Our current President, George W. Bush, is often referred to by his opponents as a despot, tyrant, emperor, or king. The idea is that he rules as if he were some kind of supreme authoritarian entity, without regard to the feelings of his people. Well, I tend to agree with the part that says that our current President is insensitive to his people, although there have been important exceptions. But I have a bit of an issue with the first part.
At the beginning of our country, when leaders were arguing over what kind of government we were going to have, some wanted a decentralized confederation of autonomous former colonies. Others, fearing domination from the stronger Continental nations like Britain and France, stressed the need for a strong, centralized federal state headed by a single ruler. In the Great Compromise that enabled the US Constitution to come into being, the problem was solved by instituting the office of President. The President would be like a king in the scope of his powers, but would in turn be subject to the will of the states that elected him. The extent of this subjugation would be that the states could turn him out of office in the next election, or Congress could impeach and remove him from office should he be adjudged guilty of grievous offenses. Also, the authority to appropriate funds for government would lie chiefly in the hands of the Legislative branch, with the President limited to his veto power in that area.
That being said, the office of President does carry with it great power, and none greater than the power to involve the country in a war. To the extent that our current President plunged his nation into a war that it was very deeply divided about from the very beginning, I can understand more fully the wrath and charges of despotism that his more vocal critics have vented against him. But, in my personal memory (going back to Lyndon Johnson's Presidency), every President has been charged by his critics with strong-armed rule at one time or another. Even relatively weak Presidents like Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were accused of this (Ford for pardoning Nixon and refusing to financially bail out New York City and Carter for pushing through the Panama Canal Treaty).
The bottom line on all this is that someone who politically supports a President and his or her policies is going to refrain from the despotism charges, while opponents will feed into this tactic. But it's an awfully old, badly worn out tactic, the way I see it. Sure, we have to be vigilant that Presidents don't exceed their Constitutional limitations, but this needs to be done without concern over whether it is a Republican or Democratic administration alleged to be committing any abuses of power. And despots don't just get up and walk away from their power at a specified time, the way our Presidents do: they're in it for life (unless they are overthrown by force, that is).
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Weight Loss and Maintenance on the Eights: 1/12
My weight loss project suffered some neglect over the holiday season, but at least I didn't blow it altogether. And I've resumed my weekly weigh-ins after a four-week hiatus. I'm only slightly overweight, and to some I may not appear to need to lose any pounds. But I do want to get to where I am more comfortable running, and having about 25 fewer pounds coming down on my ankles and feet each time I hit the road will no doubt help to prevent some "wear-and-tear" type injuries. I'm also 51 years old and would like to establish some sensible eating and exercising habits to keep me more active and healthy as I age. Hopefully, I am now "back on track" and will finally make some weight-loss progress in the ensuing weeks. Here's my somewhat abbreviated record for the past eight weeks:
DATE WEIGHT(LBS)
11-17...... 178.8
11-24...... 177.4
12-01..... 180.2
1-05........181.2
1-12.........182.0
DATE WEIGHT(LBS)
11-17...... 178.8
11-24...... 177.4
12-01..... 180.2
1-05........181.2
1-12.........182.0
Friday, January 11, 2008
The Sacred Language
In the movie Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf revealed to Frodo that the inscription on his ring was in the language of Mordor. And then the great wizard said that he would not utter it, implying that there was something evil in that tongue. By the same token, the Elvish language had the connotation of goodness and wisdom imparted to it throughout this epic tale. So what gives here? Are some languages more "virtuous" than others?
It seems to me that, with regard to the world's chief organized religions, many in positions of religious authority deem certain languages to have a special sacred nature to them. This is primarily applied to the scriptures that the religions base their theology and doctrine on. So a Hindu who wants to get the "truest" meaning of his or her religion will want to pursue it in the extinct Sanskrit language. Many Muslims believe that only in the original Arabic version of the Qu'ran can they realize fully the revelations of Allah through their Prophet. And in Christianity, the translation of the Bible into vernacular tongues has met with much resistance through the centuries (and once was deemed a capital offense). Even now, there are those who claim that the King James Version is the only legitimate translation. And there is a movement afoot within the Roman Catholic Church to revive the Latin Mass.
I am of the conviction that any particular language in the world is essentially a neutral medium of communication. Naturally, languages like English, Russian, or Chinese have a much more extensive technical vocabulary than, say, an Australian aboriginal tongue. But even that "primitive" language could potentially adapt to and accommodate anything that the so-called "advanced" languages can express. And I believe that this principle carries over into religious scriptures. So why won't others recognize this?
If the prevailing religious scriptures within a culture are kept solely in a language that the population at-large there does not fully comprehend (or even not at all), then the need will naturally arise for religious teachers and a religious hierarchy or authority to interpret the difficult-to-understand texts. If the scriptures were published and popularized in common vernacular language, then that authority would diminish, as anyone who could read could also plainly discern the scripture's meaning. So, to me, elevating a specific language to the level of a "sacred tongue" may sound, on the surface, as being so holy and high-minded. But there may be an underlying self-serving interest with this as well on the part of the "experts" situated in positions of religious authority.
It seems to me that, with regard to the world's chief organized religions, many in positions of religious authority deem certain languages to have a special sacred nature to them. This is primarily applied to the scriptures that the religions base their theology and doctrine on. So a Hindu who wants to get the "truest" meaning of his or her religion will want to pursue it in the extinct Sanskrit language. Many Muslims believe that only in the original Arabic version of the Qu'ran can they realize fully the revelations of Allah through their Prophet. And in Christianity, the translation of the Bible into vernacular tongues has met with much resistance through the centuries (and once was deemed a capital offense). Even now, there are those who claim that the King James Version is the only legitimate translation. And there is a movement afoot within the Roman Catholic Church to revive the Latin Mass.
I am of the conviction that any particular language in the world is essentially a neutral medium of communication. Naturally, languages like English, Russian, or Chinese have a much more extensive technical vocabulary than, say, an Australian aboriginal tongue. But even that "primitive" language could potentially adapt to and accommodate anything that the so-called "advanced" languages can express. And I believe that this principle carries over into religious scriptures. So why won't others recognize this?
If the prevailing religious scriptures within a culture are kept solely in a language that the population at-large there does not fully comprehend (or even not at all), then the need will naturally arise for religious teachers and a religious hierarchy or authority to interpret the difficult-to-understand texts. If the scriptures were published and popularized in common vernacular language, then that authority would diminish, as anyone who could read could also plainly discern the scripture's meaning. So, to me, elevating a specific language to the level of a "sacred tongue" may sound, on the surface, as being so holy and high-minded. But there may be an underlying self-serving interest with this as well on the part of the "experts" situated in positions of religious authority.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Favorite Songs of 1991
The year 1991 was dominated (for me) by the Led Zeppelin revival that was spurred by the release of their boxed set. The local station 103.7-WRUF "Rock 104" would play a block of their songs each weeknight at about eight (nowadays, a rival station, 92.5-WYND-FM, "gets the Led out" at ten weeknights). I grew to love songs like Going to California, The Battle of Evermore, In the Evening, Ramble On, and Hey Hey What Can I Do. But easily, my top two favorites of 1991 were Zep's When the Levee Breaks and Misty Mountain Hop, both from the second side of their fourth album. And When the Levee Breaks quickly became my all-time favorite song (to this day)! Aside from Led Zeppelin, I rediscovered two old tunes: Foghat's Slow Ride and AC-DC's Back in Black.
But as far the songs that actually came out in 1991 are concerned, there were a few good ones as well. Dire Straits had a very underrated song with their defiant and funny Heavy Fuel. Extreme, a west-coast band with promise (but which later fizzled) started out well with Hole-Hearted and More Than Words. The Australian band the Divinyls shocked a few with their I Touch Myself. Aside from the Zeppelin tunes, my favorites from '91 were the Red Hot Chili Peppers and their classic funk/reggae/hard rock Give It Away, along with the explosive dance-blast hit Gonna Make You Sweat by C+C Music Factory. On the mellower side, two traditionally hard-rock bands, Queensryche and the Scorpions, came out with their best efforts in Silent Lucidity and Wind of Change, respectively. Both Wind of Change and Jesus Jones's hit Right Here Right Now presented a hope for the future based on the recent fall of the Iron Curtain. Bonnie Raitt sounded beautiful in Something to Talk About and Marc Cohn presented a dreamy world with his Walking in Memphis. Sting reminisced about his late father with his touching All This Time. And the "happiest" song of 1991 had to be Amy Grant's bubbly Every Heartbeat.
I also, in 1991, purchased the "latest" Moody Blues album, Keys of the Kingdom. Not one of their best works, but it did contain two of my eventual favorites of theirs: John Lodge's love song Lean on Me Tonight and the inimitable Ray Thomas with his mysterious Celtic Sonant.
But as far the songs that actually came out in 1991 are concerned, there were a few good ones as well. Dire Straits had a very underrated song with their defiant and funny Heavy Fuel. Extreme, a west-coast band with promise (but which later fizzled) started out well with Hole-Hearted and More Than Words. The Australian band the Divinyls shocked a few with their I Touch Myself. Aside from the Zeppelin tunes, my favorites from '91 were the Red Hot Chili Peppers and their classic funk/reggae/hard rock Give It Away, along with the explosive dance-blast hit Gonna Make You Sweat by C+C Music Factory. On the mellower side, two traditionally hard-rock bands, Queensryche and the Scorpions, came out with their best efforts in Silent Lucidity and Wind of Change, respectively. Both Wind of Change and Jesus Jones's hit Right Here Right Now presented a hope for the future based on the recent fall of the Iron Curtain. Bonnie Raitt sounded beautiful in Something to Talk About and Marc Cohn presented a dreamy world with his Walking in Memphis. Sting reminisced about his late father with his touching All This Time. And the "happiest" song of 1991 had to be Amy Grant's bubbly Every Heartbeat.
I also, in 1991, purchased the "latest" Moody Blues album, Keys of the Kingdom. Not one of their best works, but it did contain two of my eventual favorites of theirs: John Lodge's love song Lean on Me Tonight and the inimitable Ray Thomas with his mysterious Celtic Sonant.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Campaign Revisited
A funny thing happened on the way to the nomination (Obama's, that is). After suffering a double-digit deficit in the late polls before the New Hampshire Primary and being all-but-given-up on in her quest for the Presidency, New York Senator Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected upset over "surging" Illinois Senator Barack Obama in yesterday's voting. Now I suppose the pundits are going to say that Obama's campaign is now in trouble! I still prefer him to Clinton for President, but at least now it looks as if I'm actually going to have viable candidates to choose from in the upcoming January 29 Florida Primary. But the delegates selected there won't be seated at the Democratic Convention because Florida was such a naughty state in moving its primary date ahead one week. This is the same party that was so insistent (or at least claimed to be) in 2000 that every vote in Florida be counted (and recounted and recounted). What a difference eight years can make!
Arizona Senator John McCain further muddled up the GOP side of the Presidential race by winning over super-wealthy (with a quarter of a billion dollars) former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. They say that Romney has so much money to throw into the campaign that it doesn't matter if he keeps losing. I believe that he (Romney) is the establishment Republican candidate that would most closely follow the policies and tone of the present George W. Bush administration: elitist, pro-corporate, and anti-worker. So I guess you can tell that I care little for him or his candidacy. But he could very well end up spending his way to the nomination!
All in all, I'm pleased with the New Hampshire results. Now it looks as if we will actually have real campaigns in both parties for a while, at least through Super Tuesday (February 5).
Arizona Senator John McCain further muddled up the GOP side of the Presidential race by winning over super-wealthy (with a quarter of a billion dollars) former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. They say that Romney has so much money to throw into the campaign that it doesn't matter if he keeps losing. I believe that he (Romney) is the establishment Republican candidate that would most closely follow the policies and tone of the present George W. Bush administration: elitist, pro-corporate, and anti-worker. So I guess you can tell that I care little for him or his candidacy. But he could very well end up spending his way to the nomination!
All in all, I'm pleased with the New Hampshire results. Now it looks as if we will actually have real campaigns in both parties for a while, at least through Super Tuesday (February 5).
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Surge-Voters
Today, the New Hampshire Primary will be held. It will be a much more legitimate expression of voter sentiments than Iowa was pertaining to who should be the next President. The alphabet networks and cable news channels are all abuzz with commentators and spin doctors spinning their skewed versions of the various candidates. And people "on the street" are getting in on the act as well. The problem I have with all this is that a significant number of people seem to be making their decisions for whom they support by who has the most momentum. And I don't know why. Personality, character, health, and, of course, the ability to effectively communicate are important considerations. But more than that, whoever is elected President will also decide which bills to sign (or veto), nominate Federal and Supreme Court judges, conduct the nation's foreign policy (including life-or-death and war-or-peace decisions), and head an Executive Branch that will stamp its own version of how a government can effectively function while remaining true to the Bill of Rights. So, with so much at stake, so many relevant factors among the candidates to choose from, and so much time (more than a year) to have watched them campaign and debate, it's just a little bit dismaying for me to see sudden, last-minute, large swings in the polls. Dismaying, because that would seem to indicate that a substantial number of voters out there are doing nothing more than riding bandwagons instead of carefully considering the candidates and issues. I'd be curious to get inside the minds of some of these "surge-voters", but I'm afraid of what I might find there (a vast, empty chasm)!
Four years ago, as a Florida Democrat, I felt cheated out of an opportunity to play even a small role in selecting a nominee in my own primary. Why? Because in Iowa and New Hampshire, John Kerry rode a surge of momentum and the other viable candidates dropped out within a few weeks. By the time my Florida primary took place, the race was all but over. Now my state is taking a lot of heat for moving its primary up to January 29. But in spite of that, New Hampshire hasn't even counted its votes yet, and already the big media is practically crowning Obama as the nominee and writing Hillary Clinton's political epitaph! What is with these people, anyway?!!
Four years ago, as a Florida Democrat, I felt cheated out of an opportunity to play even a small role in selecting a nominee in my own primary. Why? Because in Iowa and New Hampshire, John Kerry rode a surge of momentum and the other viable candidates dropped out within a few weeks. By the time my Florida primary took place, the race was all but over. Now my state is taking a lot of heat for moving its primary up to January 29. But in spite of that, New Hampshire hasn't even counted its votes yet, and already the big media is practically crowning Obama as the nominee and writing Hillary Clinton's political epitaph! What is with these people, anyway?!!
Monday, January 7, 2008
Monday Newsbreak: 1/7
--A severe storm passed through California and Oregon into Nevada Saturday, causing (at this writing) three deaths, hundreds of thousands cut off from power, and a broken levee in a small northwestern Nevada town. The storm caught many completely off guard, depositing large amounts of snow and bringing wind gusts in places up to 165 mph. The storm reminds me of the incredible Storm of the Century in March, 1993, which brought hurricane-like conditions to Florida and snow blizzards to the Deep South before devastating the Northeastern U.S..
--The school board for Alachua County (where I reside) is currently undergoing criticism from parents whose children are being switched from one public high school to another due to their new rezoning plan. The problem, as I see it, is that Gainesville has only three public high schools (aside from the University of Florida's "special" P.K. Yonge school). One, appropriately called Eastside, is on the far eastern end of town. In Gainesville's center is Gainesville High, and toward the west is Buchholz High. The problem with this is that new construction and housing in Gainesville lie overwhelmingly to the (sometimes far) west of all three of these. And thus, while many, many parents may want their kids to attend Buchholz, the school board must assign some of them to one of the two more eastern schools for lack of space. My town (in my opinion) desperately needs a new public high school to be built a few miles southwest of Buchholz.
--Going on right now, almost completely unnoticed in the news, may be the largest mass extinction of species since the dinosaurs! According to Steve Newman in his feature Earthweek: A Diary of the Planet, an epidemic of chytrid fungus infection among amphibians is unstoppable and sweeping through native populations of toads, frogs, salamanders, and other amphibians. To prevent as many ultimate species extinctions as possible, there is a modest movement afoot by some concerned scientists to rescue some from the most immediately-dangered species to protected areas free from the fungus. The rescue project, called Amphibian Ark, is headed by St. Louis Zoo CEO Jeffrey Bonner, who is understandably concerned about the crisis. I can't figure out why this story doesn't merit a higher priority in the news! Maybe Keith Olbermann can spare a few seconds from his Britney-bashing to devote to an ongoing worldwide biological cataclysm!
--With football, I'm looking forward to the National Championship game tonight between LSU and Ohio State. Most people following the game think that the (LSU) Tigers will prevail, but I beg to differ. Something tells me that the (Ohio State) Buckeyes will be ready for this game, although I'm pulling for the "Bayou Bengals". In the NFL, I'm not so certain that the (so far) undefeated New England Patriots will be able to get past everyone to win the Super Bowl. There are too many good teams lined up to face them, especially in their own conference. Starting with the nearby (to me) Jacksonville Jaguars next week! And if the Pats happen to beat the Jags, they'll still have to play the San Diego/Indianapolis winner. Both of those teams have scores to settle against the Patriots. And we're not even talking Super Bowl yet! Yes, I think the folks affiliated with the perfect '72 Miami Dolphins team should still keep their champagne handy for a possible celebration in the near future!
--The school board for Alachua County (where I reside) is currently undergoing criticism from parents whose children are being switched from one public high school to another due to their new rezoning plan. The problem, as I see it, is that Gainesville has only three public high schools (aside from the University of Florida's "special" P.K. Yonge school). One, appropriately called Eastside, is on the far eastern end of town. In Gainesville's center is Gainesville High, and toward the west is Buchholz High. The problem with this is that new construction and housing in Gainesville lie overwhelmingly to the (sometimes far) west of all three of these. And thus, while many, many parents may want their kids to attend Buchholz, the school board must assign some of them to one of the two more eastern schools for lack of space. My town (in my opinion) desperately needs a new public high school to be built a few miles southwest of Buchholz.
--Going on right now, almost completely unnoticed in the news, may be the largest mass extinction of species since the dinosaurs! According to Steve Newman in his feature Earthweek: A Diary of the Planet, an epidemic of chytrid fungus infection among amphibians is unstoppable and sweeping through native populations of toads, frogs, salamanders, and other amphibians. To prevent as many ultimate species extinctions as possible, there is a modest movement afoot by some concerned scientists to rescue some from the most immediately-dangered species to protected areas free from the fungus. The rescue project, called Amphibian Ark, is headed by St. Louis Zoo CEO Jeffrey Bonner, who is understandably concerned about the crisis. I can't figure out why this story doesn't merit a higher priority in the news! Maybe Keith Olbermann can spare a few seconds from his Britney-bashing to devote to an ongoing worldwide biological cataclysm!
--With football, I'm looking forward to the National Championship game tonight between LSU and Ohio State. Most people following the game think that the (LSU) Tigers will prevail, but I beg to differ. Something tells me that the (Ohio State) Buckeyes will be ready for this game, although I'm pulling for the "Bayou Bengals". In the NFL, I'm not so certain that the (so far) undefeated New England Patriots will be able to get past everyone to win the Super Bowl. There are too many good teams lined up to face them, especially in their own conference. Starting with the nearby (to me) Jacksonville Jaguars next week! And if the Pats happen to beat the Jags, they'll still have to play the San Diego/Indianapolis winner. Both of those teams have scores to settle against the Patriots. And we're not even talking Super Bowl yet! Yes, I think the folks affiliated with the perfect '72 Miami Dolphins team should still keep their champagne handy for a possible celebration in the near future!
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Sergeant York Moments
[This article contains plot spoilers for the movie Sergeant York]
In the 1941 movie Sergeant York (starring Gary Cooper and based on the true story of the World War I hero), Alvin York, the oldest child in his family (in real life he was the third of many siblings), was saddled with the enormous burden of taking care of his widowed mother and younger siblings by trying to grow crops from the rocky, difficult northern Tennessee "top land" that they owned. The only release that Alvin had from this backbreaking work was to go off across the border with his buddies into Kentucky, where they would spend the night getting drunk and fighting. And sometimes he would return home in an intoxicated state riding his horse, yelling and shooting in the air (and at trees). So he got a bad reputation as a troublemaker, and the folks around him who cared for him tried to get him to change his ways. Alvin wanted to buy some fertile "bottom land" and, as the result of winning money from a turkey shoot, was about to buy a plot. But the chief rival for his girl's affection, knowing about Alvin's plan, bought up the land first. And Alvin was hot with a murderous vengeance. He went out on his horse that stormy night with the full intention of shooting his rival. But suddenly a bolt of lightning struck the tree nearest him, and it knocked him clear off his horse. When Alvin recovered, he took it as a sign from God and did a complete about-face, instantly renouncing both alcohol and his anger. This was what I came to call a "Sergeant York moment", when a drastic transformation takes places in a person's outlook and habits in what seems to be the wink of an eye (or a lightning strike).
In the real world, Sergeant York moments are more for the observer of someone's changed life than is the case for the person himself. The really drastically sudden thing is when someone resolves to change the direction of their life, no matter what the obstacles or potential setbacks are ahead of them. But ingrained detrimental habits, both in terms of outward behavior and inward attitudes, must be changed over time. So from the point of view of the one changing, not much may seem to be happening. But from the vantage point of others, the changes may seem quite sudden. In religious circles, this change of a life's direction is often called "repentance". When old habits threaten to undermine positive change, they not only need to end, but also need something positive to replace them. And a supporting social environment of people responding positively to the individual's changing life is also very helpful, not only providing affirmation but also give a sense of accountability to others. But the desire to change must come first from the changer, not others.
In the 1941 movie Sergeant York (starring Gary Cooper and based on the true story of the World War I hero), Alvin York, the oldest child in his family (in real life he was the third of many siblings), was saddled with the enormous burden of taking care of his widowed mother and younger siblings by trying to grow crops from the rocky, difficult northern Tennessee "top land" that they owned. The only release that Alvin had from this backbreaking work was to go off across the border with his buddies into Kentucky, where they would spend the night getting drunk and fighting. And sometimes he would return home in an intoxicated state riding his horse, yelling and shooting in the air (and at trees). So he got a bad reputation as a troublemaker, and the folks around him who cared for him tried to get him to change his ways. Alvin wanted to buy some fertile "bottom land" and, as the result of winning money from a turkey shoot, was about to buy a plot. But the chief rival for his girl's affection, knowing about Alvin's plan, bought up the land first. And Alvin was hot with a murderous vengeance. He went out on his horse that stormy night with the full intention of shooting his rival. But suddenly a bolt of lightning struck the tree nearest him, and it knocked him clear off his horse. When Alvin recovered, he took it as a sign from God and did a complete about-face, instantly renouncing both alcohol and his anger. This was what I came to call a "Sergeant York moment", when a drastic transformation takes places in a person's outlook and habits in what seems to be the wink of an eye (or a lightning strike).
In the real world, Sergeant York moments are more for the observer of someone's changed life than is the case for the person himself. The really drastically sudden thing is when someone resolves to change the direction of their life, no matter what the obstacles or potential setbacks are ahead of them. But ingrained detrimental habits, both in terms of outward behavior and inward attitudes, must be changed over time. So from the point of view of the one changing, not much may seem to be happening. But from the vantage point of others, the changes may seem quite sudden. In religious circles, this change of a life's direction is often called "repentance". When old habits threaten to undermine positive change, they not only need to end, but also need something positive to replace them. And a supporting social environment of people responding positively to the individual's changing life is also very helpful, not only providing affirmation but also give a sense of accountability to others. But the desire to change must come first from the changer, not others.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Doctor, Doctor
Gainesville, Florida, where I live, is a college town. The state's largest institute of higher education, the University of Florida, dominates Gainesville, both in terms of geography and population. And so there are naturally many people living here who have PhD's, MD's, or the equivalent degrees that qualify them to be referred to as "Doctor So-and-so". And I respect and admire them for having achieved this great milestone in their lives. Someone with an advanced degree like that is obviously very knowledgeable and skilled in the specialized field that they studied to obtain it. But that all being said, that knowledge and skill does not automatically transfer to other fields and domains of society just because someone is addressed as "doctor".
A little more than ten years ago, Courtney Brown, a tenured PhD professor in a Georgia college, wrote a book in which he stated that the "science" of remote viewing had led him to contact with alien beings who were coming to aid us on Earth in our spiritual enlightenment. He was a frequent quest on Art Bell's late night radio show, which welcomed this sort of dressed up quackery. And, of course, the book was treated as being more legitimate because "Doctor" Courtney Brown had written it. But this individual's academic accomplishments had absolutely nothing to do with his flaky paranormal theories. In other words, expertise in a specialized area doesn't automatically translate into expertise (or even competence) in another. But people generally think it does, and give such doctors way too much respect and attention when they stray from their specialized field. There have been a few televangelists over recent years who have prominently displayed their doctorate titles with their names over the air. But those degrees only apply to the specific areas that they earned them in, and (to me) neither confers any authority to the proposition that they are closer to God than others nor that they are experts in politics, law, or evolutionary biology. Radio talk show host Michael Savage continually reminds his listeners that he is Doctor Michael Savage, because of his PhD many years ago in a medically-related specialized field. So is that supposed to give weight to his peculiar political opinions, which have nothing whatsoever to do with his degree? I don't think so, but it does nevertheless with a lot of people.
I am thoroughly awed by computers and the intricate mathematics and software that go into making this technology so viable and indispensable today. Those experts in computer software merit my general respect for their perseverance and discipline as well as my focused respect for their specialized skills. But that doesn't mean that they are better qualified than me to express themselves about politics, religion, sports, music, or tiddlywinks! A physician may be very skilled, altruistic, admirable and important in his or her profession, but that doesn't mean that this doctor has anything over me outside of medicine!
Whenever I hear someone referred to repeatedly with the "doctor" title before their name, and they are obviously nowhere near the setting in which their title carries any relevance, I instinctively become a little skeptical, and, yes, even a little negative toward that individual. You may think that jealousy may be a reason, and maybe you'd be right. But I think that sometimes "doctors" allow the title to be abused to the point where they can bypass the voices of others in making their opinions heard and acted upon to their advantage. In other words, to manipulate others. And it's this that I'm on guard against, right or wrong. Of course, I welcome the opinions of "doctors" as well as those of others. But unless they are expressing their opinion within the context of their field of expertise, their views hold no more presumed value for me than anyone else's.
A little more than ten years ago, Courtney Brown, a tenured PhD professor in a Georgia college, wrote a book in which he stated that the "science" of remote viewing had led him to contact with alien beings who were coming to aid us on Earth in our spiritual enlightenment. He was a frequent quest on Art Bell's late night radio show, which welcomed this sort of dressed up quackery. And, of course, the book was treated as being more legitimate because "Doctor" Courtney Brown had written it. But this individual's academic accomplishments had absolutely nothing to do with his flaky paranormal theories. In other words, expertise in a specialized area doesn't automatically translate into expertise (or even competence) in another. But people generally think it does, and give such doctors way too much respect and attention when they stray from their specialized field. There have been a few televangelists over recent years who have prominently displayed their doctorate titles with their names over the air. But those degrees only apply to the specific areas that they earned them in, and (to me) neither confers any authority to the proposition that they are closer to God than others nor that they are experts in politics, law, or evolutionary biology. Radio talk show host Michael Savage continually reminds his listeners that he is Doctor Michael Savage, because of his PhD many years ago in a medically-related specialized field. So is that supposed to give weight to his peculiar political opinions, which have nothing whatsoever to do with his degree? I don't think so, but it does nevertheless with a lot of people.
I am thoroughly awed by computers and the intricate mathematics and software that go into making this technology so viable and indispensable today. Those experts in computer software merit my general respect for their perseverance and discipline as well as my focused respect for their specialized skills. But that doesn't mean that they are better qualified than me to express themselves about politics, religion, sports, music, or tiddlywinks! A physician may be very skilled, altruistic, admirable and important in his or her profession, but that doesn't mean that this doctor has anything over me outside of medicine!
Whenever I hear someone referred to repeatedly with the "doctor" title before their name, and they are obviously nowhere near the setting in which their title carries any relevance, I instinctively become a little skeptical, and, yes, even a little negative toward that individual. You may think that jealousy may be a reason, and maybe you'd be right. But I think that sometimes "doctors" allow the title to be abused to the point where they can bypass the voices of others in making their opinions heard and acted upon to their advantage. In other words, to manipulate others. And it's this that I'm on guard against, right or wrong. Of course, I welcome the opinions of "doctors" as well as those of others. But unless they are expressing their opinion within the context of their field of expertise, their views hold no more presumed value for me than anyone else's.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Huckabama Sweeps Iowa
Mikrack Huckabama's recent surge in the polls became manifest when he simultaneously won both the Republican and Democratic caucuses in the soon-to-be-completely ignored state of Iowa yesterday evening. Known as a charismatic speaker with a gift for reaching his listeners on an emotional level, Huckabama is rumored to be a conglomeration of two completely different individuals who will separate by fission before the parties nominate him for President at their conventions, and afterwards will wage a war of words during the general campaign (against himself). After winning the caucuses, Huckabama reportedly said, "I love you, Iowa! Now go away!"
O.K., so that's a lot of nonsense, but so was this abject sham of an "election". True, I wanted the eventual winners, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Illinois senator Barack Obama, to be victorious, but their victories weren't accomplished through legitimately-run secret ballot elections. The rules for voter eligibility were almost nonexistent and the wheeling and dealing on the Democratic side by lesser candidates to throw their support behind a leading candidate in the second round was nothing short of absurd! And here I am in Florida, a state chastised by both political parties for holding its legitimate, secret ballot primary too soon (nearly four weeks from now)! And one more item: Iowa and New Hampshire both have to be two of the least ethnically-diverse states in the nation. And for them to have such a disproportionate say in how their parties' nominees for President are selected? Outrageous!
O.K., so that's a lot of nonsense, but so was this abject sham of an "election". True, I wanted the eventual winners, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Illinois senator Barack Obama, to be victorious, but their victories weren't accomplished through legitimately-run secret ballot elections. The rules for voter eligibility were almost nonexistent and the wheeling and dealing on the Democratic side by lesser candidates to throw their support behind a leading candidate in the second round was nothing short of absurd! And here I am in Florida, a state chastised by both political parties for holding its legitimate, secret ballot primary too soon (nearly four weeks from now)! And one more item: Iowa and New Hampshire both have to be two of the least ethnically-diverse states in the nation. And for them to have such a disproportionate say in how their parties' nominees for President are selected? Outrageous!
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Favorite Songs of 1992
Throughout 1992, my main musical interest was in playing and replaying all of my favorite old Led Zeppelin songs. So it shouldn't be much of a surprise that my top favorite songs from that year were from the Led Zeppelin catalog: #1 Dazed and Confused (from Led Zeppelin I), and #2 No Quarter (from Houses of the Holy). But that's not to say there weren't plenty of great songs on the radio in 1992.
Speaking of Zeppelin, the band Soul Asylum had a hit I liked with their gloomy parody of that band in Somebody to Shove. REM came out with their incredible album Automatic for the People in 1992. Although I'd buy it later, at the time of its release I had only heard the intense lead-off track Drive. 1992 also marked the full invasion of the Seattle grunge rock movement, with several bands becoming famous. My grunge favorites were Nirvana's Come As You Are and Lithium (from Nevermind). Pearl Jam's album 10 featured tunes I liked in Even Flow, Black, and Jeremy. Later, I would purchase both albums, finding other great tracks from them (Stay Away from Nevermind and Oceans, my all-time #26 favorite song, from 10). The Australian group INXS, by this time beginning to wane in popularity but not in quality, produced my #21 all-time favorite song in 1992 with Not Enough Time. Spirit lifters from 1992 including Tom Cochrane's inspiring Life is a Highway and Snap!'s dreamy Rhythm is a Dancer. The Black Crowes, a promising band which ultimately disappointed me, did come out with two excellent, blues-laden pieces in Hotel Illness and Remedy. Richard Marx had a hit this year with the mysterious Hazard, while two real tearjerkers came out: Whitney Houston's I Will Always Love You, and, of course, Eric Clapton's touching memorial to his lost little boy, Tears in Heaven.
Speaking of Zeppelin, the band Soul Asylum had a hit I liked with their gloomy parody of that band in Somebody to Shove. REM came out with their incredible album Automatic for the People in 1992. Although I'd buy it later, at the time of its release I had only heard the intense lead-off track Drive. 1992 also marked the full invasion of the Seattle grunge rock movement, with several bands becoming famous. My grunge favorites were Nirvana's Come As You Are and Lithium (from Nevermind). Pearl Jam's album 10 featured tunes I liked in Even Flow, Black, and Jeremy. Later, I would purchase both albums, finding other great tracks from them (Stay Away from Nevermind and Oceans, my all-time #26 favorite song, from 10). The Australian group INXS, by this time beginning to wane in popularity but not in quality, produced my #21 all-time favorite song in 1992 with Not Enough Time. Spirit lifters from 1992 including Tom Cochrane's inspiring Life is a Highway and Snap!'s dreamy Rhythm is a Dancer. The Black Crowes, a promising band which ultimately disappointed me, did come out with two excellent, blues-laden pieces in Hotel Illness and Remedy. Richard Marx had a hit this year with the mysterious Hazard, while two real tearjerkers came out: Whitney Houston's I Will Always Love You, and, of course, Eric Clapton's touching memorial to his lost little boy, Tears in Heaven.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
24 Hour Businesses
When I first arrived in Gainesville in 1977, I was somewhat entranced by the fact that, in certain parts of town, there was a night life that went all the way around the clock. The best "24-hour" zone in town lay along NW 13th Street (US 441) from Jerry's around 16th Avenue up to Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips about ten blocks further north. In between were several all-night businesses. There was the great Mister Donut, whose donuts are, to this day, my all-time favorites. There were two 24-hour grocery stores: Pantry Pride and Skaggs/Albertsons (now just Albertsons). Eckerds operated a 24-hour store jutting out of the Gainesville Mall. And, for a few years, there was Skeeter's, a perpetually-open breakfast restaurant which eventually expanded its menu and even featured live musical acts. Closer to me at the University of Florida was Krystal on University Avenue . To the Southwest, on Archer Road, there was a Sambo's Restaurant. And a Waffle House and an International House of Pancakes on SW 13th Street. On North Main Street, The Clock was a compact, efficient little all-night restaurant.
I suppose that nowadays we still have our "night-life" in Gainesville, although it seems to me that places tend to close down earlier in general. There are two Steak-n-Shake restaurants, two Waffle Houses, the same IHOP, the Clock, and a new 24-hour restaurant replacing Denny's at the Holiday Inn on 13th Street and University Avenue. Walmart seems to have changed to a 24 hour operation, although trying to shop there in the wee hours can be challenging, with all of the stock work and maintenance presenting obstacles for the customers. Walgreens and Albertsons are also stores "always open". The Mister Donut, though, is long-gone. Krispy Kreme, however, has operated a continuously-operated establishment since I've been in Gainesville. The main problem I have in going there, though, is that the smell inside (of their processed doughnuts) is so strong that it actually stinks a bit. Still, Krispy Kreme is the most inviting of the all-night places for me to just walk in, buy a coffee, sit down, and collect my thoughts. And because of this (smells notwithstanding), I bestow the Irwin Award of 24-Hour Excellence to Krispy Kreme on NW 13th Street.
The supreme irony about my criticism of my hometown's apparent trend away from an all-night culture is that I myself have been shifting away from it as well. When I get off work at midnight, I just head on home and bypass any late-night establishments. For many years I worked the graveyard shift until I physically and mentally simply couldn't stand it anymore. So maybe the fact that I don't try anymore to visit late-night places factors into this current perception of mine about Gainesville "rolling up the sidewalks" in mid-evening. But I get the feeling that, even though we still have all-night places in Gainesville, the 24-hour culture that used to be an important element of life here seems to have died. Could be my imagination, though. In all fairness, though, there has been a trend toward eating establishments keeping their drive-through service open very late (and sometimes around the clock). But they want you to buy your food and then go somewhere else, away from them!
I suppose that nowadays we still have our "night-life" in Gainesville, although it seems to me that places tend to close down earlier in general. There are two Steak-n-Shake restaurants, two Waffle Houses, the same IHOP, the Clock, and a new 24-hour restaurant replacing Denny's at the Holiday Inn on 13th Street and University Avenue. Walmart seems to have changed to a 24 hour operation, although trying to shop there in the wee hours can be challenging, with all of the stock work and maintenance presenting obstacles for the customers. Walgreens and Albertsons are also stores "always open". The Mister Donut, though, is long-gone. Krispy Kreme, however, has operated a continuously-operated establishment since I've been in Gainesville. The main problem I have in going there, though, is that the smell inside (of their processed doughnuts) is so strong that it actually stinks a bit. Still, Krispy Kreme is the most inviting of the all-night places for me to just walk in, buy a coffee, sit down, and collect my thoughts. And because of this (smells notwithstanding), I bestow the Irwin Award of 24-Hour Excellence to Krispy Kreme on NW 13th Street.
The supreme irony about my criticism of my hometown's apparent trend away from an all-night culture is that I myself have been shifting away from it as well. When I get off work at midnight, I just head on home and bypass any late-night establishments. For many years I worked the graveyard shift until I physically and mentally simply couldn't stand it anymore. So maybe the fact that I don't try anymore to visit late-night places factors into this current perception of mine about Gainesville "rolling up the sidewalks" in mid-evening. But I get the feeling that, even though we still have all-night places in Gainesville, the 24-hour culture that used to be an important element of life here seems to have died. Could be my imagination, though. In all fairness, though, there has been a trend toward eating establishments keeping their drive-through service open very late (and sometimes around the clock). But they want you to buy your food and then go somewhere else, away from them!
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Writing Stories: Day Zero
It has now been about nine months since I began writing this blog. And it's been a great ride so far! I plan to continue putting out entries for it at this same general pace indefinitely. But now, I believe that it's time for me to wade into some different waters as well. Yes, it's time for me to begin writing stories! And, of course, I plan to use this blog to help me get into the discipline of the daily production that is necessary to ultimately succeed in this genre. So I am adding another "eights" to this blog (entries eight weeks apart from each other). It will deal with the amount of stories I am writing as well as the number of pages I am producing. I don't intend to actually reveal my stories here, since my intention will ultimately be to submit them for paid publication! But I'm sure that I will have a few things to say (every eight weeks) about how I'm doing experiencing this new, challenging endeavor! I already have several core story ideas in mind, so I shouldn't have a problem with writer's block, at least for a while. My initial push will be to get my feet nice and wet, and just concentrate on "producing a product". And to take Stephen King's advice as well, which is for me to write primarily for myself!
Monday, December 31, 2007
Monday Newsbreak: 12/31
--It is with sadness that I note the passing of Pakistani opposition leader and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto through assassination. What a troubled place Pakistan is these days! The tragedy that began this sad progression of events, in my humble opinion, was the initial inability for Pakistan and India to remain united nationally when they achieved full independence after World War II. The conflicts that Pakistan endured with India as well as the mass migrations of Muslims and Hindus across the newly formed national boundaries in 1947 seem to have fueled a more militant, political form of Islam than in some other parts of the world. With 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda fleeing into Pakistan, the situation has reached powder-keg proportions. And now this!
--Well, the Iowa caucuses are coming up this Thursday, and hopefully the results will cause some of those fringe candidates to finally see the light and drop out. I'm getting quite tired of them getting equal billing with the main candidates during this seemingly endless procession of televised debates. As far as I can tell, the only remaining viable candidates for the Democrats are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Dennis Kucinich will never drop out because he's on his great, oh-so principled mission. But others like Joseph Biden (whom I would have happily supported over the others) and Bill Richardson should count their blessings and go on to more fruitful ventures. On the Republican side, though, the field is much wider, with five candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson) still in the hunt. For those who would say that Ron Paul should be included on this list, I say, "C'mon!" Both Giuliani and Clinton have been playing the "after 9/11, I'll protect you more than the others" card, with Giuliani utterly shameless about it. My pre-caucus endorsements (for all of you Iowans reading my blog with baited breath) are Mike Huckabee (with John McCain close behind) for the Republicans and Barack Obama (with Hillary Clinton acceptable) for the Democrats. I believe that an Obama-Huckabee race would crystallize the 2008 general election as a truer referendum on which direction our country needs to go, instead of a contest based on fear and character assassination.
-The National Football League regular season has ended, and now it's time for the playoffs. Two Florida teams (Tampa Bay and Jacksonville) made the playoffs, and that's two more than last year! New England went undefeated (boo-hoo) and Miami finally won a game (whoopee). Dallas, who I picked before the season to beat Denver in the Super Bowl, is still a favorite to reach it. But the mile-high Broncos failed to reach the altitude of their expectations this year, dismally failing to even make the playoffs (although I'll trade their record for Miami's any day).
--Well, the Iowa caucuses are coming up this Thursday, and hopefully the results will cause some of those fringe candidates to finally see the light and drop out. I'm getting quite tired of them getting equal billing with the main candidates during this seemingly endless procession of televised debates. As far as I can tell, the only remaining viable candidates for the Democrats are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Dennis Kucinich will never drop out because he's on his great, oh-so principled mission. But others like Joseph Biden (whom I would have happily supported over the others) and Bill Richardson should count their blessings and go on to more fruitful ventures. On the Republican side, though, the field is much wider, with five candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson) still in the hunt. For those who would say that Ron Paul should be included on this list, I say, "C'mon!" Both Giuliani and Clinton have been playing the "after 9/11, I'll protect you more than the others" card, with Giuliani utterly shameless about it. My pre-caucus endorsements (for all of you Iowans reading my blog with baited breath) are Mike Huckabee (with John McCain close behind) for the Republicans and Barack Obama (with Hillary Clinton acceptable) for the Democrats. I believe that an Obama-Huckabee race would crystallize the 2008 general election as a truer referendum on which direction our country needs to go, instead of a contest based on fear and character assassination.
-The National Football League regular season has ended, and now it's time for the playoffs. Two Florida teams (Tampa Bay and Jacksonville) made the playoffs, and that's two more than last year! New England went undefeated (boo-hoo) and Miami finally won a game (whoopee). Dallas, who I picked before the season to beat Denver in the Super Bowl, is still a favorite to reach it. But the mile-high Broncos failed to reach the altitude of their expectations this year, dismally failing to even make the playoffs (although I'll trade their record for Miami's any day).
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Some Forms of Political Government
Anyone who has taken an elementary course in political science or history has probably (if they didn't doze through the entire course) encountered terms such as autocratic (also known as authoritarian), totalitarian, democratic, constitutional, and anarchic. Thus are usually described various forms of governments. The United States, for example, is known as being constitutional (with elected representatives passing laws instead of the people at large). The democratic elements of our political structure are permitted (and limited) by our Constitution. Burma (Myanmar) is widely recognized as being autocratic. Iran is totalitarian, although it calls itself democratic (as do virtually all totalitarian regimes). And many rural societies across the world, almost all of whom live within the borders of nations subscribing to other political systems, are anarchic in nature. Democracy is probably the most fragile and unstable of all of the above, usually having to combine with another system to survive in some form. For example, as previously stated, democracy in America is combined with constitutionalism. In places like Russia or Pakistan, on the other hand, it is more a combination of autocracy and democracy that seems to be more stable (although Pakistan seems to have problems with anything these days).
It strikes me that these political systems don't just apply on a national level: they also apply to groups and situations that we live out our lives in. Families in general have a varying mix of the totalitarian, autocratic, and anarchic. Workplaces are generally a mix of the autocratic and anarchic, although most companies deem themselves to be constitutional (with their company policies, or, if a union is involved, a collective bargaining agreement). Most churches are a mix of the autocratic and totalitarian, and it may be argued that their scriptures may serve as a sort of "constitution". And just driving around in traffic with others is simultaneously constitutional (traffic laws) and anarchic (everybody going to different destinations independently of each other). As a matter of fact, once you remove the top "icing" of constitutionalism, democracy, autocracy, or totalitarianism, much of the "cake" of a society underneath is essentially anarchy!
It is the family and the workplace, though, in which we spend most of our social time. One of the things that I find interesting about social systems is that, regardless of the imposed system, whenever that system breaks down, there seems to be an instinctive anarchic "backup" system that automatically kicks into play. Anarchy, as a political system, can simply be the breaking down of the "higher" systems to the lowest social level possible. Usually that means down to the family level, but not always. The closest thing to anarchy that we have as stated political philosophy, officially speaking, in America, is libertarianism. Both libertarianism and anarchy stress the sentiment that people know what's best for themselves and want to be left alone. To me that's fine in a perfect world, where people respect each other and don't cross their "lines in the sand". But we all know that this isn't the way things work, and we need a higher authority sometimes to protect us from each other.
Personally, I can handle various amounts in my life of constitutionalism, democracy, autocracy, and (my favorite) anarchy. But I absolutely LOATHE totalitarianism in any form. Any kind of social situation in which I find myself being compelled to give or do something that I do not want to give or do that also makes the demand that I behave as if I really DO want to give or do that thing is totalitarian. We instinctively cringe when thinking of totalitarian national governments, but sometimes it runs rampant on a smaller social level in environments like workplaces, schools, families, churches, and even among friends.
It strikes me that these political systems don't just apply on a national level: they also apply to groups and situations that we live out our lives in. Families in general have a varying mix of the totalitarian, autocratic, and anarchic. Workplaces are generally a mix of the autocratic and anarchic, although most companies deem themselves to be constitutional (with their company policies, or, if a union is involved, a collective bargaining agreement). Most churches are a mix of the autocratic and totalitarian, and it may be argued that their scriptures may serve as a sort of "constitution". And just driving around in traffic with others is simultaneously constitutional (traffic laws) and anarchic (everybody going to different destinations independently of each other). As a matter of fact, once you remove the top "icing" of constitutionalism, democracy, autocracy, or totalitarianism, much of the "cake" of a society underneath is essentially anarchy!
It is the family and the workplace, though, in which we spend most of our social time. One of the things that I find interesting about social systems is that, regardless of the imposed system, whenever that system breaks down, there seems to be an instinctive anarchic "backup" system that automatically kicks into play. Anarchy, as a political system, can simply be the breaking down of the "higher" systems to the lowest social level possible. Usually that means down to the family level, but not always. The closest thing to anarchy that we have as stated political philosophy, officially speaking, in America, is libertarianism. Both libertarianism and anarchy stress the sentiment that people know what's best for themselves and want to be left alone. To me that's fine in a perfect world, where people respect each other and don't cross their "lines in the sand". But we all know that this isn't the way things work, and we need a higher authority sometimes to protect us from each other.
Personally, I can handle various amounts in my life of constitutionalism, democracy, autocracy, and (my favorite) anarchy. But I absolutely LOATHE totalitarianism in any form. Any kind of social situation in which I find myself being compelled to give or do something that I do not want to give or do that also makes the demand that I behave as if I really DO want to give or do that thing is totalitarian. We instinctively cringe when thinking of totalitarian national governments, but sometimes it runs rampant on a smaller social level in environments like workplaces, schools, families, churches, and even among friends.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
My New TV Lineup
Just recently, I began subscribing to a larger cable television package from my cable TV company. As a result, I have several new stations to choose from, as well as some excellent radio stations. I didn't opt for the movie packages, so forget HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, or the Movie Channel. But I do get channels like Sundance and the various Encore movie channels (I was able to once again enjoy The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe on one of them). I like sports, and although I didn't select the "sports package" either, there are a few new specialized channels dealing with specific sports like football, basketball, tennis, and soccer. But I've found that I am now concentrating my new viewing on just a few of the new stations.
The Discovery Channel has come out with some spin-off channels, and they usually feature interesting programming. I can now view the National Geographic's station as well. My favorite science/nature channel in the new lineup, though, is the Science Channel (it's usually one of the first channels I go to when I turn on the TV now). The History Channel's superior spin-off, History Channel International, is also now available. But, with the possible exception of the Science Channel, my favorite new station is AZN, a channel dedicated to the interests of Asian-Americans, with the spotlight on Asia itself. In the morning, they have a Hindi soap opera, followed by an excellent Japanese-language news show. Then, programming in Vietnamese and Chinese is usually available. Later in the day, I often see shows in Korean. And English-language programming is also widespread on AZN, particularly in regard to travel (in Asia) and (Asian) cooking shows. It's fun to watch AZN, even when I have trouble discerning what is being said!
I still like watching many of the "old" channels belonging to my original "basic" lineup, such as C-Span (One and Two), Spike, AMC, Sci-Fi, Univision, and TNT. My favorite news channel is MSNBC--that is, when they're not obsessing about prison life as they do for much of their late night programming. I think, though, that sitting back in my recliner surfing channels is not exactly the best use of my time. It would be better to check out the program schedule BEFORE I turn on the TV, and then restrict my viewing to shows selected in advance. Sometimes, though, I get surprised by a program that I wouldn't have picked this way. But still, I waste too much time the way I'm going (sounds like an impending New Year's Resolution, doesn't it?).
The Discovery Channel has come out with some spin-off channels, and they usually feature interesting programming. I can now view the National Geographic's station as well. My favorite science/nature channel in the new lineup, though, is the Science Channel (it's usually one of the first channels I go to when I turn on the TV now). The History Channel's superior spin-off, History Channel International, is also now available. But, with the possible exception of the Science Channel, my favorite new station is AZN, a channel dedicated to the interests of Asian-Americans, with the spotlight on Asia itself. In the morning, they have a Hindi soap opera, followed by an excellent Japanese-language news show. Then, programming in Vietnamese and Chinese is usually available. Later in the day, I often see shows in Korean. And English-language programming is also widespread on AZN, particularly in regard to travel (in Asia) and (Asian) cooking shows. It's fun to watch AZN, even when I have trouble discerning what is being said!
I still like watching many of the "old" channels belonging to my original "basic" lineup, such as C-Span (One and Two), Spike, AMC, Sci-Fi, Univision, and TNT. My favorite news channel is MSNBC--that is, when they're not obsessing about prison life as they do for much of their late night programming. I think, though, that sitting back in my recliner surfing channels is not exactly the best use of my time. It would be better to check out the program schedule BEFORE I turn on the TV, and then restrict my viewing to shows selected in advance. Sometimes, though, I get surprised by a program that I wouldn't have picked this way. But still, I waste too much time the way I'm going (sounds like an impending New Year's Resolution, doesn't it?).
Friday, December 28, 2007
Free Society?
America is reputedly a free country, where people can live under the protection of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. But lately I've been reflecting on how free, as a whole, our nation really is.
We all pretty much know about the massive influx of undocumented immigrants, mostly from Mexico but also from many areas spanning the globe, especially Britain, the Middle East, and China. For these people, walking the streets here is a different matter than for a citizen or "legal" resident. Seeking government protection for criminal or civil matters, doing anything involving filling out a detailed history, or just openly expressing oneself under the First Amendment can be a tricky matter for these millions of people living among us. Besides these, we have different strata of convicted criminals who have varying types of restrictions placed on their activities and expression. In a few states (including my Florida), convicted felons who have completed their punishments still are banned from exercising their right to vote. The probation and parole systems we have, ostensibly designed to keep convicts out of jails and more assimilated into society, actually serve the function of making the society that much more unfree, since these people, many of whom work and live around us, do not enjoy the same rights as do others. Increasingly, we also have certain criminals, such as arsonists and sexual predators, that have been adjudged impossible to fully rehabilitate, and hence must be limited in their movements and continuously pointed out in public (even after completing sentences). Besides all this, there is the gargantuan underground economy (drugs, gambling, pornography, prostitution), participants in which actually live within a parallel and brutally unfree society, compared to the "open" one that is supposedly represented by due process and fairness. If you are African-American, I probably don't need to tell about the phenomenon of racial profiling ("driving while black") that has continued to make many feel like second-class citizens. And why do prosecutors keep insisting on trying minors, not as minors, but as adults? Many arrests and convictions nowadays don't even involve real crimes and real victims, but instead are the state-manufactured results of sting operations. Ordinary citizens are encouraged to rat on each other to the government through many types of anonymous "snitch" lines that are creepily reminiscent of the old KGB police state era in the Soviet Union. And now we have people targeted for criminal investigation who end up being prosecuted not for the crime that they were suspected of, but for lying to an investigative body about their role. Maybe none of the above apply to you. But suppose you're just walking down the street minding your own business and the wind is blowing in your face. You just might not hear the policeman behind yelling at you before he or she sends a Taser's 50,000 volts into your body (and then shackling you and hauling you off to jail)! Sound farfetched? I would have thought so, too, until recently.
To remedy some of these problems involves taking some bold and admittedly politically risky steps. Many of the victimless crimes that are a hallmark of the underground economy need to either be drastically decriminalized or even legalized. We need a comprehensive plan, similar to the one that President Bush and the Senate approved, that allows undocumented immigrants to be able to openly participate in a free society. Convicts who have finished their sentences should be fully accepted back into society with a clean slate in order to really get a "second chance". If certain crimes are so heinous that offenders have to be constantly monitored and restricted after release, then perhaps the sentencing should reflect that by being much stiffer, without the post-release "gray area". And police and prosecutors need some judicial oversight to restrain them from excesses that undermine freedom and the general good of society.
We all pretty much know about the massive influx of undocumented immigrants, mostly from Mexico but also from many areas spanning the globe, especially Britain, the Middle East, and China. For these people, walking the streets here is a different matter than for a citizen or "legal" resident. Seeking government protection for criminal or civil matters, doing anything involving filling out a detailed history, or just openly expressing oneself under the First Amendment can be a tricky matter for these millions of people living among us. Besides these, we have different strata of convicted criminals who have varying types of restrictions placed on their activities and expression. In a few states (including my Florida), convicted felons who have completed their punishments still are banned from exercising their right to vote. The probation and parole systems we have, ostensibly designed to keep convicts out of jails and more assimilated into society, actually serve the function of making the society that much more unfree, since these people, many of whom work and live around us, do not enjoy the same rights as do others. Increasingly, we also have certain criminals, such as arsonists and sexual predators, that have been adjudged impossible to fully rehabilitate, and hence must be limited in their movements and continuously pointed out in public (even after completing sentences). Besides all this, there is the gargantuan underground economy (drugs, gambling, pornography, prostitution), participants in which actually live within a parallel and brutally unfree society, compared to the "open" one that is supposedly represented by due process and fairness. If you are African-American, I probably don't need to tell about the phenomenon of racial profiling ("driving while black") that has continued to make many feel like second-class citizens. And why do prosecutors keep insisting on trying minors, not as minors, but as adults? Many arrests and convictions nowadays don't even involve real crimes and real victims, but instead are the state-manufactured results of sting operations. Ordinary citizens are encouraged to rat on each other to the government through many types of anonymous "snitch" lines that are creepily reminiscent of the old KGB police state era in the Soviet Union. And now we have people targeted for criminal investigation who end up being prosecuted not for the crime that they were suspected of, but for lying to an investigative body about their role. Maybe none of the above apply to you. But suppose you're just walking down the street minding your own business and the wind is blowing in your face. You just might not hear the policeman behind yelling at you before he or she sends a Taser's 50,000 volts into your body (and then shackling you and hauling you off to jail)! Sound farfetched? I would have thought so, too, until recently.
To remedy some of these problems involves taking some bold and admittedly politically risky steps. Many of the victimless crimes that are a hallmark of the underground economy need to either be drastically decriminalized or even legalized. We need a comprehensive plan, similar to the one that President Bush and the Senate approved, that allows undocumented immigrants to be able to openly participate in a free society. Convicts who have finished their sentences should be fully accepted back into society with a clean slate in order to really get a "second chance". If certain crimes are so heinous that offenders have to be constantly monitored and restricted after release, then perhaps the sentencing should reflect that by being much stiffer, without the post-release "gray area". And police and prosecutors need some judicial oversight to restrain them from excesses that undermine freedom and the general good of society.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Favorite Songs of 1993
During 1993, I was spending some time going back to some of the old albums of some of my favorite artists from the 1960s and 1970s. The group Yes was my main focus that year, and (to me) their most interesting works were the six album-side-long pieces that they recorded from 1973 to 1974 on three of their albums. The best of these, Close to the Edge, became my favorite song of 1993 (and my all-time #10), although it was first released way back in 1973.
I also kept up with the contemporary songs of 1993. REM's beautiful 1992 album, Automatic for the People, spawned a 1993 hit, Man on the Moon (a tribute to Andy Kaufman with a nod to Charles Darwin), that grew on me, as much for its great lyrics as for its poignant-but-eerie sound. Porno for Pyros put a whole new spin on the "aliens are going to come down and save us" myths with their satirical Pets. Sting's best solo work (in my opinion) was the lush 1993 love song Fields of Gold. The pared-down band (of one) Tears for Fears spoke about the beauty of decay with Break It Down Again. John Mellencamp put out a new CD with two compelling (but different-sounding) tunes: Human Wheels and When Jesus Left Birmingham. Beck burst onto the hit scene with his catchy-but-ultimately meaningless Loser. The Counting Crows and Sweden's Ace of Base each made their debuts with hits that I liked in Mr. Jones and All That She Wants, respectively. Tones of Home , by Blind Melon, was a catchy, jazzy piece of "scat-rock". And ex-Led Zeppelin stars Robert Plant and Jimmy Page (along with Whitesnake's David Coverdale) engaged in a "friendly" competition of sorts with concurrent releases. Plant's best from his Fate of Nations album was his melodic and mellow 29 Palms, while Coverdale/Page's self-titled album contained, surprisingly, several good tracks. My favorites were the long, slow Over Now and the very-Zeppelinesque Easy Does It. Too bad that this would be Page and Coverdale's one and only collaboration!
I also kept up with the contemporary songs of 1993. REM's beautiful 1992 album, Automatic for the People, spawned a 1993 hit, Man on the Moon (a tribute to Andy Kaufman with a nod to Charles Darwin), that grew on me, as much for its great lyrics as for its poignant-but-eerie sound. Porno for Pyros put a whole new spin on the "aliens are going to come down and save us" myths with their satirical Pets. Sting's best solo work (in my opinion) was the lush 1993 love song Fields of Gold. The pared-down band (of one) Tears for Fears spoke about the beauty of decay with Break It Down Again. John Mellencamp put out a new CD with two compelling (but different-sounding) tunes: Human Wheels and When Jesus Left Birmingham. Beck burst onto the hit scene with his catchy-but-ultimately meaningless Loser. The Counting Crows and Sweden's Ace of Base each made their debuts with hits that I liked in Mr. Jones and All That She Wants, respectively. Tones of Home , by Blind Melon, was a catchy, jazzy piece of "scat-rock". And ex-Led Zeppelin stars Robert Plant and Jimmy Page (along with Whitesnake's David Coverdale) engaged in a "friendly" competition of sorts with concurrent releases. Plant's best from his Fate of Nations album was his melodic and mellow 29 Palms, while Coverdale/Page's self-titled album contained, surprisingly, several good tracks. My favorites were the long, slow Over Now and the very-Zeppelinesque Easy Does It. Too bad that this would be Page and Coverdale's one and only collaboration!
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Reset
After a Christmas "break" and coming up to the New Year, I think that it's time to make a few adjustments to this blog. The weekly "newsbreak" feature here will stay intact, and so will the various types of free-topic entries. I'm trimming down the "favorite songs of the year" feature to the writing parts and cutting out the long lists. And I'm going to add a couple of new "on the eights" features in the days to come. I plan to make this blog more visual by adding photographs from my new digital camera (once I figure out how to use it). I also intend to investigate some of those areas that Blogger provides for "blog enhancement". But the basic tone of Alone in the Clouds All Blue will remain the same: a more-or-less daily journal of one person's take on things. And who knows, maybe I'll begins to leave comments on others' blogs!
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Pledge Drives
What do you think about pledge drives? There are many different types, of course, but the one that I'd like to discuss here is the local public television station pledge drive.
I've lived in Gainesville pretty much since 1977, and one of the bright spots in this college town is the local PBS station, WUFT-Channel Five. Aside from showing great PBS series like Cosmos and Connections, WUFT also showed the 1980s mini-series version of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (by Douglas Adams) as well as a whole slew of British comedy shows. But one of my "special moments" with WUFT came on an evening in 1977. They were showing a string of Marx Brothers movies in order in induce people to donate money. They'd usually say something like, "If this is the type of programming you like to see on WUFT, then this is the time to call in with your pledge." Only for the rest of the year, they would never show the programming that they reserved for pledge nights.
This night, though, they were showing Marx Brothers flicks (the earlier, funnier ones), which as black-and-white movies came in real good on my black-and-white TV. The only problem was that, every few minutes, the station would interrupt the movie (usually at a completely inopportune moment) and then ramble on for several minutes with their guilt-mongering ("This is NOT free television!") and pleas to meet the pledge quotas. Finally, about halfway through the final movie, enough people were calling the station complaining about the interruptions (without making pledges) that one of the women conducting the on-air pledge drive suddenly lost her composure and angrily blurted out something to the effect that that was it, you unappreciative people out there. We don't want your complaints, we want your money. And we're not going to finish showing the movie, how do you like that?!! After a few awkward moments though, she was apparently overruled by her colleagues and the movie was quietly put back on to its completion.
I think public television is generally pretty good, but I have to admit that I haven't been one of its financial backers (except through my taxes, that is). Gainesville's WUFT has tried over the years to provide interesting programming for the area, though in recent years I haven't been too impressed with its program lineup. Perhaps they should try regularly showing the programs that they only put on when trying to attract financial donors.
I've lived in Gainesville pretty much since 1977, and one of the bright spots in this college town is the local PBS station, WUFT-Channel Five. Aside from showing great PBS series like Cosmos and Connections, WUFT also showed the 1980s mini-series version of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (by Douglas Adams) as well as a whole slew of British comedy shows. But one of my "special moments" with WUFT came on an evening in 1977. They were showing a string of Marx Brothers movies in order in induce people to donate money. They'd usually say something like, "If this is the type of programming you like to see on WUFT, then this is the time to call in with your pledge." Only for the rest of the year, they would never show the programming that they reserved for pledge nights.
This night, though, they were showing Marx Brothers flicks (the earlier, funnier ones), which as black-and-white movies came in real good on my black-and-white TV. The only problem was that, every few minutes, the station would interrupt the movie (usually at a completely inopportune moment) and then ramble on for several minutes with their guilt-mongering ("This is NOT free television!") and pleas to meet the pledge quotas. Finally, about halfway through the final movie, enough people were calling the station complaining about the interruptions (without making pledges) that one of the women conducting the on-air pledge drive suddenly lost her composure and angrily blurted out something to the effect that that was it, you unappreciative people out there. We don't want your complaints, we want your money. And we're not going to finish showing the movie, how do you like that?!! After a few awkward moments though, she was apparently overruled by her colleagues and the movie was quietly put back on to its completion.
I think public television is generally pretty good, but I have to admit that I haven't been one of its financial backers (except through my taxes, that is). Gainesville's WUFT has tried over the years to provide interesting programming for the area, though in recent years I haven't been too impressed with its program lineup. Perhaps they should try regularly showing the programs that they only put on when trying to attract financial donors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
