Favorite Songs of 1989

In the year 1989, I went through a country and western music phase when I listened to a local Gainesville country station (which now plays light jazz). And there were several good tunes that I heard then. Rosanne Cash made an excellent cover of her father's (Johnny Cash) Tennessee Flat Top Box. Californian Dwight Yoakam had a hit I liked in the humorous, sweet I Got You (To See Me Through). Michael Martin Murphey's sad I'm Gonna Miss You Girl was my favorite of his. And That's My Job (originally from 1987), by Conway Twitty, has to be one of the greatest tearjerkers of all time, not just for 1989 (when I heard it).

But I listened mostly to rock/pop in 1989. Young MC and Tone Loc came out with good rap songs in Bust a Move and Funky Cold Medina, respectively. The hair metal band Warrant had their best tune (to me) in The Down Boys (which resembled Bye Bye Love by the Cars). Rod Stewart showed his mellow side in the beautiful Downtown Train. Stevie Nicks had one of my favorites of hers in the grossly underplayed A Long Way to Go. Aerosmith hit the height of their resurgent popularity with their loud and titillating Love in an Elevator. XTC's Mayor of Simpleton was a fun-sounding tune with a compelling harmony. Janet Jackson introduced her Rhythm Nation 1814 album with the first single Miss You Much. This period, to me, was the pinnacle of her career. Neil Young, with a big chip on his shoulder from George H.W. Bush's election as President, put out a very critical, sarcastic, and effective protest song with his Rockin' in the Free World. The supergroup Traveling Wilburys, featuring George Harrison, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, Bob Dylan, and Roy Orbison, were very popular on the radio in 1989. My favorites of theirs were End of the Line, Margarita, and my top favorite song of 1989 (back then): Handle With Care. Tom Petty excelled with his stubborn I Won't Back Down and the rollicking Running Down a Dream. My #2 song from 1989 was by Tears For Fears for their tribute to the Beatles and the 1967 Summer of Love: Sowing the Seeds of Love. The video for it was also very, very entertaining (and clever).

Only Human

Not too long ago, I heard someone make a plea to a group that he was addressing to the effect that people who come to him with grievances would not be so overtly hostile. After all, he was only human, with feelings like everyone else. And while I agreed and sympathized with him, his invocation of his own humanity gave me some food for thought. Maybe you've heard Billy Joel's old mid-1980s hit Only Human, where he states "You're SUPPOSED to make mistakes!" After all, we all know about "human nature", which seems to be the disposition of people to take the easiest, least painful way out of a bad situation (or to a good situation), even if it involves behavior against others. But to be "humane" seems to go against this human nature, since there is obviously a more altruistic principle involved: compassion for others, beyond oneself. Humanism is a philosophical movement which, at its purest form, is a defense of relatively powerless people against abuses from the powerful and the institutions they control, such as business, government, and religion. Although embraced by many who profess atheism, humanism itself actually embraces and elevates one of the most important creeds in Christianity: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In other words, regardless of the trappings of our wealth, positions, or power, we are each of us ultimately human, and as such must share an ethical responsibility with each other to care for each other, for the sake of the greater good of humanity. And this brings me back to the man at the beginning of this article who only asked to be treated like a human being. Just treat me, a human, as you (just another human) would want me to treat you would have expressed his sentiment more precisely.

Foreign Languages on the Eights: 1/22

I have continued to plod along with my textbook-study of Vietnamese (using Robert Quinn's Beginner's Vietnamese), although my progress has become a bit bogged down because of other distractions in my life. From time to time, I also watch the AZN Channel during the morning hours when they are showing the news in Vietnamese. There is also a kind of historical romance soap opera, dealing with traditional Chinese martial arts, called The Little Fairy, that is dubbed in Vietnamese with Chinese subtitles. It's interesting for me to watch this show, because I usually can't discern the meaning of what is being said in Vietnamese unless I read the Chinese at the bottom of the screen! Which brings me to a circular argument that I've been carrying on with myself for years: shouldn't I just concentrate on the most important language(s) to learn and leave the rest until later? Vietnamese, although personally very important to me (I've actually spoken it with others more than any language besides English), is secondary to other languages like Chinese, Russian, German. French, and Spanish, languages all of which I have a substantial knowledge in.

But I look at my age (51) and see the years ahead of me. Why not make things as interesting as possible? And Vietnamese is certainly a very interesting language. So, I'm still going to work on Vietnamese until I get through this textbook. And then I'll see where I want to go next. Also, I purchased a new MP3 and plan to download VOA broadcasts in Vietnamese, Chinese, Russian, French, and Spanish to listen to at various times. I'm still looking for a source for German (VOA doesn't broadcast in it), but this is probably due more to my ignorance of computers and the Internet than to a lack of German-language downloadable podcasts.

Monday Newsbreak: 1/21

--The presidential campaign season is now going on in full intensity. Unlike four years ago, when the nominees for both parties had been pretty much decided by this stage, both party races are wide open. There are a few stragglers who may be dropping out soon, such as Democrat John Edwards and Republican Fred Thompson. But then again, I'd be surprised if they didn't at least wait until after the results of Super Tuesday on February 5, when many states, including California, New York, and Georgia, will hold their primaries. My own hometown newspaper, The Gainesville Sun, yesterday endorsed John McCain and Barack Obama (both my choices as well) for the January 29 Florida primary.

--Today is officially Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, although his actual birthday was on January 15 last week. He would have been turning 79 had not murder cut short his mighty life at such a young age. What would Dr. King's take have been on various historical events had he lived? I'm thinking about things like men walking on the Moon, Watergate, Jimmy Carter's rise to the Presidency, the Reagan years, the two Iraq Wars, Bill Clinton's Presidency, and 9/11. But then again, Dr. King would naturally have had his own special influence on the flow of history, and the events which did occur might have gone in much different directions had this visionary for peaceful social progress been spared his cruel fate in April, 1968.

--The National Football League playoffs have now progressed to the point where we know who will be playing in this year's Super Bowl: the New England Patriots against the New York Giants. My preseason picks, Dallas and Denver, couldn't muster up the needed talent and clutch play to reach this stage. I'm just hoping for an exciting, close game, with the Giants coming out on top!

--Although we in Gainesville are currently experiencing relatively cold conditions for our area (highs in the upper 40's), this has been a pretty warm winter, all things considered. It's getting to be that, in our neck of the woods, the most crucial period of the year to be concerned about is the early spring and the amount of rainfall that we're getting then. That's because wildfires have plagued this area too often recently, due to severe dryness. This spring will mark the tenth anniversary of the terrible firestorms that swept through some northeastern Florida areas, especially in Volusia and Flagler Counties, but also including some of my Alachua County.

Gators Basketball This Year

It's looks as if this year's edition of the University of Florida Gators Men's Basketball team will be very competitive after all, in spite of being dominated by freshmen and sophomores. They currently have a 16-3 overall record and are 3-1 within the tough Southeastern Conference, having just defeated divisional rival Kentucky in overtime, 81-70. Their only conference loss so far was a road game with ranked Mississippi, 89-87. Coach Billy Donovan is employing a three-guard system on this team, which is a bit out of the ordinary. Each of the starters are making their contributions and a name for themselves as well. They are: guards Nick Calathes, Walter Hodge, and Jai Lucas; forward Dan Werner; and center Marreese Speights. The Gators this year also have a very strong bench. The problem with their two other losses this year (to Florida State and Ohio State) was that, in each game, the entire team seemed to have a poor shooting day. As long as some teammates can step up for others who get cold with their shooting, Florida will continue their winning tradition. I think they are worthy of a Top 25 ranking, but are far from the national championship-calibre squads of the last two years. But the future looks very bright!

Scapegoating As Political Strategy

It is with great sadness that I feel the need to withdraw my support for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republican Presidential nomination. Mr. Huckabee has recently, in South Carolina, decided to lower himself into the mud pits of scapegoating while, at the same time expressing a desire to change the U.S. Constitution to conform to the Bible.

Huckabee is pushing hard for the "scapegoater" vote, and is emphasizing his desire to push through a Constitutional amendment to exclude gays from marriage. He rationalizes his position as wanting to save the institution of marriage (even though nearly half of all exclusively heterosexual marriages currently end in divorce in America). No, Huckabee said that he wasn't just picking on gays: the amendment would also exclude marriages between a man and a child, a man and an animal, or a man and three women (an inclusion that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann astutely pointed out was a bigoted dig at rival Mitt Romney's Mormon history). I'd like to ask Mr. Huckabee, since he thinks the Bible should be the basis for law here, whether the "preservation of marriage" amendment shouldn't also go to both prohibiting marriage between people of different faiths (strongly discouraged in the Good Book), and allowing the rich and powerful to have multiple wives (Kings David and Solomon among many others). And exactly whose interpretation of the Bible would the Constitution be changed to suit? Undoubtedly, to fundamentalist Baptist preacher Huckabee, it would be HIS interpretation.

Scapegoating gays who wanted to get married was very successfully used by the Republicans in 2004 to get Bush/Cheney reelected by placing a "marriage is only between a man and a woman' referendum on various state ballots (including the crucial swing state of Ohio). Suddenly, voters who couldn't care less about "trivial" issues like the exporting of jobs abroad, diminishing privacy rights, the Iraq War, or fighting terrorism stood up in large numbers (including many of the abovementioned divorced ones) to "save marriage" and keep homosexuals from getting married. This time around, the average Joe (or Sally) isn't as concerned about gays as they are about the new scapegoat for everything: undocumented Mexicans in this country. If there's crime, it's the illegal aliens' fault. If the economy falters, it's the illegal aliens' fault. If someone gets in front of them in line at the store or at the gasoline pump who looks Latino, it's the illegal aliens' fault. If they're out in public and hear people speaking Spanish and not English, it's the illegal aliens' fault. So most of the Republican candidates, with the notable exception of John McCain (to his credit), are dueling each other to see who can be the biggest demagogue on this issue. And this streak of meanness that I see people perk up and respond to in masses scares me a bit. So that's why I now give my backing to Arizona Senator John McCain for the Republican nomination. McCain has his own problematic positions on some issues, but he hasn't stooped to the low level that some of his rivals have. Reasonable people with differing opinions on difficult and volatile issues can often work together to find solutions to them which, although not necessarily the ones most desired by the different sides, nevertheless help to diffuse them instead of inflaming them. Civil unions for gays is one of these solutions that, at least in today's political climate, has been successfully instituted in some states. And I would like to suggest to others who are prone to scapegoating in dealing with their problems to look more within themselves for solutions and stop blaming other groups.

Wading Into the Ocean

When I was a boy in South Florida (during the late 1950s and early-to-mid 1960s), my family would go out to the beach on occasions (either at Haulover or Hollywood Beach). And one of the great rituals of the trip would be to gradually wade out into the ocean. I'd often carry with me one of those flimsy inner tubes that lifeguards no longer allow (except in swimming pools). And then I'd go out, deeper and deeper. I would spend what seemed like hours out in pretty deep water, riding my inner tube and getting severely sunburned. And occasionally I'd get stinging salt water in my eyes and nose. This I used to do years before I actually learned how to swim (when I was twelve)! But that's another story altogether.

Recently, on a beach trip to much colder waters off Ormond Beach, I noticed that wading out into the ocean and withstanding the incoming waves can serve as an analogy to life. Sometimes you're just standing there and the sea is completely calm. Which is pleasant for a while, but eventually boring. Life, in this way, can also be pleasant without any stress or concerns. But it can quickly turn into monotony if this goes on too long. Sometimes the water, when I enter it, is nice and warm. But sometimes it's ice cold, and I need to just "stick it out" and stay in the water long enough to get used to the temperature. And likewise, with some days, I have quite a bit of trouble just getting out of bed and going, while with others it seems as if I just spring out of bed with purpose and energy. But the most accurate analogy between ocean wading and living is how deep I am willing to go and how well I take on the waves when they hit me. When I am out in the water, I like to look out to the sea and see the waves as they form and approach. Sometimes I'll predict which ones will develop into large waves, and that's fun. But the greatest fun is meeting up with the waves when they hit and "suffering" the consequences. In life, it's important to have challenges ahead of oneself and to gage their degrees of intensity and importance. And then to enthusiastically meet them head-on, regardless of the consequences. It wouldn't make any sense for me to say at the beach, "I don't want to go out into the ocean", and then wade out and stand there with my back to the waves, continually becoming upset each time one of them suddenly crashed into me from behind, knocking me down. But isn't this how some of us live our lives, continually being thrown off and worn out by events enveloping us that we walked into blindly?

The essence of this is that, like taking on the ocean, life can be approached either in a proactive or a passive manner. Having fun and a sense of humor (especially when you get knocked down) is crucial! And when the going gets too tough, step out of the ocean for a few minutes and take a break!

Favorite Songs of 1990

1990 saw the release of a great REM album: Out of Time. Although the hyped-up single Losing My Religion wasn't one of my favorites, the rest of the album was spectacular. End Game, Shiny Happy People, Belong, and Half a World Away (my favorite from Out of Time) were all great tracks. For the rest of my 1990 favorites, I relied solely on the radio, listening to 103.7-WRUF "Rock 104" and 105.3-WYKS "Kiss 105".

Janet Jackson's best tune ever (in my opinion) came out in 1990 with her Escapade. The late, great blues/rock guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughn produced the riff-laden Tightrope, while George Michael sang my favorite song of his, the very somber Praying For Time. Paul Simon's Obvious Child was an underplayed but beautiful song. Athens, Georgia's B-52's brightened things up "all around the world" with their cheery Roam. INXS's Suicide Blonde and Jane's Addiction's Been Caught Stealing were both catchy, fast-driving tunes as well as enjoyable videos. My #3 favorite from 1990 was Guns and Roses's completely out-of-character, slow, and chilling Civil War. If only this very talented band had gone down that particular musical path further! My #2 from 1990 was Depeche Mode's Enjoy the Silence, a song that spoke deeply to my heart (as well as did the video). My top favorite song from 1990 was Blue Sky Mine by the Australian band Midnight Oil, featuring brutal commentary about exploitation of labor and the environment in an historical Australian setting, accompanied by possibly the most wicked harmonica riff I've ever heard! And 1990's tearjerker of the year award goes to Sinéad O'Conner's sad lament to a bygone love, Nothing Compares 2 U.

Sick People Everywhere

Well, it's flu season again and I am wandering around, trying to avoid sneezing, coughing, and sniffling people. Especially when they handle things (like money and merchandise) that are going right back into my hands. I was just in a short line at Publix (my grocery store) behind a young woman. Suddenly she began to violently sneeze, and then followed that by sniffling badly. First, I just turned my head. But suddenly, I swung around and walked across the store over to another register. The friendly cashier there, I noticed, though, was also sniffling badly. Oh, well.

I don't know whether I am changing for the better or for the worse, but as the years go by, I have grown much more sensitive to contact with others, especially during cold and flu season. My attitude toward shaking hands, the common social custom of greeting, has become close to that of the lovable TV detective Monk. Monk's problem was attributed to his general obsessive-compulsive disorder, though. He had a companion whose job was to help him get through the day, with its myriad obstacles confronting him. And the most pervasive of these was the continual pressure to shake others' hands. To handle this, Monk had his assistant always carry with her some hand-wipes, ready to instantly whip out whenever the good detective was cornered into an unavoidable hand-shaking situation. Well, I'm getting that way, too! At church, my least favorite time is when they tell the congregation to turn around and greet each other. And then I'm compelled to shake the hands of others, even those who I could plainly see are sick. I could go immediately afterwards and wash my hands, but I'd still be liable to run into somebody else, who, of course would stick out his hand. When I go to Sonny's Restaurant, I usually stock up on their packets of hand-wipes (and use them more and more often).

I acknowledge that, as biological beings, we live, not as closed, completely insulated systems, but rather as open systems, constantly interacting on a microscopic level with our immediate environment. After all, the air we breathe is everybody else's, too. So it's completely unrealistic to expect anything resembling a sterile environment. But nowadays, when I hear someone sneeze (like I just did here in the crowded Starbucks by that previously-referred-to Publix), it filters quickly though the many other sounds around me to set off an alarm. The alarm of self-preservation!

Still, we all need to practice common-sense measures to prevent infections (such as washing hands), especially during the flu season. Being vaccinated isn't enough (I caught the flu a few years ago despite having received a vaccine). Another measure would be to respect others by realizing when we're sick and avoiding the contact and presence that could possibly spread the sickness to them. And this may involve taking time off from school and work (as well as church)! But alas, many of the unenlightened leaders of those institutions still abide by the ridiculous notion that it is somehow virtuous for a student or worker to attend school or work while sick (and infectious)! How ultimately counterproductive!

Piano on the Eights: 1/15

My piano progress has slowed down a bit over the past eight weeks, and I have only myself to blame for it. I began lessons with the objective of playing piano as a lifelong endeavor. I know deep, down inside me that I have the innate talent to become quite a good player, and I have a great memory of many songs that I would love to be able to play, both for myself and others. But, like with other things, the demands of daily living and me feeling "pooped out" at the end of the day, have taken their toll on my practice. So, I am going to begin recording the time I actually spend each day in practice, in order to impart to myself a sense of accountability. I've still been going to my weekly lessons (with a short Christmas break) and have practiced my assignments. But not enough! But that's about to change drastically!

Monday Newsbreak: 1/14

--Last Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic Primary results brought about two particular interpretations that are, in my opinion, slaps in the faces of the voters. As you may already know, Hillary Clinton, after leading there in the public opinion polls, had slipped considerably and was trailing her main rival, Barack Obama, by as many as 12 percentage points in polls taken close to the primary date. But when the actual votes were counted, she had narrowly won. Almost immediately, analysts began to spin the results. One spin claimed that while many white voters may have publicly proclaimed their support for African-American Obama, once they were within the anonymity of the voting booth, they switched to Clinton. This implied racism has no basis in fact. The other insulting spin was that Hillary broke down in tears on the day before the voting, and this caused women to get angry and come out in droves to her defense. Neither of these explanations are proven, and I suspect that those who are dwelling on them may just be trying to belittle the Clinton victory. There may be another explanation for the Clinton surge that I have yet to hear anyone express. And that is that there are a lot of people who really have faith in Hillary's ability to lead this country, but felt unsure about expressing this feeling publicly. That explanation (which is mine) is also unproven, but I think that it is more accurate than the others I've heard.

--Former Democratic Presidential nominee (1972) George McGovern has written an editorial piece calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush. He claims that Bush violated the Constitution, national, and international law. McGovern describes the incredible costs of the undeclared war in Iraq in terms of both lives and money. He points out that the treatment of foreign prisoners has featured torture and deprivation of fundamental due process. And he reminds us that the pretext given for the Iraq War was built upon the deceit that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. McGovern then questions the President's recent bellicose position toward Iran and its nuclear weapon program when he already knew that it had ceased in 2003. The former South Dakota Senator also decries Bush's mismanagement of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. And finally, he sites the President's selective interpretation of the law (FISA) regarding the wiretapping of thousands of American citizens. For my part, I compare all this with the reasoning used to impeach President Clinton in 1999. The evidence against Bush dwarfs anything that anyone had against Clinton, who was basically caught lying about a consensual sexual affair he had.

--There seems to be a difference of opinion among economists as to whether the U.S. has entered a recession or not. It's interesting that, after a recession has ended for a while, economists usually place its beginning and end earlier in time than when people thought it was occurring. One of the reasons that I think this is so is because workers and consumers are usually among the last to feel the effects of a recession's conclusion.

--Earlier this week, a 70+ vehicle pile-up accident occurred on a stretch of Interstate-Four near Lakeland (between Tampa and Orlando) and included some fatalities. The cause of the multiple accidents, which was severe fog combined with smoke from a foolishly executed controlled burn nearby, made vision virtually impossible. A couple of days earlier, I ran into some severe fog myself driving home from work. Pretty scary stuff, I must say, when you're going down the road at 40 mph and suddenly can't see anything but whiteness around you!

--There's a good chance that the New England Patriots may go undefeated and win the Super Bowl this year. But whether they do or not, there is one very overriding factor in their success that they share with the 1972 "perfect" Miami Dolphins: the members of both teams, on both their offensive and defensive squads, played as a single unit, and were characterized by unselfishness and devotion to the greater good of the team.

Presidential Despot

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).

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

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.

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.

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).

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?!!

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!

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.

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.