's shorter works and know of their quality. My favorite short stories of his are Impostor (later adapted into a movie of the same title), Fair Game, and The Days of Perky Pat. So I'm pretty confident that I will be enjoying plenty of good reading in the weeks to come. I am currently reading a science fiction novel of his: Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said.
One other thing: Dick's novels tend to be on the short side, by today's standards that is. I hear Stephen King's new novel will be around a thousand pages long; Philip Dick's novels tend to be about 200-300 pages in length. I kind of like that.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Where I Stand
I thought it might be interesting to just lay out in a blog article a list of statements spelling out where I stand on various issues.
War in Afghanistan:
The U.S. should not be engaged in nation-building in Afghanistan. It should concentrate its efforts on fighting Al-Qaeda, which is an international terrorist network, and not the Taliban, which is an indigenous political/military movement in that area. Our efforts should be to put a wedge between the more moderate elements of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We should reduce our visible presence there, else we will be seen as just another in a string of foreign occupiers, attracting greater and greater resistance and popular opposition.
Health Care Reform:
I would prefer a simpler system like Britain’s, where citizens could get their medical needs met without going broke, going through masses of red tape, or restricting any career or lifestyle changes for fear of being denied future insurance coverage. I’m a realist, though; this is the U.S. and the political environment won’t tolerate that (preferable) change. But I would at least like a low-cost public option, especially if everyone is going to be mandated to purchase health insurance. So I’m quite skeptical about the current legislation being process through the Senate (the Baucus bill) which I see as an abominable betrayal of the whole point of health care reform in the first place.
Energy:
I would like to see Americans using safe, nonpolluting, domestic, and renewable energy sources to power their vehicles and electricity. But I’m realistic here: let’s just concentrate for now on keeping carbon emissions low and encouraging domestic sources. And that means (environmentalists can now gasp in horror) building nuclear reactors and using the cleaner coal technology that has been developed in recent years that keeps carbon emissions low. Why? Simply that (1) I would like the planet to survive and (2) it sure would be nice for my country’s leaders to feel that there wasn’t an extreme crisis every time an oil-rich nation underwent a political crisis. And as an important corollary to (2), it should help to keep us out of military adventures abroad. Of course, those intent on military intervention and war will most assuredly come up with other excuses for concentrating their efforts on certain nations while ignoring others.
The answer to our energy problems also must encompass better conservation, which is already under way as greater technology allows it and more people become educated to its importance.
War in Afghanistan:
The U.S. should not be engaged in nation-building in Afghanistan. It should concentrate its efforts on fighting Al-Qaeda, which is an international terrorist network, and not the Taliban, which is an indigenous political/military movement in that area. Our efforts should be to put a wedge between the more moderate elements of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We should reduce our visible presence there, else we will be seen as just another in a string of foreign occupiers, attracting greater and greater resistance and popular opposition.
Health Care Reform:
I would prefer a simpler system like Britain’s, where citizens could get their medical needs met without going broke, going through masses of red tape, or restricting any career or lifestyle changes for fear of being denied future insurance coverage. I’m a realist, though; this is the U.S. and the political environment won’t tolerate that (preferable) change. But I would at least like a low-cost public option, especially if everyone is going to be mandated to purchase health insurance. So I’m quite skeptical about the current legislation being process through the Senate (the Baucus bill) which I see as an abominable betrayal of the whole point of health care reform in the first place.
Energy:
I would like to see Americans using safe, nonpolluting, domestic, and renewable energy sources to power their vehicles and electricity. But I’m realistic here: let’s just concentrate for now on keeping carbon emissions low and encouraging domestic sources. And that means (environmentalists can now gasp in horror) building nuclear reactors and using the cleaner coal technology that has been developed in recent years that keeps carbon emissions low. Why? Simply that (1) I would like the planet to survive and (2) it sure would be nice for my country’s leaders to feel that there wasn’t an extreme crisis every time an oil-rich nation underwent a political crisis. And as an important corollary to (2), it should help to keep us out of military adventures abroad. Of course, those intent on military intervention and war will most assuredly come up with other excuses for concentrating their efforts on certain nations while ignoring others.
The answer to our energy problems also must encompass better conservation, which is already under way as greater technology allows it and more people become educated to its importance.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Howl With Running
This past week I stepped up the mileage in my daily runs around my neighborhood. My increase in running may be due in large part to the fact that I have begun to listen to my mp3 player during my runs, which makes the experience more pleasurable and helps take my attention off the exertion involved in covering the increasing distance. Today I upped the distance to 5.09 miles. In the process I ran down roads that I hadn't run down before. Roads that went by houses with fences that had big, ferociously barking dogs behind them.
As I was completing my sojourn through these new stretches of my home subdivision, I began to hear barking--a small dog's barking, seeming to originate from near the house I was running toward. But I couldn't see the dog as I passed this house, although I could still hear the barking. As I turned the corner onto another street, I began to hear mournful howling originating, it seemed, from different directions. But no dogs to be seen! Truly an eerie experience, worthy of late October and Halloween with its spookiness!
And then it hit me. I lifted up my mp3 player and looked at what was playing: Seamus, by Pink Floyd, from their Meddle album. And featuring a lot of loud, funny dog barks and howls. And I began to howl, too. With laughter. Hope I didn't scare anyone.
As I was completing my sojourn through these new stretches of my home subdivision, I began to hear barking--a small dog's barking, seeming to originate from near the house I was running toward. But I couldn't see the dog as I passed this house, although I could still hear the barking. As I turned the corner onto another street, I began to hear mournful howling originating, it seemed, from different directions. But no dogs to be seen! Truly an eerie experience, worthy of late October and Halloween with its spookiness!
And then it hit me. I lifted up my mp3 player and looked at what was playing: Seamus, by Pink Floyd, from their Meddle album. And featuring a lot of loud, funny dog barks and howls. And I began to howl, too. With laughter. Hope I didn't scare anyone.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Media News and Commentary
There are still some TV channels, notably the traditional “alphabet” networks ABC, CBS, and NBC, which still attempt to show even-handedness in their presentation of news and commentary. And for the most part (with the one glaring exception of Lou Dobbs), I would say this about CNN. But there is another practice that I find disturbing, both by its presumed, deliberate bias and by its burgeoning popularity. And that is having shows hosted by confirmed and unapologetic ideologues who construct their programs to promote their own opinions and to put down opposing views. Lou Dobson, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow all fit this mold. Since I tend to be more liberal than conservative, I also tend to watch MSNBC’s Schultz, Olbermann, and Maddow more. But were I conservative, I doubtless would think that those right-wingers on Fox were the tops. There are some hosts, like MSNBC’s conservative Joe Scarborough and liberal Chris Matthews, who express their views openly but also try to conduct an open airing of the issues with a diversity of opinions expressed.
There are also three increasingly ugly aspects to many of the ideologically driven shows on cable news channels. First, ad hominem personal attacks on political adversaries are commonplace, as if the merit of an individual’s views on an issue should be determined by some breaking news, true or false, about their personal lives. Second, reasonable debates about important issues have been distorted on these shows into morality plays between the heroic good guys and the evildoers bent on destroying everything good about America. And third, those who supposedly are simply providing a media forum for opinions and debate have become so powerful nowadays that elected representatives are now basing their votes and statements on how they think this tiny number of powerful people will react to them. Choose your favorite, Fox or MSNBC: both sides are guilty of this!
There are also three increasingly ugly aspects to many of the ideologically driven shows on cable news channels. First, ad hominem personal attacks on political adversaries are commonplace, as if the merit of an individual’s views on an issue should be determined by some breaking news, true or false, about their personal lives. Second, reasonable debates about important issues have been distorted on these shows into morality plays between the heroic good guys and the evildoers bent on destroying everything good about America. And third, those who supposedly are simply providing a media forum for opinions and debate have become so powerful nowadays that elected representatives are now basing their votes and statements on how they think this tiny number of powerful people will react to them. Choose your favorite, Fox or MSNBC: both sides are guilty of this!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Don't Sell Tebow Short
College football sensation Tim Tebow, the senior starting quarterback for the Florida Gators, is indisputably the most popular athlete in the history of this university. He is idolized everywhere and has even been dubbed with the appellation "Superman". Yes, Tim is indeed living within a bubble of intense adulation. But once he graduates, what will happen to that bubble?
Although Tebow has won the Heisman Trophy (and may win a second this year) and has participated in two national championship teams (and may participate in a third this year), the professional talking heads on television and radio seem to feel that his prospects for success in professional football aren't all that bright. Tim, apparently, isn't playing for a college that uses a "pro" style offense that displays and develops quarterbacks as passing "machines". Instead, at UF he coordinates a rather complex spread-style offense that isn't used much in the National Football League (although the Miami Dolphins are doing something similar with its"wildcat" formation). But just because Tebow doesn't play in a standard pro offense does not mean that he isn't fully capable of excelling in one.
I have seen Tim Tebow as he walks up to the line before plays, and he is quite adept at reading the opponent's defense and making last-second adjustments. As a matter of fact, his behavior just before a play reminds me a bit of NFL's famed quarterback Peyton Manning. Tim is also a very intelligent runner who knows how to follow his blockers as well as how to stretch out a run for a few extra (and often crucial) yards. Add this to the fact that Tebow has a very strong and accurate arm and I would say that the NFL team that ends up drafting him next year may well be setting itself up for quite a rosy future.
So don't sell Tim Tebow short just because of the type of offense that he has to operate in. Instead, realize that, with whatever role that has been assigned to him, Tebow has fulfilled it well beyond expectations. I think he will continue this pattern into his professional football career. And beyond.
Although Tebow has won the Heisman Trophy (and may win a second this year) and has participated in two national championship teams (and may participate in a third this year), the professional talking heads on television and radio seem to feel that his prospects for success in professional football aren't all that bright. Tim, apparently, isn't playing for a college that uses a "pro" style offense that displays and develops quarterbacks as passing "machines". Instead, at UF he coordinates a rather complex spread-style offense that isn't used much in the National Football League (although the Miami Dolphins are doing something similar with its"wildcat" formation). But just because Tebow doesn't play in a standard pro offense does not mean that he isn't fully capable of excelling in one.
I have seen Tim Tebow as he walks up to the line before plays, and he is quite adept at reading the opponent's defense and making last-second adjustments. As a matter of fact, his behavior just before a play reminds me a bit of NFL's famed quarterback Peyton Manning. Tim is also a very intelligent runner who knows how to follow his blockers as well as how to stretch out a run for a few extra (and often crucial) yards. Add this to the fact that Tebow has a very strong and accurate arm and I would say that the NFL team that ends up drafting him next year may well be setting itself up for quite a rosy future.
So don't sell Tim Tebow short just because of the type of offense that he has to operate in. Instead, realize that, with whatever role that has been assigned to him, Tebow has fulfilled it well beyond expectations. I think he will continue this pattern into his professional football career. And beyond.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Colorado Family Balloon Hoax
The whole setup seemed a wee bit suspicious when a boy, suspected of stowing and floating away in his inventor father's makeshift huge helium balloon (which just happened to have a compartment that would accommodate the child), turned up, apparently at home the whole time that the hours-long frantic search was going on. Before calling 911 to report their child's disappearance, the family reportedly contacted a local television station, further fueling doubts. Now it looks as if felony charges will be filed for this charade. The parents, Richard and Mayumi Heene, were hoping for their own television reality show and, according to the Associated Press, have already appeared in the ABC reality show "Wife Swap". All of which makes me wonder about the mental state of the average Amercian television viewer.
If the reality show garbage permeating the television channels nowadays were shown back in the 1960s, they would have been disasters. Viewers back then expected better programming and got it. But today, these scripted shows depict people going about their lives generally behaving like nincompoops, reflecting upon their nincompoopish behavior in short "interview" segments, and then returning to further nincompoopery (and even further reflection). While channel surfing, I keep haplessly landing on these sorry excuses for actual programs, and I have begun to fear for our future. Do regular viewers really care about what is going on with the people portrayed on these reality shows? The prospect makes me shudder.
When I first heard of this Colorado balloon incident and its outcome from a co-worker while at my job, I thought that the writers for the satirical cartoon series South Park couldn't have dreamed upon a better idea for one of their episodes. I could just see it: father thinks Butters has floated away in the balloon. After finding him in the box, he angrily shakes his fist and says "Butters, you're grounded, go to your room!" To which little Butters says "Dang it!" and trudges upstairs. But now that we know of the phony nature of the incident, I would have to change the story's emphasis to the foolish adults in South Park (Stan's sometimes-conniving father comes to the forefront as a possible lead role).
All that the South Park writers really have to do with this story is to report it straight as it happened!
If the reality show garbage permeating the television channels nowadays were shown back in the 1960s, they would have been disasters. Viewers back then expected better programming and got it. But today, these scripted shows depict people going about their lives generally behaving like nincompoops, reflecting upon their nincompoopish behavior in short "interview" segments, and then returning to further nincompoopery (and even further reflection). While channel surfing, I keep haplessly landing on these sorry excuses for actual programs, and I have begun to fear for our future. Do regular viewers really care about what is going on with the people portrayed on these reality shows? The prospect makes me shudder.
When I first heard of this Colorado balloon incident and its outcome from a co-worker while at my job, I thought that the writers for the satirical cartoon series South Park couldn't have dreamed upon a better idea for one of their episodes. I could just see it: father thinks Butters has floated away in the balloon. After finding him in the box, he angrily shakes his fist and says "Butters, you're grounded, go to your room!" To which little Butters says "Dang it!" and trudges upstairs. But now that we know of the phony nature of the incident, I would have to change the story's emphasis to the foolish adults in South Park (Stan's sometimes-conniving father comes to the forefront as a possible lead role).
All that the South Park writers really have to do with this story is to report it straight as it happened!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Baseball Hides Its Playoffs on TV
What happened to Major League Baseball? We are in October and the playoffs are already in the second round, with the winners of the current series to play each other in the World Series. But none of the major networks or sports channels are broadcasting the games [Correction: see below]. Only Atlanta's WTBS seems interested in letting viewers in on the action.
I have to suspect that MLB itself may be responsible for the playoffs dropping out of sight on television. They have made their regular season games harder for the average viewer to follow by making them part of their own premium channels. They seem to be interesting in soaking the American public for as much moolah as they can muster by making their product more difficult to access over the regular channels.
Which brings me to the two industries not covered by the Federal Antitrust Act: the health insurance industry and ...Major League Baseball. The fact that baseball has special legislated protection should, I would think, make it more of a publicly accessible sport. The regular broadcasting networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) should be carrying all of the playoff games, but they're not. It seems that health insurance and baseball, both beneficiaries of legalized monopoly status, can't do enough to antagonize the public with their voracious greed, well beyond reasonable notions of making a respectable profit.
But now that I'm writing about baseball, I might as well comment on the playoffs. I would like to see a World Series match-up between the New York Yankees and the Los Angeles Dodgers. It would pit ex-Yankee and now-Dodger manager Joe Torre against his old team. I would get to see my favorite player, Derek Jeter. And it would revive the ancient rivalry between the two franchises which goes back to the years when the Dodgers were in Brooklyn. But should the Los Angeles Angels and/or Philadelphia Phillies come back in their series and win (actually, the Phillies are leading their series with the Dodgers), that would be all right with me, too. Just let me watch the World Series on "ordinary television", O.K.?
Correction: Well, I just checked my TV listings for today and Fox IS carrying one of the games (Yankees vs. Angels). Just one of them. The other game today, between the Phillies and the Dodgers, is on TBS. But Fox should be showing both of them. Apparently, during the weekend football reigns supreme over everything else (except for those horrid reality shows). In spite of some coverage, I think that baseball is shooting itself in the foot by not insisting on contracts with general broadcasting networks for the widest viewership possible.
I have to suspect that MLB itself may be responsible for the playoffs dropping out of sight on television. They have made their regular season games harder for the average viewer to follow by making them part of their own premium channels. They seem to be interesting in soaking the American public for as much moolah as they can muster by making their product more difficult to access over the regular channels.
Which brings me to the two industries not covered by the Federal Antitrust Act: the health insurance industry and ...Major League Baseball. The fact that baseball has special legislated protection should, I would think, make it more of a publicly accessible sport. The regular broadcasting networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) should be carrying all of the playoff games, but they're not. It seems that health insurance and baseball, both beneficiaries of legalized monopoly status, can't do enough to antagonize the public with their voracious greed, well beyond reasonable notions of making a respectable profit.
But now that I'm writing about baseball, I might as well comment on the playoffs. I would like to see a World Series match-up between the New York Yankees and the Los Angeles Dodgers. It would pit ex-Yankee and now-Dodger manager Joe Torre against his old team. I would get to see my favorite player, Derek Jeter. And it would revive the ancient rivalry between the two franchises which goes back to the years when the Dodgers were in Brooklyn. But should the Los Angeles Angels and/or Philadelphia Phillies come back in their series and win (actually, the Phillies are leading their series with the Dodgers), that would be all right with me, too. Just let me watch the World Series on "ordinary television", O.K.?
Correction: Well, I just checked my TV listings for today and Fox IS carrying one of the games (Yankees vs. Angels). Just one of them. The other game today, between the Phillies and the Dodgers, is on TBS. But Fox should be showing both of them. Apparently, during the weekend football reigns supreme over everything else (except for those horrid reality shows). In spite of some coverage, I think that baseball is shooting itself in the foot by not insisting on contracts with general broadcasting networks for the widest viewership possible.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Suggestion for C-Span2
If I had my way, C-Span2, which carries live United States Senate floor proceedings, would operate in a different manner. I would keep their live Senate coverage, but afterwards I would rebroadcast the day's proceedings. The second go around, though, I would cut out all of that dead "quorum call" time and concentrate on the actual floor speakers and votes. Although the votes take up a lot of time, they do reveal a lot to me. Not only can I see how different senators vote (and sometimes switch their votes around), but I can observe how they personally relate to each other.
For example, although Illinois senator Roland Burris has tried to fit in and chat with other senators, I have yet to see others warm up to him. At the beginning of Al Franken's tenure, I noticed something similar, with his Democratic colleagues often seeming cool to him (major exceptions: fellow Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar and Vermont Independent senator Bernie Sanders). But the junior senator from Minnesota has been doing something unexpected and interesting. Instead of just hanging around his fellow Democrats to try to converse and chum up, Franken often crosses over to the GOP side during floor votes and hangs out with his Republican counterparts. And he seems to get along quite well with them.
But back to compressed same-day rerun coverage: I have more than enough analysis, summaries, and commentary from other news/talk stations. C-Span2 HAS the Senate proceedings, and as such should rebroadcast them each day that it is in session, starting at about 6 pm (unless that body is holding an extended session, that is). I would much rather see my elected representatives up there explaining legislation, pro or con, conservative or liberal, than some corporate hack talking head who is only accountable to his/her boss, instead of to the American people!
For example, although Illinois senator Roland Burris has tried to fit in and chat with other senators, I have yet to see others warm up to him. At the beginning of Al Franken's tenure, I noticed something similar, with his Democratic colleagues often seeming cool to him (major exceptions: fellow Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar and Vermont Independent senator Bernie Sanders). But the junior senator from Minnesota has been doing something unexpected and interesting. Instead of just hanging around his fellow Democrats to try to converse and chum up, Franken often crosses over to the GOP side during floor votes and hangs out with his Republican counterparts. And he seems to get along quite well with them.
But back to compressed same-day rerun coverage: I have more than enough analysis, summaries, and commentary from other news/talk stations. C-Span2 HAS the Senate proceedings, and as such should rebroadcast them each day that it is in session, starting at about 6 pm (unless that body is holding an extended session, that is). I would much rather see my elected representatives up there explaining legislation, pro or con, conservative or liberal, than some corporate hack talking head who is only accountable to his/her boss, instead of to the American people!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Hiking Can Be Such a Boar
A few weeks ago I visited Devil's Millhopper, a sinkhole designated as a State Geological Site that is located only a couple of miles from my home. Around that time, I discovered that, about three miles further west on the same road was located San Felasco Hammock State Park, a much larger park than Devil's Millhopper. The hiking trails at this place are numerous and much longer than "DM"'s, whose only trail was .6 mile in length. So I envisioned myself eventually getting off my butt and heading down there (with my camera, of course).
But alas, a story has been circulating in the Gainesville news media of late regarding the large population of wild boars running rampant within San Felasco Hammock. As a matter of fact, residents in homes near the park have experienced boars in their yards, an obvious threat to their well-being (and much more so to their pets). Well, if that's the case, I'm not all that keen on walking or jogging down miles of remote stretches of hiking trails with wild boars waiting in ambush for me (that scene near the end of the movie Hannibal still weighs heavily on me). Maybe this is an overblown concern. After all, hiking out in the country will naturally increase the possibility of encountering some dangerous animal, like a bear. That just goes with the territory, right? But the way it is being reported, these boars are aggressive and exploding in numbers.
So who needs to go down to Hallow-Scream at Busch Gardens to get a scare this October? Just pay a visit to your friendly, local state park...and let your blood curdle into anguished screams of mortal terror!
But alas, a story has been circulating in the Gainesville news media of late regarding the large population of wild boars running rampant within San Felasco Hammock. As a matter of fact, residents in homes near the park have experienced boars in their yards, an obvious threat to their well-being (and much more so to their pets). Well, if that's the case, I'm not all that keen on walking or jogging down miles of remote stretches of hiking trails with wild boars waiting in ambush for me (that scene near the end of the movie Hannibal still weighs heavily on me). Maybe this is an overblown concern. After all, hiking out in the country will naturally increase the possibility of encountering some dangerous animal, like a bear. That just goes with the territory, right? But the way it is being reported, these boars are aggressive and exploding in numbers.
So who needs to go down to Hallow-Scream at Busch Gardens to get a scare this October? Just pay a visit to your friendly, local state park...and let your blood curdle into anguished screams of mortal terror!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Moore and Dean Slam Baucus Bill
This morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe show starring independently-thinking conservative (how refreshing) Joe Scarborough, guests Howard Dean and Michael Moore expressed their firm opposition to the Baucus health care reform bill recently passed out of the Senate Finance Committee. Both, like me, see it as a forced mass giveaway to the powerful insurance companies at the expense of the very American people who are suffering the most from health insurance's increasing unaffordability. And Moore, like me, stated that this piece of legislation is worse than the status quo. Meaning, for this time around at least, that Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and Bill Irwin are rooting for the stalwart hard-line anti-Obama Republican crowd in the Senate to somehow be able to defeat this horrendous (Moore called it "deplorable"), fraudulently-named "reform" bill. Moore also pointed out that the highly touted provision within the Baucus bill outlawing denial of coverage for preexisting conditions carried only a $5,000 fine, which to an insurance company would be minuscule compared to the medical bills they would be paying for were they to provide coverage in those cases.
I know that the Democrats are calculating that any health reform bill is politically better than no bill. But when the American people see what has been perpetrated upon them with the Baucus legislation and its catering to the health insurance cartel, I predict a much worse political toll eventually being taken on the Democratic Party.
Is there any chance at all for getting a public option included in the health care bill? I keeping hearing of a "trigger" proposal floating about. Senator Schumer wants to amend the legislation to let individual states decide whether or not to allow a public option for consumers. To me, the idea of my federal government legally mandating that, simply because I "exist", I must then purchase health insurance at manipulated high prices from private corporations exempted from the Anti-Trust Act, sounds like something concocted by an extreme fringe group of the political right. But so-called center/left politicians are standing in line to endorse it! This to me is nothing less than a betrayal.
I know that the Democrats are calculating that any health reform bill is politically better than no bill. But when the American people see what has been perpetrated upon them with the Baucus legislation and its catering to the health insurance cartel, I predict a much worse political toll eventually being taken on the Democratic Party.
Is there any chance at all for getting a public option included in the health care bill? I keeping hearing of a "trigger" proposal floating about. Senator Schumer wants to amend the legislation to let individual states decide whether or not to allow a public option for consumers. To me, the idea of my federal government legally mandating that, simply because I "exist", I must then purchase health insurance at manipulated high prices from private corporations exempted from the Anti-Trust Act, sounds like something concocted by an extreme fringe group of the political right. But so-called center/left politicians are standing in line to endorse it! This to me is nothing less than a betrayal.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
French Fried Alachua
Back in the late nineties, artist John Henry was commissioned for a sculpture for the University of Florida campus next to the Marston Science Library. When it was installed in 1998, the painted aluminum sculpture, titled Alachua, was widely criticized and reviled as "French Fries From Hell". But it has withstood the test of time, and now I kind of dig it, actually. The other day I rode my bicycle down to the UF campus and made myself look like a tourist, pulling out my camera and taking some photos of the "sights". And I couldn't let my trip pass without capturing the Great Masterpiece. Here is that masterpiece (or monstrosity, depending on your point of view):
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
I have mixed feelings about President Barack Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. He certainly didn't seek out the prize, and was just as surprised as others were to hear the announcement that he had won.
I think there are basically two kinds of Nobel Peace Prize winners. One is someone who has, while outside of official politics, demonstrated a commitment to human rights, nonviolence, and peace. Examples of this are Martin Luther King and Lech Walesa. And former U.S. president Jimmy Carter and former "next president" Al Gore, whose awarded accomplishments occurred after their political careers were over. The other kind of winner is someone inside politics who seized the opportunity at a crucial historical moment to create conditions for cessation of war and the establishment of peace. So Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho won it for negotiating the end of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam and Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin likewise won it for their efforts in the Middle East. But where does Obama stand in all this?
All I see Barack Obama doing is going back to the responsible kind of foreign policy that used to be the norm before the bellicose George W. Bush administration. He is certainly not a pacifist, but rather the nation's commander-in-chief whose war decisions should be based on facts and reality, not pie-in-the-sky hopes for success. He believes in using diplomacy as a means to further American national interests. This is nothing special, as pre-2001 presidencies have traditionally and wisely done this.
No, it is clear to me that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Obama as a signal of hope and expectation. But the President was elected in the United States by its people, not selected by a small committee in Norway. He has no obligation to cater to the hopes of the Nobel folks, as honorable as they may be. Rather he should continue on his present course of taking care of America and Americans. If he does, that in itself should promote peace and human rights.
I think there are basically two kinds of Nobel Peace Prize winners. One is someone who has, while outside of official politics, demonstrated a commitment to human rights, nonviolence, and peace. Examples of this are Martin Luther King and Lech Walesa. And former U.S. president Jimmy Carter and former "next president" Al Gore, whose awarded accomplishments occurred after their political careers were over. The other kind of winner is someone inside politics who seized the opportunity at a crucial historical moment to create conditions for cessation of war and the establishment of peace. So Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho won it for negotiating the end of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam and Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin likewise won it for their efforts in the Middle East. But where does Obama stand in all this?
All I see Barack Obama doing is going back to the responsible kind of foreign policy that used to be the norm before the bellicose George W. Bush administration. He is certainly not a pacifist, but rather the nation's commander-in-chief whose war decisions should be based on facts and reality, not pie-in-the-sky hopes for success. He believes in using diplomacy as a means to further American national interests. This is nothing special, as pre-2001 presidencies have traditionally and wisely done this.
No, it is clear to me that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Obama as a signal of hope and expectation. But the President was elected in the United States by its people, not selected by a small committee in Norway. He has no obligation to cater to the hopes of the Nobel folks, as honorable as they may be. Rather he should continue on his present course of taking care of America and Americans. If he does, that in itself should promote peace and human rights.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Graffiti Wall and Memorial
The graffiti wall on SW 34 Street here in Gainesville wasn't always such; originally, it was a stark white wall that would periodically suffer graffiti and then get a whitewash. Finally, with the other "graffiti wall" on SW 13 Street at the Archer Road intersection getting a mural painting commissioned for it, authorities finally gave in to the idea of there being at least one place in town for folks to vent out their feelings in paint. The only rules were: no profanity (at least in English) and no hate language. And no offense taken if someone else paints over your message the very next day!
In August 1990, Gainesville was rocked severely when a bitter, violent convict from Louisiana drifted into the area and decided to kill people at random as "payback" for his years of confinement. The result was the Gainesville student murders, which claimed five lives in the span of less than a week. That murderer, whose name does not bear mentioning, has since been tried, convicted, and executed for the crimes. A few weeks after the murders in 1990, a couple of people took it upon themselves to paint a memorial for the slain students on the graffiti wall. And ever since then, for over nineteen years, this one section has been preserved and maintained. Also, in the street median facing the wall, is an official memorial, with five trees each representing a slain student.
Here are some photos of the wall in general, the painted memorial, and the official "trees" memorial.
In August 1990, Gainesville was rocked severely when a bitter, violent convict from Louisiana drifted into the area and decided to kill people at random as "payback" for his years of confinement. The result was the Gainesville student murders, which claimed five lives in the span of less than a week. That murderer, whose name does not bear mentioning, has since been tried, convicted, and executed for the crimes. A few weeks after the murders in 1990, a couple of people took it upon themselves to paint a memorial for the slain students on the graffiti wall. And ever since then, for over nineteen years, this one section has been preserved and maintained. Also, in the street median facing the wall, is an official memorial, with five trees each representing a slain student.
Here are some photos of the wall in general, the painted memorial, and the official "trees" memorial.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Summer’s Last Hurrah
Friday morning I got out of bed just before six to go on my daily two-mile walk around the neighborhood with my wife. I turned the TV on to the 24-hour local weather conditions and forecast. And was horrified to learn that, on that day deep into the autumn season, almost in mid-October, temperatures would climb in the afternoon to 95 degrees with 99% humidity. That would put the heat index well over 100! And the temperature at 6 AM? 77 with 99% humidity! Outside, it was if a thick invisible blanket were hanging over us. The walk was a sweaty experience, but I would have perspired profusely even had I simply sat outside on my porch for the same period of time.
Temperatures have continued to stay high, both during the day and night. It won’t be until later next week when we get any relief.
Yes, I’m quite ready for chilly weather. But the unlike with places further north, I’ll just take chilly, DRY weather, thank you. You can keep the snow and ice, wherever you might be.
And now that the moon apparently won’t be blown to smithereens after all, I can look forward to improving weather conditions later this month. And maybe some genuine, lasting FALL temperatures.
Temperatures have continued to stay high, both during the day and night. It won’t be until later next week when we get any relief.
Yes, I’m quite ready for chilly weather. But the unlike with places further north, I’ll just take chilly, DRY weather, thank you. You can keep the snow and ice, wherever you might be.
And now that the moon apparently won’t be blown to smithereens after all, I can look forward to improving weather conditions later this month. And maybe some genuine, lasting FALL temperatures.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Collective Soul, Stale and Fresh Music
Collective Soul is a long-established rock band whose biggest hits were from the early-to-mid 1990s. Their breakout hit, Shine, was from their first album Hints, Allegations, & Things Left Unsaid. They followed this up in grand style from their self-titled second album, producing several tracks that received a lot of mainstream rock radio airplay: December, Smashing Young Man, The World I Know, Gel, and Where the River Flows. Then, in early 1997 the group's third album Disciplined Breakdown came out, with the first track Precious Declaration being released with much fanfare and radio play. After that, though, only a trickle of their songs were played on the radio (Heavy, She Said, Vent, Why Part 2, and Counting the Days). And of those latter "hits", they are now very rarely played on mainstream rock stations in their "past hits" rotation.
Although Collective Soul has continued as a band and keeps releasing new material, they are not receiving the same radio play as they used to, at least for that new stuff. But from what I can tell after listening to their more recent music, they have maintained their high standards and have continued to produce very good songs that are just as good as (if not better) than that string of hits they had from their first two albums in the mid-nineties. And yet, those ancient hits continue to get played a lot, while their fresher material is ignored.
And here is another example of my problems with commercial radio as it exists today. With all of the choices that exist on the albums that today's popular rock artists offer, the stations' programmers only play certain tracks over and over and over again. Not so on Internet radio, though. If you tune in, for example, to AOL Radio, you will hear deep tracks from many different prominent artists, as well as from a few who are breaking in on the musical scene.
I think that if I hear December played on Rock 104/WRUF one more time, I'll scream, and that would be very embarrassing for me if I were out in public when it happened. So I'll just play it safe and avoid listening to them altogether!
Although Collective Soul has continued as a band and keeps releasing new material, they are not receiving the same radio play as they used to, at least for that new stuff. But from what I can tell after listening to their more recent music, they have maintained their high standards and have continued to produce very good songs that are just as good as (if not better) than that string of hits they had from their first two albums in the mid-nineties. And yet, those ancient hits continue to get played a lot, while their fresher material is ignored.
And here is another example of my problems with commercial radio as it exists today. With all of the choices that exist on the albums that today's popular rock artists offer, the stations' programmers only play certain tracks over and over and over again. Not so on Internet radio, though. If you tune in, for example, to AOL Radio, you will hear deep tracks from many different prominent artists, as well as from a few who are breaking in on the musical scene.
I think that if I hear December played on Rock 104/WRUF one more time, I'll scream, and that would be very embarrassing for me if I were out in public when it happened. So I'll just play it safe and avoid listening to them altogether!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Pro Baseball Regular Season Over
The Major League Baseball regular season has finally ended for 2009. Of the teams I had been following, only one, the Minnesota Twins, actually made it to the playoffs. They stand to be eliminated quickly, their first-round opponents the New York Yankees (with baseball's best record this year) having beaten them in all seven games played between them this season. And the Yankees won their first playoff game yesterday against the Twins 7-2.
This year I had concentrated my attention on the American League Central Division as well as on the two Florida teams and the Chicago Cubs. Although the Cubs, Rays, and Marlins all had winning seasons, none of them were good enough to make the playoffs. And the AL Central was baseball's worst division, with only Detroit having a winning record besides the Twins. Speaking of Detroit, they led the division for almost the entire season but lost it in the final three games, including a special one-game playoff that Minnesota won in 12 innings. I expected Kansas City to do poorly, but I was astounded at the Chicago White Sox and the Cleveland Indians, not only for how poorly they did, but also for how quickly their management gave up on them and traded star players away (notably Jim Thome from Chicago and Cliff Lee from Cleveland).
For the playoffs, I plan to root for Minnesota until they are eliminated (which will probably be sooner than later). Otherwise, I'll pull for New York to make it to the World Series. In the National League, I'd like to see the Colorado Rockies make it or, as a second choice, good ol' Joe Torre's Los Angeles Dodgers.
Yes, I would like to see a nice, frigid (if not snowy) World Series in late October, alternating between Denver and Minneapolis. Oh, did I hear you just say that Minnesota now plays their home games in an enclosed park? Party poopers!
This year I had concentrated my attention on the American League Central Division as well as on the two Florida teams and the Chicago Cubs. Although the Cubs, Rays, and Marlins all had winning seasons, none of them were good enough to make the playoffs. And the AL Central was baseball's worst division, with only Detroit having a winning record besides the Twins. Speaking of Detroit, they led the division for almost the entire season but lost it in the final three games, including a special one-game playoff that Minnesota won in 12 innings. I expected Kansas City to do poorly, but I was astounded at the Chicago White Sox and the Cleveland Indians, not only for how poorly they did, but also for how quickly their management gave up on them and traded star players away (notably Jim Thome from Chicago and Cliff Lee from Cleveland).
For the playoffs, I plan to root for Minnesota until they are eliminated (which will probably be sooner than later). Otherwise, I'll pull for New York to make it to the World Series. In the National League, I'd like to see the Colorado Rockies make it or, as a second choice, good ol' Joe Torre's Los Angeles Dodgers.
Yes, I would like to see a nice, frigid (if not snowy) World Series in late October, alternating between Denver and Minneapolis. Oh, did I hear you just say that Minnesota now plays their home games in an enclosed park? Party poopers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
