During the summer and early fall of 2004, it seemed as if all of the previous rules governing the trajectories of Atlantic hurricanes went out the window when four strong hurricanes passed through my state of Florida, three of them too close for comfort. Hurricane Charley first developed in the western Caribbean. The usual path for a storm like this would have had it going into the Gulf of Mexico and then landing anywhere from the Florida panhandle westward to the Mexican coast. But with Charley, the meteorologists had predicted it coming in just north of Tampa and hitting Gainesville like a bulls-eye! So you can imagine that we in Gainesville were more than a little concerned. But a funny thing happened on the way to the disaster. Just before landfall, Charley did two things: it greatly strengthened and abruptly changed its path more eastward, harshly slamming into the southwestern Florida coast at around Punta Gorda. It then traversed the state (passing over newly-renovated Cypress Gardens), coming out in the Atlantic around Daytona Beach. Gainesville was basically spared Charley's wrath.
The next hurricane we experienced, Frances, was a more typical Atlantic hurricane that also didn't follow the usual trajectories. We had grown accustomed to hurricanes approaching Florida directly from the East and then, just before hitting, veering toward the north, either hitting the Carolinas or steering clear of land altogether. But this time, Frances stayed true to its course, slamming into land around Stuart and Fort Pierce and then very slowly passing through the state in a west-northwestward direction (also directly passing over unfortunate Cypress Gardens). Frances was so big and slow-traveling that it affected Gainesville, more than 100 miles to the north, with big winds, tornadoes, and extensive power outages. My own neighborhood kept its power going, most likely because our power lines were underground. I remember during the storm listening for information on my radio (on station 97.3-WSKY). The announcers on the radio stressed how dangerous driving conditions were, so why not instead stay home and call for a pizza delivery? Does anyone besides me see anything wrong with this suggestion?!!
After Frances, Ivan slammed onto the Florida panhandle coast, but spared the state's already battered peninsula. Well, this was obviously a very active hurricane season for Floridians, but who could imagine what was to come? Yes, there was even another hurricane, Jeanne, that brewed, like Frances, out in the Atlantic. But unlike Frances, Jeanne had taken a northward turn, away from Florida. I was of the mindset to get at least one trip to the beach in for me and my family that summer. So I made a reservation for a hotel in Ormond Beach. As the "beach day" approached, though, Jeanne did a funny thing. It suddenly went into a loop and came out of it strengthening and headed westward, straight at Florida! Suddenly, I had to call to cancel my hotel reservation. Amazingly, as Jeanne was bearing down on the coastline with evacuation pronouncements proliferating everywhere, the woman at the hotel's desk told me on the phone to come on down anyway! I said "no thanks" and canceled. A few hours later, the entire beach area underwent a mandatory evacuation. Jeanne came ashore at the precise spot that Frances had, and, yes, it too passed directly over hapless Cypress Gardens (which later named its new wooden roller coaster the Triple Hurricane in honor of Charley, Frances, and Jeanne). But unlike Frances, after Jeanne had been ashore for a while, it turned more northward, bringing Gainesville more into the range of moderately severe winds. We did lose our power this time (for only three hours, though) and suffered some minor roof damage. But all things considered, taking what could have happened into account, I consider myself very fortunate to have escaped the full brunt of these storms. The folks in central and southwest Florida fared much worse.
After the storms, it being the presidential campaign season, global warming publicist Al Gore tried to lay the responsibility for the unusually active 2004 season at the doorstep of the White House and George W. Bush for not adequately addressing the global warming problem. And, of course, 2005 would bring the disaster of Katrina for New Orleans and southern Mississippi as well as Rita (in Texas) and Wilma (in south Florida). But the last two years have seen a welcome drop-off in American hurricane disasters. Strangely, though, I haven't heard Mr. Gore giving any credit to Bush for the "improvement"!
The weather surrounding tropical storm systems is very special. It may be completely calm one second and the next second may bring high gusts. Often, the rain will seem to be falling sideways. There is a kind of warmth in the air that usually is absent during the thunderstorms we commonly experience. Looking up at the sky, one can see several layers of clouds, some very low and fast, each layer seeming to be going in a different direction. And there is, to me, something rather spooky about the lighting (or lack of it) when one these systems begins to pass through. Scary, but also memorable.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
For the Sake of the Children
I like kids. After all, I was once one myself and I have two wonderful children. Also, sometimes I feel that I tend to see things too much from a kid’s viewpoint and not enough as an adult. That all being said, there is, I believe, an ominously progressive phenomenon pervading our society.
Back during the late 1980s, when Tipper Gore was on her crusade “for the sake of the children” against suggestive or explicit rock lyrics, I got my first inkling of what was to develop. During Janet Reno’s reign as Attorney General under Bill Clinton, she decided to violently storm looney-tune David Koresh’s Waco compound because children were reportedly being abused inside. The result of this rash action was that they were all killed by Koresh, who burned the whole compound down with him. Then, for the sake of little Elian Gonzales (the Cuban refugee whose father wanted him back in Cuba with him), she had a SWAT team descend like the secret police in the early morning hours into the Miami home where he had been living with relatives, the defining moment captured by a photo of a terrified Elian being grabbed by a hulking agent pointing a powerful gun in his direction. Although Reno, in my opinion, went way overboard with her “child protection”, the Clinton Administration did well by pushing through and signing v-chip legislation giving parents (and not the state) the choice of which television channels they wanted to block from their children’s eyes.
Today’s Internet world, though, has largely supplanted television as the biggest threat, in the eyes of many, to children. And although there are supposedly safeguards built into the system to help block children from “bad” sites, they are woefully inadequate. One of the problems is with sites such as MySpace that children often use to describe themselves, write about their lives, and communicate with their friends. Parents should be careful to restrict access from others to these sites (or just prohibit their kids from having any) to those “safe”, known persons who can give the correct login information.
It’s important to protect children from harmful elements in our society. I just hope that those in authority will balance their concerns with the fact that these children, when they grow up to be adults, will want to enjoy the same constitutionally-protected rights that they themselves currently enjoy. After all, from time to time we hear of libraries removing this book or that book because some local “moral” element feared that it might fall into a child’s hands.
I’m also wary of government and government-authorized bodies pushing laws and making recommendations while using the idea of “protecting the children” as a gimmick to persuade others to accept their agendas. The latest example of this trend that I’ve picked up was last year’s Mitchell Report on some baseball players’ abuse of steroids and human growth hormone. According to George Mitchell, one of the main motivating factors driving him in his investigation was his desire to protect children from following the bad examples that the adult players named in the report had set. And I suppose then that everybody is supposed to just stand back and say, well, if it’s for the children, then go ahead and do and say what you want! But if you think about it, one can use the “save the children” tactic to promote (or oppose) virtually anything! Protecting children is a prime responsibility properly exercised within the family unit. Government needs to get out of the habit of bypassing parents with their often holier-than-thou zeal to further agendas ostensibly “for the sake of the children”. But parents need to then “pick up the ball” and take an interested and engaged role in seeing to it that their children are not exposed to danger, whether that be in the cyber world or the “real” world.
Back during the late 1980s, when Tipper Gore was on her crusade “for the sake of the children” against suggestive or explicit rock lyrics, I got my first inkling of what was to develop. During Janet Reno’s reign as Attorney General under Bill Clinton, she decided to violently storm looney-tune David Koresh’s Waco compound because children were reportedly being abused inside. The result of this rash action was that they were all killed by Koresh, who burned the whole compound down with him. Then, for the sake of little Elian Gonzales (the Cuban refugee whose father wanted him back in Cuba with him), she had a SWAT team descend like the secret police in the early morning hours into the Miami home where he had been living with relatives, the defining moment captured by a photo of a terrified Elian being grabbed by a hulking agent pointing a powerful gun in his direction. Although Reno, in my opinion, went way overboard with her “child protection”, the Clinton Administration did well by pushing through and signing v-chip legislation giving parents (and not the state) the choice of which television channels they wanted to block from their children’s eyes.
Today’s Internet world, though, has largely supplanted television as the biggest threat, in the eyes of many, to children. And although there are supposedly safeguards built into the system to help block children from “bad” sites, they are woefully inadequate. One of the problems is with sites such as MySpace that children often use to describe themselves, write about their lives, and communicate with their friends. Parents should be careful to restrict access from others to these sites (or just prohibit their kids from having any) to those “safe”, known persons who can give the correct login information.
It’s important to protect children from harmful elements in our society. I just hope that those in authority will balance their concerns with the fact that these children, when they grow up to be adults, will want to enjoy the same constitutionally-protected rights that they themselves currently enjoy. After all, from time to time we hear of libraries removing this book or that book because some local “moral” element feared that it might fall into a child’s hands.
I’m also wary of government and government-authorized bodies pushing laws and making recommendations while using the idea of “protecting the children” as a gimmick to persuade others to accept their agendas. The latest example of this trend that I’ve picked up was last year’s Mitchell Report on some baseball players’ abuse of steroids and human growth hormone. According to George Mitchell, one of the main motivating factors driving him in his investigation was his desire to protect children from following the bad examples that the adult players named in the report had set. And I suppose then that everybody is supposed to just stand back and say, well, if it’s for the children, then go ahead and do and say what you want! But if you think about it, one can use the “save the children” tactic to promote (or oppose) virtually anything! Protecting children is a prime responsibility properly exercised within the family unit. Government needs to get out of the habit of bypassing parents with their often holier-than-thou zeal to further agendas ostensibly “for the sake of the children”. But parents need to then “pick up the ball” and take an interested and engaged role in seeing to it that their children are not exposed to danger, whether that be in the cyber world or the “real” world.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Favorite Songs of 1986
My musical interests were pretty mainstream in 1986, and my favorites reflect this. There were some funny tunes (I Wanna Be a Cowboy by Boys Don't Cry and The Future's So Bright by Timbuk3). There were quite a few danceable ones as well (C'est La Vie by Robbie Nevil, Kiss by Prince, Sweet Freedom by Michael McDonald, Falling in Love (Uh-Oh) by the Miami Sound Machine, The Sweetest Taboo by Sade, Two of Hearts by Stacey Q, and Velcro Fly by ZZ Top). 1986 contained some "dreamy" songs I liked, such as Life in a Northern Town by the Dream Academy, These Dreams by Heart, and Your Wildest Dreams by the Moody Blues. The most purely "happy" song from 1986, to me, was Wang Chung's boisterous Everybody Have Fun Tonight. Two artists who (in my estimation) were in a period of decline, Phil Collins and Billy Joel, nevertheless came out with quality singles this year in Take Me Home and A Matter of Trust, respectively. One of the most inspirational songs I ever heard was Whitney Houston's beautiful rendition of The Greatest Love of All. Bruce Hornsby and the Range produced a social commentary on how far race relations still need to go with The Way It Is. Peter Gabriel's Sledgehammer, in my opinion an "O.K." song, was greatly enhanced by its very funny and innovative video. Steve Winwood began his string of comeback hits in 1986, starting with his appeal for a Higher Love. Britain's Pet Shop Boys broke into the American music scene with their semi-rap, semi-synthesizer West End Girls (my #3 favorite of '86). My #2 song from that year was the romantic, light-jazzy piano song Captain of Her Heart by Double. And my #1 favorite tune of 1986 goes to Madonna for her unusually-serious song Live to Tell, towering above all of her other early works. 1986 was also the year I was married, and a review of this year would be incomplete without mentioning the top song in the country at the time of my wedding: Berlin's You Take My Breath Away!
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Some Earliest Memories
Why do we hold on to certain memories in our distant personal pasts while casting off most others into oblivion? When I was not quite two, I remember having just moved into a new apartment (in Opa-Locka, Florida) with my family. My (nearly) six-year old sister and I were standing outside on the porch looking off at two sets of swing sets: the closest had no swings hanging from it and the farthest had a full complement of swings. I remember my sister bemoaning the fact that we weren’t permitted to go down there to the “good” swing set, where we saw other kids playing. Another memory of my ancient childhood (c. 1958-59) was my mother telling me how far down the sidewalk I was allowed to ride my tricycle before having to turn back. And then me going farther anyway (when she wasn't watching)! Or about the time my mother sent me to a neighbor’s apartment to borrow some sugar. When I got there, they proceeded to grab me, put me in a high chair, and begin to serve me supper! I was horrified since this wasn’t on my agenda, but was somehow unable to get across my mother’s reason for sending me. Finally, my sister showed up and rescued me from this well-intentioned imprisonment!
But why would those memories linger while others died? I believe that there are two reasons for this. First, I chose to reflect upon those memories I just described soon after the experiences occurred. By doing so, this reinforced their importance to me over other experiences that I decided were marginally too insignificant to reflect upon. Second, it may be true that some memories carry lessons with them that have life-long applications. The swing set memory may have stressed the notion that I wasn’t allowed to participate in fun things while others were (life isn’t fair). The tricycle memory stressed the notion that not even a supreme authority (like my mother) ultimately carried more authority than my own will, for better or worse (“I gotta be me”). And the “benevolent kidnapping” incident stressed the notion that I could be going about life minding my own business and then others could set events in motion around me, totally screwing up everything ($#!& happens)! (Plus, the world seems to full of people who think they know what’s best for me, my protestations to the contrary!)
I have quite a few old memories, but they only go back (consciously) to just before I turned two. But even back then, as far as I was concerned, I was just as old (to me) as I am now at 51 years. It’s just that, at some point in my toddler years, I began to tie together certain chosen memories for reflection and then began to draw generalities from them regarding life. This was probably the beginning of my own personal narrative, which grew with time and ran intertwined with my real existence to this day, without ever quite matching it. And I suppose that almost everyone else has this sort of duality going on with their lives as well, originally springing from very early memories from infancy.
But why would those memories linger while others died? I believe that there are two reasons for this. First, I chose to reflect upon those memories I just described soon after the experiences occurred. By doing so, this reinforced their importance to me over other experiences that I decided were marginally too insignificant to reflect upon. Second, it may be true that some memories carry lessons with them that have life-long applications. The swing set memory may have stressed the notion that I wasn’t allowed to participate in fun things while others were (life isn’t fair). The tricycle memory stressed the notion that not even a supreme authority (like my mother) ultimately carried more authority than my own will, for better or worse (“I gotta be me”). And the “benevolent kidnapping” incident stressed the notion that I could be going about life minding my own business and then others could set events in motion around me, totally screwing up everything ($#!& happens)! (Plus, the world seems to full of people who think they know what’s best for me, my protestations to the contrary!)
I have quite a few old memories, but they only go back (consciously) to just before I turned two. But even back then, as far as I was concerned, I was just as old (to me) as I am now at 51 years. It’s just that, at some point in my toddler years, I began to tie together certain chosen memories for reflection and then began to draw generalities from them regarding life. This was probably the beginning of my own personal narrative, which grew with time and ran intertwined with my real existence to this day, without ever quite matching it. And I suppose that almost everyone else has this sort of duality going on with their lives as well, originally springing from very early memories from infancy.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Villain's Virtues and Enough
One of the most brutal, sadistic rulers in the history of human life on this planet was Josef Stalin, who, after he had consolidated his power, ruled the Soviet Union from 1929 to his death in 1953. When discussing just the deaths that this one individual was responsible for, we’re talking about a scale in the millions of people. He instituted an oppressive police state and an enormous system of state prisons (the GULAG). And he collaborated with Hitler in 1939, helping to destroy Poland and bring on the cataclysm known as World War II. Stalin’s naiveté in dealing with Hitler directly lead to his own nation being invaded, with about 20 million Soviet citizens losing their lives as a result. So Stalin was an enormously villainous historical figure. But since he was such an important person in history, many have scrutinized his life in minute detail. And some discovered some interesting things about him.
Although Stalin insisted on being made into the object of a strong personality cult throughout his reign, in truth he believed little in it and was contemptuous of those who fawned over him. He had a tight circle of loyal associates with whom (and with their families) he had a close social life. Earlier in his political career, Stalin was a master at manipulating meetings with his political colleagues, not taking sides on an issue until he determined which side was prevailing in the argument, and then coming down at the end on the winning side. This served two purposes: first, it gave Stalin the reputation of being open-minded (which he wasn’t); second, he would consistently be on the winning side, increasing his stature that way as well. Unfortunately, his obsessive fear of being overthrown led him later to persecute his perceived political enemies with a progressively intense fervor that ended in many deaths, imprisonments, and a thoroughly closed and totalitarian society.
So you can see that I am thoroughly convinced of Josef Stalin’s evilness. But even with someone like this, I can filter out some virtue! And with Stalin, I see two things: one, he was, in spite of his paranoia, a terrific prankster with an enormous sense of humor; two, Stalin did not pursue (or even value) material wealth in his life. Those who visited him at his residence would come away amazed at the plain, stark conditions that he lived in. Of course, you could say (and be correct) that Stalin put all of his worldly aspirations into obtaining and maintaining absolute political power, and that anything else was (to him) secondary and even trivial. But it hit me anyway that, in our comparatively much more abundant society that is America today, how hooked people in general are on their material possessions and status. Yes, there are still the poor around us. Historically speaking, though, I don’t believe that at any time or place in the span of human history has there been such abundance available to the general population. But instead of recognizing this and letting our abundance of wealth serve us as we need it like the air we breathe, we instead hoard it up like a hibernating squirrel would hoard up acorns. Why can’t we recognize when enough is enough, and then go on to more worthwhile pursuits in this short period of time that we have been accorded to live? Of course, I don’t think that the rest of Josef Stalin’s life would be a suitable example to follow. Still, in at least the area of accumulating personal material wealth, he recognized when enough was enough.
Although Stalin insisted on being made into the object of a strong personality cult throughout his reign, in truth he believed little in it and was contemptuous of those who fawned over him. He had a tight circle of loyal associates with whom (and with their families) he had a close social life. Earlier in his political career, Stalin was a master at manipulating meetings with his political colleagues, not taking sides on an issue until he determined which side was prevailing in the argument, and then coming down at the end on the winning side. This served two purposes: first, it gave Stalin the reputation of being open-minded (which he wasn’t); second, he would consistently be on the winning side, increasing his stature that way as well. Unfortunately, his obsessive fear of being overthrown led him later to persecute his perceived political enemies with a progressively intense fervor that ended in many deaths, imprisonments, and a thoroughly closed and totalitarian society.
So you can see that I am thoroughly convinced of Josef Stalin’s evilness. But even with someone like this, I can filter out some virtue! And with Stalin, I see two things: one, he was, in spite of his paranoia, a terrific prankster with an enormous sense of humor; two, Stalin did not pursue (or even value) material wealth in his life. Those who visited him at his residence would come away amazed at the plain, stark conditions that he lived in. Of course, you could say (and be correct) that Stalin put all of his worldly aspirations into obtaining and maintaining absolute political power, and that anything else was (to him) secondary and even trivial. But it hit me anyway that, in our comparatively much more abundant society that is America today, how hooked people in general are on their material possessions and status. Yes, there are still the poor around us. Historically speaking, though, I don’t believe that at any time or place in the span of human history has there been such abundance available to the general population. But instead of recognizing this and letting our abundance of wealth serve us as we need it like the air we breathe, we instead hoard it up like a hibernating squirrel would hoard up acorns. Why can’t we recognize when enough is enough, and then go on to more worthwhile pursuits in this short period of time that we have been accorded to live? Of course, I don’t think that the rest of Josef Stalin’s life would be a suitable example to follow. Still, in at least the area of accumulating personal material wealth, he recognized when enough was enough.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Monday Newsbreak: 2/18
--This past Thursday, another tragic school shooting rampage took place when a former Northern Illinois University student shot several people, killing five students and then killing himself. Because this phenomenon seems to be random in nature, it makes people scratch their heads in puzzlement and do little more. But it’s obvious that there is something terribly wrong within our society when some young adult males seem to feel such utter hopelessness about their future and such bitter anger about their past that they would feel compelled to commit such evil acts against completely innocent people who had never done them any harm. Immersing these people in a culture glorifying violence and then equipping them with the means to commit it is a formula for repeated disaster. But I have a feeling that the seeds of these tragedies are sown earlier in life, by abusive relationships (both with adults and peers) and a lack of truly loving, affirming, and nurturing relationships.
--As the tight struggle for the Democratic nomination continues between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, more attention is focusing on the 795 deliberately uncommitted superdelegates who will ultimately decide who the winner will be. The hope is that these people will be responsive to the voting trends and support whichever candidate has garnered the most delegates through the primary and caucus process. Real trouble will occur if one candidate comes away at the close of the primary season with a plurality of committed delegates but loses the nomination because the superdelegates support the other. If this happens, you might as well not even bother with the general election, because John McCain would then definitely win over a bitterly divided Democratic Party.
--Gainesville’s own Nancy Yi, 13 year-old ninth-grader, was signing copies of her second book Sword Quest for customers at a local Barnes and Nobles Saturday. Her first book, Swordbird, was a New York Times bestseller. What an inspiration she is!
--Kosovo is declaring its independence from Serbia. Populated chiefly by ethnic Albanian Muslims, this province of Serbia was the sight of a brutal conflict in 1998 that saw the intervention of the United States to end reported ethnic cleansing in the area. After independence, how long will Kosovo last before its opts to unite with the neighboring nation of Albania? It’s a shame that the extreme nationalism in this part of Europe has rent apart such a promising nation as Yugoslavia. It seems to go completely against the general European trend of integration.
--The University of Florida men’s basketball team lost the fourth out their last five games with a close, hard-fought defeat at the hands of Vanderbilt in Nashville, 61-58. In spite of the slump, the Gators are still 19-7 overall and 6-5 in the Southeastern Conference. Let’s see if they can shake themselves out of this mid-season slump. They were able to two years ago when they won their first of two national championships. I’ll just be happy to see them make the NCAA Tournament this year!
--As the tight struggle for the Democratic nomination continues between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, more attention is focusing on the 795 deliberately uncommitted superdelegates who will ultimately decide who the winner will be. The hope is that these people will be responsive to the voting trends and support whichever candidate has garnered the most delegates through the primary and caucus process. Real trouble will occur if one candidate comes away at the close of the primary season with a plurality of committed delegates but loses the nomination because the superdelegates support the other. If this happens, you might as well not even bother with the general election, because John McCain would then definitely win over a bitterly divided Democratic Party.
--Gainesville’s own Nancy Yi, 13 year-old ninth-grader, was signing copies of her second book Sword Quest for customers at a local Barnes and Nobles Saturday. Her first book, Swordbird, was a New York Times bestseller. What an inspiration she is!
--Kosovo is declaring its independence from Serbia. Populated chiefly by ethnic Albanian Muslims, this province of Serbia was the sight of a brutal conflict in 1998 that saw the intervention of the United States to end reported ethnic cleansing in the area. After independence, how long will Kosovo last before its opts to unite with the neighboring nation of Albania? It’s a shame that the extreme nationalism in this part of Europe has rent apart such a promising nation as Yugoslavia. It seems to go completely against the general European trend of integration.
--The University of Florida men’s basketball team lost the fourth out their last five games with a close, hard-fought defeat at the hands of Vanderbilt in Nashville, 61-58. In spite of the slump, the Gators are still 19-7 overall and 6-5 in the Southeastern Conference. Let’s see if they can shake themselves out of this mid-season slump. They were able to two years ago when they won their first of two national championships. I’ll just be happy to see them make the NCAA Tournament this year!
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Running on the Eights: 2/17
For most of the past eight weeks (up until about two and a half weeks ago), my running continued at a sporadic pace. I never ran on consecutive days, and often there were gaps of several days between runs. One of the reasons for this was that I was sick for a while last month. But I began to step things up, starting at January's end and continuing up to the present day. Although my distance per run is about the same as before, I now often run three or four days in a row between "breaks". And I plan to continue, if not step up, this pace of training. I'd like for my running mileage to get back up to between 2.5 and 3.5 miles. I'd also like to run some outdoors. I was considering actually entering a 5 kilometer race on February 23, but I've really only trained on the treadmill. But there will be more races offered (through the Florida Track Club) in Gainesville throughout the year, and I should get myself more accustomed to road running before I take off in that direction. Although participation in a future race is a possibility, I still plan to continue emphasizing the noncompetitive aspects of running in my training. Anyway, here is my running record for the past eight weeks (all runs done on a treadmill):
DATE DIST.(miles) TIME
12-23...... 1.5............ 10:48
12-31.......0.5.............. 3:42
1-4.......... 1.5............. 11:33
1-7.......... 1.6............. 12:09
1-11........ 1.5..............11:21
1-15........ 1.0.............. 7:21
1-17........ 1.2.............. 8:55
1-19........ 1.0.............. 7:47
1-27........ 2.0............ 15:31
1-29........ 1.75.......... 13:22
1-30....... 1.25............ 9:30
1-31........ 2.25.......... 17:11
2-1.......... 1.75.......... 13:08
2-6.......... 2.5............ 19:10
2-7.......... 1.5............ 11:08
2-8......... 2.0............ 15:05
2-10....... 1.5............. 11:16
2-11........ 2.25.......... 16:59
2-12....... 1.25............. 9:33
2-14....... 0.75............. 5:28
2-15....... 1.50........... 11:04
DATE DIST.(miles) TIME
12-23...... 1.5............ 10:48
12-31.......0.5.............. 3:42
1-4.......... 1.5............. 11:33
1-7.......... 1.6............. 12:09
1-11........ 1.5..............11:21
1-15........ 1.0.............. 7:21
1-17........ 1.2.............. 8:55
1-19........ 1.0.............. 7:47
1-27........ 2.0............ 15:31
1-29........ 1.75.......... 13:22
1-30....... 1.25............ 9:30
1-31........ 2.25.......... 17:11
2-1.......... 1.75.......... 13:08
2-6.......... 2.5............ 19:10
2-7.......... 1.5............ 11:08
2-8......... 2.0............ 15:05
2-10....... 1.5............. 11:16
2-11........ 2.25.......... 16:59
2-12....... 1.25............. 9:33
2-14....... 0.75............. 5:28
2-15....... 1.50........... 11:04
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Be Angry Or Make Angry
Sometimes, during my daily passage through this world and its ups-and-downs, the downs seem to take over and bring me to a baser level of consciousness. By that, I mean that when the stress and injustices associated with different situations I am compelled to be in pass a certain threshold, I tend to become more prone to anger and less willing to be a compassionate, reasonable person. Elements of our social existence that we often call "dog-eat-dog" can crop up anywhere, but most often (for me), it occurs in the workplace when certain duties are expressedly expected of me, but for which those in charge will not provide me with the means (time, assistance, or equipment) to accomplish them. Then, there are two types of immediate reactions that I can have: first, I can try to rise up to the stressful situation by attempting to accomplish my tasks in spite of the imposed handicaps; or second, I can continue working at a normally acceptable level and let the "system" break down. The first option may see me heroically surmounting the problems while drastically increasing my stress, anger, and disaffection. Choosing the second option would keep my composure at a normal level, but quite possibly anger some others around me.
The way I see it, in a work setting (or any other setting that requires social cooperation) there are always going to be times when the participants will have to chip in and "go the extra mile". But when a situation breaks down due to the negligence of others (usually habitual negligence), then stepping up and trying to compensate for it is, in my opinion, detrimental: not only to myself, but also for the entire dynamics of the situation. If someone else is consistently not doing their job, then this fact needs to be exposed, not covered up by overachieving and progressively angry colleagues. Yes, a breakdown/failure would cause some anger and bad feelings among some, but in the long run the problem has a better chance of being adequately addressed this way. To me, avoiding unnecessary anger and anxiety is just as much of a safety concern as other things such as correct lifting procedures or working around machinery.
The way I see it, in a work setting (or any other setting that requires social cooperation) there are always going to be times when the participants will have to chip in and "go the extra mile". But when a situation breaks down due to the negligence of others (usually habitual negligence), then stepping up and trying to compensate for it is, in my opinion, detrimental: not only to myself, but also for the entire dynamics of the situation. If someone else is consistently not doing their job, then this fact needs to be exposed, not covered up by overachieving and progressively angry colleagues. Yes, a breakdown/failure would cause some anger and bad feelings among some, but in the long run the problem has a better chance of being adequately addressed this way. To me, avoiding unnecessary anger and anxiety is just as much of a safety concern as other things such as correct lifting procedures or working around machinery.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Why I Am Of The (fill-in-blank) Faith
It’s a generally well-known fact that most of the people in the world, past and present, identify themselves with a religion. In east Asia, we see the prevalence of Buddhism, while on the Indian subcontinent, the Hindu religion predominates. Islam covers northern Africa, parts of the Balkans, central and southwest Asia, Indonesia and some neighboring lands. Christianity is the “majority” religion in Europe, Australia, parts of Africa, and North and South America. Judaism is the main identified faith in Israel and in many local communities spread throughout the world, especially in the United States. And, of course, there are many other faiths as well. Besides this, the main religions are all subdivided into various sects. Someone in, say, Libya, is likely to grow up in the Islamic faith, while a resident of Bombay is very likely to be a Hindu. A Cambodian farmer is probably going to live his life out as a Buddhist, while a child in Alabama will find him or herself growing up in a culture of Christianity. And a student growing up in Tel Aviv will most likely consider herself to be Jewish.
As the children in the various diverse cultures all over the world grow up into adults, they often will become more aware of their culture’s and/or their family’s religious faith and will become educated as to that faith’s doctrine. More likely than not, that doctrine will teach that, whatever faith it is, it happens to be the exclusively correct divinely-inspired faith. By exclusively, I mean that this excludes all other religions from being acceptable to the believer. Thus, an adult believer in his or her predominant faith will learn to look down, either with concern, pity, or contempt, at the followers of other religions.
But the overwhelming reason that a person becomes an adherent to a particular faith isn’t that said faith is “The Way”: the reason is quite simply the fact that the believer was born and raised in that religion’s culture, either as part of a seriously devoted family, or simply as a general member of the society where that religion prevails as an accepted part of the culture. So, a born-again Christian in America may be considered to be a true convert by his church, but in reality he most likely had been exposed to Christian culture in one way or another his whole life, even if his family wasn’t religious.
True converts, that is, people who reject their beliefs that were prevalent in their home culture and adopt a “foreign” religion, are in reality relatively rare in number. The overwhelming body of religious believers in the world did not choose their faith: the accident of birth within a particular society or family mainly determined their religious identity. I believe that it is a gross form of self-deception for one, therefore, to ignore this fact while waving their own religion’s scriptures around to try and convince people that they are out of favor with (or separated from) God just because they were born and raised somewhere else.
An honest person, with few exceptions, would answer the question “Why am I of the ___ faith?” by saying “Because that religion was the prevalent one in the societal and family context that I was born and raised in.” I’m afraid that our planet is in for a very dismal future if people don’t just grow up and show a little mature awareness on this matter!
As the children in the various diverse cultures all over the world grow up into adults, they often will become more aware of their culture’s and/or their family’s religious faith and will become educated as to that faith’s doctrine. More likely than not, that doctrine will teach that, whatever faith it is, it happens to be the exclusively correct divinely-inspired faith. By exclusively, I mean that this excludes all other religions from being acceptable to the believer. Thus, an adult believer in his or her predominant faith will learn to look down, either with concern, pity, or contempt, at the followers of other religions.
But the overwhelming reason that a person becomes an adherent to a particular faith isn’t that said faith is “The Way”: the reason is quite simply the fact that the believer was born and raised in that religion’s culture, either as part of a seriously devoted family, or simply as a general member of the society where that religion prevails as an accepted part of the culture. So, a born-again Christian in America may be considered to be a true convert by his church, but in reality he most likely had been exposed to Christian culture in one way or another his whole life, even if his family wasn’t religious.
True converts, that is, people who reject their beliefs that were prevalent in their home culture and adopt a “foreign” religion, are in reality relatively rare in number. The overwhelming body of religious believers in the world did not choose their faith: the accident of birth within a particular society or family mainly determined their religious identity. I believe that it is a gross form of self-deception for one, therefore, to ignore this fact while waving their own religion’s scriptures around to try and convince people that they are out of favor with (or separated from) God just because they were born and raised somewhere else.
An honest person, with few exceptions, would answer the question “Why am I of the ___ faith?” by saying “Because that religion was the prevalent one in the societal and family context that I was born and raised in.” I’m afraid that our planet is in for a very dismal future if people don’t just grow up and show a little mature awareness on this matter!
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Happy St. Valentine's Day
I hope that you readers out there in cyberland are enjoying this little holiday that celebrates love and affection. St. Valentine's Day is a very special day for my wonderful, lovely wife and me. This marks the 23rd time we've shared it together. It's a blessing to have holidays like this (even though I don't get the day off from work), because it gives me the opportunity to once again thank her and God for her presence in my life!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Prioritizing and Accomplishing Goals
Whenever I have a challenging goal laid out ahead of me to accomplish, I find that my chances of success are much more enhanced the more fanatical and single-minded I am about accomplishing it. This is fine if my life were simple, with few responsibilities or interests. But I have found as I have grown older that my goals have proliferated to the point where my embarking on one necessarily interferes with my work on others. And I don't think that I can (or want to) go back to the time in my life when I could just "let things slide" in favor of one particular quest that happened to captivate my attention at the time.
At the beginning of this year, I set as a goal for myself to consistently write fiction, with the intention of having it published for sale. In truth, I have written very little so far and am disappointed. But I've also been engaged in many other projects and duties that have drawn my time and attention away from this important goal. However, if I am to become a successfully published writer, as the great Stephen King has repeatedly stressed, I must make it a priority and set aside time solely devoted to writing fiction. And do or think about nothing else during that time. When the allotted time is up, then I'm open for the other things that, as an adult with a family and many interests, I will continue to engage in. But although I can't make writing stories an exclusive, "nothing else matters" kind of project, I can be more assertive to myself and others in creating the conditions that will help me achieve the success that I know I am fully capable of. I've already begun to do this with my piano study, running, blog writing, and reading. Besides writing fiction, foreign language learning is also an area that I need to set aside a specific time and place for undistracted study.
I have learned to be a multitasker: often in situations that I know I have be in but which don't require my constant attention and vigilance, I will pull out my pocket notebook to scribble down ideas for stories I have or some papers that have lists of foreign language words that I want to review or learn. I also have an MP3 player that I carry at times when I can listen to downloaded webcasts from international broadcaster of the Internet. But that, while helpful, is no substitute for just sitting down and concentrating my full attention on a particular project, without distractions. Setting aside a block of time for an endeavor accomplishes two things: one, it trains me to deeply believe in the importance of the endeavor, and two, it creates an atmosphere of self-accountability toward the endeavor's fulfillment (I can't make excuses like I was distracted by other things). I know this can happen. I just have to take the steps to make it happen!
At the beginning of this year, I set as a goal for myself to consistently write fiction, with the intention of having it published for sale. In truth, I have written very little so far and am disappointed. But I've also been engaged in many other projects and duties that have drawn my time and attention away from this important goal. However, if I am to become a successfully published writer, as the great Stephen King has repeatedly stressed, I must make it a priority and set aside time solely devoted to writing fiction. And do or think about nothing else during that time. When the allotted time is up, then I'm open for the other things that, as an adult with a family and many interests, I will continue to engage in. But although I can't make writing stories an exclusive, "nothing else matters" kind of project, I can be more assertive to myself and others in creating the conditions that will help me achieve the success that I know I am fully capable of. I've already begun to do this with my piano study, running, blog writing, and reading. Besides writing fiction, foreign language learning is also an area that I need to set aside a specific time and place for undistracted study.
I have learned to be a multitasker: often in situations that I know I have be in but which don't require my constant attention and vigilance, I will pull out my pocket notebook to scribble down ideas for stories I have or some papers that have lists of foreign language words that I want to review or learn. I also have an MP3 player that I carry at times when I can listen to downloaded webcasts from international broadcaster of the Internet. But that, while helpful, is no substitute for just sitting down and concentrating my full attention on a particular project, without distractions. Setting aside a block of time for an endeavor accomplishes two things: one, it trains me to deeply believe in the importance of the endeavor, and two, it creates an atmosphere of self-accountability toward the endeavor's fulfillment (I can't make excuses like I was distracted by other things). I know this can happen. I just have to take the steps to make it happen!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Mundane Matters on the Eights: 2/12
There is a new area in my "self-improvement" zone that I'm trying to figure out a way to appropriately express on this blog. For want of a better term, I call it "mundane matters". Keeping up with the mundane things in my life is probably one of my greatest shortcomings as a human being on this world. Keeping up with important deadlines, keeping my home and vehicles maintained and clean, being more careful with finances, and a few other other areas could stand a good dose of attention and habit-changing! But, with regard to this blog, being transmitted world-wide to anyone who clicks on it, I'm not all that keen on revealing things like this, at least in any great detail. So instead, I'm going to encode it a bit, even though it seems as if this may defeat the whole purpose of publicly holding myself accountable for my progress (or lack thereof). Still, I think it's worth a try. I will therefore initiate a new "on the eights" blog entry (every eight weeks) titled "Mundane Matters on the Eights" which may or may not completely make sense to the reader. But I do plan to write some stuff that is comprehensible (although it may seem terribly boring) in my "mundane matters" entries. So, I guess this is "Day Zero", and who knows what you'll find eight weeks from now! But at least this puts me, in at least a small way, on the spot in regard to behaviors that I need to change about ordinary, but important areas of my life. So, if you happen to run across one of these entries in the future, you have my sympathies! It will be only once every eight weeks, anyway.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Monday Newsbreak: 2/11
--The Super Tuesday primary results did nothing but tighten up the Democratic presidential race, but on the Republican side John McCain won enough contests and delegates to eventually convince his main competitor Mitt Romney to drop out of the race. The extreme irony of the campaign season is that the actual President, George W. Bush, has been buried in the news by personalities who presently have no real power to determine American policies from an Executive Branch level. Even Bush's important Middle East trip a few weeks ago seemed to be overshadowed to a large part by the campaign. But some working within the McCain campaign organization are considering a possible involvement by our current President on his behalf in the campaign. I may be wrong, but if they want to use President Bush to help out McCain, they need to do it sooner instead of later to help bring disaffected conservatives over to McCain (earlier) and to deemphasize the Bush connection (later) during the general campaign to bring over Democrats and Independents.
--An ominous report has come out revealing that this year's flu vaccine has missed many of the strains that are spreading across the United States. And several of the states are currently experiencing very high flu outbreaks. So far, my Florida is one of the few states that are relatively unscathed by flu. Let's hope it stays that way, and not just for my sake. After all, Florida is a state full of the elderly, and they are the people the most endangered by influenza.
--Concurrent with the February 5 Super Tuesday evening election returns was a deadly plague of tornadoes that descended on Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee, causing at last report 56 deaths. It seems that severe winter frontal storms have affected this general area many times over the past few years.
--The National Basketball Association team that I support, the Phoenix Suns, just made a make-or-break major trade with the Miami Heat, picking up the legendary-but-aging Shaquille O'Neal in exchange for star Suns player Shawn Marion and another teammate. I'm really going to have to see one of those late-night Suns game to see the on-court dynamic between the great Steve Nash and Shaquille. These are already my two favorite players, and now they're both on my favorite team. I'm keeping my fingers crossed...
--An ominous report has come out revealing that this year's flu vaccine has missed many of the strains that are spreading across the United States. And several of the states are currently experiencing very high flu outbreaks. So far, my Florida is one of the few states that are relatively unscathed by flu. Let's hope it stays that way, and not just for my sake. After all, Florida is a state full of the elderly, and they are the people the most endangered by influenza.
--Concurrent with the February 5 Super Tuesday evening election returns was a deadly plague of tornadoes that descended on Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee, causing at last report 56 deaths. It seems that severe winter frontal storms have affected this general area many times over the past few years.
--The National Basketball Association team that I support, the Phoenix Suns, just made a make-or-break major trade with the Miami Heat, picking up the legendary-but-aging Shaquille O'Neal in exchange for star Suns player Shawn Marion and another teammate. I'm really going to have to see one of those late-night Suns game to see the on-court dynamic between the great Steve Nash and Shaquille. These are already my two favorite players, and now they're both on my favorite team. I'm keeping my fingers crossed...
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Universal Health Coverage
The future of health care in this country and how it will be payed for is turning out to be a key issue in this year's presidential campaign. Both surviving Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have expressed the goal of universal health insurance coverage for Americans, while presumptive Republican nominee John McCain wants more coverage, but from the perspective of encouraging market forces in the private sector with minimal government intervention. Critics of universal health care often dub it "socialized medicine" and refer to Canada and countries overseas with that type of system and its perceived drawbacks. Also, many have expressed resentment over some getting the coverage at the expense of others' labors.
In the first place, just because other countries have instituted policies that transferred either ownership or management of their health care systems to the state, this does not automatically translate to how the United States would implement a universal health care system. Our preferred way of doing things here is for the government to come into business relationships with private companies to accomplish its ends. Our space and defense programs are supplied through contracts made with corporations that design, make, and sell the needed technology. Our wonderful interstate highway system has been built and is being maintained by a contractual relationship with private companies. And similarly, our health care system can also be maintained around a policy of public/private business partnership. For the second objection, hard-working citizens are already paying the bills of those unable to pay through lack of insurance by incurring larger medical bills. And I'd like to add a couple of other points to the discussion.
Lately, there has been a movement of some U.S.-based companies from American to Canadian soil because in Canada, the burden of providing health insurance has been lifted from the backs of private industry, thus greatly diminishing the costs of running those businesses. There is no compelling reason why an employer should be made responsible for providing insurance to its employees, anyway. The only reason it's gotten to this stage today is because many years ago, some companies began to offer health insurance as part of their benefits packages to attract quality employees. If we want to improve the quality of our economic life in this country, then we should unsaddle small companies from the burden of being expected to offer expensive health insurance benefits in a disadvantageous competition with the larger corporations. So if universal health care is undertaken as a priority in the future, one of the goals has to be freeing businesses from this burden. The second point I'd like to make is that many people, especially as they progress into their middle aged years, begin to incur what the insurance industry terms as "preexisting conditions." And preexisting conditions can make it very difficult and costly for someone if they were to change jobs or careers and have to find a new insurance provider. The affected employee may not even be the one with a preexisting condition: it could just be a dependent. If health insurance were freed from its association with employment, then that person would be free to pursue a better job, or better yet, to start up a brand new business. So, you may see that I believe that making health insurance both universal and public will actually further the aims of capitalism and spur on a new spirit of entrepreneurship in our country!
In the first place, just because other countries have instituted policies that transferred either ownership or management of their health care systems to the state, this does not automatically translate to how the United States would implement a universal health care system. Our preferred way of doing things here is for the government to come into business relationships with private companies to accomplish its ends. Our space and defense programs are supplied through contracts made with corporations that design, make, and sell the needed technology. Our wonderful interstate highway system has been built and is being maintained by a contractual relationship with private companies. And similarly, our health care system can also be maintained around a policy of public/private business partnership. For the second objection, hard-working citizens are already paying the bills of those unable to pay through lack of insurance by incurring larger medical bills. And I'd like to add a couple of other points to the discussion.
Lately, there has been a movement of some U.S.-based companies from American to Canadian soil because in Canada, the burden of providing health insurance has been lifted from the backs of private industry, thus greatly diminishing the costs of running those businesses. There is no compelling reason why an employer should be made responsible for providing insurance to its employees, anyway. The only reason it's gotten to this stage today is because many years ago, some companies began to offer health insurance as part of their benefits packages to attract quality employees. If we want to improve the quality of our economic life in this country, then we should unsaddle small companies from the burden of being expected to offer expensive health insurance benefits in a disadvantageous competition with the larger corporations. So if universal health care is undertaken as a priority in the future, one of the goals has to be freeing businesses from this burden. The second point I'd like to make is that many people, especially as they progress into their middle aged years, begin to incur what the insurance industry terms as "preexisting conditions." And preexisting conditions can make it very difficult and costly for someone if they were to change jobs or careers and have to find a new insurance provider. The affected employee may not even be the one with a preexisting condition: it could just be a dependent. If health insurance were freed from its association with employment, then that person would be free to pursue a better job, or better yet, to start up a brand new business. So, you may see that I believe that making health insurance both universal and public will actually further the aims of capitalism and spur on a new spirit of entrepreneurship in our country!
Friday, February 8, 2008
The Exploding Cigar
In today's Gainesville Sun, editorial cartoonist Jake Fuller, a conservative in his own right, nevertheless takes a shot at some of the intelligent-but-foolish conservative talk show hosts out there. Pictured is a caricature resembling Rush Limbaugh. He's wearing a headset, sitting before a microphone, and holding a paper with the words "Talk Radio" on it. Oh, and he has a cigar in his mouth. With the name "Mitt" on it. And it's exploding in his face.
It goes beyond my comprehension that so many of these conservative talk radio hosts are trashing John McCain, who is quite simply the best shot that they have of getting a Republican into the White House (and who IS a conservative as well). Instead, they not only keep condemning McCain, but they also keep questioning very conservative candidate Mike Huckabee's ideological credentials. And whom do they favor but (former?) liberal Republican Mitt Romney, who has done a complete about-face on several issues on which he was at odds with his party's conservative wing, just to pander to them for their support. The two glaring issues that hit me were his support for abortion rights and his (considerable) raising of taxes while he was governor of Massachusetts. And then he had the gall to repeatedly criticize McCain about taxes during the campaign!
These radio "personalities" need to get a life (preferably, as far away as possible)! I even heard Ann Coulter say that she would support Hillary Clinton over John McCain should he get the nomination. Well, he's getting the nomination! BOOM! I think I just heard another exploding cigar!
It goes beyond my comprehension that so many of these conservative talk radio hosts are trashing John McCain, who is quite simply the best shot that they have of getting a Republican into the White House (and who IS a conservative as well). Instead, they not only keep condemning McCain, but they also keep questioning very conservative candidate Mike Huckabee's ideological credentials. And whom do they favor but (former?) liberal Republican Mitt Romney, who has done a complete about-face on several issues on which he was at odds with his party's conservative wing, just to pander to them for their support. The two glaring issues that hit me were his support for abortion rights and his (considerable) raising of taxes while he was governor of Massachusetts. And then he had the gall to repeatedly criticize McCain about taxes during the campaign!
These radio "personalities" need to get a life (preferably, as far away as possible)! I even heard Ann Coulter say that she would support Hillary Clinton over John McCain should he get the nomination. Well, he's getting the nomination! BOOM! I think I just heard another exploding cigar!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Favorite Songs of 1987
In my opinion, 1987 was perhaps the best year for music of the eighties. There were so many great tunes, I will probably leave out a few of them. One song by Genesis, Home By the Sea, didn't reach my ears until '87, even though it had been out for three years. Fleetwood Mac churned out another album, and with it, two good songs: Lindsey Buckingham's Big Love and Stevie Nicks's underrated and underplayed Seven Wonders. Aerosmith made their explosive comeback with their funny Dude Looks Like a Lady. The Beastie Boys made their debut as a nationwide act with the anthem You Gotta Fight For Your Right to Party. John Mellencamp reminisced once again about his good old teenage days with his mellow Cherry Bomb. Cameo's funky Word Up was my favorite dance hit that year. Paul Simon came out with Boy in the Bubble from his Graceland album. The song is impressive enough, but the video for it was groundbreaking and very intense. Linda Ronstadt and James Ingram had a sweet duet with Somewhere Out There. U2's album The Joshua Tree had a string of hits, most notable (to me) Where the Streets Have No Name and I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For. One-hit wonders T'Pau and the Breakfast Club impressed me with Heart and Soul and Right On Track, respectively. Peter Gabriel's self-deprecating Big Time was my favorite of his off his So album, released the year before. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers had maybe their funniest hit (to me) with their scorching Stop Jammin' Me. Whitney Houston recorded her most riveting, exciting song ever: So Emotional. Steve Winwood continued his comeback with his comeback-themed Back in the High Life Again. Another great music video was born in 1987 out of Pink Floyd's comeback hit Learning to Fly. Bon Jovi's Wanted Dead Or Alive was an anguished ode to the hectic life of a band on tour. Atlantic Starr's Always was the greatest love song of 1987 (to me). But without a doubt, my favorite song of all from that year (and during it) was Suzanne Vega's touching and painful narrative of an abused child's struggle with life: Luka.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
VP Or Not VP, That Is the Question
With the developing presidential campaign continuing to narrow down the field of contenders, there is starting to be more speculation as to the different scenarios for party tickets. It looks as if, barring an unforeseen Mike Huckabee "revival", either John McCain or Mitt Romney will gain the Republican nomination. And either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will prevail on the Democratic side. With the GOP, it would be wise for whoever wins to pick the runner-up as a vice-presidential running mate, so you could see either a McCain/Romney or a Romney/McCain ticket on the ballot in November. This formula worked spectacularly in 1980, when Ronald Reagan selected his tough, critical campaign rival George H.W. Bush to be his running mate. And I can see either McCain or Romney willingly acquiescing to their selection as a vice-presidential nominee. And, of course, Mike Huckabee is also there and available for a V.P. selection by the eventual nominee as well.
The Democratic Party presents a different picture. If former First Lady (for eight years) Hillary Clinton gains the nomination, then I see first-term Senator Barack Obama accepting a place on the ticket (if asked, that is). Of course, the Clintons have a tendency to behave spitefully toward anyone whom they perceive as having crossed them. And Obama has certainly stood in their way for the past few months! If Barack Obama wins the nomination, though, I have serious doubts that Hillary Clinton would "lower herself" to a second-tier spot on the ticket. As I see it, she only has a four-year edge on Obama in the U.S. Senate, and even that margin evaporates when you consider her totality of experience in elected office. Why do people continually credit her with experience just because she inhabited the White House for a while (with no decision-making power)? I think we know the answer, don't we? Those who support Hillary, based on her "experience", are probably hoping that her husband will be right there while she is President, guiding her every step of the way! And I don't think that he would be all that happy being the husband of a vice-president, do you? So if Obama wins, I would look for someone else to fill the vice-presidential spot on the Democratic ticket. Would it be John Edwards? He'd be the logical choice, but would he be willing to do it again, seeing how he ran unsuccessfully four years ago on Kerry's ticket?
In truth, the nominee for either party is not necessarily bound to select someone from the campaign to be their running mate. After all, the past three Presidents had selected for their Vice-President choices people who hadn't run that year (Dan Quayle, Al Gore, and Dick Cheney). And thus we may end up with some surprises at the end this time around as well!
The Democratic Party presents a different picture. If former First Lady (for eight years) Hillary Clinton gains the nomination, then I see first-term Senator Barack Obama accepting a place on the ticket (if asked, that is). Of course, the Clintons have a tendency to behave spitefully toward anyone whom they perceive as having crossed them. And Obama has certainly stood in their way for the past few months! If Barack Obama wins the nomination, though, I have serious doubts that Hillary Clinton would "lower herself" to a second-tier spot on the ticket. As I see it, she only has a four-year edge on Obama in the U.S. Senate, and even that margin evaporates when you consider her totality of experience in elected office. Why do people continually credit her with experience just because she inhabited the White House for a while (with no decision-making power)? I think we know the answer, don't we? Those who support Hillary, based on her "experience", are probably hoping that her husband will be right there while she is President, guiding her every step of the way! And I don't think that he would be all that happy being the husband of a vice-president, do you? So if Obama wins, I would look for someone else to fill the vice-presidential spot on the Democratic ticket. Would it be John Edwards? He'd be the logical choice, but would he be willing to do it again, seeing how he ran unsuccessfully four years ago on Kerry's ticket?
In truth, the nominee for either party is not necessarily bound to select someone from the campaign to be their running mate. After all, the past three Presidents had selected for their Vice-President choices people who hadn't run that year (Dan Quayle, Al Gore, and Dick Cheney). And thus we may end up with some surprises at the end this time around as well!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
My Top Ten SpongeBob SquarePants Episodes
As I have written earlier, my favorite ongoing cartoon series is SpongeBob SquarePants. Set in a town called Bikini Bottom on the ocean floor, the main characters are SpongeBob SquarePants (a sponge), Patrick (a starfish), Squidward (an octopus), Mr. Krabs (a crab), and Sandy (a genius squirrel). The series is full of absurdities, as the episode descriptions below hint at.
#10: Bubblestand
---SpongeBob sets up a bubblestand: for a quarter each, you can blow a bubble, and for another quarter, you can take bubble-blowing lessons. Squidward, SpongeBob's vain next-door neighbor, gets "taken for a ride" by this scheme in one of the very first episodes of this series.
#9: Bubble Buddy
---It's Leif Ericson Day, and there's nobody around to help SpongeBob celebrate it. So he does the next best thing: he invents an imaginary friend, a creation blown from his own bubble jar that he names "Bubble Buddy". SpongeBob's new-found friend then proceeds to wreak havoc throughout Bikini Bottom.
#8: Mermaidman & Barnacleboy 3
---The above-mentioned aging superheroes are going away on vacation, and they leave SpongeBob and Patrick to watch their lair for them. Not a very wise choice! The two then proceed to accidentally free the arch-villain Man-Ray, whom the vacationing superheroes had put into a tartar-sauce-deep-freeze in one of their earlier episodes. Then, SpongeBob must think fast to rehabilitate Man-Ray back into a useful citizen before it's too late. Patrick shines in this episode.
#7: Chocolate With Nuts
---SpongeBob and Patrick want to live the good life, but how? Neighbor Squidward tells them they have to be entrepreneurs and then they'd have all the money they wanted. So Sponge and Patrick go out to try and sell chocolate bars. And along the way, they learn quite a few things about human (whoops, I mean fish) nature.
#6: New Student Starfish
---Patrick's sad because his best friend SpongeBob is going to be gone all day at boating school (at the bottom of the ocean? Don't even ask!). So SpongeBob invites him to join him as a fellow student. Big mistake, as the two can't help but disrupt class and get into trouble. This was a great spoof of classes and school in general.
#5: Hall Monitor
---Another boating school spoof, SpongeBob is reluctantly picked by Mrs. Puff, his boating school instructor, to be hall monitor (nobody else wanted the job). But before he gets to begin his duties in the hall, the dismissal bell rings. Mrs. Puff feels sorry for SpongeBob and lets him keep the hall monitor uniform overnight. Wearing it, though, SpongeBob gets the idea that the uniform gives him carte blanche authority throughout Bikini Bottom to enforce the law (however it suits him)! Uh-oh!
#4: Survival of the Idiots
---SpongeBob and Patrick visit their friend Sandy (a squirrel who lives in a tree under a large plastic dome on the ocean bottom). But Sandy has begun to hibernate, and on a video tape has told visitors (especially SpongeBob) to stay away. But the two heedlessly enter Sandy's dome anyway and experience the joys of snow, along with the extreme peril coming to anyone awakening a hibernating mammal. This episode is full of classic "Patrick" lines!
#3: Mid-Life Crustacean
---Mr. Krab, SpongeBob's boss at the Krusty Krab restaurant, wakes up one morning to suddenly discover that he is growing old, with everything around him cruelly confirming this fact. At the Krusty Krab, he overhears SpongeBob and Patrick discussing their plans for their upcoming "crazy night" out. Pushing himself on them, Mr. Krab gets the two to let him join in on the "debauchery". To his regret, for he soon discovers that SpongeBob and Patrick have an altogether different conception of what a wild night out is!
#2: Pizza Delivery
---When a customer calls in a pizza order (for delivery) just after Krusty Krab closing time, Squidward reasonably reminds Mr. Krab that the Krusty Krab doesn't sell pizza! That doesn't stop his boss, who deftly instantly transforms a Krabby Patty into a pizza and orders Squidward to deliver it. Squidward's protestations aggravate the situation when Mr. Krab sends SpongeBob to accompany him. The two then embark on an absurd odyssey of endurance to deliver their product. This is the only episode I know in which Squidward actually stands up for SpongeBob. It almost makes me want to cry (if I weren't laughing so hard)!
#1: Just One Bite
---At work in the Krusty Krab, Squidward is badmouthing their showcase product, the Krabby Patty, to SpongeBob. And then he reveals that he has never even eaten one. SpongeBob then pesters Squidward to just try one. Finally, Squidward relents, takes one bite, and falls obsessively in love with Krabby Patties. But his pride won't allow himself to admit this to SpongeBob, and he spends the rest of the episode furtively trying to get hold of another Krabby Patty. This episode contains simply the funniest ending in the entire funny series!
#10: Bubblestand
---SpongeBob sets up a bubblestand: for a quarter each, you can blow a bubble, and for another quarter, you can take bubble-blowing lessons. Squidward, SpongeBob's vain next-door neighbor, gets "taken for a ride" by this scheme in one of the very first episodes of this series.
#9: Bubble Buddy
---It's Leif Ericson Day, and there's nobody around to help SpongeBob celebrate it. So he does the next best thing: he invents an imaginary friend, a creation blown from his own bubble jar that he names "Bubble Buddy". SpongeBob's new-found friend then proceeds to wreak havoc throughout Bikini Bottom.
#8: Mermaidman & Barnacleboy 3
---The above-mentioned aging superheroes are going away on vacation, and they leave SpongeBob and Patrick to watch their lair for them. Not a very wise choice! The two then proceed to accidentally free the arch-villain Man-Ray, whom the vacationing superheroes had put into a tartar-sauce-deep-freeze in one of their earlier episodes. Then, SpongeBob must think fast to rehabilitate Man-Ray back into a useful citizen before it's too late. Patrick shines in this episode.
#7: Chocolate With Nuts
---SpongeBob and Patrick want to live the good life, but how? Neighbor Squidward tells them they have to be entrepreneurs and then they'd have all the money they wanted. So Sponge and Patrick go out to try and sell chocolate bars. And along the way, they learn quite a few things about human (whoops, I mean fish) nature.
#6: New Student Starfish
---Patrick's sad because his best friend SpongeBob is going to be gone all day at boating school (at the bottom of the ocean? Don't even ask!). So SpongeBob invites him to join him as a fellow student. Big mistake, as the two can't help but disrupt class and get into trouble. This was a great spoof of classes and school in general.
#5: Hall Monitor
---Another boating school spoof, SpongeBob is reluctantly picked by Mrs. Puff, his boating school instructor, to be hall monitor (nobody else wanted the job). But before he gets to begin his duties in the hall, the dismissal bell rings. Mrs. Puff feels sorry for SpongeBob and lets him keep the hall monitor uniform overnight. Wearing it, though, SpongeBob gets the idea that the uniform gives him carte blanche authority throughout Bikini Bottom to enforce the law (however it suits him)! Uh-oh!
#4: Survival of the Idiots
---SpongeBob and Patrick visit their friend Sandy (a squirrel who lives in a tree under a large plastic dome on the ocean bottom). But Sandy has begun to hibernate, and on a video tape has told visitors (especially SpongeBob) to stay away. But the two heedlessly enter Sandy's dome anyway and experience the joys of snow, along with the extreme peril coming to anyone awakening a hibernating mammal. This episode is full of classic "Patrick" lines!
#3: Mid-Life Crustacean
---Mr. Krab, SpongeBob's boss at the Krusty Krab restaurant, wakes up one morning to suddenly discover that he is growing old, with everything around him cruelly confirming this fact. At the Krusty Krab, he overhears SpongeBob and Patrick discussing their plans for their upcoming "crazy night" out. Pushing himself on them, Mr. Krab gets the two to let him join in on the "debauchery". To his regret, for he soon discovers that SpongeBob and Patrick have an altogether different conception of what a wild night out is!
#2: Pizza Delivery
---When a customer calls in a pizza order (for delivery) just after Krusty Krab closing time, Squidward reasonably reminds Mr. Krab that the Krusty Krab doesn't sell pizza! That doesn't stop his boss, who deftly instantly transforms a Krabby Patty into a pizza and orders Squidward to deliver it. Squidward's protestations aggravate the situation when Mr. Krab sends SpongeBob to accompany him. The two then embark on an absurd odyssey of endurance to deliver their product. This is the only episode I know in which Squidward actually stands up for SpongeBob. It almost makes me want to cry (if I weren't laughing so hard)!
#1: Just One Bite
---At work in the Krusty Krab, Squidward is badmouthing their showcase product, the Krabby Patty, to SpongeBob. And then he reveals that he has never even eaten one. SpongeBob then pesters Squidward to just try one. Finally, Squidward relents, takes one bite, and falls obsessively in love with Krabby Patties. But his pride won't allow himself to admit this to SpongeBob, and he spends the rest of the episode furtively trying to get hold of another Krabby Patty. This episode contains simply the funniest ending in the entire funny series!
Monday, February 4, 2008
Monday Newsbreak: 2/4
--Retired Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham recently wrote an opinion piece listing issues that our next president will need to address during the next administration. Homeland security, accessible health insurance, and an effective energy policy were some of the issues he enumerated. But Graham also made a good suggestion regarding future presidential debates as well: let each debate focus on a single predetermined topic, in order to keep the candidates from dodging questions and avoiding addressing difficult issues. Bob Graham was one of the early presidential candidates in 2004 who dropped out of the race early due to lack of support. Too bad. Had his campaign taken off, he would have been a much more viable candidate than John Kerry, and would have probably defeated George W. Bush had he been the Democratic nominee.
--Steve Newman's Earthweek newspaper feature revealed that a special vault has been constructed on the remote, far northern island of Svalbard (in Norway) and filled with more than 200,000 varieties of food crop seeds. The idea is to have a gene supply of crops should a global catastrophe wipe out agriculture on Earth. Norway is responsible for this wonderful humanitarian project.
--The Gainesville City Commission, by a 4-3 vote, approved an ordinance to protect the rights of transgender citizens. Although the ordinance was comprehensive, including areas like housing, employment, and obtaining credit, it was the part of this law that allowed people to use the public restroom of their own gender identification (even if they were physically of the other gender), that drew heated opposition to it. This didn't have to happen, in my opinion. Other communities have passed similar ordinances protecting transgenders while making certain exceptions for public accommodations. The fear of abuse of this ordinance that I've heard from others is not that transgenders would abuse the law: it is that people posing as transgenders would abuse it in order to prey upon others. From what I've read about transgender ordinances, though, nothing serious has ever been reported to have arisen from them to this effect.
--In yesterday's Super Bowl, the unlikely New York Giants capped the National Football League season with a dramatic come-from-behind last-minute win over the previously undefeated and thoroughly self-absorbed New England Patriots. New England quarterback Tom Brady was able to engineer a late fourth quarter drive with little pressure from a pass rush that the Giants had been plaguing him with the entire game. The drive was capped off by a touchdown pass from Brady, who set an NFL single-season record of 50 touchdown passes, to Randy Moss, who set an NFL single-season record for his 23 touchdown pass receptions. That gave the Patriots a 14-10 lead, but it wasn't enough, as Eli Manning lead his team back, culminating in a last-minute touchdown pass to Plaxico Burress for the winning touchdown and a 17-14 Super Bowl victory. Considering the arrogance of this New England franchise along with their casual belittling of the video-taping scandal that showed them to be cheating in order to give them an unfair advantage over their opponent, I felt that it was perfectly fitting that their so-called "perfect" season was taken away from them with just a few seconds to go! Time to break out the champagne, Dolphins! As for the Giants, I don't think I'll ever forget the great favor this franchise did for me in defeating the Patriots. I'm probably going to end up rooting for them in years to come, even when they're lousy (the true mark of a loyal fan).
--Steve Newman's Earthweek newspaper feature revealed that a special vault has been constructed on the remote, far northern island of Svalbard (in Norway) and filled with more than 200,000 varieties of food crop seeds. The idea is to have a gene supply of crops should a global catastrophe wipe out agriculture on Earth. Norway is responsible for this wonderful humanitarian project.
--The Gainesville City Commission, by a 4-3 vote, approved an ordinance to protect the rights of transgender citizens. Although the ordinance was comprehensive, including areas like housing, employment, and obtaining credit, it was the part of this law that allowed people to use the public restroom of their own gender identification (even if they were physically of the other gender), that drew heated opposition to it. This didn't have to happen, in my opinion. Other communities have passed similar ordinances protecting transgenders while making certain exceptions for public accommodations. The fear of abuse of this ordinance that I've heard from others is not that transgenders would abuse the law: it is that people posing as transgenders would abuse it in order to prey upon others. From what I've read about transgender ordinances, though, nothing serious has ever been reported to have arisen from them to this effect.
--In yesterday's Super Bowl, the unlikely New York Giants capped the National Football League season with a dramatic come-from-behind last-minute win over the previously undefeated and thoroughly self-absorbed New England Patriots. New England quarterback Tom Brady was able to engineer a late fourth quarter drive with little pressure from a pass rush that the Giants had been plaguing him with the entire game. The drive was capped off by a touchdown pass from Brady, who set an NFL single-season record of 50 touchdown passes, to Randy Moss, who set an NFL single-season record for his 23 touchdown pass receptions. That gave the Patriots a 14-10 lead, but it wasn't enough, as Eli Manning lead his team back, culminating in a last-minute touchdown pass to Plaxico Burress for the winning touchdown and a 17-14 Super Bowl victory. Considering the arrogance of this New England franchise along with their casual belittling of the video-taping scandal that showed them to be cheating in order to give them an unfair advantage over their opponent, I felt that it was perfectly fitting that their so-called "perfect" season was taken away from them with just a few seconds to go! Time to break out the champagne, Dolphins! As for the Giants, I don't think I'll ever forget the great favor this franchise did for me in defeating the Patriots. I'm probably going to end up rooting for them in years to come, even when they're lousy (the true mark of a loyal fan).
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Olbermann Vs. Hannity
From time to time, I'll watch some of the different cable news stations at night. There is a wide variety of "hosts" for stations like CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, and MSNBC. Almost all of them happen to be conservative. The most blatantly hard-line conservative of these has to be Fox's Sean Hannity. But there is one unabashed liberal as well: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann (I consider Alan Colmes on Fox to be more of a centrist than a liberal). So I thought it would be interesting to compare the two.
Being generally a little on the left side of the center politically, I think it's only fair to lay that out when making my comparisons. Be that as it may, overshadowing the fact that he is one of a rare breed (liberal commentator), Keith Olbermann is, to me, a thoroughly obnoxious character. His segment titled "Today's Worst Person in the World" is actually the highlight of his show! He seems to derive some kind of perverse pleasure in deriding irrelevant personalities like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton for several minutes at a time as well. And his bombastic "open letters" to President Bush are so loaded with spite that it's hard for me not to break out in laughter at his style. But my biggest criticism of Olbermann is that he seems to only interview like-minded liberals on his show and not conservatives. So, very often you'll see a split screen with Olbermann running his mouth about something and his always-agreeing guest in the right screen, smiling smugly and nodding his or her head like one of those old bobbing dog decorations. This is really sad, since I happen to agree with this host on most of his opinions!
Sean Hannity, on the other hand, is equally as obnoxious as Keith Olbermann, but in different ways. Most of my exposure to him is in the format of his syndicated radio show, although I've seen him at times on TV. His line with callers is "You're a great American", which apparently has something to do with being a conservative (apparently liberals must conversely be BAD Americans). But whenever a caller reveals disagreement with Hannity or shows a liberal bent, Hannity morphs into a rude rant, frequently interrupting the caller and barraging him or her with insulting name-calling in the manner of an interrogation, not a conversation. That's for the callers (us "little people" out there). To Hannity's credit (and this is what sets him apart from Olbermann), he invites and treats with respect guests of all sides of the issues that he's discussing. And then you can get a real debate on some topics. I've yet to see Olbermann get someone on his show with whom he was strongly at odds with. That isn't to say that one hasn't accidently slipped through from time to time, though.
Both Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann have a problem, as I see it. And it is basically that, if you agree with them, then you're a good guy. And if you disagree with them, then you're either bad or stupid. I would much prefer to watch someone like Chris Matthews, who is not only very knowledgeable and fair in his on-air dealings with others, but also has a terrific sense of humor. The "humor" of Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann is a nasty, cruel, mean sort of thing which is derived from insulting and ridiculing those with whom they differ. But this kind of style apparently sits well with many "Great Americans" out there, since these two hosts seem to be among the most popular as well.
Being generally a little on the left side of the center politically, I think it's only fair to lay that out when making my comparisons. Be that as it may, overshadowing the fact that he is one of a rare breed (liberal commentator), Keith Olbermann is, to me, a thoroughly obnoxious character. His segment titled "Today's Worst Person in the World" is actually the highlight of his show! He seems to derive some kind of perverse pleasure in deriding irrelevant personalities like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton for several minutes at a time as well. And his bombastic "open letters" to President Bush are so loaded with spite that it's hard for me not to break out in laughter at his style. But my biggest criticism of Olbermann is that he seems to only interview like-minded liberals on his show and not conservatives. So, very often you'll see a split screen with Olbermann running his mouth about something and his always-agreeing guest in the right screen, smiling smugly and nodding his or her head like one of those old bobbing dog decorations. This is really sad, since I happen to agree with this host on most of his opinions!
Sean Hannity, on the other hand, is equally as obnoxious as Keith Olbermann, but in different ways. Most of my exposure to him is in the format of his syndicated radio show, although I've seen him at times on TV. His line with callers is "You're a great American", which apparently has something to do with being a conservative (apparently liberals must conversely be BAD Americans). But whenever a caller reveals disagreement with Hannity or shows a liberal bent, Hannity morphs into a rude rant, frequently interrupting the caller and barraging him or her with insulting name-calling in the manner of an interrogation, not a conversation. That's for the callers (us "little people" out there). To Hannity's credit (and this is what sets him apart from Olbermann), he invites and treats with respect guests of all sides of the issues that he's discussing. And then you can get a real debate on some topics. I've yet to see Olbermann get someone on his show with whom he was strongly at odds with. That isn't to say that one hasn't accidently slipped through from time to time, though.
Both Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann have a problem, as I see it. And it is basically that, if you agree with them, then you're a good guy. And if you disagree with them, then you're either bad or stupid. I would much prefer to watch someone like Chris Matthews, who is not only very knowledgeable and fair in his on-air dealings with others, but also has a terrific sense of humor. The "humor" of Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann is a nasty, cruel, mean sort of thing which is derived from insulting and ridiculing those with whom they differ. But this kind of style apparently sits well with many "Great Americans" out there, since these two hosts seem to be among the most popular as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
